Respondent is the owner and operator of a facility that utilizes Anhydrous ammonia in a refrigeration process. On or about April 30, 2024, 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 in a process at its facility.
Information gathered during the EPA inspection revealed that Respondent utilizes anhydrous ammonia in its refrigeration system, and therefore is engaged 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 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 in a process, Respondent was subject to Program 3 prevention program requirements because, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(1), the covered process at its facility did not meet the eligibility requirements of Program 1 and was subject to the OSHA process safety management standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119.
Allegations of Violation
Count 1
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to develop plans for conducting emergency response exercises in accordance with the provisions of 40 C.F.R. § 68.96 before December 19, 2023. Specifically:
(a) Respondent failed to timely develop plans for conducting notification exercises, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.96(a);
(b) Respondent failed to timely develop plans for conducting emergency response field exercises, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.96(b)(l); and
(c) Respondent failed to timely develop plans for conducting emergency response tabletop exercises, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.96(b)(2).
Respondent’s failure to timely develop plans for conducting emergency response exercises in accordance with provisions of 40 C.F.R. § 68.96, as required by 40 C.F.R §§ 68.I0(d) and§ 68.12(d)(5), violates Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 2
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to implement the Program 3 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.65 through 68.87. Specifically:
(a) Respondent failed to accurately compile written process safety information pertaining to the equipment in the covered process, as required by 40 C.F.R.
§ 68.65(d)(I )(iv); and
(b) Respondent failed to certify annually that the operating procedures of the covered process are ctment and accurate, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c).
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.
Count 3
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to coordinate with local emergency planning and response organizations, specifically:
(a) Respondent failed to coordinate response needs with local emergency planning and response organizations at least annually, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.93(a);
(b) Respondent failed to provide to local emergency planning and response organizations an updated emergency response plan and updated contact information, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.93(b); and
(c) Respondent failed to document coordination with local authorities, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.93(c).
Respondent’s failures to comply with the emergency response coordination activity requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.93, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(4), violate Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
CONSENT AGREEMENT
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of one hundred fifty thousand, six hundred and sixty-eight dollars ($150,668).
CLICK HERE for CAFO