Respondent owns and operates a facility that processes and packages fruit and vegetable products. Between June 5 and June 7, 2018, EPA performed an inspection of the Facility pursuant to Section 112(r) of the CAA, Sections 304–12 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, and Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9603(a) (“Inspection”). Based upon the information gathered during the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that Respondent violated certain provisions of the CAA.
Pursuant to Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA and its implementing regulations, owners and operators of stationary sources at which a regulated substance is present in more than a threshold quantity (“TQ”) must prepare and implement a risk management plan (“RMP”) to detect and prevent or minimize accidental releases of such substances from the stationary source, and to provide a prompt emergency response to any such releases in order to protect human health and the environment.
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
COUNT 1 – Failure to Comply with Risk Management Plan Requirements
40 C.F.R. § 68.15(a) requires owners or operators subject to Program 2 or Program 3 to develop a management system to oversee the implementation of the RMP elements.
40 C.F.R. § 68.15(b) further requires the owner or operator to assign a qualified person or position with overall responsibility for the development, implementation, and integration of the RMP elements.
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.15(c), when responsibility for implementing individual requirements of Part 68 is assigned to persons other than the person identified in 40 C.F.R. § 68.15(b), the names or positions of those other persons must be documented and the lines of authority defined through an organization chart or similar document.
Respondent assigned responsibility for implementing individual requirements of Part 68 to persons other than the person identified under 40 C.F.R. § 68.15(b), but did not define the lines of authority of all such persons through an organization chart or similar document.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.15(c).
COUNT 2 – Failure to Comply with Process Safety Requirements
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(a) requires owners or operators to complete a compilation of written process safety information before conducting any process hazard analysis, including information pertaining to the technology of the process and information pertaining to the equipment in the process.
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d) provides that the information pertaining to the equipment in the process must include, among other things, piping and instrument diagrams (“P&IDs”).
EPA identified discrepancies between the information contained in Respondent’s compilation of written process safety information — specifically, the P&IDs for the P1-RP10 Recirculator Package and the P1-IC01A Intercooler—and the equipment actually used in the ammonia process.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(a).
COUNT 3 – Failure to Comply with Process Hazard Analysis Requirements
40 C.F.R. § 68.67(a) requires owners and operators to perform a process hazard analysis (“PHA”) for all covered processes that identifies, evaluates and controls the hazards involved in the process. Additionally, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c), the PHA must address engineering and administrative controls applicable to the hazards and their interrelationships.
The Facility’s 2014 PHA did not address engineering controls applicable to the hazard of liquid hammer/slugging in Item Nos. 8, 14, and 21 and did not address engineering controls applicable to the hazard of a vehicle impact in Item No. 10.
Additionally, in many cases the Facility’s 2014 PHA did not address administrative controls applicable to the specific hazards under consideration, relying instead on generic RMP elements, such as operating procedures, training, pre-startup safety review, or management of change to administratively control hazards.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.67.
COUNT 4 – Failure to Comply with Substantive Requirements for Written Operating Procedures
40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a) requires owners or operators to 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. The written procedures must also address certain elements, including the consequences of deviation, the steps required to correct or avoid deviation, the properties of, and hazards presented by, the chemicals used in the process, and the precautions necessary to prevent exposure.
Respondent’s written operating procedure for draining oil did not adequately address the consequences of deviation, the steps required to correct or avoid deviation, the properties of, and hazards presented by, the chemicals used in the process, or the precautions necessary to prevent exposure.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a).
COUNT 5 – Failure to Develop and Implement Safe Work Practices
40 C.F.R. § 68.69(d) requires owners or operators to develop and implement safe work practices to provide for the control of hazards during operations.
Respondent did not develop and implement safe work practices related to the sanitization and mechanical integrity of ammonia process piping.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(d).
COUNT 6 – Failure to Properly Document Training
40 C.F.R. § 68.71(a) requires each employee involved in operating a process to be trained in an overview of the process, the operating procedures specified in 40 C.F.R. § 68.69, and the specific safety and health hazards, emergency operations, and safe work practices applicable to the employee’s job tasks.
40 C.F.R. § 68.71(c) requires owners or operators to ascertain that each employee involved in operating a process has received and understood the requisite training and to prepare a record containing the employee’s identity, the date of the training, and the means used to verify that the employee understood the training received.
Respondent did not prepare a record documenting the means Respondent used to verify that employees understood the training received. Accordingly, EPA alleges that Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(c).
COUNT 7 – Failure to Correct Deficient Equipment
40 C.F.R. § 68.73(e) requires owners or operators to correct deficiencies in equipment that are outside acceptable limits before further use or, if necessary means are taken to assure safe operation, in a safe and timely manner.
During the Inspection, EPA identified several pieces of equipment with deficiencies that were outside acceptable limits (collectively, “Deficient Equipment”).
Respondent did not correct the issues with the Deficient Equipment before putting it to further use and did not take necessary means to assure the Deficient Equipment’s safe operation.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(e).
COUNT 8 – Failure to Develop and Implement an Emergency Response Plan
40 C.F.R. § 68.95(a) requires owners or operators to develop and implement an emergency response program for the purpose of protecting public health and the environment. The program must include an emergency response plan; procedures for the use, inspection, testing, and maintenance of emergency response equipment; training for all employees in relevant procedures; and procedures to review and update, as appropriate, the emergency response plan to reflect changes at the Facility, and to ensure that employees are informed of changes.
Respondent did not develop and implement adequate procedures for the use, inspection, testing, or maintenance of certain emergency response equipment at the Facility.
Respondent did not implement Section 8.3 of its Emergency Response Plan (“Plan”), which required Respondent to prepare a written assessment of the Plan after each emergency response drill and to use such assessments to review and update the Plan accordingly.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.95(a).
COUNT 9 – Failure to Correct Emergency Contact Information
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.195, owners or operators of a stationary source for which an RMP was submitted are required to submit a plan correction with one month of any change in the emergency contact information required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.160(b)(6).
An RMP was submitted for the Facility. Respondent did not submit a plan correction within one month of a change to the emergency contact information required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.160(b)(6).
Accordingly, EPA alleges that Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.195(b).
CIVIL PENALTY
The Complainant proposes that Respondent be assessed, and Respondent agrees to pay TWO HUNDRED THREE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED FORTY-FIVE DOLLARS ($203,445.00), as the civil penalty for the violations alleged herein.
COMPLIANCE TASKS
Hydraulic Shock Evaluation
Within sixty days of the Effective Date, Respondent shall document and certify that it has evaluated the applicability of Section 6.0 (Lessons Learned) of the Chemical Safety Board’s Key Lessons for Preventing Hydraulic Shock in Industrial Refrigeration Systems to the Facility and, if applicable, updated its 2020 Process Hazard Analysis accordingly.
Respondent’s first Progress Report shall include a copy of the written evaluation of applicability and a copy of any modifications made to its 2020 Process Hazard Analysis pursuant to this Paragraph.
Operating Procedure Update
Respondent shall complete its update of all operating procedures and certify that the updated procedures are compliant with 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a) in accordance with the following schedule:
a. By December 31, 2021, Respondent shall complete its update of Evaporator and Air Purger operating procedures;
b. By May 31, 2022, Respondent shall complete its update of Accumulator, Ammonia Pump, and Condenser operating procedures;
c. By October 31, 2022, Respondent shall complete its update of Heat Exchanger, Compressor, Intercooler, Oil Pot, Recirculator, and Vessel operating procedures.
Updated Operating Procedure Training
By December 31, 2022, Respondent shall document and certify that it has trained all current (employed as of the Effective Date) operators on the updated operating procedures completed pursuant to Paragraph 74 in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(c). Progress on operating procedure training shall be reported in each Progress Report.
Mechanical Integrity Report Findings
Within sixty days of the Effective Date, Respondent shall address all Safety Status #1 findings in the Mechanical Integrity Audit Report dated October 2, 2020 (“2020 MI Audit Report”). Respondent shall address all Safety Status #2 findings in the 2020 MI Audit Report in accordance with the following schedule:
a. By December 31, 2021, Respondent shall complete non-destructive testing (“NDT”) for findings that prompt additional inspection and shall schedule work to address the NDT results; Respondent shall take appropriate action to address the NDT results as soon as reasonably practicable, but in no event later than June 30, 2023;
b. By December 31, 2021, Respondent shall verify safety relief valve calculations listed in the 2020 MI Audit Report;
c. By June 30, 2022, Respondent shall complete all work on findings that can be accomplished in-house, such as tubing, service valve installations, painting, guard installations;
d. By December 31, 2022, Respondent shall complete findings that require support installations by contractors;
e. By June 30, 2023, Respondent shall complete capital projects.
Until all Safety Status #1 and #2 findings have been addressed, Respondent shall include as an attachment to each Progress Report the current tracking tables for Plants 1 and 2.
Emergency Evacuation Training
By October 31, 2021, Respondent will document and certify that all current (employed as of the Effective date) employees have received training on how to properly evacuate in the event of an emergency.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO