Respondent is the owner and/or operator of a facility that operates an ammonia refrigeration plant with 39,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia. Respondent has one RMProgram level 3 covered process, which stores or otherwise uses anhydrous ammonia in an amount exceeding its applicable threshold of 10,000 pounds.
On July 18, 2023, the EPA conducted an on-site inspection of the RMProgram related records and equipment for the purpose of assessing the Respondent’s compliance with the RMProgram requirements and the implemented recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP) for its covered process at its Facility.
At the time of the inspection, EPA observed the following:
a. Faded and peeling labels that, as a result, no longer displayed all five elements of identifying information on ammonia piping connected to the two Low Temperature Recirculated Liquid tanks, and on ammonia piping on top of the “New” and “Old” side of the facility’s roof.
Section 5.14.5 of American National Standards Institute/International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration (ANSI/IIAR) 2 (2014) states “All piping mains, headers and branches shall be identified with the following information:
- “AMMONIA;”
- Physical state of the ammonia;
- Relative pressure level of ammonia, being low or high as applicable;
- Pipe service, which shall be permitted to be abbreviated; and
- Direction of flow.
The marking system shall either be one established by a recognized model code or standard or one described and documented by the facility owner.”
b. Corrosion on ammonia piping inside the Ammonia Machinery Room (AMR). Additionally, corrosion was observed on ammonia piping connected to the High-Pressure Receiver, one of the Low Temperature Recirculated Liquid tanks, and on ammonia piping tagged “V3” and “V4” by the Condensers. Also, corrosion was observed on ammonia piping on the “New” side of the roof near or at tags “CL1”, “CL2”, “P1”, “P2”, “P3”, “S1”, “S2”, “S3”, and “RF1.” Lastly, heavy corrosion was observed on ammonia piping and supports on the “Old” side of the roof near or at tags “BC1”, “BC2”, “BC4B”, “FF1”, “FF2”, “AU33”, and “AU35.”
Section 11.1.1 of ANSI/IIAR 6 (2019) states, “where pitting, surface damage, general corrosion, or a combination thereof is visually observed on a metal surface of piping, deficient areas shall be further evaluated per Section 11.1.1.1 – 11.1.1.3.”
c. Ammonia piping with breached/damaged insulation in the AMR. Additionally, ammonia piping with breached/damaged insulation, as well as uninsulated piping with frost buildup on the “Old” side of the roof, was observed.
Section 5.10.1 of ANSI/IIAR 2 (2014) states, “piping and equipment surfaces not intended for heat exchange shall be insulated, treated, or otherwise protected to mitigate condensation and excessive frost buildup.”
d. A single eyewash/safety shower outside the AMR and did not identify an eyewash/safety shower inside the AMR.
Section 6.7.1 of ANSI/IIAR 2 (2014) states, “Each machinery room shall have access to a minimum of two eyewash/safety shower units, one located inside the machinery room and one located outside of the machinery room.”
At the time of the inspection, the Respondent had records confirming that it was conducting inspections on its process equipment. However, the Respondent could not demonstrate that testing was being conducted on process equipment.
At the time of the inspection, the most recent historical Compliance Audit was completed in 2016. After the 2016 Compliance Audit, Respondent could not demonstrate that it had evaluated compliance with the provisions of 40 C.F.R. Part 68, Subpart D, until July 12, 2023, which was 6 days before the inspection and a week after the facility was notified of the
inspection.
The Respondent expanded its ammonia refrigeration system between 2018 and 2020 but, at the time of the inspection, could not demonstrate that it had performed any annual emergency response coordination activities with local responders since 2016.
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
Based on the EPA’s compliance monitoring investigation, the EPA alleges that the Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. Part 68, the codified rules governing the Act’s Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions and Section 112(r) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r), when, at the time of the inspection, it:
a. Failed to ensure, and document, that equipment complies with RAGAGEP, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2);
b. Failed to document testing on process equipment, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d);
c. Failed to certify that the Respondent has evaluated compliance with the provisions of 40 C.F.R. Part 68, Subpart D (i.e. conducted a compliance audit), at least every three years to verify that procedures and practices developed under 40 C.F.R. Part 68, Subpart D, are adequate and are being followed, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(a); and
d. Failed to coordinate response needs with local emergency planning and response organizations at least annually, and more frequently, if necessary, to address changes and to document such coordination with local authorities, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.93(a)-(c).
Respondent agrees to a civil penalty in the amount of $135,279.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO