Respondent is the owner and operator of a facility that stores, manufactures, and distributes agricultural products, including anhydrous ammonia. The threshold quantity for anhydrous ammonia, as listed in 40 C.F.R. § 68.130, is 10,000 pounds. On or about August 22-23, 2023, a representative of the EPA conducted an inspection of the Respondent’s Facility to determine compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. Part 68.
From the time Respondent first had onsite greater than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in a process, Respondent was subject to the requirements of Section 112(r) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. Part 68 because it was an owner and operator of a stationary source that had more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a process.
From the time Respondent first had onsite greater than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in a process, Respondent was subject to Program 3 prevention program requirements because pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(i), the covered process at its facility did not meet the eligibility requirements of Program 1 and was subject to the OSHA process safety management standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119.
Allegations of Violation
Count 1
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to conduct a hazard assessment as provided in 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.20 through 68.42, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(2). Specifically:
i. The facility failed to review and update the hazard assessment every five years as per 40 CFR 68.36(a).
ii. The facility hazard assessment did not meet the requirements regarding the estimation of the affected populations listed in 40 CFR 68.30(c) & (d) and 40 CFR 68.39(e).
Respondent’s failure to conduct a hazard assessment as provided in 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.20 through 68.42, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(2)
Count 2
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to implement the Program 3 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.65 through 68.87, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3). Specifically:
i. Respondent failed to update and revalidate their process hazard analysis (PHA) every five years as required by 40 CFR 68.67(f).
ii. Respondent failed to develop and implement written operating procedures for temporary operations and emergency operations and failed to address safety systems and their functions as required by 40 CFR 68.69(a)(1)(iii), (a)(1)(v), and (a)(4).
iii. Respondent failed to certify that they have evaluated compliance with Subpart D at least every three years and to promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit and document that deficiencies have been corrected as required by 40 CFR 68.79(a) & (d).
Respondent’s failures to comply with Program 3 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.65 through 68.87, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3)
Count 3
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to annually coordinate with first responders as required by 40 CFR 68.93(a), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(5)
Respondent’s failure to document its emergency response coordination with local authorities per 40 C.F.R. § 68.93(a), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(5)
The regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a) requires the owner or operator of a stationary source subject to the Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions, 40 C.F.R. Part 68, to submit a single RMP as provided in 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.150 to 68.185. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.160(b)(6), the owner or operator is required to provide the name, title, telephone number, 24-hour telephone number, and, as of June 21, 2004, the e-mail address (if an e-mail address exists) of the emergency contact.
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to report the correct 24- hour telephone number for their emergency contact on their RMP as required by 40 CFR 68.160(b)(6), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a).
Respondent’s failure to report the correct 24-hour emergency contact pursuant to the requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.150 to 68.185, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a)
Penalty Payment
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a compromised civil penalty of One-Hundred Nineteen Thousand Dollars ($119,000.00).
As a condition of settlement and in compromise of the civil penalty that EPA could otherwise impose herein, Respondent agrees to perform the requirements of paragraph 53.
- On or before ninety (90) days after the effective date of the Final Order approving this CAFO, the respondent will submit to EPA a Certification of Compliance, establishing it’s completion of the Process Hazard Analysis and a system to promptly address the team’s findings and recommendations for all covered processes at the facility have been developed as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e) and (f).
CLICK HERE for the CAFO