Respondent owns and operates a beef slaughter and packaging facility and has Anhydrous Ammonia in excess of 10,000 pounds. On or about September 9, 2015, EPA conducted an inspection of 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 ammonia in a process, Respondent was subject to Program 3 prevention program requirements because, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.1O(d), the covered process at the 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. Complainant hereby states and alleges that Respondent has violated the CAA and federal regulations promulgated thereunder as follows:
Count 1
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent did not have a hazard assessment and off site consequence analysis. Specifically:
- Respondent failed to analyze the offsite consequence parameters, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.22;
- Respondent failed to analyze the worst-case release scenario, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.25;
- Respondent failed to analyze the alternative release scenario, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.28;
- Respondent failed to define offsite impacts on the population, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.30;
- Respondent failed lo define offsite impacts on the environment, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.33; and
- Respondent failed to maintain documentation of the offsite consequence analyses, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.39.
Respondent’s failure to conduct a hazard assessment pursuant to the requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.20 through 68.42, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(2), is a violation of Section 112(r) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r).
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). Based on the EPA’s inspection, Respondent did not have a written mechanical integrity program. Respondent relied on the refrigeration contractors to notify the facility of any need for preventative maintenance. Respondent did not identify, with prominent signage having letters sufficiently large to be easily read, the main shut off valve (king valve). Specifically:
- Respondent failed to compile written process safety information pertaining to the equipment in the covered process, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1); and
- Respondent failed to document that equipment in the covered process complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2).
Respondent’s failure to 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 ), is a violation of Section 112(r) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r).
Count 3
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent would rely on local emergency responders in the event of an accident or release from the facility. Subsequent investigation revealed that Respondent did have a contact with the County Emergency Management Agency however the facility had not coordinated response actions with the local fire department and Respondent’s facility was not included in the community emergency response plan. The EPA’s inspection further revealed that Respondent failed to comply with the emergency response program requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.95, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.90(a).
Respondent’s failure to develop and implement an emergency response program as provided in 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.90 and 68.95, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(4), is a violation of Section 112(r) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r).
Count 4
Respondent failed to submit an RMP for the covered process at the Facility, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a). Specifically:
- Respondent failed to complete a registration form pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.160(a) that includes the information required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.160(b), including the Program level of the process and whether the stationary source is subject to 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119; and
- Respondent failed to provide the Program 3 prevention information identified at 40 C.F.R. § 68.175(b) through (p), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.175(a).
Respondent’s failure to submit an RMP as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a) is a violation of Section 112(r) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r).
Count 5
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to implement the Program 3 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.15 as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(1). Based on information gathered during the EPA’s inspection, Respondent failed to develop and implement a management system. Specifically:
- Respondent failed to develop a management system lo oversee the implementation of the risk management program elements, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.15(a);
- Respondent failed to assign a qualified person or position that has the overall responsibility for the development, implementation, and integration of the risk management program elements, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.15(b); and
- Respondent failed to document names or positions of those responsible for the implementation of the risk management program other than the qualified person identified under paragraph (b) of this section. The names or positions shall be documented and the lines of authority defined through an organization chart or similar document, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.15(c).
Respondent’s failure to develop and implement a management system, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(1), is a violation of Section 112(r) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r).
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a mitigated civil penalty of Fourteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty-Five Dollars, ($14,745), as set forth below, and shall perform a Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) as set forth in this Consent Agreement and Final Order. The projected cost of the SEP is Forty-Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Dollars ($49,890).
Supplemental Environmental Project
[The business] is electing to improve community preparedness in the case of an emission, accident, or natural disaster through this SEP. [The business] will utilize a vendor to implement a turnkey, new outdoor warning siren project. The siren would work with all current encoding and activation formats; including voice messages, industry standard warning tones, and silent test/health monitoring capabilities. The vendor will install a Whelen brand WPS2900-10 omni-directional siren. The project is intended to achieve improved emergency response to major events, natural disasters, accidental hazardous chemical spills, and other significant events. The project would reduce the overall risk to public health in the potentially impacted community. The project would ensure that potentially impacted residents arc notified of an emission, weather event, or natural disaster and can take prompt action to avoid exposure or injury. Specific to the operations of [The business], it would allow local community officials to respond effectively to a chemical release and inform potentially affected citizens in a timely manner. The City of XXXXXXX will be the recipient of the project.
Educational and outreach activities will include direct mailing to XXXXX area residents, ads in XXXXXX newspapers, announcement on customer water bills that will
go to XXXXX area residents, notifications on the City of XXXXXX website and press releases from [The business] and City of XXXXX. Once completed, the project will provide emergency response communication to approximately 2,877 people within a 1.16-mile radius. The SEP shall cost at least Forty-Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Dollars ($49,890). Respondent agrees that the SEP shall be completed within one hundred eighty (180) days of the Effective Date of this Consent Agreement and Final Order.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO