Respondent operates a seafood processing facility where anhydrous ammonia was present in a process above the 10,000 pounds TQ. Respondent has one program 3 process, an ammonia refrigeration process consisting of a brine chiller system, seven plate freezers, one blast freezer and one ice house with three ice machines. An RMP was submitted for the Facility on February 14, 2014, and March 27, 2019. Respondent did not assume operations at the Facility until April 2017. Before that date, the Facility was operated by its prior owner/operator.
Violation 1: Failure to keep the required information in a compilation of written process safety information up to date
Respondent’s written process safety information pertaining to the equipment in the processes failed, between April 2017 and April 2018, to include accurate information concerning relief vent line lengths, and thus did not, during that time period, contain complete information concerning the relief system design and design basis, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.6S(d){l)(iv).
Violation 2: Failure to Adequately Address Process Hazard Analysis Recommendations
Respondent failed to assure that one of the recommendations made pursuant to a process hazard analysis conducted in 2013 was promptly addressed and resolved in a timely manner, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e).
Violation 3: Compliance Audit
Respondent conducted a compliance audit in 2014 and created a report of the findings. However, Respondent did not promptly correct and document the correction of three of the audit findings, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d).
Violation 4: Emergency Response
Respondent failed on various occasions between May 2014 and August 2019 to conduct monthly inspections of its first responders’ personal protective equipment, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.95(a)(2).
Violation 5: Risk Management Plan Update
Respondent’s five-year update to its RMP was due for submission by no later than February 14, 2019. Respondent did not submit its RMP update until March 27, 2019, in violation of the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.190(b)(1).
EPA has taken into account the size of the business, the economic impact of the penalty on the business, Respondent’s full compliance history and good faith efforts to comply, the duration of the violation as established by any credible evidence, payment by Respondent of penalties previously assessed for the same violation, the economic benefit of noncompliance, the seriousness of the violation, and such other factors as justice may require. After considering these factors, EPA has determined· and Respondent agrees that an appropriate penalty to settle this action is $61,955 (the Assessed Penalty”).