Respondent operated an agriculture retail facility and receives, stores, and sells anhydrous ammonia. On or about June 19, 2018, 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 the facility had ammonia storage capacity consisting of a 30,000 gallon ammonia storage vessel (south vessel), one 12,000 gallon ammonia storage vessel (north vessel) and 72 ammonia nurse tanks (48 single tanks and 24 double tanks), which provided Respondent the capacity to store 650,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia at the Facility. EPA’s review of information found that Respondent regularly stored greater than 400,000 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 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.
At the time of EPA’s inspection, Respondent had not submitted an RMP. After EPA’s inspection, on July 23, 2018, Respondent filed an RMP. Respondent’s filed RMP stated that the amount of anhydrous ammonia present at the Facility at the time of filing was 539,134 lbs.
Allegations of Violation
Complainant hereby states and alleges that Respondent has violated the CAA and federal regulations promulgated thereunder as follows:
Count 1: Failure to Submit Risk Management Plan
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.
Prior to July 23, 2018, Respondent had failed to submit an RMP pursuant to the requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.150 to 68.185, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a). Specifically, Respondent failed to complete a registration form pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.160(a) that includes the information required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.160(b), including the Program level of the process and whether the stationary source is subject to 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119.
Respondent’s failure to submit an RMP 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, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Count 2: Failure to perform and maintain records of offsite consequences
The regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.28(a) requires the owner or operator of a facility to identify and analyze at least one alternative release scenario for their regulated toxic substance.
The regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.36(a) requires the owner or operator of a facility to review and update the off-site consequence analyses at least once every 5 years.
The regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.39(a)-(e) requires the owner or operator of a facility to maintain records on the off-site consequence analysis, in violation of 40 C.F.R.
§ 68.39(a)-(e).
The EPA inspection and review of documentation revealed that prior to EPA’s inspection Respondent had failed to perform and maintain records of offsite consequences of a release, per 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.28(a), 68.36(a) and 68.39(a)-(e)
Respondent’s failure to perform and maintain records of an analysis of the offsite consequences of a release, per 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.28(a), 68.36(a) and 68.39(a)-(e), violated Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Count 3: Failure to comply with Program 2 prevention requirements
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 regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.48(a)(1)-(5) requires that the owner or operator of a stationary source with a process subject to Program 2 to compile and maintain up-to-date safety information related to the regulated substances, process, and equipment.
The regulation at 40 C.F .R. § 68.48(b) requires that the owner or operator of a stationary source with a process subject to Program 2 ensure that the process is designed in compliance with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.
The regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.50(a)-(d) requires that the owner or operator of a stationary source with a process subject to Program 2 conduct a review of the hazards associated with the regulated substance (in this case anhydrous ammonia) at least once every five years. The owner or operator is also required to conduct hazard reviews whenever a major change in the process occurs and all issues identified in the review shall be resolved before startup of the changed process.
The regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.58(a)-(e) requires that the owner or operator of a stationary source with a process subject to Program 2 evaluate compliance (Compliance Audit) with the provisions of 40 C.F.R Part 68 every three years.
The EPA inspection and review of documentation revealed that prior to EPA’s inspection Respondent had failed to compile and maintain up-to-date safety information related to the regulated substances, process, and equipment, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.48 (a)(1)-(5).
Specifically, Respondent failed to:
(a) have a maximum intended inventory document for ammonia storage (40 C.F.R. §68.48 (a)(2));
(b) have information regarding safe upper and lower temperatures, pressures and flow for its ammonia storage (40 C.F.R. § 68.48 (a)(3));
(c) have established process equipment specifications (40 C.F.R. § 68.48 (a)(4)); and
(d) have copies of the industry codes and standards information (40 C.F.R. § 68.48(a)(5), For example, the Compressed Gas Association (CGA) 2.1-2014 standard
for ammonia storage).
The EPA inspection and review of documentation revealed that prior to EPA’s inspection the Facility’s process was not designed or maintained in conformance with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, in violation of 40 C.F.R. §68.48(b).
Applicable industry standards include, but are not limited to, the CGA 2.1-2014 standard for ammonia storage, and the standards referenced therein. Specifically, Respondent’s violations of applicable industry standards included:
(a) the emergency identification sign needed to be replaced (CGA Section 6.8);
(b) several hydrostatic valves were out of date and needed to be replaced on smaller vessels (CGA Section 5.8.12);
(c) the Facility’s two large ammonia storage tanks had severely peeling paint and corrosion (CGA, Section 5.12);
(d) the failure to inspect underground piping for corrosion within the last five years (CGA, Section 5.6.8); and
(e) there were no safety barriers in place to prevent collisions with the ammonia storage tanks (CGA, Section 6.7.1).
The EPA inspection and review of documentation revealed that prior to EPA’s inspection Respondent had failed to update the Facility’s hazard review document at least every five years, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.50(a)-(d).
The EPA inspection and review of documentation revealed that prior to EPA’s inspection Respondent had failed to evaluate compliance (Compliance Audit) with the provisions of 40 C.F.R Part 68 every three years, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.58(a)-(e).
Respondent’s failures to comply with Program 2 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.48 through 68.60, as described above and as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(3), violated Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Count 4: Failure to determine and document who would respond to accidental releases
The regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.90(a) requires that, except as provided in 40 C.F.R. § 68.90(b), the owner or operator of a stationary source with Program 2 processes shall comply with the requirements of 40 C.F.R §§ 68.93, 68.95, and 68.96.
The regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.90(b) states the owner or operator of a stationary
source whose employees will not respond to accidental releases of regulated substances need not comply with§ 68.95 of this part provided certain conditions are satisfied. These conditions include the requirement to confirm that the stationary source is included in the community emergency response plan developed under 42 U.S.C. 11003 (40 C.F.R. § 68.90(b)(1)).
The regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.95 requires that the owner or operator develop and implement an emergency response program for the purpose of protecting public health and the environment that specifies the procedures and measures for emergency response after an accidental release of a regulated substance.
The EPA inspection and review of documentation revealed that prior to EPA’s inspection Respondent had failed to determine and document whether or not its employees would respond to accidental releases of regulated substances, and therefore was required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.90(a) to comply with the emergency response requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.95.
The EPA inspection and review of documentation revealed that prior to EPA’s inspection, Respondent’s facility was not included in the local emergency response plan and therefore was required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.90(a) to comply with the emergency response requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.95.
The EPA inspection and review of documentation revealed that prior to EPA’s inspection, Respondent had failed to comply with the emergency response requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.95.
Respondent’s failure to comply with the emergency response requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.95, as required by 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.90(a), violated 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 Forty-Five Thousand, Seven Hundred and Ninety-Six Dollars
($45,796), as set forth below, 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 Eight Thousand, Four Hundred and Fifteen Dollars ($8,415). The SEP is further described below.
Respondent shall complete the following SEP:
for the purchase of equipment for the local emergency responder as described in Appendix A to this Consent Agreement and Final Order.
The SEP shall cost at least Eight Thousand, Four Hundred and Fifteen Dollars ($8,415).
Respondent agrees that the SEP shall be completed within three (3) months of the Effective Date of this Consent Agreement and Final Order.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO