Respondent owns and operates the chemical manufacturing and distribution facility. Anhydrous ammonia is a “regulated substance” pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.3 with a threshold quantity, as listed in 40 C.F.R. § 68.130, of 10,000 pounds. Ammonia in the concentration of greater than 20% is a “regulated substance” pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.3 with a threshold quantity for ammonia in a concentration greater than 20%, as listed in 40 C.F.R. § 68.130, of 20,000 pounds. On or about April 16 and 17, 2019, representatives of the 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. Information gathered during the EPA inspection revealed that Respondent had greater than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia and greater than 20,000 pounds of ammonia in a concentration of greater than 20% in a process at its facility.
From the time Respondent first had onsite greater than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia and/or 20,000 pounds of ammonia in a concentration greater than 20% in a process 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 and/or 20,000 pounds of ammonia in a concentration greater than 20% in a process in a process, Respondent was subject to Program 3 prevention program requirements because pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.1O(h), the covered process at its facility did not meet the eligibility requirements of Program 1 and is in North American Industry Classification System code 325188 and is subject to the OSHA process safety management standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119.
From the time Respondent first had onsite greater than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia and/or 20,000 pounds of ammonia in concentration greater than 20% in a process, Respondent was required under Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, to submit an RMP pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a) and comply with the Program 3 requirements provided at 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d) and detailed in Subpart D.
Allegations of Violation
Count 1
The regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a) requires the owner or operator of a stationary source subject to the Risk Management Program, 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, the owner or operator shall complete a single registration form that provides the maximum quantity of each regulated substance. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.155(b), Respondent must include in the RMP an executive summary that provides a brief description of the regulated substances handled.
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to submit an RMP pursuant to the requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.150 to 68.185, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a).
Specifically:
(a) Respondent failed to include on the registration form the correct maximum quantity (in pounds) of each regulated substance in the railcar storage process as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.160(b)(7); and
(b) Respondent failed to list regulated substances in the RMP executive summary as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.155(b).
Respondent’s failure to comply with the above-listed requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.150 to 68.185, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a), violates Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 2
The regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3) requires the owner or operator of a stationary source with a process subject to Program 3 to implement the Program 3 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.65 through 68.87.
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:
(a) Respondent failed to accurately calculate and report the maximum intended inventory for regulated substances in its process safety information, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(c)(1)(iii);
(b) Respondent failed to establish a system to address process hazard analysis findings to document resolutions and actions to be taken, and to have a written schedule for completing actions, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e);
(c) Respondent failed to develop and implement written procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process, including an adequate time bleed-off pressure and liquid anhydrous ammonia in procedure P7006WL, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(3)(iii);
(d) Respondent failed to annually certify operating procedures as current and accurate, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c);
(e) Respondent failed to certify compliance audits and to perform the compliance audit at least every three years, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(a); and
(f) Respondent failed to promptly determine and document the appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit and document that deficiencies have been corrected in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(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), violate Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
CONSENT AGREEMENT
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of Seventy-Nine Thousand and Nine Hundred Dollars and No Cents ($79,900).