Respondent owns and operates a food facility that had greater than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in a process at its facility. 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, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r), 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 on site 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( d), the covered process at its facility did not meet the eligibility requirements of Program 1 and is in Subject to the OSHA process safety management standard, 29 CFR 1910.119. Complainant hereby states and alleges that Respondent has violated the CAA and federal regulations promulgated thereunder as follows:
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.
The regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(2) requires the owner or operator of Program 3 facilities to conduct a hazard assessment as provided in 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.20 through 68.42.
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.30(a), the owner or operator shall define offsite impacts. Specifically, the owner or operator shall estimate in the RMP the population within a circle with its center at the point of the release and a radius determined by the distance to the endpoint defined in 40 C.F.R. § 68.22(a).
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.30(c), the owner or operator may use the most recent Census data, or other updated information, to estimate to population potentially affected.
Pursuant to 40 C.F .R. § 68.33( a), the owner or operator shall list in the RMP environmental receptors within a circle with its center at the point of the release and a radius determined by the distance to the endpoint defined in 40 C.F.R. § 68.22(a) of this part.
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent’s hazard assessment failed to comply with 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.20 through 68.42. Specifically:
(a) Respondent failed to use the center point at the point of the release and instead used a point 0.8 miles to the northeast of the Tur-Pak facility.
(b) Respondent failed to use the most recent Census data, or other updated information, to estimate the population potentially affected.
(c) Respondent failed to accurately list the environmental receptors within a circle with its center at the point of the release and a radius determined by the distance to the endpoint.
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)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
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 Program 3 prevention requirements of 40 C.F .R. § 68.65 through 68.87.
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2), the owner or operator shall document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to implement the following recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices:
(a) Respondent failed to ensure equipment inside and outside the facility did not have rust as scale as set forth in Section 5.12 of the ANSI-IIAR 2-2014 standard, as required by 40 C.F .R. § 68.65(d)(2).
(b) Respondent failed to provide functioning emergency eyewash and/or safety showers at the recommended distance as set forth in 6.7.1 and 6.7.3 of the ANSI-UAR 2-2014 standard, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2).
(c) Respondent failed to provide audible and visual alarms inside the machine room and outside of both doors to the machine room as set forth in section 6.13.1 of the ANSI-IIAR 2-2014 standard, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2).
(d) Respondent failed to provide exhaust ventilation duct vents to the outdoors with less than twenty (20) feet from openings into the building as set forth in section 6.14.3.4 of the ANSI-IIAR 2-2014 standard, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2).
Respondent’s failure to document that the equipment complies with the recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, as required by Program 3 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.65 through 68.68, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Count 3
The regulation at 40 C.F .R. § 68. l 2(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. 68.150(d), RMPs shall be updated and corrected in accordance with 40 C.F .R. §§ 68.190 and 68.195. Pursuant to 40 C.F .R. § 68.195, within one month of any change in the emergency contact information, the owner or operator shall submit a correction of that information.
At the time of the EPA inspection, the person listed on the RMP had left the company over a year before the inspection, and no correction was submitted.
Respondent’s failure to correct its RMP within the required timeframe as required by 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.12(a), 68.150(d), and 68.195, is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
CONSENT AGREEMENT
Respondent and EPA agree to conciliate this matter without the necessity of a formal hearing and to bear their respective costs and attorneys’ fees.
Penalty Payment
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a mitigated civil penalty of Eight Thousand One Hundred Eighty-One Dollars ($8,181), 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 Seven Hundred Thirty-Six Dollars ($49,736). The SEP is further described below.
Supplemental Environmental Project In response to the violations of the CAA alleged in this Consent Agreement and Final Order and in settlement of this matter, although not required by the CAA or any other federal, state, or local law, Respondent shall complete the SEP described in this Consent Agreement and Final Order, which the parties agree is intended to secure significant environmental or public health protection and improvement.
Respondent shall complete the following SEP:
- install updated main hot gas isolation valve with new pressure regulator and secondary isolation valve,
- replace liquid ammonia pump with hermetically sealed magnet drive pump, and
- replace level column on suction accumulator with new isolation valves along with analog level probe.
The SEP Description is attached to this Consent Agreement and Final Order and incorporated herein. The SEP shall cost at least Forty-Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty-Six Dollars ($49,736).
Respondent agrees that the SEP shall be completed within two (2) months of the Effective Date of this Consent Agreement and Final Order.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO