On or about September 18, 2018, 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.
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, 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. § 68.10(g), the process does not meet the eligibility requirements of either Program 1 or Program 3, as described in 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(f) and (h), 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, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7), 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
Count 1
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 its processes were designed in compliance with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.48(b). Such processes included:
- improperly supported piping;
- flexible connections used as permanent installations;
- bulkheads without pull-away protection;
- failure to install adequate emergency shut-off cable system;
- failure to test underground piping every five years;
- vessels lacked vehicle barriers; and
- combustible materials beneath supply vessels.
(b) Respondent failed to prepare and implement procedures to maintain the on-going mechanical integrity of the process equipment, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.56(a). Specifically, Respondent failed to:
- prepare maintenance procedures for compressors;
- prepared procedures for equipment that did not exist at the Facility; and
- document actions taken to correct unsuitable conditions with Facility storage vessels as indicated in the process procedures.
(c) Respondent failed to perform inspections and tests on process equipment, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.56(d), by failing to inspect underground piping at least every five years.
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.
Count 2
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to comply with the RMP requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.150 through 68.185, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a). Specifically:
(a) Respondent failed to submit an accurate latitude and longitude information for the Facility and to provide the accurate quantity for anhydrous ammonia at the Facility, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 160(b)(1) and (7).
(b) Respondent failed to include all six required elements in the RMP executive summary, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.155.
Respondent’s failures to comply with the RMP requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.150 through 68.185, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a), violate Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of Thirty-Five Thousand, Four Hundred and Six Dollars ($35,406) as set forth below.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO