EPA RMP citations @ three (3) fluid milk production facilities (NH3 & $270K)

Respondent owns or operates three (3) fluid milk production facilities located in MI, IL, and MO (until operations ceased in 2014). At each of these facilities, Respondent operates or operated at all times relevant to this CAFO a closed-loop refrigeration system which utilizes or utilized anhydrous ammonia. Each system uses and stores, or used and stored at all times relevant to this CAFO, more than 10,000 lbs. of anhydrous ammonia. Respondent reported in its RMP for each facility that each refrigeration system was subject to the “Program 3” eligibility requirements because the process: (a) does or did not meet the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(b), because the distance to a toxic or flammable endpoint for a worst-case release assessment conducted under Subpart Band 40 C.F.R. § 68.25 is or was greater than the distance to any public receptor; and (b) is or was subject to the OSHA process safety management standard set forth at 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119 and 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(d) because the process involves or involved anhydrous ammonia above its threshold quantity.

MI Facility

On August 28-29, 2012, EPA Region 5 conducted an inspection to determine compliance with 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Based on the inspection conducted on August 28-29, 2012, and a review of additional information received by EPA subsequent to that date, the facility failed to comply fully with the Risk Management Program regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 68 for Program 3 requirements as set forth below.

1. Respondent failed to develop a management system to oversee the implementation of the Risk Management Program elements, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.15(a).
2. Respondent failed to document the names or positions of persons who have responsibility for implementing individual requirements of the Risk Management Program, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.15(c).
3. Respondent failed to have information pertaining to the equipment in Respondent’s process involving regulated substances that included the piping and instrumentation diagrams for the orange juice room added in 2010 and the milk tanks added in 2012, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(ii).
4. Respondent failed to have information pertaining to the equipment in Respondent’s process involving regulated substances that included the material and energy balances, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(vii).
5. The Process Hazard Analysis (“PHA”) performed by Respondent in 2009 did not address stationary source siting, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c)(5).
6. The PHA performed by Respondent in 2009 did not address human factors, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c)(6).
7. Respondent failed to establish a system to promptly address the 2009 PHA team’s findings and recommendations; assure that recommendations are resolved in a timely manner and documented; document what actions are to be taken; complete actions as soon as possible; develop a written schedule of when these actions are to be completed; and communicate the actions to operating, maintenance, and other employees whose work assignments are in the process and who may be affected by the recommendations, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e).
8. Respondent’s 2012 PHA revalidation did not satisfy all of the requirements to update and revalidate the PHA by a team every five years after the completion of the initial PHA to assure that the PHA is consistent with the current process, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(f).
9. Respondent failed to provide refresher training at least every three years to each employee involved in operating a process to assure that the employee understands and adheres to the current operating procedures of the process, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(b).
10. Respondent failed to ascertain and document in records that one of its employees involved in operating a process had received and understood the training required, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(c). Respondent failed to establish and implement a written procedure to maintain the on-going integrity of the process, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(b).
11. Respondent failed to train one of its employees involved in maintaining the ongoing integrity of the process equipment, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(c).
12. Respondent failed to follow the frequency of inspections and tests of process equipment that is consistent with applicable manufacturers’ recommendations and good engineering practices, and more frequently if determined to be necessary by prior operating experience, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(3).
13. Respondent failed to document each inspection and test that had been performed on process equipment which identified the 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 results of the inspection or test, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(4).
14. Respondent failed to correct deficiencies in equipment that is outside acceptable limits before further use or in a safe and timely manner when necessary means are taken to assure safe operation, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R.§ 68.73(e).
15. Respondent failed to implement written procedures to manage changes to process chemicals, technology, equipment, and procedures, and changes to stationary sources that affect a covered process (namely, the refrigeration process which includes the orange juice room), as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(a).
16. Respondent failed to inform and train employees involved in operating a process, and maintenance and contract employees whose job tasks were affected by a change in the orange juice room added in 2010 and the milk tanks added in 2012, prior to start up on the process, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(c).
17. Respondent failed to timely update process safety information accordingly when a 2010 change in the orange juice room and a 2012 addition of milk tanks resulted in a change to process safety information, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(d).
18. Respondent failed to update operating procedures accordingly after the addition of an orange juice room resulted in a change in the process, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(e).
19. Respondent failed to perform a pre-startup safety review after the addition of an orange juice room in 2010, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.77(b).
20. Respondent failed to promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the 2009 compliance audit and document that deficiencies have been corrected, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d).
21. Respondent failed to timely investigate each 2012 incident that could have resulted in a catastrophic release of a regulated substance, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.81(a).
22. Respondent failed to initiate a timely incident investigation as promptly as possible but not later than 48 hours following each 2012 incident, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.81(b).
23. Respondent failed to obtain and evaluate information regarding the contract owner or operator’s safety performance and programs when selecting a contractor, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.87(b)(1).
24. Respondent failed to inform the contract owner or operator of known potential fire, explosion, or toxic release hazards related to the contractor’s work and the process, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.87(b)(2).
25. Respondent failed to inform the contract owner or operator of the applicable provisions of the emergency response or emergency action program, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.87(b)(3).

IL Facility

On July 13, 2012, EPA, Region 5 conducted an inspection at the Facility to determine whether Respondent was complying with Section 112(r) of the Act and the regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Based on the July 13, 2012 inspection and a review of additional information received by EPA subsequent to that date, the IL Facility failed to comply with the Risk Management Program regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 68 for Program 3 requirements as set forth below.

1. Respondent failed to document the pressure relief valve’s design and design basis, and the relief header’s design and design basis, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(iv).
2. Respondent failed to document the ventilation system design for the control room, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(v).
3. Respondent failed to document the design codes and standards employed to design, maintain, and operate the system, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(vi).
4. Respondent failed to establish a system to promptly address the 2000 PHA team’s findings and recommendations; assure that recommendations are resolved in a timely manner and documented; document what actions are to be taken; complete actions as soon as possible; develop a written schedule of when these actions are to be completed; and communicate the actions to operating, maintenance, and other employees whose work assignments are in the process and who may be affected by the recommendations, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e).
5. The PHA revalidations performed by Respondent in 2005, 2008 and 2013 were not adequate to assure that the PHA is consistent with the current process, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(f).
6. Respondent failed to include some of the Operating Limits in its written operating procedures that are to provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(2).
7. Respondent failed to provide refresher training at least every three years to each employee involved in operating a process to assure that the employee understands and adheres to the current operating procedures of the process, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(b).
8. Respondent failed to establish and implement a written procedure to maintain the on-going integrity of the process, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(b).
9. Respondent failed to perform inspections and tests on every portion of the anhydrous ammonia refrigeration system, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(1).
10. Respondent failed to follow recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices for inspections and testing procedures, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(2).
11. Respondent failed to ensure the frequency of inspections and tests of the anhydrous ammonia refrigeration system is consistent with applicable good engineering practices, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(3).
12. Respondent failed to document each inspection and test that had been performed on the ammonia refrigeration system in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(4).
13. Respondent failed to correct a deficiency in the termination height of its relief header that was outside acceptable limits before use or in a safe and timely manner when necessary means are taken to assure safe operation in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(e).

MO Facility

On April 23-25, 2013, EPA Region 7 conducted an inspection at the MO Facility to determine compliance with 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Based on the inspection conducted on April 23-25, 2013, and a review of additional information received by EPA subsequent to that date, the MO Facility failed to comply with the Risk Management Program regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 68 for Program 3 requirements as set forth below.

1. Respondent failed to review and update the off site consequence analyses at least once every five years, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.36(a).
2. Respondent failed to maintain records to the offsite consequence analyses, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.39(e).
3. Respondent failed to have information pertaining to the equipment in the process that included materials of construction, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(i).
4. Respondent failed to have information pertaining to the equipment in the process that included the piping and instrumentation diagrams, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(ii).
5. Respondent failed to have information pertaining to the equipment in the process that included electrical classification, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(iii). Respondent failed to have information pertaining to the equipment in the process that included the relief system design and design basis, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(iv).
6. Respondent failed to have information pertaining to the equipment in the process that included the design codes and standards employed, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(vi).
7. Respondent failed to have information pertaining to the equipment in the process that included safety systems, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(l)(viii).
8. Respondent failed to produce documentation that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2).
9. Respondent failed to document if existing equipment was designed with obsolete codes, standards, or practices no longer in general use; and failed to document that the equipment is designed, maintained, inspected, tested, and operating in a safe manner, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(3).
10. Respondent failed to establish a system to promptly address the PHA team’s findings and recommendations; assure that recommendations are resolved in a timely manner and documented; document what actions are to be taken; complete actions as soon as possible; develop a written schedule of when these actions are to be completed; and communicate the actions to operating, maintenance, and other employees whose work assignments are in the process and who may be affected by the recommendations, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e).
11. Respondent failed to update and revalidate the initial PHA at least every five years after its completion by a team to assure that the PHA is consistent with the current process, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(d) and (f).
12. Respondent failed to develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instruction for safely conducting activities involved in the covered process that address temporary operations, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(1)(iii).
13. Respondent failed to develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instruction for safely conducting activities involved in the covered process that address emergency shutdown including conditions under which emergency shutdown is required, and assignment of shutdown responsibility to qualified operators to ensure that emergency shutdown is executed in safe and timely manner, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(1)(iv).
14. Respondent failed to develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instruction for safely conducting activities involved in the covered process that address emergency operations, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(1)(v).
15. Respondent failed to develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instruction for safely conducting activities involved in the covered process that address operating limits, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(2).
16. Respondent failed to develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instruction for safely conducting activities involved in the covered process that address safety and health considerations, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(3).
17. Respondent failed to develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instruction for safely conducting activities involved in the covered process that address safety systems and their function, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(4).
18. Respondent failed to certify annually that operating procedures are current and accurate, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c).
19. Respondent failed to initially train each employee involved in the covered process in an overview of the process and in operating procedures, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(a).
20. Respondent failed to provide refresher training at least every three years, and more often if necessary, to each employee involved in operating a process to assure that the employee understands and adheres to the current operating procedure of the process, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(b).
21. Respondent failed to prepare a record which contains the identity of the employee, the date of the training, and the means used to verify that the employee understood the training, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(c).
22. Respondent failed to train each employee involved in maintaining the on-going integrity of process equipment in the procedures applicable to the employee’s job tasks to assure that the employee can perform the job tasks in a safe manner, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(c).
23. Respondent failed to establish and implement written procedures to manage changes to process chemicals, technology, equipment, and procedures, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(a).
24. Respondent failed to establish management of change procedures that assure that considerations are addressed prior to any change, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(b).
25. Respondent failed to train maintenance and contract employees whose job tasks will be affected by a change in the process prior to start-up of the process or affected part of the process, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(c).
26. Respondent failed to perform a pre-startup safety review for modified stationary source when the modification is significant enough to require a change in the process safety information, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.77(a).
27. Respondent failed to certify a 2010 compliance audit and did not maintain copies of it’s two compliance audits prior to 2010 in order to verify that the procedure and practices developed are adequate and are being followed, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(a) and (e).
28. Respondent failed to obtain and evaluate information regarding the contract owner or operator’s safety performance and programs, failed to inform contract owner or operators of the known hazards related to the contractor’s work and the process, failed to explain to the contract owner or operator the applicable provisions, and failed to periodically evaluate the performance of the contract owner or operator in fulfilling their obligations, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.87.
29. Respondent failed to comply with 40 C.F.R. § 68.150 by failing to submit a single Risk Management Plan that included the information required by Sections 68.155 through 68.185 for all covered processes, as required pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.150-195.

Accordingly, the above-alleged violations of 40 C.F.R. Part 68 and Section 112(r) of the Act at the MI, IL, and MO Facilities are subject to the assessment of a civil penalty under Section 113(d) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(d). 

Civil Penalty

Based on an analysis of the factors specified in Section 113(e) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(e), the facts of this case, and other factors such as cooperation and prompt compliance, Complainant has determined that an appropriate civil penalty to settle this action is $270,000.

CLICK HERE for the CAFO