Respondent owns and operates a fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides production facility 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 November 1, 2004, under Section 112(r) of the Act, and implementing regulations, 40 C.F.R. Part 68, Respondent submitted to U.S. EPA an RMP. According to the RMP submitted to U.S. EPA by Respondent, the Facility:
- fell within NAICS Code 32532, as “Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical”;
- used ammonia (CAS No. 7664-41-7) as a process chemical during its operations; and,
- held at least 10,000 lbs. of ammonia (CAS No. 7664-41-7)
On March 16, 2010, U.S. EPA conducted an inspection at the Facility to determine its compliance with 40 C.F.R. Part 68. On November 1, 2004, having held for use in its operations 10,000 lbs. or more of ammonia, Respondent exceeded the applicability threshold established by 40 C.F.R. § 68.130, and became subject to 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Based on the inspection conducted on March 16, 2010, and a review of additional information received by U.S. EPA subsequent to that date, U.S. EPA has identified the following alleged violations by Respondent of the Risk Management Program Regulations:
- Failing to document persons responsible for implementing individual requirements of the risk management program and to define the lines of authority through an organization cha:ti or similar document, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.15(c).
- Failing to review and update the off-site consequence analyses at least once every five years, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.36(a);
- Failing to maintain certain records for the worst-case scenario: a description of the vessel or pipeline and substance selected, assumptions and parameters used, the rationale for selection, and anticipated effect of the administrative controls and passive mitigation on the release quantity and rate, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.39(a);
- Failing to maintain certain records for the alternative release scenario: a description of the scenario identified, assumptions and parameters used, the rationale for the selection of specific scenarios, and anticipated effect of the administrative controls and mitigation on the release quantity and rate, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.39(b);
- Failing to maintain data used to estimate population and environmental receptors potentially affected, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.39(e);
- Failing to certify that operating procedures at the Facility were current and accurate in 2008, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c);
- Failing to provide refresher training at least every three years, or more often if necessary, to each employee involved in operating a process to assure that the employee understands and adheres to the current operating procedures of the process, as required under40 C.F.R. § 68.71(b);
- Failing to ascertain that each employee involved in operating a process at the Facility had received and understood the training required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.71, and failure to prepare a record for each employee which contained the identity of the employee, the training date, and the means Respondent used to verify that the employee understood the training, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(c);
- Failing to perform inspections and testing of pressure relief valves at the Facility at a frequency consistent with the applicable manufacturers’ recommendations and good engineering practices, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(3);
- Failing to certify that the stationary source evaluated compliance with the provisions of the prevention program at least every three years to verify that the developed procedures and practices are adequate and being followed, as required under 40 C.F.R. §68.79(a);
- Failing to review and update the Risk Management Plan and submit it to EPA within five years of its most recent update, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.190(b)(1); and
- Failing to submit corrected emergency contact information within thirty days of a change, as required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.195(b).
Based on an analysis of the factors specified in Section 113(e) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(e), 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 $23,296.
CLICK HERE to see full agreement.