EPA found that Respondent had violated regulations implementing Section 112(r) of the Act at 40 C.F.R. Part 68 by failing to comply with the regulations as noted below. Four EPA representatives inspected the facility on August 13, 2014. In consideration of Respondent’s size of business, its full compliance history, its good-faith effort to comply, and other factors as justice may require, and upon consideration of the entire record, the parties enter into the ESA in order to settle the violations described in the enclosed summary for the total penalty amount of $11,940.
NOTE: the facility citations were $19,900 and were reduced due to the size of the business and the business certified it spent $175,000 to correct the items.
PROCESS/NAICS CODE: 311712
PROGRAM LEVEL: 3
REGULATED SUBSTANCE: Anhydrous Ammonia
MAX. QUANTITY IN PROCESS 17,000 lbs
DESCRIPTION OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
1. Hazard Assessment (40 C.F.R. §68.39); $600
The facility failed to provide documentation for the worst-case scenarios: a description of the vessel or pipeline and substance selected, assumptions and parameters used, the rationale for selection and anticipated effect of the administrative controls and passive mitigation on the release quantity and rate as required by 40 C.F R. § 68.39(a). During the inspection, the facility was unable lo produce documentation.
2. Hazard Assessment (40 C.F.R. § 68.39); 600
The facility failed to provide documentation for alternative release scenarios: a description of the scenarios identified, assumptions and parameters used, the rationale for the selection of specific scenarios, and anticipated effect of the administrative controls and mitigation on the release quantity and rate as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.39(b). During the inspection, the facility was unable to produce documentation.
3. Hazard Assessment (40 C.F.R. § 68.39); $900 ($300 for each item listed below)
The facility failed to provide documentation of the following:
- estimated quantity released, release rate, and duration of release as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.39(c);
- methodology used to determine distance to endpoints as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.39(d); and
- data used to estimate population and environmental receptors potentially affected by a release as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.39(e).
During the Inspection, the facility was unable to produce documentation.
4. Process Safety Information (40 C.F.R. § 68.65); $600
The facility has not documented information pertaining to technology or the process, including safe upper and lower limits for such items as temperatures, pressures, flows, or compositions as required in 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(c)(1)(iv). During the inspection, the facility was unable to produce documentation for safe upper and lower limits.
5. Process Safety Information (40 C.F.R. § 68.65); $3,000 ($600 for each of the 5 listed items below)
The facility’s process safety information for the equipment in the process does not contain:
- the materials or construction as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(i);
- the electrical classification as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(iii);
- the relief system design and design basis as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(iv);
- the ventilation system design as required by 40 C.F .R. § 68.65(d)(1)(v); and
- the safety systems as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(viii)
During the inspection, the facility was unable to produce documentation for the materials of construction, the electrical classification, the relief system design, the ventilation system design, and the safety systems.
6. Process Hazard Analysis (40 C.F.R. § 68.67); $3,600 ($600 for each of the 6 items listed below)
The facility’s February 2013 process hazard analysis (PHA) failed to address the following:
- the identification of any incident that had a likely potential for catastrophic consequences as required by 40 C.F .R. §68.67(c)(2);
- the engineering and administrative controls applicable to hazards and Interrelationships as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c)(3);
- the consequences of failure of engineering and administrative controls as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c)(4);
- the stationary source siting as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c)(5);
- the human factors as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c)(6); and
- an evaluation of a range of the possible safety and health effects of failure of controls as required by 40 C.F .R. § 68.67(c)(7).
During the Inspection, the facility was unable to produce documentation regarding their February 2013 PHA.
7. Operating Procedures (40 C.F.R. § 68.69); $1,200
The facility’s operating procedures failed to address emergency shutdown including the conditions under which emergency shutdown is required, and the assignment of shutdown responsibility to qualified operators to ensure that emergency shutdown is executed in a safe and timely manner as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(1)(iv). During the inspection, the facility was unable to produce documentation on their operating procedures.
8. Operating Procedures (40 C.F.R. § 68.69); $1,200
The facility’s operating procedures failed to address the steps required to correct or avoid deviation as required in 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(2)(ii). During the Inspection, the facility was unable to produce documentation regarding their operating procedures.
9. Operating Procedures (40 C.F.R. § 68.69); $1,200
The facility’s operating procedures failed to address the safety systems and their functions as required In 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(4). During the Inspection, the facility was unable to produce documentation regarding their operating procedures. 10. Operating Procedures (40 C.F.R. § 68.69); $1,200
10. Operating Procedures (40 C.F.R. § 68.69); $1,200
The facility failed to certify annually that their operating procedures are current and accurate and that procedures have been reviewed as often as necessary as required in 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c). During the inspection, the facility was unable to produce documentation regarding the annual certification of their operating procedures.
11. Training (40 C.F.R. § 68.71); $1,500
The facility failed to produce documentation that each employee involved in operating a process, and each employee before being involved in operating a newly assigned process shall be initially trained in an overview of the process and in the operating procedures as required by 40 C.F .R. § 68.71(a)(1). During the inspection, the facility was unable to produce documentation regarding initial training.
12. Training (40 C.F.R. § 68.71); $600
The facility failed to produce documentation that the initial training included an emphasis on safety and health hazards, emergency operations including shutdown, and safe work practices applicable to the employee’s job tasks as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(a)(1). During the Inspection, the facility was unable to produce documentation regarding initial training.
13. Training (40 C.F.R. § 68.71); $600
The facility failed to produce documentation that the owner or operator has ascertained and documented in a record that each employee involved in operating a process has received and understood the training required as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(c). During the Inspection, the facility was unable to produce documentation to show that each employee involved in operating a process has received and understood the training. Following the inspection, the facility provided training documents for Chief Operator, XXXXXXXX, and Assistant Operators, XXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXX, and XXXXXXXXXXX. The documents show training was conducted during the months of April, May, and June of 2014. This does not qualify as initial training because the facility’s initial RMP submission was provided to EPA In June of 2012. This also does not qualify as refresher training because a complete training for Chief Operator, XXXXXXXX was conducted after the Inspection, in the month of November of 2014. Therefore, the facility was not compliant during the time of Inspection. 14. Mechanical Integrity (40 C.F.R. § 68.73); $900
14. Mechanical Integrity (40 C.F.R. § 68.73); $900
The facility failed to train each employee involved in maintaining the on-going Integrity of the process equipment as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(c). During the Inspection, the facility was unable to produce training records for their maintenance personnel.
15. Mechanical Integrity (40 C.F.R. § 68.73); $600
The facility has not assured that maintenance materials, spare parts, and equipment were suitable for the process application for which they would be used as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(f)(3). During the Inspection, the facility’s mechanical integrity policy dated February 2013 did not address the assurance of the suitability of materials, spare parts, and equipment for the process.
16. Risk Management Plan (40 C.F.R. § 68.195); $1,000
The facility failed to submit corrected emergency contact information within 30 days of the change as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.195(b). During the Inspection, General Manager, XXXXXXXX stated that he joined the company in 2013. The initial RMP submitted in June 2012 identified XXXXXXXX as the emergency contact. Therefore, the RMP should have been corrected identifying XXXXXXX as the emergency contact.
In addition, the following was identified as an area of concern: 1. Contractors (40 C.F.R. § 68.87): During the inspection, the facility did not document that each contract employee has received and understood the training required and prepare a record which contains the identity of the contract employee, the date of training, and the means used to verify that the employee understood the training as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.87(c)(3). However, following the inspection, the facility provided a memo written by Hagen Industrial Refrigeration, acknowledging the safe work practices required to perform the contract work they completed in June 2014. The memo is an incomplete record because of no date as to when this was written. EPA is concerned that records of contracted work are not maintained as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.87(c)(3). Proper records should contain specific training provided for contract work, dates and signatures acknowledging an understanding of the training, and identification that contractor qualifications were evaluated.
The citations added up to $19,900 but were reduced due to the size of the business. The company certified they spent $175,000 to correct these deficiencies.
CLICK HERE for the ESA