On January 17, 2020, EPA performed an inspection of the Facility pursuant to Section 112(r) of the CAA, Sections 304-312 of EPCRA, and Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Based upon the information gathered during this inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA asserts that Respondent violated certain provisions of the CAA and EPCRA. At all times relevant to this CA/FO, Respondent has been the “owner or operator” of a stationary source that has a regulated substance in an amount equal to or in excess of the applicable TQ in a “process” as defined by 40 C.F.R. § 68.3 and is subject to the Program 3 RMP requirements.
COUNT I – Failure to provide estimated maximum daily amount of anhydrous ammonia
40 C.F.R. § 370.42(s)(6) requires owners or operators to provide an estimate (in ranges) of the maximum amount of the hazardous chemical present at its facility on any single day during the preceding calendar year.
Based on EPA’s inspection and information gathered during EPA’s s investigation, Respondent reported different estimates as its maximum amount of anhydrous ammonia present at its Facility. The quantity of anhydrous ammonia reported in the EPCRA § 312 Tier II inventory forms submitted to the State of Hawaii for 2016, 2017, and 2018 differed from the 2019 RMP submittal to EPA.
By failing to report the correct maximum amount of the anhydrous ammonia present at the Facility, Respondent violated EPCRA § 312, Tier II Inventory, 40 C.F.R. § 370.42(s)(6).
COUNT II – Failure to comply with process safety information for maximum intended inventory
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(c)(1)(iii) specifies that process safety information (“PSI”) pertaining to the equipment in a process shall include the maximum intended inventory.
Based on EPA’s inspection and information gathered during EPA’s investigation, the quantity of anhydrous ammonia reported in Respondent’s on-site PSI differs from its 2019 RMP submittal to EPA.
By failing to comply with the PSI requirements for maximum intended inventory, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(c)(1)(iii).
COUNT III – Failure to comply with process safety information for consequences of deviation
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(c)(l)(v) specifies that PSI pertaining to the equipment in a process shall include the consequences of deviation.
Based on EPA’s inspection and information gathered during EPA’s investigation, Respondent did not include consequences of deviation in its process hazard analysis (“PHA”).
By failing to comply with the PSI requirements for consequences of deviation, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(c)(1)(v).
COUNT IV – Failure to comply with process safety information for labeling
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2) requires owners or operators to document that process equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (“RAGAGEP”).
Industry organizations and manufacturers establish standards, requirements, and recommendations comprising RAGAGEP for given industries.
The Compressed Gas Association (CGA)G-2.1-1999, Section 6.6.1 states that “each container or group of containers shall be marked on at least two sides with the words ‘ANHYDROUS AMMONIA’ or ‘CAUTION AMMONIA’, in sharply contrasting colors not less than 3.9 inches (100 mm) high.”
Based on EPA’s inspection and information gathered during EPA’s s investigation, Respondent failed to mark the ammonia storage tank with the words “ANHYDROUS AMMONIA” or “CAUTION AMMONIA” using appropriately sized lettering.
By failing to comply with the PSI requirements for labeling, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65( d)(2).
COUNT V – Failure to comply with process safety information for physical barricades
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2) requires owners or operators to document that process equipment complies with RAGAGEP. Industry organizations and manufacturers establish standards, requirements, and recommendations comprising RAGAGEP for given industries.
CGA 2.1-1999, Section 6.7.1, a RAGAGEP, states, “containers and appurtenances shall be located or protected by suitable barriers as to avoid damage by trucks or other vehicles.”
National Fire Protection Association 55-2013, Section 4.11.1.1, a RAGAGEP, states, “guard posts or other means shall be provided to protect the following areas where subject to vehicular damage [including] (1) storage tanks with connected piping, valves, and fittings.”
Based on EPA’s inspection and information gathered during EPA’s investigation, at the time of the inspection, Respondent did not have physical barricades present to prevent vehicles from impacting the ammonia vaporizers and storage tank, contrary to RAGAGEPs.
By failing to comply with the PSI requirements for physical barricades, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2).
COUNT VI – Failure to comply with process hazard analysis for engineering and administrative controls
40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c)(3) requires owners or operators to perform a PHA, which must address the engineering and administrative controls applicable to the hazards and their interrelationships, such as appropriate application of detection methodologies to provide early warning of releases.
Based on EPA’s inspection and information gathered during EPA’s investigation, Respondent failed to address engineering and administrative controls applicable to the hazards and their interrelationships and only addressed response actions in its 2019 PHA.
By failing to comply with the PHA requirements for engineering and administrative controls, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c)(3).
COUNT VII – Failure to update and revalidate the process hazard analysis
40 C.F.R. § 68.67(f) requires owners or operators to update and revalidate the PHA every five (5) years after the completion of the initial PHA.
Based on EPA’s inspection and information gathered during EPA’s investigation, Respondent failed to timely update and revalidate the PHA. After the December 2013 PHA update, the next update was due December 2018 but was instead completed in October 2019, ten months past the five-year update requirement.
By failing to comply with the PHA requirements for updating and revalidation, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(f).
COUNT VIII – Failure to comply with operating procedures for normal shutdown and emergency shutdown
40 C.F.R. §§ 68.69(a)(l)(iv) and (vi) requires owners or operators to develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the PSI and shall address certain elements, including steps for each operating phase, such as normal shutdown and emergency shutdown.
Based on EPA’s inspection and information gathered during EPA’s investigation, Respondent failed to include normal shutdown and emergency shutdown procedures in its operating procedures.
By failing to comply with the operating procedures requirements for the shutdown of a process, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.69(a)(1)(iv) and (vi).
COUNT IX – Failure to comply with operating procedures for safety and health conditions
40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(3)(ii) requires owners or operators to develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the PSI. These operating procedures shall address certain health and safety elements, including engineering controls, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment necessary to prevent exposure.
Based on EPA’s inspection and information gathered during EPA’s investigation, Respondent failed to include adequate information related to personal protective equipment in its operating procedures because Section 1.6 of the standard operating procedures only states, “Know the location of the nearest emergency eyewash/shower station.”
By failing to comply with the operating procedures requirements for health and safety conditions, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(3)(ii).
COUNT X – Failure to comply with annual certification of operating procedures
40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c) requires owners and operators to review the operating procedures as often as necessary to assure that they reflect current operating practice (including changes in process chemicals, technology, and equipment and changes to stationary sources) and certify annually that these operating procedures are current and accurate.
Based on EPA’s inspection and information gathered during EPA’s investigation, Respondent failed to provide annual certifications for its operating procedures for 2017, 2018, and 2019.
By failing to comply with the operating procedures annual certification requirement, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c).
COUNT XI – Failure to comply with training requirements
40 C.F.R. § 68.71(a)(1) requires owners or operators to ensure that each employee who is involved in operating a process or will be involved in operating a newly assigned process is trained with an initial overview of the process and the operating procedures, as specified in 40 C.F.R. §68.69. The initial training shall include emphasis on the specific safety and health hazards, emergency operations (including shutdown), and safe work practices applicable to the employee’s job tasks.
40 C.F.R. § 68.71(b) requires owners or operators to provide refresher training at least every three years, and more often if necessary, to each employee involved in operating a process to assure that the employee understands and adheres to the current operating procedures of the process. The owner or operator, in consultation with the employees involved in operating the process, shall determine the appropriate frequency of refresher training.
40 C.F.R. § 68.71(c) requires owners or operators to ascertain that each employee involved in operating a process has received and understood the training. The owner or operator shall 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.
40 C.F.R. § 68.73(c) requires owners or operators to train each employee involved in maintaining the on-going integrity of process equipment in an overview of that process and its hazards and in the procedures applicable to the employee’s job tasks to assure that the employee can perform the job tasks in a safe manner.
Based on EPA’s inspection and information gathered during EPA’s investigation, Respondent failed to provide its employees with training on an overview of the process with an emphasis the specific safety, health hazards, safe work practices, emergency operations (including shutdown), and on operating procedures associated with the anhydrous ammonia storage and transfer system.
Based on EPA’s inspection and information gathered during EPA’s investigation, Respondent failed to provide documentation to verify that the “Balance of Plant” contractors understood the training, and only provided sign-in sheets for “Lock Out Tag Out,” fall protection, and process safe management/risk management plan training.
Based on EPA’s inspection and information gathered during EPA’s investigation, Respondent failed to include operating procedures in its refresher training.
Based on EPA’s inspection and information gathered during EPA’s investigation, Respondent failed to ensure its maintenance personnel were trained in the maintenance practices because the maintenance training documentation involved in maintaining the anhydrous ammonia storage and transfer system only included initial and refresher hazardous waste and emergency response operator training. There was no further documentation indicating that maintenance personnel were trained in the on-going integrity of the system or its hazards.
By failing to comply with the training requirements, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.71 and 68.73(c).
COUNT XII – Failure to comply with mechanical integrity requirements
40 C.F.R. § 68.73(e) requires owners or operators to correct deficiencies in equipment that are outside acceptable limits, as defined by the PSI in 40 C.F.R. § 68.65, before further use, or in a safe and timely manner when necessary means are taken to assure safe operation.
Based on EPA’ s inspection and information gathered during EPA’ s investigation, Respondent failed to fix corroded piping and equipment that remained in service. The API 570 piping inspection results from November 2019 found the morphology of the coating failure and the severity of the external corrosion across the entire piping system warranted a complete replacement of the piping system next to the ammonia tank. Review of monthly visual inspection forms for 2019 indicated that facility personnel noted in September that the bottom of the oil trap was corroded and in October that the pipe fittings on the ammonia piping before entering the ground also was corroded.
By failing to comply with the mechanical integrity requirements, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(e).
COUNT XIII – Failure to comply with compliance audit requirements
40 C.F.R. § 68. 79( d) requires owners or operators to promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of its compliance audit, and to document that deficiencies have been corrected.
Based on EPA’s inspection and information gathered during EPA’s investigation, Respondent failed to resolve recommendations listed on its compliance audit from the March 2015 audit, which remained unresolved and were ultimately repeated in its March 2018 audit.
By failing to comply with the compliance audit requirements, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d).
COUNT XIV – Failure to comply with incident investigation requirements
40 C.F .R. § 68.81 ( d)(2) requires owners or operators to investigate each incident and prepare a report at the conclusion of the investigation which should include at a minimum the date of the incident and the date the incident investigation began.
Based on EPA’s inspection and information gathered during EPA’s investigation, Respondent failed to produce a report indicating when the incident investigation began after the Facility experienced a release of ammonia from a faulty relief valve on December 18, 2019.
By failing to comply with the incident investigation requirements, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.81(d)(2).
COUNT XV – Failure to comply with emergency response program requirements
40 C.F.R. § 68.95(a)(2) requires owners or operators to develop and implement an emergency response program for the purpose of protecting public health and the environment. The program must include procedures for the use of emergency response equipment and for its inspection, testing, and maintenance.
Industry organizations and manufacturers establish standards, requirements, and recommendations comprising RAGAGEP for given industries.
To maintain fire water pumps, the National Fire Protection Association 25 requires annual testing of fire water pumps including a pump curve test.
Based on EPA’s inspection and information gathered during EPA’s investigation, Respondent failed to maintain emergency response equipment by completing annual pump curve tests for the electric fire water pump in 2017 and the diesel fire water pump in 2018, even though Respondent is required to complete fire water pump curve tests annually as part of Respondent’s emergency response program.
By failing to comply with the emergency response program implementation requirements, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.95(a)(2).
CIVIL ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY
EPA proposes that Respondent be assessed, and Respondent agrees to pay ONE HUNDRED NINETY-NINE THOUSAND AND SEVEN HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE DOLLARS ($199,725.00), as the civil administrative penalty for the violations alleged herein.
CLICK HERE to see the CAFO