Respondent is a Plant Food Company and is an owner or operator of vessels containing anhydrous ammonia located at the Facility. The vessels are a “stationary source” pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. On or about March 1, 2017, EPA conducted an inspection of the Facility to determine compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Respondents were subject to Program 2 prevention program requirements because pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.1O(c), the process does not meet the eligibility requirements of either Program 1 or Program 3, as described in 40 C.F.R. § 68.1O(b) and (d), respectively.
Count 1
The regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.36(a) requires the owner or operator of a stationary source subject to the Risk Management Program, 40 C.F.R. Part 68, to review and update the offsite consequence analyses at least once every five years.
The EPA inspection found that Respondents failed to update the offsite consequence analysis at least once every five years.
Respondents’ failure to update the offsite consequence analysis at least once every five years, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.36(a), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Count 2
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 steps provided in Subpart C, §§ 68.48 through 68.60.
The EPA inspection found that Respondents failed to implement the Program 2 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 68, Subpart C, §§ 68.48 through 68.60. Specifically, Respondents failed to:
(a) Compile and maintain codes and standards used to design, build, and operate the regulated process, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.48(a)(5);
(b) Conduct a hazard review that identifies all the hazards associated with the process and conduct a review at least every 5 years, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.50;
(c) Prepare written operating procedures to address startup following a normal or emergency shutdown, or address consequences of deviation and steps to correct or avoid deviation, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.52(b)(6-7); and
(d) Certify that they had evaluated compliance with the provisions of Subpart C at least every three years to verify that the procedures and practices developed under the rule are adequate and are being followed, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.58(a).
Respondents’ failures to comply with Program 2 prevention requirements provided in 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.48 through 68.60, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(3), are each a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Count 3
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 steps provided in Subpart C, §§ 68.48 through 68.60.
The EPA inspection found that Respondents failed to implement the Program 2 prevention requirements regarding recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, provided in 40 C.F.R. Part 68, Subpart C, §§ 68.48 through 68.60. Specifically, Respondents failed to:
(a) 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 ); and
(b) Perform inspections and tests on process equipment following recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices at a frequency consistent with industry standards or codes, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.56(d).
Respondents’ failures to comply with Program 2 prevention requirements regarding recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices provided in 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.48 through 68.60, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(3), are each a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Count 4
The regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a) requires the owner or operator of a stationary source to submit a single RMP, as provided in 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.150 to 68.185.
The EPA inspection found that Respondents failed to implement the requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.150 through 68.185. Specifically, Respondents failed to:
(a) Revise, review, and update the RMP at least once every five years, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.190(b)(1);
(b) Include the general and anhydrous ammonia-specific accidental release prevention program, five-year accident history, and planned changes to improve safety in the executive summary of the RMP, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.155(c)(d)&(t); and
(c) Submit correct information in the registration section of the RMP, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.160(b)(1)(4)&(6).
Respondents’ failures to comply with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.150 through 68.185, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a), are each a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(rX7).
Respondents agree that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondents shall pay a civil penalty of Forty-Eight Thousand Dollars ($48,000)
CLICK HERE for the CAFO