Respondent owns and operates an ammonia refrigeration system at its bakery. The Facility maintains an amount of anhydrous ammonia within its system that is above the 10,000 lbs threshold quantity that is set forth in Table 1 at 40 C.F.R. § 68.130. The Facility is subject to Program 3 because the covered process is subject to the OSHA process safety management standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119, in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(l), and does not meet the Program 1 eligibility requirements at 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(j).
On August 11, 2022, during routine maintenance, the Facility experienced a release of anhydrous ammonia, which led to the evacuation of the building (2022 Incident). On December 6 through December 8, 2023, EPA conducted an announced inspection of the Facility.
Alleged Violations of Law
Process Safety Information
During the December 2023 Inspection, the following observations were made:
The door between the Engine Room and the Electrical Room did not contain panic hardware exiting from the Engine Room.
The door between the Engine Room and the Electrical Room swung into the Engine Room.
The door between the Engine Room and the Electrical Room did not contain an ammonia monitor or visual alarm, but did contain an audible alarm.
The Pressure Relief Valves (PRVs) were vented from the equipment to the roof through a single piping system.
The PRV vent exhaust was within five feet of the condenser walkways.
At the time of inspection, Facility personnel stated that current RAGAGEP was to use IIAR Standards.
Facility failed to document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2).
Operating Procedures
At the time of inspection and during follow-up review of documentation, EPA noted that the Line and Operating Permit did not adequately cover emergency operations and the safety systems implemented at the Facility prior to the 2022 Incident. FGF Brands updated the Operating Procedures within the months following to the 2022 Incident fill in the gaps.
The Facility failed to develop and implement safe operating procedures prior to the August 2022, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(4).
Mechanical Integrity
The Facility uses a software system (APSM Catalyst) to manage the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), the Management of Changes (MOCs), the Process Safety Information (PSI), the Mechanical Integrity (MI) program, and to create and maintain their work orders.
The Facility has not documented that each employee involved in maintaining the on-going integrity of process equipment has been trained on how to use APSM Catalyst to follow the procedures applicable to their job tasks to assure that the employee can perform the job tasks in a safe manner.
The Facility failed to train each employee involved in maintaining the on-going integrity of process equipment in an overview of that process and its hazards and in the procedures applicable to the employee’s job tasks to assure that the employee can perform the job tasks in a safe manner, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(c).
During the December 2023 Inspection, inspectors learned that the facility follows IIAR-6 Standard for Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Closed-Circuit Ammonia Refrigeration Systems for the inspection, testing, and maintenance of its ammonia system. At the time of inspection, the facility was missing some weekly Testing/Inspection/Preventive Maintenance (TIPM) Inspections.
The Facilityfailed to have inspection and testing procedures that followed recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(2).
During the December 2023 Inspection, inspectors discovered that the facility was missing results of an Annual Inspection for evaporator CG SS1.
The Facility failed to document each inspection and test that has been performed on process equipment, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(4).
Pre-Startup Safety Review (PSSR)
At the time of inspection, the RMP documents contained a Pre-Startup Safety Review procedure that was required to be used by the facility in the event that there was a modification to an existing facility that necessitated a change in the process safety information in order to ensure that adequate safety measures were in place and operational. The Pre-startup Safety Review was not completed for the 2021 installation of the alarm system.
The Facility failed to complete a Pre-Safety Startup Review to confirm, in relevant part, safety procedures are in place and adequate when the modification is significant enough to require a change in the process safety information, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.77(b)(2).
Compliance Audits
The 2019 Compliance Audit created 18 recommendations, one of which had not been closed out at the time of the December 2023 Inspection.
The 2022 Compliance Audit still had 5 outstanding recommendations that had not been initiated and 5 outstanding recommendations that were initiated but not completed.
The Facility failed to promptly determine and document an appropriate response to some of the findings of the compliance audit and document that deficiencies have been corrected, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d).
Incident Investigation
During the December 2023 Inspection, the RMP documents did not contain the investigation report for the incident that occurred on June 14, 2022.
The Facility failed to retain incident investigation reports for at least five years, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.81(g).
Contractors
Based on the witness statement, an employee of the contractor company was conducting maintenance on a piece of equipment when the incident occurred. The contractor employee contacted his supervisor for assistance, who arrived 18 minutes later to aid in the recovery process.
The Facility failed to require that the contract owner or operator shall assure that each contract employee follows the safety rules of the stationary source including the safe work practices required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(d), in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.87(c)(4).
Terms of Consent Agreement
Based on analysis of the factors specified in Section 113(e) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(e) and the facts of this case, the EPA has determined that an appropriate civil penalty to settle this action is $133,857.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO