Respondent owns and operates two (2) anhydrous ammonia distributing facilities. EPA Region 7 conducted inspections at the one (1) facility in August 2023 and at the other facility in December 2024 to determine compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Information gathered during the EPA inspections revealed that Respondent hadcgreater than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in a process at its Facilities. Information gathered during the EPA inspection revealed that Respondent stores and distributes agricultural products, including anhydrous ammonia, at its Facilities, and therefore is engaged in a process at its Facilities.
From the time Respondent first had onsite at each Facility 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 for each Facility 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
The EPA inspections revealed that Respondent failed to submit an RMP pursuant to the requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.150 to 68.185. Specifically:
(a) At the Red Oak facility, Respondent failed to provide the operator phone number on the RMP as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.160(b)(4).
(b) At the Red Oak and Charles City facilities, Respondent failed to update the emergency contact information on the RMP as required by 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, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Count 2
The EPA inspections revealed that Respondent failed to implement the Program 2 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.48 through 68.60. Specifically:
(a) At Respondent’s Charles City and Red Oak facilities, Respondent failed to document that equipment in the covered process is designed in compliance with recognized and generally accepted good engineering, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.48(b);
(b) At the Red Oak facility, Respondent failed to perform inspections and tests on process equipment, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.56(d);
(c) At the Charles City facility, Respondent failed to promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit and document that deficiencies were corrected, 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(d)(3), violate 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(d)(4) requires the owner or operator of a stationary source with a process subject to Program 2 to coordinate response actions with local emergency planning and response agencies as provided in 40 C.F.R. § 68.93. Specifically:
(a) At Respondent’s Red Oak, and Charles City facilities, Respondent failed to provide the emergency action plans to the local emergency planning and response organizations as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.93(b).
(b) At Respondent’s Red Oak facility, Respondent failed to document coordination with local authorities as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.93(c).
Respondent’s failures to comply with the emergency coordination requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.93, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(4), violate Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Penalty Payment
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of one hundred nineteen thousand two hundred fifty-five ($119,255).