Respondent owns a stationary source where anhydrous ammonia was present in a process above the 10,000 pound TQ from at least June 1, 2014. Therefore, Respondent was required to submit and have in place an RMP for the facility. Respondent submitted an RMP to EPA on April 9, 2015. Respondent has a Program 3 covered process. Here is what EPA found:
- Respondent did not provide an RMP on June 1, 2014, the date on which anhydrous ammonia, a regulated substance was first present above a threshold quantity in a process as required by 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.12(a) and (d) and 68.150. Respondent did not develop and implement a management system to oversee the implementation of the risk management program elements as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.15.
- Respondent did not conduct a hazard assessment as required by 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.20 to 68.39. Respondent did not complete a compilation of written process safety information before conducting any process hazard analysis as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(a).
- Respondent did not conduct an initial process hazard analysis (“PHA”) of the ammonia refrigeration process as required by 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.67(a) to (d).
- Respondent did not develop and implement written operating procedures for the ammonia refrigeration process as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69.
- Although Respondent had specific training procedures in place, those procedures did not adequately address the employee training requirements for its employees involved in operating the ammonia refrigeration process in 40 C.F.R. § 68.71.
- Although Respondent conducted specific maintenance activities, those activities did not fully address the requirements to develop and implement a mechanical integrity program for process equipment in 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.73(b) through (f).
- Respondent did not establish and implement written procedures to manage changes to process chemicals, technology, equipment, and procedures, and changes to stationary sources that affect a covered process as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.75.
- Respondent did not develop an employee participation plan as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.83. Although Respondent had certain emergency response procedures in place, those procedures did not fully address the requirements to develop and implement an emergency response program in 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.90 and 68.95.
TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
EPA has determined, and Respondent agrees that an appropriate penalty to settle this action is $45,743 (the “Assessed Penalty”).
Respondent agrees to implement the SEPs in accordance with all provisions described in this Consent Agreement and Attachment A. The implementation of these SEPs is intended to secure significant environmental benefits by the reduction of total power consumption over increased power generation by replacing current lighting with LEDs and augmenting and replacing diesel-generated power with solar power, creating less risk of process upsets (with the potential for ammonia releases) due to more reliable power generation, better operational controls and fewer maintenance requirements and promoting pollution prevention by reducing the generation and emission of air pollutants.
Respondent certifies to the truth, accuracy, and completeness of all cost information provided to EPA in connection with EPA’s approval of the SEPs, and that Respondent in good faith estimates that the cost to implement the SEPs is $175,000.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO