Respondent is the owner and/or operator of a Brewery and has registered an RMPlan with the EPA for its Facility and has developed an RMProgram accidental release prevention program for the Facility. At its Facility:
- Respondent operates an ammonia refrigeration plant.
- Respondent has on-site for use, 160,300 pounds of anhydrous ammonia.
- Respondent has one RMProgram level 3 covered process, which stores or otherwise uses anhydrous ammonia in an amount exceeding its applicable threshold of 10,000 pounds.
On December 16, 2019, the EPA conducted an on-site 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 (RAGAGEP) for its covered process at its Facility. At the time of the inspection, EPA observed the following:
a. The relief valve inventory indicated that the relief valves were not being replaced by the “replace by date” indicated.
b. The process hazard analysis (PHA) revalidation from 2016 contained several recommendations from the 2011 PHA which were either not complete or had insufficient information to justify the resolution of the recommendation. The PHA revalidation from 2016 also contained several recommendations which were either not complete or had insufficient information to justify the resolution of the recommendation.
c. There were no operating procedures for the intake of ammonia. The names of the operating procedures are not clearly correlated to the names of the equipment in the piping and instrument diagram.
d. Many of the action items from the 2018 compliance audit did not have completion dates.
e. An employee who had left the company more than a month before was still listed as the Emergency Contact.
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
Based on EPA’s compliance monitoring investigation, the EPA alleges that the Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. Part 68, the codified rules governing the Act’s Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions and Section 112(r) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r), when it:
a. Failed to demonstrate that it had compiled written process safety information for the equipment in the process which includes relief system design and design basis as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(iv);
b. Failed to establish a system to promptly address the Process Hazard Analysis team’s findings and recommendations; assure that the recommendations are resolved in a timely manner and the resolution is documented; and document what actions are to be taken as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e);
c. Failed to establish written operating procedures for each covered process with clear instructions, consistent with process safety information, including the quality control of raw materials and control of inventory levels as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(3)(iv);
d. Failed to promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit, and document that deficiencies have been corrected as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d); and
e. Failed to submit an RMP correction within one month of any change in the emergency contact information as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.195(b).
Respondent consents to the payment of a civil penalty, which was calculated in accordance with the Act, in the amount of $37,381.00, which is to be paid within thirty (30) calendar days of the Effective Date of this CAFO.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO