Respondent is the owner and operator or a commercial refrigeration facility that utilizes compressed anhydrous ammonia as the refrigerant. On or about January 28-29, 2015, EPA conducted an inspection at, and obtained information regarding the facility’s compliance with Sections 112(r)(1) and (7) of the CAA and the implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Preliminary violations were set forth in an inspection report that was transmitted to the facility on April 17, 2015. At the time of EPA’s inspection, information provided showed that Respondent had greater than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in a process at the facility. On or about April 29, 2015 and November 20, 2015, Respondent submitted information describing actions taken to attempt to address the violations identified by EPA’s inspection. On or about November 5, 2015, Respondent met with EPA to discuss the facility’s attempt to come into compliance with Section 112(r)(1) and (7) of the CAA. Upon review of information submitted, EPA determined that a compliance order was appropriate to achieve compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAA.
On or about June 1, 2016, Respondent and EPA entered into an Administrative Order for Compliance that required Respondent to either come into compliance with the requirements of Section 112(r)(7) at the facility, or a plan to reduce the facility’s ammonia inventory below 10,000 lbs. and comply with Section 112(r)(1) of the CAA. On or about August 15, 2016, Respondent submitted an affidavit documenting Respondent’s review of historical ammonia inventory data, and the results of calibration of the sight gage for the facility documented that between January 2011 to 2016 the inventory at the facility never exceeded 8,502.34 lbs.
Alleged Violations Of General Duty Clause of Section 112(r)(1) of the CAA
Based on the information available to EPA, including information gathered during the inspection performed by EPA at the facility and submitted by Respondent pursuant to the referenced Order, EPA has determined that Respondent failed to satisfy the general duty clause requirements and therefore the provisions of Section 112(r)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(1).
During the period between February 2012 and the present (Period of Violations).
EPA alleges that Respondent:
- failed to develop an adequate hazard analysis for the facility which identified all hazards associated with the process, in violation of Section 112(r)(1); and
- failed to develop accurate potential release scenarios and identify the consequences of a release, in violation of Sections 112(r)(1); and
- the facility’s High Pressure Receiver and piping were badly corroded at the time of the inspection as the facility lacked a maintenance program and had not conducted inspections in accordance with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP) to properly maintain equipment, in violation of Section 112(r)(1); and
- failed to properly train employees, in violation of Section 112(r)(1); and
- failed to have an accurate inventory of quantity of hazardous substances onsite, in violation of Section 112(r)(1).
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged in this CA/FO, Respondent shall pay a mitigated penalty of $54,588.00, plus interest.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO