The Facility uses, handles, and/or stores more than a threshold quantity of ammonia (anhydrous), ammonia (concentration 20% or greater), and chlorine, which are regulated substances, as specified at 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.115 and 68.130.
The Facility’s Cooling Tower 2 chlorine injection area contains up to 4,000 lbs of chlorine in two (2) 1-ton cylinders, above the chlorine RMP threshold quantity of 2,500 lbs set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 68.115. Respondent did not include the Cooling Tower 2 chlorine injection area as part of an RMP covered process. By failing to include the Cooling Tower 2 chlorine injection area as part of an RMP covered process, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(a).
- When Respondent resubmitted its RMP for the Facility to the EPA in 2014, Respondent re-evaluated the off-site consequence scenarios and impacts as part of a hazard assessment. Instead of using 2010 Census information, Respondent used a data set that contained 2000 Census information. Respondent, therefore, underestimated the scenario by approximately 10,000 in the 2014 RMP submission. By failing to use the most recent Census data, or other updated information, to estimate the population potentially affected, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.30(c).
- Respondent did not compile written PSI for the Cooling Tower 2 chlorine injection area at the Facility, violating 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(a).
- Respondent’s PSI did not contain a block flow diagram or simplified process flow diagram for the Facility and did not contain material and energy balances for Cooling Tower 1 chlorine injection area, which is a process built after June 21, 1999. By failing to include a block flow diagram or simplified process flow diagram for Cooling Tower 1 chlorine injection area in the PSI, and by failing to include material and energy balances for the process, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. §68.65(a).
- Respondent documented that the relief valves installed on anhydrous ammonia bullet tanks ST-303A/B at the Facility were oversized for the safe working pressure of the tanks. By lacking proper relief system design and design basis in the PSI, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(iv).
- The Facility’s Nitric Acid #3 plant piping was not labeled in accordance with ANSI/ASME A13.1, Scheme for the Identification of Piping Systems. By not labeling Nitric Acid #3 plant piping per ANSI/ASME A13.1, Respondent did not comply with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices and violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2).
- Respondent did not address the consequences of failure of engineering and administrative controls for an identified scenario of loss of unit power at the Facility in the January 2017 PHA for the Ammonia Plant. By not addressing
consequences of failure of engineering and administrative controls in the January 2017 PHA for the Ammonia Plant, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c)(4). - In its January 2017 Ammonia Plant PHA, in the Human Factors Checklist, Respondent stated, “Need to review primary equipment to ensure proper labeling,” and that, a “Program is being developed” for component labeling at the Facility. However, the Respondent did not assure that the recommendations were resolved in a timely manner and that the resolution was documented. By not resolving recommendations in the January 2017 Ammonia Plant PHA,
Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e). - Respondent did not have documentation indicating that the following procedures for the Facility had been reviewed and certified as current and accurate in 2016 and 2017: #3 Acid Plant Proc. No. 1.38.1; #4 Acid Plant Proc. No. 2.1.10; #1 LoDAN Plant Proc. No. 7.0.8; and Ammonia Plant Proc. No. 3.27.1. By not documenting or certifying annually that these operating procedures are current and accurate, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c).
- Respondent established internal policy, GMES-PE-001, Pressure Equipment Management Standard, to maintain the ongoing integrity of process equipment at the Facility. Section 4.2 of that policy stated that Respondent would carry out a qualitative risk-based assessment on all pressure equipment in accordance with the guidelines in AS3788 and API581. However, Respondent did not implement Section 4.2 to manage pressure equipment, including developing a qualitative risk-based assessment for pressure equipment. By failing to implement written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of process equipment, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.73(b).
- Respondent failed to complete this inspection by the documented inspection due date. By not completing the inspection for 1212-D1.0301 by June 2, 2017, Respondent failed to implement written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of process equipment, and Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(b).
- Respondent implements procedures for the on-going integrity of piping component 2033-AL-01, Liquid Ammonia to Urea Reactor, at the Facility, yet these procedures are not documented in Respondent’s internal policy, GMES-SE-001, Static Equipment Management Standard. By not establishing written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of piping component 2033-AL-01, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(b).
- Respondent failed to calculate the remaining life of all pressure vessels at the Facility to determine required inspection frequencies, per API 510. By failing to follow API 510 for its inspection and testing procedures, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(2).
- Respondent stated to the EPA that its inspection and testing procedures follow API 570, Piping Inspection Code: Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Rerating of In-service Piping Systems. However, the Respondent failed to calculate the remaining life of all piping components at the Facility to determine the required inspection frequencies, per API 570. By failing to follow API 570 for its inspection and testing procedures, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(2).
- Respondent stated to the EPA that its inspection and testing procedures follow API 510, Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: In-Service Inspection, Rating, Repair, and Alteration. However, Respondent failed to ensure that the period
between internal or on-stream inspections for NH3 Synthesis Converter, 1212-D8.030, at the Facility did not exceed one half the remaining life of the vessel or 10 years, whichever was less, and Respondent did not justify this action by a Risk-Based Inspection assessment or deferral procedure, per API 510. By failing to follow API 510 for its inspection and testing procedures, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(2). - Respondent stated that its inspection and testing procedures follow API 570, Piping Inspection Code: Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Rerating of In-service Piping Systems. However, Respondent failed to ensure that the intervals between thickness measurements for piping component 2033-AL-01, Liquid Ammonia to Urea Reactor, at the Facility did not exceed one-half the remaining life, per API 570. By failing to follow API 570 for its inspection and testing procedures, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(2).
- Respondent’s piping and instrumentation diagram No. A1-124A in the Ammonia Plant at the Facility was inaccurate at the time of the 2017 EPA Inspection. The management of the change procedure associated with the most recent change of this line (eMOC No. 139/17) contained both red-lined and final drawings that contained a discrepancy. By not updating the PSI accordingly related to this line change, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(d).
- At the time of the 2017 EPA Inspection, Respondent documented that the mechanical integrity deficiency related to finding MI-1 in the May 2016 Compliance Audit report had been corrected. Finding MI-1 states, “The facility has not completed the development and implementation of its MI program to (1) adequately meet the requirements of the PSM and RMP regulations and (2) provide a complete program to ensure the integrity of the processes and equipment. The current MI program does not (1) include all covered equipment and safety systems, (2) provide adequate maintenance procedures and work orders, (3) establish frequencies for ITPM activities, and (4) ensure documentation of all maintenance activities that are performed.” Respondent later stated to the EPA that these deficiencies continued to exist through at least 2022.
- By erroneously documenting that the deficiencies from its May 2016 Compliance Audit report had been corrected as of the 2017 EPA Inspection, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d).
- At the time of the 2017 EPA Inspection, Respondent’s emergency response plan for the Facility was dated September 2015 (Respondent’s Emergency Response Plan), even though that plan provides that it should be reviewed and updated annually. Additionally, Respondent’s Emergency Response Plan listed an individual in the “Emergency Contact List” and “Environmental Reporting List” as the H&S Supervisor even though this person was no longer with the company. By not appropriately reviewing and updating the Facility’s emergency response plan as required, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.95(a)(4).
Respondent agrees to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $394,906.00
CLICK HERE for CAFO