Respondent is the owner and/or operator of the Facility, which operates a chemical storage and distribution facility. The respondent had on-site storage for 50,000 pounds of cyclohexylamine, 1,800,000 pounds of chlorine, 1,500,000 pounds of sulfur dioxide (anhydrous), 265,000 pounds of ammonia (anhydrous), 350,000 pounds of ammonia (concentration 20% or greater), and 17,000 pounds of hydrofluoric acid.
Respondent has five (5) RMProgram level 3 covered processes and one (1) RMProgram level 2 process, which store or otherwise use cyclohexylamine, chlorine, sulfur dioxide (anhydrous}, ammonia (anhydrous}, ammonia (concentration 20% or greater), and hydrofluoric acid in amounts exceeding their applicable thresholds of 15,000 pounds, 2,500 pounds, 5,000 pounds, 10,000 pounds, 20,000 pounds, and 1,000 pounds, respectively.
On August 10, 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:
(a) The EPA inspection team observed that the pipes around the two 30,000-gallon ammonia tanks and the sulfur dioxide tank were not consistently labeled. Some pipes were labeled with the direction of flow, but many lacked labels identifying their contents. The ammonia piping should be labeled/colored in accordance with the Pipe Marking Guide, American National Standard Institute/American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ANSI/ASME) A13.1- 2007 Standard for the Identification of Pipes. The standard requires labels of a certain color, depending on the type of material in the pipes, and that the labels identify the contents and direction of flow of said contents.
(b) Facility representatives provided the EPA inspection team with inspection reports for Ammonia Tanks AA-1 and AA-2. The reports were generated from external inspections and ultrasonic (UT) testing that were conducted on the two 30,000-gallon ammonia tanks on November 02, 2021, by a third-party company. The results from the tests indicate the thickness is below the minimum allowable value on three components for each ammonia tank. Specifically, each report states in observation 2 in the “Observation” column on page 6:
“Multiple shell and head readings were at or below the required minimum thickness. Pitting was present throughout the exterior ranging from 1/32″ – 1/16″.”
Under the “Recommended Action” column on the same page, each report states:
“Re-rate the vessel using an allowable stress based off the latest edition of the ASME Code Per API-510 8.2 (i.e., 3.5 a design factor vs. the original 4.0 design factor). -OR- Re-rate the vessel to a lower MAWP.”
Each report assigns this recommendation a priority ranking of one (1), which is defined as – “High likelihood/consequence of failure (or) Critical code/standard deficiency (or) May not be fit for service without action.”
Respondent did not take action to address the results of the November 2, 2021, UT testing on the Ammonia Tanks AA-1 and AA-2 until after the EPA’s RMP inspection on August 10, 2023, when facility representatives reached out to another contractor to assist with determining if a re-rate of the vessels would be acceptable for the two ammonia tanks. On September 7, 2023, Respondent provided EPA with a document labeled Memorandum for Record: Mechanical Integrity. The document states:
“XX conducted calculations and determined that re-rating our tanks to allowable stress values of the latest ASME design code (rather than the original ASME design code – ASME Sec VIII Div. 11993 Edition w/ Winter 1984 Addenda) would be safe. XXXXXXX Mechanical is submitting a formal request for re-rate on our behalf. After official review and pressure testing of vessels, the tanks will be officially re-rated to new allowable stress values.”
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 it:
(a) Failed to ensure and document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2); and
(b) Failed to correct deficiencies in equipment that are outside acceptable limits (defined by the process safety information in 40 C.F.R. § 68.65) before further use or in a safe and timely manner when necessary means are taken to assure safe operation, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(e).
Respondent agrees to a civil penalty in the amount of $105,144.
CLICK HERE for CAFO