This is an interesting CAFO! The facility has a 30,000 gallon LPG tank which they use the fuel for heating water to produce steam to cook its product. The LPG is exempted from Part 68 since it is “used as a fuel”; HOWEVER, EPA pulled out their “General Duty Clause” and cited the facility for the location and lack of fire protection regarding this LPG Tank!!! This is a first for me, the fuel is exempted under the rule, but it falls under the CAA GDC!!!!
Respondent operates a food production facility and has operated the Facility since at least 1957. The Facility has an SIC code of2038 (frozen specialties, not elsewhere classified) and NAICS code of 311412 (frozen specialty food manufacturing). The Facility employs approximately 150 full time employees. The Facility is located on approximately 2.46 acres and is bordered to the north by residential housing, to the east by residential housing and undeveloped land, to the south by undeveloped land and to the west by residential housing and a community park. The main activity at the Facility is the production of food products (pierogies). Respondent operates a 6,000-square-foot freezer and a 1,000-square-foot freezer in a storage warehouse facility that utilize an ammonia-based refrigeration system. The refrigeration process uses up to 19,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in its system for frozen storage of the food products. Respondent also uses propane as fuel for heating water to produce steam to cook its product. Respondent stores the propane in a 30,000-gallon tank. On or about September 25, 2013, EPA conducted an inspection (the “Inspection”) of the Facility to assess compliance with Section 112(r)(1) (General Duty Clause) and (7) of CAA, and 40 C.F.R. Part 68, the Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions. EPA’s review of the documentation submitted by Respondent, and EPA’s observations made during the Inspection, revealed violations of the Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions regarding the ammonia refrigeration system at the Facility and General Duty Clause violations regarding the 30,000-gallon propane tank.
COUNT 1
The Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions require owners or operators of stationary sources to comply with process safety information requirements at 40 C.F.R.
§ 68.65(d)(1)(vi) and (2), to compile process safety information pertaining to design codes and standards relevant to the equipment, and to document that the equipment in the process complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.
The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 15-2007: Safety Standard for Refrigeration Systems, ANSI (American National Standards Institute)/ASHRAE Standard 15-2007 (supersedes ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 15-2004), states at Section 8.11.3 that
“Machinery rooms shall be vented to the outdoors, utilizing mechanical ventilation in accordance with Section 8.11.4 and 8.11.5.”
Section 8.11.4 states that
“Openings for inlet air shall be positioned to avoid recirculation. Air supply and exhaust ducts to the machinery room shall serve no other area.”
Section 8.12.i. further states that
“Ventilation fans shall be on a separate electrical circuit and have a control switch located immediately outside the machinery room door.”
The American National Standard for Equipment, Design, and Installation of Closed-Circuit Ammonia Mechanical Refrigeration, of the International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration (IIAR), ANSI/IIAR 2-2008, in both Addendum A and Addendum B, states in Section 13.3 .3 .2 that:
“Openings for inlet air shall be positioned to be near machinery, to avoid recirculation of exhausted air, and to avoid including anything except for clean, uncontaminated ambient air.”
The design codes and standards summarized above, are applicable to refrigeration processes and, for purposes of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2), are “recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.”
During the Inspection, EPA observed that the design of the refrigeration system’s compressor room was inadequate because the ventilation system was not designed to ensure proper cross-ventilation, as required by ANSI/IIAR 2-2008. The intake air supply on the roof was improperly located and the air intake fan and exhaust fans were located adjacent to one another on the roof, resulting in short-circuiting of the air flow.
EPA further observed during the Inspection that the Facility ventilation system was not on a separate electric circuit and a switch was not located outside the compressor room to operate the ventilation fans, as required by ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 15-2007.
The Facility’s design of the refrigeration system’s compressor room did not conform to ANSI/liAR 2-2008. In addition, the Facility ventilation system was not on a separate electric circuit and a switch was not located outside the compressor room to operate the ventilation fans, in accordance with Section 8.12.1 of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 15-2007.
COUNT 2
Facility has used propane as fuel for heating water to produce steam to cook its product (pierogies). Respondent stores the propane in a 30,000-gallon tank. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 58, Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code, 2011 Edition (“NFPA 58”) requires fire protection of the propane storage tank.
NFPA 58, Section 6.25.3.1, states:
“Fire protection shall be provided for installations with an aggregate water capacity of more than 4000 gallons (15.1 m3) and for ASME [American Society of Mechanical Engineers] containers on roof.”
The applicable industry standards, NFPA 58, Section 6.25.3.2, indicates that:
“The modes of fire protection shall be specified in a written fire safety analysis for new installations, and for existing installations that have an aggregate water capacity of more than 4000 gallons (15.1 m3) and for ASME containers on roofs.”
NFPA 58, Section 6.25.3.3, further states that:
“The fire safety analysis shall be submitted by the owner, operator or their designee, to the authority having jurisdiction and local emergency responders.”
EPA observed during the Inspection that there was no insulation or fire protection system for the 30,000-gallon propane tank.
Respondent could not provide a written fire safety analysis for the propane tank when requested by inspectors, and Respondent’s representative during the Inspection stated that he was unaware that a written fire safety analysis was required.
The chemical “propane,” CAS number 74-98-6, is an EHS because it is flammable.
The chemical “propane” stored at the Facility in the 30,000-gallon tank is an EHS for purposes of Section 112(r)(l) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(1).
Respondent is subject to the General Duty Clause of Section 112(r)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(l), because Respondent stores extremely hazardous substances at the Facility.
Respondent failed to prepare a written fire safety analysis consistent with NFPA 58, and thus, in violation of the requirement ofCAA Section 112(r)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(1), to design and maintain a safe facility taking such steps as are necessary to minimize accidental releases to air.
Respondent submitted a written Fire Safety Analysis Report for the Facility to EPA on June 2, 2015.
In accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 22.18(c), and in full and final settlement and resolution of all allegations referenced in the foregoing EPA’s Findings of Fact and EPA’s Conclusions of Law set forth above, and in full satisfaction of any and all civil penalty claims pursuant thereto, for the purpose of this proceeding, Respondent consents to the assessment of a civil penalty for the violations of Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r), set forth above, in the amount of $52,087 (“CAA Penalty”).
CLICK HERE for the CAFO