Respondent owns and operates an agricultural storage and supply facility where on August 16, 2016, an accidental release of anhydrous ammonia occurred when filling a storage tank. The release resulted in the hospitalization of an employee. On or about March 12, 2019, 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 the 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 2 prevention program requirements because pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.lO(h), the process does not meet the eligibility requirements of either Program 1 or Program 3, as described in 40 C.F .R. § 68.1 0(g) and (i), respectively.
From the time Respondent first had onsite greater than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in a process, Respondent was required under Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, to submit an RMP pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a) and comply with the Program 2 requirements provided at 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c) and detailed in Subpart C.
Allegations of Violation
Complainant hereby states and alleges that Respondent has violated the CAA and federal regulations promulgated thereunder as follows:
The regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(3) requires the owner or operator of a stationary source with a process subject to Program 2 to implement the Program 2 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.48 through 68.60.
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to implement the Program 2 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.48 through 68.60, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(3). Specifically:
(a) Respondent failed to ensure that the process is designed in compliance with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.48(b), including the lack of a data plate and documentation showing annual inspections and timely replacement of pressure relief devices for the vessel; and inadequate bulkhead, paint coating, and saddles to support the vessel.
(b) Respondent failed to ensure that problems identified during the hazard review are resolved in a timely manner, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.50(c), specifically, problems identified during a hazard review conducted in 2014 had not been corrected at the time of the following hazard review conducted in 2018.
(c) Respondent failed to implement procedures to maintain the on-going mechanical integrity of the process equipment, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.56(a), by not following Respondent’s procedures requiring documentation of maintenance inspections at least quarterly when not in season and daily when in season.
Respondent’s failures to comply with Program 2 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.48 through 68.60, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(3), violate Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
CONSENT AGREEMENT
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of $19,999, and shall perform a Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) as set forth in this Consent Agreement and Final Order. The projected cost of the SEP is $25,569. The SEP is further described below.
Supplemental Environmental Project
Respondent shall purchase three Self Contained Breathing Apparatuses, including cylinder and valve assemblies and head harnesses (SCBAs) and six pairs of fire-fighting gloves certified to National Fire Protection Association Standard 1971-2018; and shall donate one SCBA and two pairs of the gloves to the
local fire departments in Damar, Plainville, and McCracken, Kansas, respectively.
Respondent agrees that the SEP shall be completed within two months of the Effective Date of this Consent Agreement and Final Order. Respondent shall spend at least $25,569 on the SEP. This SEP, which relates to emergency planning and preparedness, will provide local emergency responders enhanced tools to better respond to releases.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO