Respondent owns and operates a frozen fruit and vegetable production facility. On September 27, 2021, EPA performed an inspection of the Facility to evaluate the Respondent’s implementation of and compliance with the requirements of Section 112(r) of the CAA, Sections 304-12 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to-Know Act, and Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“Inspection”). Based upon the information gathered during the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that Respondent violated certain provisions of the CAA.
VIOLATIONS
COUNT I – Process Safety Information – Ventilation System Design
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d) requires owners or operators to compile written process safety information pertaining to equipment in the process, including information related to ventilation system design.
Respondent provided insufficient Low-Pressure Receiver (LRPl-OP) vessel and PRY equipment documentation for System E.
Respondent’s failure to provide adequate process safety information constitutes a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d).
COUNT II – PSI and Mechanical Integrity – Ammonia Alarms and Sensors
Process Safety Information. 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2) requires that the owner or operator shall document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (“RAGAGEP”).
Respondent set the alarm threshold concentration in System E above the industry standard of 25 ppm of ammonia.
Respondent only had one ammonia sensor action in the System E machinery room, as opposed to the industry standard of two.
Respondent installed audible alarms outside, rather than inside, the System E ammonia machinery room (“AMR”).
Respondent failed to install audible or visual alarms inside the System E AMR.
Mechanical Integrity. 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(e) requires the owner or operator 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.
The System E ammonia detector calibration form (dated November 17, 2020) indicated that the alarm set point was 50 ppm and there was no audible alarm. Inspectors noted the 50-ppm set point and lack of audible alarm during the inspection. As a result, a leak that occurred on September 27, 2021, resulted in ammonia levels in the AMR reaching 40 ppm and did not activate an alarm.
Respondent failed to promptly correct deficiencies in equipment that were outside acceptable limits before further use or in a safe and timely manner, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(e).
COUNT III – Process Safety Information – Machine Room Ventilation
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2) requires that the owner or operator shall document that equipment complies with RAGAGEP.
System E AMR walls included unsealed penetrations for electrical conduit and piping.
American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration (IIAR) 9-2020, Section 7.3.6.2 requires that pipes penetrating the machinery room envelope be sealed to walls, ceilings, or floors through which they pass to prevent leakage of ammonia vapor to adjoining spaces and to maintain the fire rating of the machinery room envelope.
The inspection team observed that the air intakes into the System E AMR were blocked by a tool cabinet containing paints and chemicals, hoses, maintenance equipment, and an emergency spill kit.
ANSI/ASHRAE 15-2010, Section 8.3 requires that a clear and unobstructed approach and space be provided for inspection, service, and emergency shutdown of condensing units, compressor units, condensers, stop valves, and other serviceable components.
Respondent’s failure to document that equipment complies with RAGAGEP constitutes a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2).
COUNT IV – Process Safety Information – Labelling
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2) requires that the owner or operator shall document that equipment complies with RAGAGEP.
The National Fire Protection Association (“NFPA”) diamond on the primary entry door to the System E AMR was labeled 3, 1, 0. The NFPA diamond should have been labeled 3, 3, 0. ANSI/IIAR 9-2020 Section 7.2.9.1 (1) states buildings and facilities with refrigeration systems shall be provided with placards in accordance with NFPA 704.
The ammonia piping associated with the System E condensers, to and from the diffusion tank, and plate freezers was not adequately labeled, and there was no labeling on the piping leading to and from the diffusion tank.
ANSI/HAR 9-2020, Section 7.2.9.4 requires that ammonia piping mains, headers, and branches be identified with the following information:
1) “AMMONIA;”
2) physical state of the ammonia;
3) relative pressure level of ammonia, being low or high as applicable;
4) Pipe service, which shall be permitted to be abbreviated and
5) direction of flow.
Respondent’s failure to document that equipment complies with RAGAGEP constitutes a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2).
COUNT V – Process Hazard Analysis – Failure to Address Recommendation
40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e) requires that the owner or operator shall establish a system to, among other things, promptly address the Process Hazard Analysis (“PHA”) revalidation team’s findings and recommendations, assure that the recommendations are resolved and documented in a timely manner, and to complete actions as soon as possible.
Respondent failed to timely address 2016 and 2021 recommendations related to the vapor detection system and emergency control. The inspection team detailed that a PHA recommendation from 2016 (to tie each vapor detection system into an emergency control system that would shut down the mechanical equipment if the set point were exceeded) was scheduled for completion by July 1, 2017. The same recommendation was again made in the 2021 PHA. The 2021 PHA gave this recommendation a high-risk ranking.
Respondent’s failure to timely resolve the PHA team’s recommendation constitutes a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e).
COUNT VI – Operating Procedures – Failure to Conduct Annual Review and Certification
40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c) requires owners or operators to certify annually that operating procedures for each covered process are current and accurate.
Respondent failed to conduct an annual review and certification of its operating procedures for 2020.
Respondent’s failure to recertify its operating procedures constitutes a violation 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c).
COUNT VII – Incomplete Training Documentation
40 C.F.R. § 68.7l(c) requires the owner or operator to ascertain that each employee involved in operating a process has received and understood the training and prepare a record which contains the identity of the employee, the date of training, and the means used to verify that the employee understood the training.
Respondent failed to document that understanding of training was complete.
Respondent’s failure to document training constitutes a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(c).
COUNT VIII – Mechanical Integrity
40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(1) requires that inspection and tests shall be performed on process equipment; (2) inspection and testing procedures shall follow RAGAGEP; and (3) the frequency of inspections and tests of process equipment shall be consistent with applicable manufactures recommendations and good engineering practices and more frequently if determined to be necessary by prior operating experience.
Inspectors observed that System E’s Low-Pressure Receiver 2 and the oil pot below Low Pressure Receiver 1 had corrosion. Respondent’s 2021 PHA What If/Checklist Question 3.05 indicated that “preventative maintenance mechanical integrity inspections per IIAR 6 (non destructive testing)” should be performed. As of September 2021, no metal thickness testing had been performed to determine if corrosion had caused metal thinning.
40 C.F.R. § 68.73(e) requires that the owner or operator shall 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.
Inspectors noted that the vapor barrier and insulation was damaged on piping associated with the System E’s Low Pressure Receiver 1 and ammonia chiller. The pinhole leak on September 24, 2021, indicated that the piping was corroded and damaged.
Respondent’s failure to conduct testing and its failure to promptly correct deficiencies in equipment that were outside acceptable limits before further use or in a safe and timely manner constitute a violation of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.73(d) and (e).
COUNT IX – Compliance Audits – 2018 Late Recommendations
40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d) requires that the owner or operator shall promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit, and document that deficiencies have been corrected.
Respondent did not promptly correct deficiencies identified in the 2018 Compliance Audit. The 2021 audit indicated that updates to the 2018 Compliance Audit action table did not occur until 2021.
Respondent’s failure to correct deficiencies constitutes a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d).
COUNT X – Incident Investigation – Failure to Report Near Miss
40 C.F.R. § 68.81(a) requires that the owner or operator shall investigate each incident which resulted in or could reasonably have resulted in a catastrophic release of a regulated material.
Inspectors documented that due to the presence of released anhydrous ammonia in the System E machinery room, a near miss on the day of the inspection, and eleven nuisance odor logs in the last five years, Respondent had not demonstrated adequate documentation of near misses.
Respondent’s failure to investigate incidents that resulted in, or could reasonably have resulted in a catastrophic release, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.81(a).
COUNT XI – Contractors – Failure to Audit Contractor Work
40 C.F.R. § 68.87(b)(5) requires that the owner or operator shall periodically evaluate the performance of the contract owner or operating in fulfilling their obligations.
Inspectors observed that oversight and quality assurance of contractor work through auditing/periodic evaluation was not being undertaken by Respondent, contrary to Respondent’s own contractor policy, Section 19.3.4 of “23-a Contractor Written Procedures.”
Respondent’s failure to periodically evaluate the performance of the contract owner or operator in fulfilling their obligations constitutes a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.87(b)(5).
COUNT XII – General Duty Clause – Failure to Design a Safe Facility
The CAA Section 112(r)(l) states that “owners and operators of stationary sources producing, processing, handling or storing [a substance listed in 40 C.F.R. Part 68 or any other extremely hazardous substance] have a general duty [… ] to identify hazards which may result from such releases using appropriate hazard assessment techniques, to design and maintain a safe facility taking such steps as are necessary to prevent releases, and to minimize the consequences of accidental releases which do occur.” 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(l).
Inspectors observed that the System A AMR had open windows in the upper portion of the AMR wall above the high pressure receiver to provide intake air above the machinery in the AMR, which subjects intake air to machine exhaust.
Inspectors observed that there were not two separate ammonia sensors in the System C engine room.
Inspectors observed that there were no audible and visual ammonia leak detection alarms outside the System A AMR.
Inspectors observed that the System A AMR exhaust ventilation discharged onto an employee parking area rather than vertically upwards, creating a hazard.
Inspectors observed that the king valve on top of the System A high pressure receiver did not have a handwheel to allow for operation during an emergency.
Respondent’s failure to design a safe facility constitutes a violation of the General Duty Clause of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(l).
COUNT XIII – General Duty Clause – Failure to Maintain a Safe Facility
Inspectors observed missing pressure relief valve design information for System A overprotection of LPR-2, LPR-3, IC-1 through 3, and F-1 through 4.
Inspectors observed that the ammonia detectors in the System A and C AMRs were set to alarm at 100 ppm.
Inspectors observed that piping used to remove oil from Oil Pot 04 below Low-Pressure Receiver 3 in System A did not have a shutoff valve prior to the self-closing valve.
Inspectors observed that Respondent failed to replace PRVs on pressure vessels throughout the Facility every five years.
Inspectors observed that System A had fourteen sets (two each) of PRVs installed in June 2014. System A has nine additional PRVs with unknown installation dates. These PRVs were not replaced until November 2021 at the earliest.
In 2019, System B PRVs were replaced with unused valves manufactured in 2013. The contractor failed to indicate that the valves had been installed in 2019.
Inspectors observed that the System B AMR electrical panel did not have arc flash warning signage.
Inspectors observed that ammonia piping was not adequately labeled to indicate contents, direction of flow, and physical state throughout the Facility.
Inspectors observed that vapor barrier and insulation were missing or damaged, and ice had built up on pressure vessels and piping in numerous locations throughout the Facility.
Inspectors observed surface corrosion and pitting on ammonia containing pressure vessels, piping and equipment in numerous locations throughout the Facility.
The System A AMR was constructed of tin and wood and was not fire-rated.
Respondent’s failure to maintain a safe facility constitutes a violation of the General Duty Clause of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(l).
CIVIL PENALTY
EPA proposes that Respondent be assessed, and Respondent agrees to pay ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY DOLLARS ($131,420)
CLICK HERE for the CAFO