Respondent operates a “stationary source” and has registered an RMPlan with the EPA for its Facility and has developed an RMProgram accidental release prevention program for the stationary source. Respondent operates an ammonia refrigeration process that has on-site storage of 15,416 pounds of anhydrous ammonia.
On December 11, 2018, 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 stationary source.
At the time of the inspection:
- the records on the worst-case scenario portion of the offsite consequence analyses, including a description of the vessel or pipeline and substance selected as worst case, assumptions and parameters used, and the rationale for the selection of specific scenarios were not available for review.
- At the time of the inspection, the records on the alternative case scenario portion of the offsite consequence analyses, including a description of the vessel or pipeline and substance selected as worst case, assumptions and parameters used, and the rationale for the selection of specific scenarios were not available for review.
During a walk-through of the Facility, the EPA inspectors made the following observations:
- Doors entering the ammonia engine room did not have visual or audible alarms to alert of an ammonia release. The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 15, Section 8.11.2.1 requires the ammonia alarm annunciate visual and audible alarms inside the refrigerating machinery room and outside each entrance to the refrigerating machinery room and the meaning of each alarm be clearly marked by signage near the annunciators. The Facility did not demonstrate the documentation that the doors alarm complied with RAGAGEP.
- Some of the ammonia piping did not have labels indicating the pipe contents or direction of flow. The International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration (IIAR) Bulletin 109: IIAR Minimum Safety Criteria for a Safe Ammonia Refrigeration System, Section 4.7.6 requires that all ammonia piping should have appropriate pipe markers attached to indicate the use of the pipe and arrows to indicate the direction of flow. The Facility did not demonstrate the documentation that the ammonia pipe labeling complied with RAGAGEP.
- Some of the piping in the engine room and outside was rusted. The IIAR Bulletin 110, Section 6.7.1 requires that all uninsulated piping and associated components such as flanges and supports shall be inspected annually for any damage to or deterioration of the piping or its protective finish; and remedial action is taken where necessary. Areas affected by slight corrosion should be cleaned off and appropriately treated before reinstating the protective finish. The Facility could not demonstrate the documentation that the ammonia piping complied with RAGAGEP.
- Sections of insulated ammonia piping were damaged. There were also some sections of insulation missing from the insulated piping. The IIAR Bulletin 110 Section 6.7.2 requires any mechanical damage to insulation should be repaired immediately and the vapor seal reinstates to prevent access to water or water vapor which will lead to the breakdown of insulation and corrosion of the pipework. The Facility could not demonstrate the documentation that the ammonia piping insulation complied with RAGAGEP.
- Eyewash stations and showers were not present inside the engine room. The ANSI/IIAR 2-2014, Section 6.7.1. requires each machinery room to have access to a minimum of two eyewash/safety shower units, one located inside the machinery room and one located outside of the machinery room, each meeting the requirements in Section 6.7.3, and inspected at least weekly. The Facility could not demonstrate the documentation that the eyewash stations and showers complied with RAGAGEP.
- There were no National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) placards indicating the degree of hazard, flammability, and reactivity on some of the doors entering ammonia engine room and ammonia vessels/equipment. The ANSI/IIAR 2-2014 requires the NFPA 704-ammonia fire diamond with a black text, white, blue and yellow background to be placed on machinery room doors entrances reflecting the 3-3-0 for the indoor ammonia refrigeration equipment and 3-1- 0 for the outdoor ammonia refrigeration equipment. The Facility could not demonstrate the documentation that the NFPA placards complied with RAGAGEP.
- The Facility representatives were unable to produce the compressor vibration analyses, compressor oil analyses for the piping/pressure vessel nondestructive tests, and corrosion tests conducted for the previous two years for the refrigeration system. Additionally, the Facility representatives stated that they had not performed any of the above-mentioned analyses or tests and were looking to conduct these tests in the future. The ANSI/IIAR 2-2014, Section 17.3 identifies a compressor minimum test frequency of annually or more often according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. The IIAR Bulletin 110 “Start-up, Inspection and Maintenance of Ammonia Mechanical Refrigerating Systems” indicates that all pressure vessels, insulated and non-insulated piping systems, and other process equipment are required to have non-destructive tests at least annually”. IIAR Bulletin 110 section 6.4.3 also indicates the external surface or the insulation and associated vapor barrier applied to the external surface of vessels and heat exchangers should be inspected no less than once every 12 months. The IIAR Bulletin 109, IIAR Minimum Safety Criteria for a Safe Ammonia Refrigeration System, indicates in Section 5.1, “Each owner should ensure an ammonia system safety check is conducted annually.” The facility could not provide documentation that its testing methods and frequency complied with RAGAGEP.
At the time of inspection, the Facility could not demonstrate that Process Hazard Analysis recommendations/ action items from the 2015 PHA were resolved in a timely manner.
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
During the inspection, EPA asked the Facility representatives for a copy of the RMPlan. The Facility representatives produced a RMPlan which had been submitted on June 2016 (thirty months) before EPA’s inspection. However, this RMPlan was not timely submitted. 40 C.F.R. 68 § 150(b)(3) specifies that an owner or operator is to submit a RMPlan on the date on which a threshold substance is first above a threshold quantity in a process. The Respondent had knowledge that the Facility used more than 10,000 pounds of ammonia in its ammonia refrigeration process several times before June 2016. These times are when the Respondent purchased the Facility in 2013; when the Respondent conducted a process hazard analysis in December 2015; and when the Respondent conducted a Tier audit in March 2016.
- Failed to maintain records on the worst-case scenario portion of the offsite consequence analyses, including a description of the vessel or pipeline and substance selected as worst case, assumptions and parameters used, and the rationale for the selection of specific scenarios as required by 40 C.F.R.§ 68.39(a);
- Failed to maintain records on the alternative case scenario portion of the offsite consequence analyses, including a description of the vessel or pipeline and substance selected as alternative case, assumptions and parameters used, and the rationale for the selection of specific scenarios as required by 40 C.F.R.§ 68.39(b);
- Failed to document that equipment complied with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2);
- Failed to establish a system to:
- promptly address the team’s findings and recommendations (of the PHA);
- 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; and
- 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, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e); and
- Failed to submit a single RMP in a timely manner that includes the information required by §§ 68.155 through 68.185 for all covered processes, the date on which a regulated substance is first present above a threshold quantity in a process as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.150(b)(3)
TERMS OF PAYMENT
Based on the Respondent’s certified statement that COVID-19 has negatively impacted its financial health, and in accordance with the Act, EPA has determined that $84,924.00, is an appropriate civil penalty to settle this action.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO