Respondent Ag’s facility includes bulk ammonia storage operations. On or about September 11, 2013, EPA inspected the facility to determine compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r), and 40 C.F.R. Part 68. At the time of the September 2013 inspection, Respondent had greater than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia stored in a process (bulk storage tanks) at the facility. At the time of the September 11, 2013, inspection, a residential dwelling was located at the facility, and in direct proximity to the Syracuse facility’s ammonia bulk storage tanks. As alleged below, information collected as a result of the September 2013 inspection revealed that Respondent had never filed an RMP for the Syracuse facility, and had failed to properly develop and implement a risk management program required by Section 112(r) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. Part 68 for the Syracuse facility.
EPA issued an administrative compliance order on October 3, 2014, that directed the owner and/or operator of the facility, to prepare and submit an RMP, as well as to implement the required risk management program for its facility (Docket No. CAA-07-2014-0027). Under the authority and direction of the Order, a risk management plan was submitted to EPA on October 27, 2014.
Under the terms of the Order, documentation of compliance was required to be submitted to EPA no later than May 1, 2015, including a description of the performance and results of the 3-year compliance audit required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.79. This required report was not submitted by Respondent until August 30, 2016, in violation of the October 2014 Order.
Upon knowledge and belief, Respondent continues to store and sell anhydrous ammonia from the facility. Inspections by the Missouri Department of Agriculture of the facility in March 2013, March 2015, and March 2016 directed Respondent to install a hydrostatic relief valve on a product line to prevent ammonia from being trapped between shutoff valves.
Further, the March 2016 inspection documented that required breakaway devices on nurse tanks would not function properly because of improperly located nurse clamps.
Violations of Section 112 of the CAA Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.1O(c), the facility is subject to the requirements of the Program 2 prevention program, 40 C.F.R. Part 68, Subpart C, because the process is not subject to the requirements of the OSHA process safety management standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119, and there are public receptors at the facility.
Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 68 at the facility, as follows, in violation of Section 112(r) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r):
- Respondent failed to comply with applicable paragraphs of 40 C.F.R. Part 68, Subpart Gin not submitting an RMP that included the information required by 68.155 through 68.170 and 68.180 through 68.185 for all covered processes, as required by 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.12(a), and 68.150-195.
- Respondent failed to comply with applicable paragraphs of 40 C.F.R. Part 68, Subpart B, by failing to conduct and document the required hazard assessment as required by 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.20 through 68.33, and 68.39.
- Respondent failed to maintain an up-to-date Material Safety Data Sheet for the anhydrous ammonia in the process, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.48(a)(1).
- Respondent failed to keep an accurate maximum intended inventory for equipment in which anhydrous ammonia is stored or processed, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.48(a)(2).
- Respondent failed to compile and maintain safe upper and lower temperatures, pressures, flows, and compositions related to equipment in which anhydrous ammonia is stored, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.48(a)(3).
- Respondent failed to have designed its process in compliance with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices as indicated in “American National Standard Safety Requirements for the Storage and Handling of Anhydrous Ammonia,” ANSI K61.1 – 1999, per 40 C.F .R. § 68.48(b ), including but not limited to the following deficiencies:
- combustible material located within 10 feet of ammonia bulk storage tanks;
- ineffective vehicle barriers around the ammonia bulk storage tanks;
- bulging flexible piping from the ammonia bulk storage tanks;
- unlabeled piping from the ammonia bulk storage tanks;
- rusting of the ammonia bulk tanks;
- unlabeled ammonia bulk storage tanks;
- hoses at the transfer station held on with wire;
- the gauges on two bulk tanks were not designed for anhydrous ammonia;
- failure to install a hydrostatic relief valve on the product line to avoid ammonia being trapped in the line between shutoff valves;
- failure to ensure that breakaway valves on hoses on nurse tank riser assemblies would effectively function; and
- support saddles on the bulk storage tanks were too small.
- Respondent failed to conduct a hazard review, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.50.
- Respondent failed to prepare written operating procedures that provide clear instructions or steps for safely conducting activities associated with the covered process, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.52.
- Respondent failed to ensure that each employee has been trained or tested competent in the covered process, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.54(a).
- Respondent failed to prepare and implement procedures to maintain the on-going mechanical integrity of the process equipment, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.56(a).
- Respondent failed to train each employee involved in maintaining the on-going mechanical integrity of the process, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.56(b).
- Respondent failed to ensure that stationary sources with any regulated toxic substance held in a process, above the threshold quantity, are included in the community emergency response plan, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.90(b)(l).
- Respondent failed to develop a management system to oversee the implementation of the risk management program elements, assign a qualified person or position that has overall responsibility for the RMP, and document persons or positions, other than the qualified individual, who have been assigned responsibilities for implementing elements, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.15(a-c).
Pursuant to Section 113(d)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(d)(1)(B) and based upon the facts stated above, it is proposed that a civil penalty of up to the maximum administrative penalty, but no less than $137,796, be assessed against Respondent.
In satisfaction of 40 C.F.R. § 22.14(a)(4)(ii), the severity of these violations, as considered by Complainant in proposing the penalty of not less than $137,796, includes, but is not limited to, the potential risks to the adjacent communities and emergency responders from Respondent’s failures, Respondent’s failure to respond to directives from the Missouri Department of Agriculture to develop a risk management plan, and the duration of Respondent’s failure to have a risk management plan and/or comply with applicable industry safety and operational standards. Accordingly, the penalty proposed is based upon the facts stated in this Complaint, and on the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the above cited violations, in accordance with Section 113(e) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(e).
CLICK HERE for the agreement