Respondent formerly operated an ammonia refrigeration process at a distribution center and warehouse, maintaining a maximum inventory of the regulated toxic substance anhydrous ammonia at the facility exceeding the threshold of 10,000 pounds. At the Facility, the respondent operated a process, as defined in 40 C.F.R. § 68.3, that includes the use, storage, handling, and on-site movement of anhydrous ammonia, a regulated substance. The Covered Process at the Facility includes seven compressors, three storage vessels, one high-pressure storage vessel, three condensers, 27 ammonia detection sensors, piping, and 100 evaporators (Covered Process). There are public receptors within the distance of an endpoint for a worst-case release assessment, therefore the Covered Process at the Facility does not meet the Program 1 requirements at 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(g). The Facility is subject to Program 3 because the Covered Process does not meet the Program 1 eligibility requirements at 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(g), and it is subject to the OSHA process safety management standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119, in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(i).
On September 16, 2021, EPA conducted an announced inspection of the Facility. Prior to and during the September 2021 inspection, Kroger Limited Partnership I (Kroger) owned and the respondent operated the ammonia refrigeration system at the Facility. After the September 2021 inspection, Kroger took over operations from the respondent. During the September 2021 inspection, EPA inspectors reviewed documents relating to the RMP that the respondent provided (RMP Documents). The RMP Documents included aspects of the facility’s RMP involving the management system, process safety information, process hazard analysis, operating procedures, training, mechanical integrity, management of change, pre-startup safety review, compliance audits, hot work permits, employee participation, and contractors.
Process Safety Information
The RMP Documents included a ventilation system design summarized in the “Ventilation Records 9-9-2021.xlsx” file; the ventilation system design demonstrates that the current ventilation system at the Facility did not meet the required design code standards.
The Facility machinery room electrical classification provided in the RMP Documents states that the classification is based on the environment being “non-hazardous.” The machinery room at the Facility may only be considered “non-hazardous” provided that the ventilation system conforms with the required design code standards.
Process Hazard Analysis
During the September 2021 inspection, EPA reviewed the most recent Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) for the Facility, which was updated and revalidated in June 2017 (2017 PHA).
For the 2017 PHA, the respondent followed the “What-If” methodology. There were only two recommendations from the 2017 PHA, as follows:
a. Replace pipe labels on roof; and
b. Complete an actual fire drill with the local fire department.
During the September 2021 inspection, the respondent could not provide EPA with documentation of completing the 2017 PHA recommendations.
On November 11, 2021, the respondent provided EPA with an updated 2017 PHA that included the dates of completing recommendations. The respondent informed EPA that the Facility replaced the pipe labels on August 26, 2020, and completed a fire drill with the local fire department on July 28, 2020.
In the 2017 PHA, the respondent did not address the following requirements:
a. Engineering and administrative controls applicable to the hazards and their interrelationships such as appropriate application of detection methodologies to provide early warning of releases; and
b. A qualitative evaluation of a range of the possible safety and health effects of failure of controls.
The respondent did not include in the 2017 PHA at least one employee who is knowledgeable in the “What-If” methodology.
Compliance Audits
During the September 2021 inspection, the respondent provided the EPA with the Facility’s written operating procedures.
These written operating procedures did not address steps for emergency shutdown.
CAPP Violations
Process Safety Information
In violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(iii), the respondent failed to include in its process safety information the correct electrical classification for the Facility’s Program 3 process.
In violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(v), the respondent failed to include in its process safety information a ventilation system design that meets current design code standards for the Facility’s Program 3 process.
Process Hazard Analysis
In violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c)(3), the respondent failed to perform a PHA that addresses engineering and administrative controls applicable to the hazards and their interrelationships such as appropriate application of detection methodologies to provide early warning of releases.
In violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c)(7), the respondent failed to perform a PHA that addresses a qualitative evaluation of a range of the possible safety and health effects of failure of controls.
In violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(d), the respondent failed to perform the PHA by a team that includes at least one person knowledgeable in the specific process hazard analysis methodology being used.
In violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e), Penske failed to establish a system to promptly address PHA 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.
Compliance Audits
In violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(a), the respondent failed to certify that it evaluated compliance with the provisions of the compliance audit recommendations at least every three years to verify that procedures and practices developed are adequate and are being followed.
Civil Penalty
Based on analysis of the factors specified in Section 113(e) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(e), the facts of this case, cooperation, and a prompt return to compliance, Complainant has determined that an appropriate civil penalty to settle this action is $161,421.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO