Respondent is the owner and/or operator of a meat processing facility that uses, handles, and/or stores more than a threshold quantity of anhydrous ammonia. Respondent is required to prepare and implement an RMP to detect and prevent or minimize accidental releases of such substances under section 112(r)(7) of the CAA. Respondent meets the Program 3 eligibility requirements under 40 C.F.R. § 68.10. On August 27, 2018, EPA conducted an inspection of the Facility to determine compliance with CAA section 112(r)(7). During that inspection, the EPA representative observed alleged violations of the CAA section 112(r)(7). The alleged violations are described below.
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(c)(1)(iii) provides that the owner or operator shall complete a compilation of written process safety information before conducting any process hazard analysis required by the rule, and shall keep process safety information up-to-date . The compilation of written process safety information is to enable the owner or operator and the employees involved in operating the process to identify and understand the hazards posed by those processes involving regulated substances. This process safety information shall include information pertaining to the hazards of the regulated substances used or produced by the process, information pertaining to the technology of the process, and information pertaining to the equipment in the process. Information pertaining to the technology of the process shall include the maximum intended inventory.
Respondent’s process safety information did not include an accurate maximum intended inventory for the ammonia refrigeration system at the Facility. By failing to include an accurate maximum intend ed inventory for the ammonia refrigeration system at the Facility in the process safety information, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(c)(1)(iii).
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(c)(1)(iv) provides that the owner or operator shall complete a compilation of written process safety information before conducting any process hazard analysis required by the rule, and shall keep process safety information up-to-date. The compilation of written process safety information is to enable the owner or operator and the employees involved in operating the process to identify and understand the hazards posed by those processes involving regulated substances. This process safety information shall include information pertaining to the hazards of the regulated substances used or produced by the process, information pertaining to the technology of the process, and information pertaining to the equipment in the process. Information pertaining to the technology of the process shall include safe upper and lower limits for such items as temperatures, pressures, flows, or compositions.
Respondent’s process safety information did not include safe upper and lower limits for such items as temperatures, pressures, flows, or compositions for the ammonia refrigeration system at the Facility. By failing to include safe upper and lower limits for such items as temperatures, pressures, flows, or compositions for the ammonia refrigeration system at the Facility in the process safety information, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(c)(1)(iv).
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(c)(1)(v) provides that the owner or operator shall complete a compilation of written process safety information before conducting any process hazard analysis required by the rule, and shall keep process safety information up-to-date. The compilation of written process safety information is to enable the owner or operator and the employees involved in operating the process to identify and understand the hazards posed by those processes involving regulated substances. This process safety information shall include information pertaining to the hazards of the regulated substances used or produced by the process, information pertaining to the technology of the process, and information pertaining to the equipment in the process. Information pertaining to the technology of the process shall include an evaluation of the consequences of deviations.
Respondent’s process safety information did not include an evaluation of the consequences of deviations for the ammonia refrigeration system at the Facility. By failing to include an evaluation of the consequences of deviations for the ammonia refrigeration system at the Facility in the process safety information, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(c)(1)(v).
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(iii) provides that the owner or operator shall complete a compilation of written process safety information before conducting any process hazard analysis required by the rule, and shall keep process safety information up-to-date. The compilation of written process safety information is to enable the owner or operator and the employees involved in operating the process to identify and understand the hazards posed by those processes involving regulated substances. This process safety information shall include information pertaining to the hazards of the regulated substances used or produced by the process, information pertaining to the technology of the process, and information pertaining to the equipment in the process. Information pertaining to the equipment in the process shall include electrical classification.
Respondent’s process safety information did not include an electrical classification for the ammonia refrigeration system at the Facility. By failing to include an electrical classification for the ammonia refrigeration system at the Facility in the process safety information, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65( d)(1)(iii).
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(iv) provides that the owner or operator shall complete a compilation of written process safety information before conducting any process hazard analysis required by the rule, and shall keep process safety information up-to-date. The compilation of written process safety information is to enable the owner or operator and the employees involved in operating the process to identify and understand the hazards posed by those processes involving regulated substances. This process safety information shall include information pertaining to the hazards of the regulated substances used or produced by the process, information pertaining to the technology of the process, and information pertaining to the equipment in the process. Information pertaining to the equipment in the process shall include a relief system design and design basis.
Respondent’s process safety information did not include appropriate relief system design and design basis for the ammonia refrigeration system at the Facility. By failing to include appropriate relief system design and design basis for the ammonia refrigeration system at the Facility in the process safety information, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(iv).
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(vi) provides that the owner or operator shall complete a compilation of written process safety information before conducting any process hazard analysis required by the rule, and shall keep process safety information up-to-date. The compilation of written process safety information is to enable the owner or operator and the employees involved in operating the process to identify and understand the hazards posed by those processes involving regulated substances. This process safety information shall include information pertaining to the hazards of the regulated substances used or produced by the process, information pertaining to the technology of the process, and information pertaining to the equipment in the process. Information pertaining to the equipment in the process shall include design codes and standards employed.
Respondent’s process safety information did not include design codes and standards employed for the ammonia refrigeration system at the Facility. By failing to include design codes and standards employed for the ammonia refrigeration system at the Facility in the process safety information, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(vi).
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2) provides that the owner or operator shall document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.
Respondent did not provide directions for the emergency shutdown of the ammonia refrigeration system at the Facility at a location that is readily accessible to trained refrigeration system staff and trained emergency responders in accordance with Section 5.15 of ANSI/IIAR 2-2014, Standard for Safe Design of Closed-Circuit Ammonia Refrigeration Systems. By not providing directions for the emergency shutdown of the ammonia refrigeration system at the Facility in accordance with ANSI/IIAR 2-2014, Respondent did not comply with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices and violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2).
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2) provides that the owner or operator shall document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.
Respondent’s structural supports for foundations, piping, tubing, and equipment for the ammonia refrigeration system at the Facility did not meet the noncombustible requirements in accordance with Section 5.11.2 of ANSI/IIAR 2-2014, Standard for Safe Design of Closed-Circuit Ammonia Refrigeration Systems. By not meeting the noncombustible requirements for the structural supports for foundations, piping, tubing, and equipment for the ammonia refrigeration system at the Facility in accordance ANSI/IIAR 2-2014, Respondent did not comply with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices and violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2).
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2) provides that the owner or operator shall document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.
Respondent’s piping to the evaporators and piping on the roof for the ammonia refrigeration system at the Facility was not labeled in accordance with Section 5.14.5 of ANSI/IIAR 2-2014, Standard for Safe Design of Closed-Circuit Ammonia Refrigeration Systems. By not labeling piping for the ammonia refrigeration system at the Facility in accordance with ANSI/IIAR 2-2014, Respondent did not comply with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices and violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2).
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2) provides that the owner or operator shall document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.
Respondent’s access to valves for the ammonia refrigeration system at the Facility did not meet the requirements in accordance with Section 6.3.3 of ANSI/HAR 2-2014, Standard for Safe Design of Closed-Circuit Ammonia Refrigeration Systems. By not meeting the requirements for access to valves for the ammonia refrigeration system at the Facility in accordance with ANSI/IIAR 2-2014, Respondent did not comply with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices and violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2).
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2) provides that the owner or operator shall document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.
Respondent’s east exit door of the machinery room for the ammonia refrigeration system at the Facility did not have panic hardware in accordance with Section 6.10.2 of ANSI/IIAR 2-2014, Standard for Safe Design of Closed-Circuit Ammonia Refrigeration Systems. By not having panic hardware on the east exit door of the machinery room for the ammonia refrigeration system at the Facility in accordance with ANSI/IIAR 2-2014. Respondent did not comply with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices and violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2).
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2) provides that the owner or operator shall document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.
Respondent’s emergency ventilation in the machinery room for the ammonia refrigeration system at the Facility did not provide at least 30 air changes per hour in accordance with Section 6.14.7.1 of ANSI/IIAR 2-2014, Standard for Safe Design of Closed-Circuit Ammonia Refrigeration Systems. By not having emergency ventilation in the machinery room for the ammonia refrigeration system at the Facility in accordance with ANSI/IIAR 2-2014, Respondent did not comply with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices and violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2).
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(3) provides that for existing equipment designed and constructed in accordance with codes, standards, or practices that are no longer in general use, the owner or operator shall determine and document that the equipment is designed, maintained, inspected, tested, and operating in a safe manner.
Respondent did not determine and document that two rotary vane compressors located in the machinery room for the ammonia refrigeration system at the Facility were designed, maintained, inspected, tested, and operating in a safe manner. By not determining and documenting that the two rotary vane compressors were designed, maintained, inspected, tested, and operating in a safe manner, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(3).
40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e) provides that the owner or operator shall establish a system to promptly address the team’s findings and recommendations; assure that the recommendations are resolved in a timely manner and that the resolution is 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; communicate the actions to operating, maintenance and other employees whose work assignments are in the process and who may be affected by the recommendations or actions.
Respondent conducted a PHA in 2014 but did not address the findings of the PHA until May of 2017. By not establishing a system to promptly address the team’s findings and recommendations from the 2014 PHA recommendations, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e).
40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(2) provides that the owner or operator shall develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the process safety information and shall address consequences of deviation and steps required to correct or avoid deviation of operating limits.
Respondent’s operating procedures did not address the consequences of deviation and steps required to correct or avoid deviation of operating limits. By not addressing consequences of deviation and steps required to correct or avoid deviation of operating limits, Respondent violated 40 C.F .R. § 68.69(a)(2).
40 C.F .R. § 68.69(c) provides that the operating procedures shall be reviewed as often as necessary to assure that they reflect current operating practice, including changes that result from changes in process chemicals, technology, and equipment, and changes to stationary sources. The owner or operator shall certify annually that these operating procedures are current and accurate.
Respondent did not certify that operating procedures were current and accurate prior to 2017. By not certifying annually that operating procedures were current and accurate, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c).
40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(3) provides that the frequency of inspections and tests of process equipment shall be consistent with applicable manufacturers’ recommendations and good engineering practices, and more frequently if determined to be necessary by prior operating experience.
Respondent’s pressure relief devices for the ammonia refrigeration system at the Facility were replaced in 2010 and in 2016, exceeding the 5-year replacement/recertification schedule in accordance with Section 6.6.3 of IIAR Bulletin 110, Guidelines for Start-up, Inspection, and Maintenance of Ammonia Mechanical Refrigerating Systems. By not replacing or recertifying pressure-relief devices for the ammonia refrigeration system at the Facility in accordance with IIAR Bulletin 110, Respondent did not ensure that the frequency of inspections and tests of process equipment was consistent with applicable manufacturers’ recommendations and good engineering practices and violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(3).
40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(4) provides that the owner or operator shall document each inspection and test that has been performed on process equipment. The documentation shall identify the date of the inspection or test, the name of the person who performed the inspection or test, the serial number or other identifiers 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.
Respondent’s annual inspection/testing records for the pressure vessels in the ammonia refrigeration system at the Facility were not available prior to 2016. By not documenting each inspection and test that has been performed on process equipment, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(4).
40 C.F.R. § 68.75(a) provides that the owner or operator shall establish and implement written procedures to manage changes (except for “replacements in kind”) to process chemicals, technology, equipment, and procedures; and, changes to stationary sources that affect a covered process.
Respondent initiated a change to Compressor #4 on August 1, 2016. This change consisted of replacing Compressor #4, a rotary compressor, with a screw compressor. However, on the associated MOC form dated July 17, 2017, Respondent stated that the change was a “replacement in kind” and that “No further MOC action is required for this change.” By not implementing written procedures to manage changes to process chemicals, technology, equipment, and procedures; and, changes to stationary sources that affect a covered process, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(a).
40 C.F.R. § 68.79(a) provides that the owner or operator shall certify that they have evaluated compliance with the provisions of this subpart (Subpart D) at least every three years to verify that procedures and practices developed under this subpart are adequate and are being followed.
Respondent did not evaluate compliance with the provisions of Subpart D between the years 2012 and 2019. By not evaluating compliance with the provisions of Subpart D at least every three years, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(a).
40 C.F.R. § 68.195(b) provides that beginning June 21, 2004, within one month of any change in the emergency contact information required under §68.160(b)(6), the owner or operator shall submit a correction of that information.
Respondent’s emergency contact 24-hour phone number and the emergency contact email address changed in May of 2017, but the correction of that information was not submitted until February 27, 2019. By not submitting a correction of the emergency contact information within one month of any change, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.195(b).
EPA has determined that a civil penalty of $156,081 is appropriate to settle this matter.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO