Respondent owns and operates a 210,000 square foot fresh fruits and vegetables processing and cold storage facility. The facility includes one RMProgram regulated closed-looped ammonia refrigeration system. The refrigeration system represents an RMProgram level 3 covered process which currently stores or otherwise uses 27,300 pounds of anhydrous ammonia, in amounts exceeding the applicable threshold of 10,000 pounds.
Respondent has submitted and registered an RMPlan to the EPA for its stationary source, and has developed an RMProgram accidental release prevention program for the stationary source. On May 2, 2013, EPA conducted an onsite inspection of RMProgram related records and equipment for the purpose of assessing the Respondent’s compliance with RMProgram requirements and implementing recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP) for its covered process operating at its stationary source.
At the time of inspection, the Respondent had not compiled correct process safety information (PSI) for the maximum intended inventory. The Respondent’s compiled PSI represented a maximum intended inventory of 19,500 pounds of ammonia. However, a Respondent 2011 ammonia inventory record indicated that the ammonia system operated at a greater capacity, in the amount of 28,348 pounds; and during the inspection, the Respondent stipulated that the actual PSI maximum intended inventory was thought to be 32,000 pounds.
At the time of inspection, the Respondent was operating Unit Cooler AU-11 and Unit Cooler AU-12 ammonia piping that was not compliant with RAGAGEP because it was poorly insulated, damaged at its seals, and poorly supported. The Respondent failed to ensure and could not document that its process equipment was compliant with RAGAGEP.
The Respondent’s 2009 PHA did not document closure of recommended actions for several system components (i.e., compressors, evaporative condensers, high pressure receivers, system relief valves, piping, and ammonia pumps). Additionally, the Respondent’s April 2011 PHA did not document closure of recommended actions for several recognized process hazards, hazardous operating conditions or system components (i.e., evaporative condenser-facility siting, flooded evaporator, air units & heat exchangers, system controls-instrumentation).
At the time of inspection, the Respondent had not developed and implemented written operating procedures for the following equipment: Frick AU-8 Air Unit, Screw Compressor C-1, Screw Compressor C-2, Recirculator Vessel V-2, Recirculator Vessel V-3, and Line A Chiller CH-7.
At the time of inspection, in the year 2012, the Respondent had not annually certified that its operating procedures were accurate and had been reviewed as often as necessary for the following equipment:
- Frick AU-8 Air Unit,
- Screw Compressor C-1,
- Screw Compressor C-2,
- Recirculator Vessel V-2,
- Recirculator Vessel V-3, and
- Line A Chiller CH-7.
At the time of inspection, the Respondent had not documented the means it used to verify that its employees involved in operating the ammonia process understood the annual refrigeration system refresher training provided to such employees.
At the time of inspection, the Respondent had not maintained inspection and test records that in every instance included all of the following:
- date of the inspection or test,
- the name of the person who performed the inspection or test,
- the serial number or other identifier of the equipment on which the inspection or test was performed,
- a description of the inspection or test performed and
- the result of inspection or test.
Also, the Respondent had not maintained records for ammonia system vacuum and pressure tests, and had not performed mechanical integrity testing on the ammonia system every five years in accordance with RAGAGEP.
At the time of inspection, the Respondent had not corrected or replaced unacceptable insulation and seals, or added necessary supports for Unit Cooler AU-11 and Unit Cooler AU-12 process piping.
The Respondent’s Management of Change (MOC) documentation for its July 2011 system expansion in which nine air units, one pre-chiller, two Frick compressors, one condenser, one recirculator package, an air dyer, and a chiller for the new “Line G” were added to the ammonia system was not signed/approved by Respondent’s authorized personnel, as required by the Respondent’s MOC procedure.
The Respondent did not provide evidence that it performed a pre-startup safety review when it expanded and significantly modified its ammonia refrigeration system in 2011 by adding the following equipment:
- nine air units,
- one pre-chiller,
- two Frick compressors,
- one condenser,
- one recirculator package,
- an air dyer, and
- a chiller for the new “Line G”
At the time of inspection, the Respondent had not documented that it had implemented corrective actions needed to address the following deficiencies noted in its October 2012, RMProgram compliance audit:
(1) install self-closing gates around the air compressors and backup generator to ensure safety;
(2) create a work order/PM program to ensure that all aspects of mechanical integrity inspections are performed on a timely basis of within one year;
(3) perform safety checks on the compressor cutouts and high level floats, break glass stations, and ammonia detectors;
(4) close out open action items from the PHAs completed in 2009 and 2011;
(5) develop or obtain the ammonia safety design documents (ventilation and relief systems, design codes); and
(6) install equipment labels with pressure bands on all refrigeration equipment.
During the Respondent’s 2011 ammonia system expansion, the Respondent did not periodically evaluate the performance of its contract owners or operators in fulfilling their obligations during the Respondent’s expansion.
The Respondent’s RMPlan registration form of record prior to the Respondent receiving EPA’s notice of inspection, indicated that the covered refrigeration process contained an inventory of 19,500 pounds of ammonia, when the actual inventory of ammonia at the time of inspection, as stipulated by Respondent, was thought to be 32,000 pounds.
At the time of inspection, the Respondent had not submitted correct information for its RMProgram emergency contact.
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF LAW
Based on the facts stipulated in Section D above, the EPA alleges that the Respondent violated the codified rules of 40 C.F .R. Part 68, governing the Act’s Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions when it:
- Failed to compile the correct maximum intended inventory pertaining to the technology of the process as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(c)(1)(iii);
- Failed to document that the ammonia process complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2);
- Failed to established a system to promptly address process hazard analysis findings and recommendations as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e);
- Failed to develop and implement written operating procedures as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a);
- Failed to certify annually that the operating procedures had been reviewed, and that such operating procedures were current and accurate as required by 40 C.F .R. § 68.69(c);
- Failed to document the means used to verify that each employee involved in operating the covered process understood the annual ammonia refrigeration system training as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(c);
- Failed to document each inspection and test that had been performed on process equipment as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(4);
- Failed to correct deficiencies in equipment that were determined to be outside of acceptable limits as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(e); Failed to implement written procedures to manage changes to process equipment as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(a);
- Failed to perform a pre-startup safety review after significantly modifying its stationary source as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.77(b);
- Failed to document that compliance audit deficiencies were corrected as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d);
- Failed to periodically evaluate the performance of its contractors in fulfilling their obligations as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.87(b)(5);
- Failed to include in its single registration form, the maximum quantity of each regulated substance in the process as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.160(b)(7); and
- Failed to submit corrected emergency contact information within 30 days of a change as required by 40 C.F .R. § 68.195(b).
TERMS OF CONSENT AGREEMENT
Respondent agrees to pay the civil penalty of ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED DOLLARS ($121,800) within 30 calendar days of the Effective Date of this Agreement.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO