Respondent is a business that owns and operates two (2) refrigerated warehouse and storage facilities located in Nebraska and Minnesota. The Nebraska facility is located in EPA Region 7 and the Minnesota facility is located in EPA Region 5. Information gathered during the EPA inspection revealed that Respondent had greater than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in a process at its Nebraska facility. Subsequent to the EPA inspection, representatives of the EPA initiated an investigation of Respondent’s Minnesota facility to determine compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. Part 68. On or about October 10, 2017, prior to the initiation of EPA’s investigation into Respondent’s Minnesota facility, Respondent filed an RMP for the Minnesota facility. Information gathered during the EPA investigation revealed that Respondent had greater than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in a process at its Minnesota facility, prior to the filing of the RMP for the Minnesota facility. From the time Respondent first had onsite greater than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in a process at the Nebraska facility and the Minnesota facility, Respondent was subject to Program 3 prevention program requirements at each facility because, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.10( d), the covered process at both facilities did not meet the eligibility requirements of Program 1 and were subject to the OSHA process safety management standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119.
Allegations of Violation
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. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.160, the owner or operator shall complete a single registration form that provides, the Program level of each covered process and whether the stationary source is subject to 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119.
Additionally, pursuant 40 C.F.R. § 68.175(a), the owner or operator is required to provide the information identified at 40 C.F.R. § 68.175(b) through (p) for each Program 3 process.
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to submit an RMP for the Nebraska facility pursuant to the requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.150 to 68.185, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a).
Respondent’s failure to submit an RMP for the Nebraska facility pursuant to the requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.150 to 68.185, as required by40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 2
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. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.160, the owner or operator shall complete a single registration form that provides, inter alia, the Program level of each covered process and whether the stationary source is subject to 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119.
Additionally, pursuant 40 C.F.R. § 68.175(a), the owner or operator is required to provide the information identified at 40 C.F.R. § 68.175(b) through (p) for each Program 3 process.
The EPA’s investigation revealed that Respondent failed to timely submit an RMP for the Minnesota facility pursuant to the requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.150 to 68.185, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a).
Respondent’s failure to timely submit an RMP for the Minnesota facility pursuant to the requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.150 to 68.185, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 3
The regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(1) requires the owner or operator of a stationary source with a process subject to Program 3 to develop and implement a management system as provided in 40 C.F.R. § 68.15.
40 C.F.R. § 68.15 requires the owner or operator of a stationary source with a process subject to Program 3 to develop a management system to oversee the implementation of the risk management program elements and to assign a qualified person or position that has the overall responsibility for the development, implementation, and integration of the risk management program elements.
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to assign a qualified person to a position that has the overall responsibility for the development, implementation, and integration of the risk management program elements at the Nebraska facility and the organization chart did not clearly indicate responsibility for the risk management program elements.
Respondent’s failure to assign a qualified person or position that has the overall responsibility for the development, implementation, and integration of the risk management program elements at the Nebraska facility pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.15, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(1), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 4
The regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(2) requires the owner or operator of a stationary source with a process subject to Program 3 to conduct a hazard assessment as provided in 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.20 through 68.42.
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to conduct a hazard assessment as provided in 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.20 through 68.42 at the Nebraska facility, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(2). Specifically, Respondent failed to comply with 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.22, 68.25, 68.28, 68.30, 68.33, and 68.39.
Respondent’s failure to conduct a hazard assessment as provided in 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.20 through 68.42 at the Nebraska facility, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(2), violates Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Count 5
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 the Program 3 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.65 through 68.87.
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to implement the Program 3 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.65 through 68.87 at the Nebraska facility, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3).
Specifically, Respondent failed to comply with 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.65(c), 68.65(d)(l) and (2), 68.67, 68.69, 68.71(a), 68.73(b)-(c), 68.73(d)(2)-(3), 68.75, 68.77, 68.83(a), and 68.87(b).
Respondent’s failure to comply with Program 3 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.65 through 68.87 at the Nebraska facility, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), violate Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
CONSENT AGREEMENT
Respondent consents to the issuance of this Consent Agreement and Final Order and consents for the purposes of settlement to the payment of the civil penalty specified herein and to completion of the SEP described below.
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of Fifty-Three Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy-Nine Dollars ($53,979), as set forth below, and shall perform a Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP). The projected cost of the SEP is One Hundred Twelve Thousand Nine Hundred Forty-Eight Dollars ($112,948). 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 at the Nebraska and Minnesota facilities, which is designed to assist in preventing an accidental release of anhydrous ammonia from the facility along with mitigating and minimizing the consequence of such accidental release and the attendant benefits to emergency planning, preparedness, and response:
- At the Nebraska facility, Respondent will remove the two pumps currently installed on the existing recirculators and replace them with two “seal-less” Pumps sized to provide the maximum capacity of the recirculators at design conditions.
- At the Minnesota facility, Respondent will remove the four Pumps currently installed on the existing recirculators and replace them with four “seal-less” Pumps sized to provide the maximum capacity of the recirculators at design conditions.
Respondent represents that the equipment upgrades described above exceed the requirements of the most current industry standards and that, with routine maintenance and upkeep, the equipment being replaced has a useful life of at least 10 years.
The SEP shall cost at least One Hundred Twelve Thousand Nine Hundred Forty-Eight Dollars ($112,948). Respondent agrees that the SEP shall be completed within six (6) months of the Effective Date of this Consent Agreement and Final Order.
APPENDIX A – SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT
SCOPE OF WORK – REMOVAL OF EXISTING PUMPS AND REPLACEMENT WITH “SEAL-LESS” PUMPS
In satisfaction of its obligations under this Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO), Respondent will complete the following supplemental environmental project (SEP) at its facilities in Nebraska and Minnesota. A SEP is a beneficial environmental project that Respondent has voluntarily agreed to undertake as part of the resolution and settlement of this matter, but one which the Respondent is not otherwise legally required to perform and that primarily benefits public health or the environment.
1. The SEP described in this Scope of Work is designed to assist in preventing an accidental release of anhydrous ammonia from the facility along with mitigating and minimizing the consequence of such accidental release and the attendant benefits to emergency planning, preparedness, and response.
2. The SEP will involve the following:
- At the Nebraska facility, Respondent will remove the two pumps currently installed on the existing recirculators and replace them with two “seal-less” Pumps sized to provide the maximum capacity of the recirculators at design conditions.
- At the Minnesota facility, Respondent will remove the four Pumps currently installed on the existing recirculators and replace them with four “seal-less” Pumps sized to provide the maximum capacity of the recirculators at design conditions.
3. In particular, the work will involve the following:
a. Nebraska facility
i. Removal of the two Pumps currently installed on the existing recirculators.
ii. Provision and installation of two “seal-less” Pumps sized to provide the maximum capacity of the recirculators at design conditions.
iii. The scope of work includes the new equipment, the installation of the new equipment, removal of existing equipment, materials, labor, insulation, piping, freight, rental and crane, and pressure testing.
b. Minnesota facility
i. Removal of the four Pumps currently installed on the existing recirculators.
ii. The installation of four “seal-less” Pumps sized to provide the maximum capacity of the recirculators at design conditions.
iii. The scope of work includes the new equipment, the installation of the new equipment, removal of existing equipment, materials, labor, insulation, piping, freight, rental and crane, and pressure testing.
4. Within six (6) months from the effective date of this CAFO, Respondent agrees that it will have completed the installation of the SEP at both the Nebraska facility and the Minnesota facility.
5. Within seven (7) months from the effective date of this CAFO, Respondent agrees that it will submit to EPA a SEP Completion Report, which includes all elements required by the CAFO.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO