Respondent is the owner and operator of a facility that had greater than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in a process at each of its facilities. 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.
EPA hereby states and alleges that Respondent has violated the CAA and federal regulations promulgated thereunder as follows:
Count 1
The EPA inspections revealed that Respondent’s RMP for its Menlo facility did not contain all required elements of the executive summary, specifically, it did not include planned changes to improve safety as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.155(f).
Respondent’s failure to submit an RMP that includes the information required by 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.
Count 2
The EPA inspections revealed that Respondents failed to update and correct the RMP pursuant to the requirements of§§ 68.190(b)(5) and 68.195(b), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a). Specifically:
- Respondent failed to update the increased quantity of anhydrous ammonia at the facility pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.190(b)(5); and
- Respondent failed to correct all three facilities’ RMPs within one month of any change of contact information, pursuant to 40 C.F.R § 68.195(b).
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.
Count 3
The EPA inspections 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:
- Respondent failed to ensure that the process is designed in compliance with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices at all three (3) facilities, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.48(b); and
- Respondent failed to perform or cause to be performed inspections and tests on process equipment at the Bird City facilities, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.56(d).
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 4
The EPA inspections 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).
- Respondent failed to ensure that problems identified in the hazard review are resolved in a timely manner at the NH3 facilities, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.50(c);
- Respondent failed to certify that it has evaluated compliance with the provisions of this subpart at least every three years to verify that procedures and practices developed under the rule are adequate and are being followed at the Menlo facility by failing to enter information into the audit application, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.58(a); and
- Respondent failed to document an appropriate response to each finding of the compliance audit that deficiencies have been corrected at the NH3 facilities, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.58(d).
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 5
The EPA inspection of the Menlo facility revealed that Respondent failed to develop and maintain a management system to oversee the implementation of the risk management program elements as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.15(a).
The EPA inspection of one of the facilities revealed that Respondent failed to assign a qualified person or position that has the overall responsibility for the development, implementation, and integration of the risk management program elements as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.15(b).
Respondent’s failure to comply with Program 2 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.15, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(1), violates Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
CONSENT AGREEMENT
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of Seventy-One Thousand and Six Hundred and Fifty-Two Dollars and no Cents ($71,652.00) 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 Fifty-Five Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($55,000.00). The SEP is further described below.
Respondent shall complete the following SEP:
Respondent shall install an electronic shut-off system that includes emergency shutoff valves and E-Stop emergency stop push buttons. The installation of this equipment will reduce the risk of a potential release incident with the availability to immediately shut down the flow of anhydrous ammonia process in the facility . This SEP is described in more detail in Attachment A to this agreement. The SEP shall cost at least Fifty-Five Thousand Dollars ($55,000.00). Respondent agrees that the SEP shall be completed within eighteen (18) months of the Effective Date of this Consent Agreement and Final Order.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO