The Respondent processes and freezes poultry products for distribution. The Respondent has two systems which include Anhydrous Ammonia at the Facility. The Respondent had one RMP program level 3 covered process (anhydrous ammonia refrigeration systems) which store or otherwise use a regulated substance in an amount exceeding the applicable threshold. The Respondent’s poultry freezing processes meet the definition of “process” and “covered process “, as defined by 40 C.F.R. § 68.3.
EPA Findings of Violation:
Count 1 – Defining Off-Site Impacts – Population & Environmental Receptors
At the time of the Inspection, Respondent did not maintain records demonstrating the data used to estimate t)le population and environmental receptors that would be potentially affected.
Respondent’s failure to maintain records demonstrating the data used to estimate the population and environmental receptors affected, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.39(e), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(2), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 2 – Process Hazard Analysis
At the time of the Inspection, the Respondent had not promptly addressed the process hazard analysis team’s findings and recommendations had not assured that the recommendations were resolved in a timely manner, and had not developed a written schedule for when the recommendations were to be completed and did not communicate the actions to employees whose work assignments are in the process or who may be affected by the recommendations or actions for the 2015 and 2020 process hazard analyses.
Respondent’s failure to assure that the recommendations were resolved in a timely manner and that the resolution was documented; failure to document what actions were to be taken; failure to complete actions as soon as possible; failure to develop a written schedule of when these actions were to be completed; failure to communicate the actions to operating, maintenance and other employees whose work assignments were in the process and who might have been affected by the recommendations or actions pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 3 – Process Hazard Analysis
At the time of the Inspection, the Respondent completed an Ammonia Refrigeration process hazards analysis on July 22, 201O, and revalidated the Ammonia Refrigeration process hazard analysis on November 10, 2015. The 2015 Ammonia Refrigeration process hazards analysis was approximately 3 months and 18 days past due.
Respondent’s failure to update and revalidate the process hazard analysis at least every five (5) years after the completion of the initial”process hazard analysis, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.67, as required by 40 C.F .R. § 68.12(d)(3) is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 4 – Training
At the time of the Inspection, the Respondent could not provide Standard Operator Procedure training records for any of the employees presently operating the process.
Respondent’s failure to ascertain that each employee operating a process received and understood the training, by failing to provide Standard Operating Procedure training records for any of the employees involved in operating the process pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(c), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3) is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA
Count 5 – Mechanical Integrity
At the time of the Inspection, the Respondent’s Mechanical Integrity policy stated , “scheduled maintenance and inspection tasks are performed regularly… these tasks:
1) are based on recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices such as the IIAR’s Maintenance and Inspection of Closed-Circuit Ammonia Mechanical Refrigerating Systems (ANSI/IIAR 6).” At the time of the Inspection, Respondent completed Cutout testing for Compressors AI0, B2, and C3 only for the year 2020. In accordance with Respondent’s Mechanical Integrity policy, the cutout testing was to be conducted annually.
Respondent’s failure to implement written procedures to maintain the ongoing integrity of the process equipment as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68. l2(d)(3), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 6 – Mechanical integrity – Inspection and Testing
At the time of the Inspection, Respondent had not performed inspections and tests on process equipment at a frequency consistent with applicable manufacturers ‘ recommendations and good engineering practices. According to IIAR’s Maintenance and Inspection of Closed-Circuit Ammonia Mechanical Refrigerating Systems (ANSI/IIAR 6), cutout testing of compressors is to be performed annually. At the time of the Inspection, Respondent completed cutout testing for Compressor C3 only for the year 2020, there was no other record of cutout testing being completed for any other years.
Respondent’s failure to follow the recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (i.e. ANSI/HAR 6), pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(3), as required by 40 C.F .R. § 68.12( d)(3) is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 7 – Management of Change (MOC)
At the time of the Inspection, Respondent completed changes to MOC 22206 that added safety systems (ventilation and ammonia detectors), which affected operating procedures under 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(4). These safety systems were not updated on the operating procedures. Respondent’s MOC policy states, “the Pre-startup Safety Review must be complete prior to the refrigeration manager giving final approval for the startup. ” The Respondent completed Pre-startup Safety Review for MOC 22206 on June 13, 2020, three (3) days after the Respondent closed out the MOC and authorized startup on June I 0, 2020.
Respondent’s failure to implement written procedures to manage changes (except for “replacements in kind “) to process chemicals, technology, equipment, and procedures; and, changes to stationary sources that affect a covered process, by failing to implement the written procedures pertaining to the modification of operating procedures for the Pre-startup Safety Review and MOC 22206, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(a), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3) is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 8 – Pre-startup Safety Review (PSSR)
At the time of the Inspection, Respondent completed changes to MOC 22206 that added safety systems (ventilation and ammonia detectors), which affected operating procedures under 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(4). These safety systems were not updated on the operating procedures and the Respondent could not provide any record showing that the safety systems were updated.
Respondent’s pre-startup safety review failed to confirm that prior to the introduction of regulated substances to a process that safety, operating, maintenance, and emergency procedures are in place and are adequate, by failing to update the safety systems on the operating procedures, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.77(6)(2), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3) is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA
Count 9 – Pre-startup Safety Review Training
At the time of the Inspection, Respondent’s training records documented that all personnel had been trained for the change on the Pre-startup Safety Reviews for MOC MC-22206. However, one of the operator’s training records inspected did not receive training on MOC MC-22206.
The Respondent’s Pre-startup Safety Review failure to confirm that prior to the introduction of regulated substances to a process the training of each employee involved in operating a process had been completed as required by 40 C.F.R. 68.12( d)(3) is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Count 10 – Compliance Audits
At the time of the Inspection, the Respondent’s actions taken to complete the compliance audit findings were not clear. According to the Respondent’s documentation, only seventy-eight percent (78%) of the year 2016 compliance audit findings were complete and the remaining findings lapsed into the year 2019 compliance audit.
Respondent’s failure to promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the year 20 I 6 compliance audit, and document that deficiencies had been corrected, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3) is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Count 11 – Hot Work Permit
At the time of the Inspection, Respondent provided hot work permits that did not identify the objects on which the hot work was performed on.
Respondent’s failure to provide hot work permits that identified the objects on which hot work was performed on, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.85(b), as required by 40 C.F.R. §68.12(d)(3) is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Count 12 – Emergency Response Program
At the time of the Inspection, the Respondent could not provide documentation to show the Respondent sent a copy of their emergency response plan or their HAZMAT plan, and the other information covered under 42 U.S.C. § 11003 to the Local Emergency Planning Committees or emergency response officials.
Respondent’s failure to coordinate the emergency response plan with the community emergency response plan, by failing to promptly provide to the local emergency response officials’ information necessary for developing and implementing the community emergency response plan, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.95(c) , as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(5) is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 13 – Emergency Response Plan
At the time of the Inspection, the Respondent provided the Emergency Response Plan all of the required documentation was not included inside the original Emergency Response Plan.
Some of the documents required in the Emergency Response Plan were included in the HAZMAT Plan, but not within the Emergency Response Plan.
Respondent’s failure to develop and implement an emergency response program for the purpose of protecting public health and the environment, by failing to maintain an emergency response plan that contained the elements required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.95(a)(1), pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.95, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(5) is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 14 – Required Corrections
At the time of the Inspection, Respondent’s most recent RMP submittal dated January 11, 2016, listed a past employee as both the person responsible for Part 68 (RMP) Implementation, as well as the emergency contact. This past employee left the Respondent’s company on May 17, 2019.
Respondent’s failure to submit a correction of the RMP for the emergency contact information within one month of any change in the emergency contact information pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.195(b) is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 15 – Recordkeeping
At the time of the Inspection, the Respondent could not provide initial training records for all operators, so the Respondent conducted a new initial training record for all operators in 2019. The Respondent failed to document that each employee before being involved in operating a newly assigned process was trained in an overview of the process. Refresher training records for all operators also could not be found.
Respondent’s failure to maintain records supporting the implementation of Part 68 at the stationary source for five years, pursuant to 40 C.F .R. § 68.200 is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
CONSENT AGREEMENT
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of one-hundred and twenty-four thousand, and two hundred and ninety-four dollars ($124,294.00).
CLICK HERE for the CAFO