Respondent operates a “stationary source” and has registered an RMPlan with the EPA for its stationary source and has developed an RMProgram accidental release prevention program for the stationary source. Respondent operates an ammonia refrigeration process that has 13,000 pounds of ammonia in onsite storage. Respondent has one RMProgram level 3 covered process. On March 13, 2018, the EPA conducted an onsite inspection of the RMProgram related records and equipment for the purpose of assessing the Respondent’s compliance with the RMProgram requirements and the implemented recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices for its covered process at its stationary source.
The Respondent could not document that the following equipment complied with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices…
- At the time of the inspection, some of the ammonia piping did not have labels and tags indicating the pipe contents or direction of flow. The International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration (IIAR) Bulletin 109: IIAR Minimum Safety Criteria for a Safe Ammonia Refrigeration System, Section 4.7.6, indicates, “All ammonia piping should have appropriate pipe markers attached to indicate the use of the pipe and arrows to indicate the direction of flow, such as in IIAR Bulletin 114.” Bulletin 114: Guidelines for Identification of Ammonia Refrigeration Piping and System Components, Section 4.1 Piping Markers, indicates, “Piping markers shall be designed to identify the refrigerant, the physical state of the refrigerant, and the relative pressure level of the refrigerant and the direction of flow.”
- Some of the piping supports, pipes and valves outside where the high-pressure receiver is located were rusted. HAR Bulletin 110, Section 6. 7 .1 indicates,
“All uninsulated piping and associated components such as flanges and supports shall be inspected annually for any damage to or deterioration of the piping or its protective finish, and remedial action is taken where necessary. Areas affected by slight corrosion should be cleaned off and appropriately treated before reinstating the protective finish.”
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF LAW
Based on EPA’s compliance monitoring investigation, the EPA alleges that the Respondent violated the codified rules governing the Act’s Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions because Respondent did not adequately implement provisions of 40 CFR Part 68 when it:
Failed to demonstrate that process equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices as required by 40 CFR § 68.65(d)(2).
PENALTY PAYMENT
Respondent agrees to pay the civil penalty of EIGHTEEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED NINETY-FIVE DOLLARS ($18,195) (EPA Penalty) within 30 calendar days of the Effective Date of this Agreement
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT
Respondent shall undertake and complete the following Emergency Planning and Preparedness Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) within 45 days of the effective date of this CAFO. Respondent shall expend no less than SIXTY-EIGHT THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED THIRTY DOLLARS, ($68,230) for the purchase of
(22) sets of turn out gear,
(1) battery over hydraulic ram with extension kit, and
(1) ram extension kit for the local Fire Department