Respondent owns and operates a refrigeration system which consists of buildings, equipment, structures, and other stationary items which are located on a single site or on contiguous or adjacent sites, and which are owned or operated by the same person. On June 21, 2004, under Section 112(r) of the Act and implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 68, Respondent submitted to U.S. EPA an RMP for the Facility. EPA received the RMP on June 22, 2004. According to the RMP submitted to U.S. EPA by Respondent, the Facility:
- fell within NAICS Code 311421, as “fruit and vegetable canning”;
- used anhydrous ammonia as a process chemical during its operations; and
- held at least 10,000 lbs. of anhydrous ammonia.
The Facility is a “stationary source,” as defined at 40 C.F.R. § 68.3.30. On June 21, 2004, having held for use in its operations at the Facility 10,000 lbs. or more of anhydrous ammonia, Respondent exceeded the applicability threshold established by 40 C.F.R. § 68.130, and became subject to 40 C.F.R. Part 68. For purposes of compliance with 40 C.F.R. Part 68 in its RMP, Respondent has acknowledged that it was required to meet Program 3 eligibility requirements at the Facility.
On September 1, 2011, an authorized representative of U.S. EPA conducted an inspection at the Facility to determine its compliance with 40 C.F.R. Part 68.33. Based on the inspection conducted on September 1, 2011 and a review of additional information received by U.S. EPA subsequent to that date, it has identified the following alleged violations by Respondent of the Risk Management Program Regulations:
- Failure to develop a management system to oversee the implementation of the risk management program elements, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.15(a).
- Failure to determine the worst-case release quantity to be the greatest amount held in a single vessel, taking into account administrative controls that limit the maximum quantity, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.25(b)(1).
- Failure to establish a system to promptly address the findings and recommendations by a team with expertise in engineering and process operations; assure that the recommendations are resolved in a timely manner and documented; document what actions are to be taken; complete actions as soon as possible; develop a written schedule of when these actions are to be completed; and communicate the actions to operating, maintenance, and other employees whose work assignments are in the process and who may be affected by the recommendations, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e).
- Failure to update and revalidate the process hazard analysis by the team every five years after the completion of the initial process hazard analysis to assure that the process hazard analysis is consistent with the current process, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(f).
- Failure to establish a written procedure to maintain the on-going integrity of the process, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(b).
- Failure to train each employee involved in maintaining the on-going integrity of the process equipment, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(c).
- Failure to follow the frequency of inspections and tests of process equipment that are consistent with applicable manufacturers’ recommendations and good engineering practices, and more frequently if determined to be necessary by prior operating experience, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(3).
- Failure to correct deficiencies in equipment that is outside acceptable limits before further use or in a safe and timely manner when necessary means are taken to assure safe operation, as required under 40 C.F .R. § 68.73(e).
- Failure to inform and train employees involved in operating a process and maintenance and contract employees whose job tasks would be affected by a change in the process in the change prior to start-up of the process or affected part of the process, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(c).
- Failure to promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit and document that deficiencies have been connected, as required under40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d).
- Failure to initiate incident investigations no later than 48 hours following an incident, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.81(b).
- Failure to establish an incident investigation team that consists of at least one person knowledgeable in the process involved, as required under 40 C.F.R.§ 68.81(c).
- Failure to include the date the investigation began in incident investigation reports, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.81(d)(2).
- Failure to include the factors that contributed to the incident in investigation reports, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.81(d)(4).
- Failure to include any recommendations resulting from incident investigations in the incident investigation reports, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.81(d)(5).
- Failure to establish a system to address and resolve incident investigation report findings and recommendations, and document resolution and corrective actions, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.81(e).
- Failure to submit corrected emergency contact information within one month of a change, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.195(b).
Based on an analysis of the facts of this case and other factors such as cooperation and prompt compliance, Complainant has determined that an appropriate civil penalty to settle this action is $ 165,900.00.
CLICK HERE to download the agreement