Respondent is a private family-owned company that owns and/or operates facilities located in California and Arizona. Respondent specializes in repackaging and distributing chemicals and manufacturing chemicals onsite. The Facilities are located within populated residential, commercial, and industrial areas.
The CA Facility receives and repackages anhydrous ammonia and manufactures aqueous ammonia in a reactor by mixing anhydrous ammonia and water. The Facility also receives chlorine and other chemicals.
The AZ Facility receives and repackages chlorine and receives and distributes sulfur dioxide and anhydrous ammonia. The Facility also manufactures sodium hypochlorite (bleach) from chlorine and caustic.
EPA inspected the AZ Facility on March 22, 2016, and the CA Facility on September 12, 2017, pursuant to Section 112(r) of the CAA, 42, U.S.C. § 7412(r), for compliance with 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Based upon the information gathered during this inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA alleges that Respondent violated certain provisions of the CAA.
At the time of inspection, the CA Facility maintained approximately 1,070,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia, and 270,000 pounds of aqueous ammonia.
At the time of inspection, the AZ Facility maintained approximately 1,090,000 pounds of chlorine, 20,700 pounds of anhydrous ammonia, and 11,600 pounds of sulfur dioxide
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
Count I (Failure to document lines of authority)
40 C.F.R. § 68.15(c) requires that owners or operators document persons responsible for implementing the risk management program and document the lines of authority in an organization chart or similar document.
Based on information gathered during the inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that Respondent did not document the assigned persons responsible for implementing the individual requirements at the Facilities.
By failing to document the assigned persons responsible for implementing the risk management program for the Facilities, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.15(c).
Count II (Failure to document an alternative release scenario)
40 C.F.R. § 68.28(a) requires owners or operators to identify and analyze at least one alternative release scenario for each regulated toxic substance held in a covered process.
Based on information gathered during the inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that Respondent did not document an alternative release scenario for aqueous ammonia at its CA Facility.
By failing to document an alternative release scenario for aqueous ammonia at its CA Facility, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.28(a).
Count III (Failure to comply with process safety information requirements)
40 C.F.R § 68.65 requires that owners or operators complete a compilation of written process safety information before conducting any process hazard analysis. Owners or operators are required to compile information pertaining to technology of the process, including:
- a block flow diagram or simplified process flow diagram (40 C.F.R. § 68.65(c)(l)(i)); and
- the maximum intended inventory (40 C.F.R. § 68.65(c)(l)(iii)).
Owners or operators are also required to compile information pertaining to the equipment in the process, including:
- piping and instrument diagrams (40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(l)(ii));
- the relief system design and design basis (40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(l)(iv)); and
- material and energy balances for processes built after June 21, 1999 (40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(l)(vii).
Based on information gathered during the inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that Respondent failed to have the following process safety information:
- The CA Facility’s block flow diagram did not include the reaction chamber;
- Neither facility had accurate documentation for the maximum intended inventories;
- The CA Facility did not have current configurations of piping and instrument diagrams for the aqueous ammonia production area in the railcar unloading station; and
- Neither facility had documented system design and design basis for pressure relief equipment and lacked analyses showing the set pressure and capacity were adequate and discharge termination piping would not adversely affect the relief valve performance.
- Respondent failed to document energy and material balances at both Facilities.
By failing to adequately document a complete compilation of written process safety information before conducting any process hazard analysis, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65.
Count IV (Failure to comply with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices)
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2) requires the owner or operator to document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (“RAGAGEP”).
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(3) requires owners and operators to determine and document that any existing equipment that was designed or constructed in accordance with standards that are no longer in general use is designed, maintained, inspected, tested, and operating in a safe manner.
EPA observed a missing bolt on the pipe support securing the ammonia Rail Tower 1 Structure at the CA Facility. RAGAGEP requires that provisions be made as necessary in accordance with good piping practices. Section 5.6.3 of the Compressed Gas Association (“CGA”) 2.1-2014 states, “All piping shall be supported in accordance with good piping practices, and provisions shall be made as necessary for expansion, contraction, impact, vibration, and settling.”
EPA observed that the Tank 6 nameplate at the CA Facility did not include
1) identification of compliance with the rules of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (“ASME”) Code under which the container was constructed, and
2) a National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors stamping to indicate registration of the container.
EPA also observed that the nameplate was not permanently attached to the system. Section 5.4.1 of the CGA 2.1-2014 states, “Each system nameplate … shall be permanently attached to the system by continuous welding around its perimeter … Each container … shall be marked as follows: With a marking … identifying compliance with rules of the ASME Code under which the container is constructed … With National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors stamping to indicate registration of the container.”
EPA observed the hydrostatic pressure relief valve (“PRV”) located below Rail Tower 1 discharged to an unsafe location at the CA Facility. At the time of inspection, the PRV was installed with its outlet at chest level with the potential to expose personnel to ammonia in an over pressurization event. 29 C.F.R. § 1910.111(b)(9)(ix)) states, “A hydrostatic relief valve shall be installed between each pair of valves in the liquid ammonia piping or hose where liquid may be trapped so as to relieve into the atmosphere at a safe location.”
EPA observed that the PRVs for Rand C grade compressors at the CA Facility were installed at waist level and pointed down to the ground, venting directly into the atmosphere. Both PRVs had the potential to expose personnel to ammonia during an over pressurization event. RAGAGEP requires that PRVs discharge in a safe location. Section 5.8.4 of the CGA 2.1-2014 states, “when the discharge of ammonia from a pressure relief valve to the open air or atmosphere is … undesirable due to safety, health… considerations, pressure relief valve discharge may be routed to a properly designed, installed, inspected, tested, and maintained control device such as an ammonia recovery unit, absorption unit, or flare system.”
EPA observed that 150-pound chlorine cylinders were not secured adequately at the AZ Facility. RAGAGEP requires that all compressed gas cylinders in service or in storage at a user location be secured to prevent falling or rolling. Section 5.8.4 of the CGA P-1-2015, Standard for Safe Handling of Compressed Gases in Containers, states, “All compressed gas cylinders in service or in storage at user locations shall be secured to prevent falling or rolling. At gas suppliers’ facilities and distributors’ warehouses, the nesting of cylinders is an equivalent means of securement.”
EPA observed several chlorine pipes that were not labeled and marked with flow direction in the Powell Bleach Manufacturing System Area at the AZ Facility. RAGAGEP states that positive identification of the contents of a piping system include name and contents, and that arrows are used to indicate the direction of flow, as are necessary to identify the hazard. Section 3.1 of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Standard No. A13.1.2015, Scheme for the Identification of Piping Systems states, “Positive identification of the contents of a piping system shall [include]… name of the contents …. Arrows shall be used to indicate direction of flow… Contents shall be identified … with sufficient additional details such as temperature, pressure, etc., as are necessary to identify the hazard.”
EPA observed one-ton sulfur dioxide containers stored outdoors in full sun at the AZ Facility. Section 7.7.1. of the CGA 003-1995, Sulfur Dioxide, states, “in hot climates, containers should be protected from the continuous direct rays of the sun.”
EPA observed a one-ton SO2 container that was unsecured to prevent against accidental movement at the AZ Facility. Section 5.8.4 of CGA P-1-2015 states that “all compressed gas cylinders in storage shall be secured to prevent falling or rolling.”
By failing to document that equipment complies with RAGAGEP at the Facilities or is designed , maintained, inspected, tested, and operating in a safe manner, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d).
Count V (Failure to comply with process hazard analysis requirements)
40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c)(7) requires that the process hazard analysis (“PHA”) address a qualitative evaluation of a range of the possible safety and health effects of failure of controls.
40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e) requires owners or operators to establish a system to promptly address findings and recommendations, and to assure that the recommendations are resolved in a timely manner and that the resolution is documented.
Based on information gathered during the inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that the CA Facility did not adequately evaluate the range of possible safety and health effects due to failure of controls.
Based on information gathering during the inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that the Facilities failed to track process PHA recommendations to assure that the recommendations were resolved in a prompt manner at the Facilities. Respondent’s 2017 PHA tracking table included at least two recommendations open from its 2009 PHA that had been repeated in its 2014 PHA.
By failing to adequately evaluate the range of possible safety and health effects of a failure of controls at the CA Facility, and by failing to assure that PHA recommendations were resolved promptly and that resolution was documented at the Facilities, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.67(c)(7) and 68.67(e).
Count VI (Failure to comply with operating procedure requirements)
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.
Based on information gathered during the inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that Respondent did not have operating procedures for several ammonia operations at its AZ Facility.
40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c) requires operating procedures to be reviewed as often as necessary to assure that they reflect current operating practice and that the owner or operator certify annually that the operating procedures are current and accurate.
Based on information gathered during the inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that Respondent failed to adequately certify that its operating procedures for the Facilities were current and accurate.
40 C.F.R. § 68.69(d) requires that owners or operators develop and implement safe work practices to provide for the control of hazards during operations that apply to employees and contractor employees.
During the inspection, EPA observed an open sampling port for anhydrous ammonia at the CA Facility and Respondent did not have procedures requiring that the sampling ports be capped or plugged after each use. Uncapped sampling ports are not considered safe working practices.
By failing to have written operating procedures for several ammonia operations, failing to certify its operating procedures were current and accurate, and failing to develop and implement safe work practices to provide for control of hazards during operations, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a), (c) and (d).
Count VII (Failure to document training records adequately)
40 C.F.R. § 68.71(b) requires that refresher training be provided at least every three years to each employee involved in operating a process to assure that the employee understands and adheres to the current operating procedures of the process.
40 C.F.R. §68.71(c) requires records to be kept containing the identity of the employee, date of training, and means used to verify that the employee understood the training.
Based on information gathered during the inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that Respondent did not have adequate training records indicating that each employee working at the AZ Facility was appropriately trained on, understood, and adhered to current operating procedures.
By failing to have adequate training records at the AZ Facility, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(b)-(c).
Count VIII (Failure to comply with mechanical integrity requirements)
40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(2) requires that inspection and testing procedures follow RAGAGEP.
Based on information gathered during the inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that Respondent did not have documentation of inspections and testing of ammonia pressure vessels at its CA Facility. Inspection and testing procedures must comply with RAGAGEP. Section 4.4.7 of the National Board Inspection Code, Part 2 Inspection (2013) states, “the period between internal inspections or a complete in-service evaluation of pressure-retaining items shall not exceed one-half the estimated remaining service life of the vessel or 10 years , whichever is less.”
Based on information gathered during the inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that Respondent did not have a procedure to do the annual pressure testing on hoses in service for anhydrous ammonia at its CA Facility in accordance with Section 5.7.10 of CGA 2.1-2014, which states that hoses in anhydrous ammonia service be pressure tested at least annually.
Based on information gathered during the inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that Respondent did not have an adequate mechanical integrity program (e.g., API 510, API 570, CGA G-2.1, and ASME B31.1), and equipment specific manufacturers’ recommendations for inspection, testing, and preventative maintenance at its AZ Facility, which was an unaddressed recommendation from its 2008, 2011, and 2014 compliance audits.
By failing to document that inspections and testing of ammonia pressure vessels, hoses in service for anhydrous ammonia, and its mechanical integrity program follow RAGAGEP, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(2).
Count IX (Failure to correct deficiencies in equipment to assure safe operation)
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 in a safe and timely manner when necessary means are taken to assure safe operation.
Based on information gathered during the inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that some or all of the ammonia detectors were not reliable or operable due to electrical issues at the CA Facility.
At the time of inspection, EPA observed the vapor barrier was missing on a portion of the overhead chlorine/sodium hydroxide insulated piping at the AZ Facility. As stated in Section 10.8 of the Chlorine Institute Pamphlet 6, “Chlorine pipelines (liquid and gaseous) often operate at pressures and temperatures that cause condensation and ice formation on the outside of the lines… for this reason the insulation must provide a sufficient moisture barrier to prevent corrosion under the insulation.”
At the time of the inspection of the AZ Facility, EPA observed corrosion on chlorine piping, vapor lines, vent holes, and the base of the Powell System.
By failing to correct deficiencies in equipment that are outside acceptable limits before further use at the Facilities, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(e).
Count X (Failure to address compliance audit findings)
40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d) requires owners or operators to promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit, and document that deficiencies have been corrected.
Based on information gathered during the inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that Respondent did not address some 2011, 2014, and 2017 compliance audit findings for the Facilities in a prompt manner.
By failing to adequately document resolution for recommendations and findings in compliance audits at the Facilities, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d).
Count XI (Failure to address incident investigation findings)
40 C.F.R. § 68.81(e) requires owners or operators to establish a system to promptly address and resolve the incident report findings and recommendations and that resolutions and corrective actions be documented.
Based on information gathered during the inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that Respondent had not addressed the findings and recommendations in the report for the incident investigation of the 2014 rail car leak at the AZ Facility.
By failing to promptly address and resolve incident report findings and recommendations for a 2014 rail car leak at the AZ Facility, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.81(e).
Count XII (Failure to document contractor requirements)
40 C.F.R. § 68.87(b)(1) requires owners or operators to obtain and evaluate information regarding the contract owner or operator’s safety performance and programs when selecting a contractor.
Based on information gathered during the inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined the Respondent did not have a methodology in place to adequately document contractor safety reviews or periodic evaluation of the contractor’s performance in fulfilling its obligations at the AZ Facility.
By failing to document contractor safety reviews or evaluation of contractor’s performance at the AZ Facility, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.87(b)(l).
Count XIII (Failure to update emergency contact information)
40 C.F.R. § 68.195(b) requires that owners or operators correct the RMP within one month of any change in the emergency contact information.
Based on information gathered during the inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that Respondent did not update emergency contact information within one month of a change at the AZ Facility.
By failing to update emergency contact information within one month of the change at the AZ Facility, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.195(b).
CIVIL PENALTY
EPA proposes that Respondent be assessed, and Respondent agrees to pay TWO HUNDRED FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($205,000) as the civil administrative penalty for the violations alleged herein.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO