On February 14 and 15, 2012, EPA conducted a compliance inspection of the Respondent’s facility to determine compliance with the Risk Management Plan (RMP) regulations promulgated at 40 C.F.R. Part 68 under Section 112(r) of the CAA. The EPA found that the Respondent had violated regulations implementing Section 112(r) of the CAA by failing to comply with the regulations as noted on the enclosed Risk Management Program Inspection Findings (RMP Findings), which is hereby incorporated by reference.
In consideration of Respondent’s size of business, its full compliance history, its good faith effort to comply, and other factors as justice may require, and upon consideration of the entire record, the parties enter into the ESA in order to settle the violations, described in the enclosed RMP Findings, for the total penalty amount of $5,100. Here is a breakdown of the citations:
Hazard Assessment $1,200
Review and Update [§ 68.36(a)]
The owner or operator failed to review and update the off-site consequence analyses at least once every five years. Specifically, the discrepancies in the amount of anhydrous ammonia and natural gasoline used in the OCA and the differences in the composition of the natural gasoline in the MSDS and that submitted in the RMP, demonstrated that the facility did not review and update the offsite consequence analysis at least once every five years.
Prevention Program $1,200
Operating Procedures [§ 68.69(a)(3)(iv)]
The owner or operator failed to address the element of quality control for raw materials. Specifically, the MSDS for the natural gasoline had a flammability rating of 4 but the NFPA diamond on the bulk tank listed it as a 3.
Prevention Program $1200
Operating Procedures [§ 68.69(c)]
The owner or operator failed to review operating procedures as often as necessary to assure that they reflect current operating practice, including changes that result from changes in process chemicals, technology, and equipment, and changes to stationary sources. Specifically, the ammonia unloading procedures on page nine of the attachment indicated that the anhydrous ammonia tank was 32′ in diameter and 48′ long with a water capacity of 18,000 gallons. The PSI P&ID information indicated the tank had a capacity of 30,000 gallons, was 9′ in diameter and 66′ in length. A review of the operating procedures to assure that they reflect current operating practices including equipment would have found this deficiency.
Prevention Program $900
Mechanical Integrity[§ 68.73(d)(4)]
The owner or operator failed to document each inspection and test that had been performed on anhydrous ammonia vessel, which identifies the date of the inspection or test, the name of the person who performed the inspection or test, the serial number or other identifier of the equipment on which the inspection or test was performed, a description of the inspection or test performed, and the results of the inspection or test.
Prevention Program $300
Compliance Audit[§ 68.79(c)]
The owner or operator failed to develop a report of the findings of the compliance audit.
Prevention Program $300
Compliance Audit[§ 68.79(d)]
The owner or operator failed to promptly determine an document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit, and document that deficiencies have been corrected.
Risk Management Plan
Emergency Response Program[§ 68.180]
The owner or operator failed to submit an RMP that correctly included the information required regarding the emergency response program. Specifically, the facility is a non-responding facility to an accidental release of anhydrous ammonia. The first question in the written community emergency response plan was left blank. The facility is included in the plan. The remaining questions indicated that the facility is a responding facility and their employees would respond, the facility had procedures for informing the public and local agencies, and had information on emergency health care. Actually, the facility relies on the LEPC/Fire Department to respond to accidental releases.
Risk Management Plan
Certification[§ 68.185(b)]
The owner or operator submitted in the RMP a single certification that, to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, however the owner or operator failed to ensure the information submitted is true, accurate, and complete. Specifically, the date certified for the compliance audit was incorrect.
CLICK HERE for the full agreement (pdf)