Respondent owns and operates a facility that processes, stores, and distributes produce. On June 21, 2018, EPA performed an inspection of the Facility pursuant to 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, 42 U.S.C. § 9603(a) (“Inspection”). Based upon the information gathered during the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that Respondent violated certain provisions of the CAA.
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
COUNT 1 – Failure to Comply with the General Duty Clause
CAA Section 112(r)(1), 42 U.S.C. §7412(r)(1), provides that owners and operators of a stationary source that produces, processes, handles, or stores a regulated substance (as defined in 40 C.F.R. § 68.130) have a general duty to design and maintain a safe facility taking such steps as are necessary to prevent releases.
An owner or operator breaches its general duty under CAA Section 112(r)(1), if the owner or operator does not implement feasible measures to reduce or eliminate hazards that are recognized within the owner or operator’s industry and likely to cause harm.
A recognized hazard within the ammonia industry is when system equipment is subject to excessive movement. One way to address this hazard is to ensure that system equipment is sufficiently supported and secured to prevent excessive movement. Harm is likely to result if system equipment is subject to excessive movement because the excessive movement can cause equipment to fail or malfunction. Respondent’s portable chiller was not designed and constructed to prevent excessive movement consistent with industry practice and the standard of care for ammonia refrigeration systems.
Another recognized hazard within the ammonia industry is when pressure relief valves fail or malfunction. One way to address this hazard is to replace or inspect, clean, and test, pressure relief valves at least once every five years. Harm is likely to result if pressure relief valves fail or malfunction, as overpressure can cause catastrophic failure of vessels and other equipment. Respondent did not maintain several pressure relief valves on the Facility’s portable chiller consistent with industry practice and the standard of care for ammonia refrigeration systems.
Another recognized hazard within the ammonia industry is when pressure vessels fail or malfunction due to corrosion. One way to address this hazard is to have a qualified person inspect any pressure vessels showing signs of corrosion beyond mild surface corrosion and to take appropriate remedial action based on the results of the inspection. The failure or malfunction of pressure vessels due to corrosion is likely to cause harm, as it can result in a catastrophic release of ammonia. Respondent did not inspect and maintain several corroded pressure vessels on the Facility’s portable chiller consistent with industry practice and the standard of care for ammonia refrigeration systems.
Respondent breached its general duty under CAA Section 112(r)(1), by not implementing feasible measures to reduce or eliminate hazards that were recognized within Respondent’s industry and likely to cause harm.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that Respondent violated Section 112(r)(1) of the CAA.
COUNT 2 – Failure to Comply with Risk Management Plan Requirements
40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a) requires owners or operators of a stationary source to submit an RMP that includes specific information for, and a registration reflecting, “all covered processes.”
During the Inspection, EPA identified ten(10) nurse tanks located adjacent to the Facility’s maintenance shop containing ammonia (“Nurse Tanks”).
The Nurse Tanks constituted a single, “covered process” within the meaning of 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a) and were therefore required to be included in the Facility’s RMP registration. However, the Nurse Tanks were not included in the Facility’s RMP registration.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a).
COUNT 3 – Failure to Comply with Process Safety Requirements Related to Generally Accepted Good Engineering Practices
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”).
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(3), if any process equipment was designed and constructed in accordance with codes, standards, or practices no longer in general use, then the owner or operator must determine and document that such equipment is designed, maintained, inspected, tested, and operating in a safe manner.
EPA determined that entry and exit doors in the Facility’s System A Ammonia Machine Room (“AMR”) were not designed and constructed consistent with RAGAGEP, that Respondent did not document the equipment as complying with RAGAGEP, and that Respondent did not document the equipment as designed, maintained, inspected, tested, and operating in a safe manner.
EPA determined that the ladders used to access the king valves on the Facility’s System A and B high-pressure receivers were not designed and constructed consistent with RAGAGEP, that Respondent did not document the equipment as complying with RAGAGEP, and that Respondent did not document the equipment as designed, maintained, inspected, tested, and operating in a safe manner.
EPA determined that the emergency ventilation systems for the Facility’s System A and B AMRs were not designed and constructed consistent with RAGAGEP, that Respondent did not document the equipment as complying with RAGAGEP, and that Respondent did not document the equipment as designed, maintained, inspected, tested, and operating in a safe manner.
EPA determined that several nurse tanks located outside in a storage area were not designed and constructed consistent with RAGAGEP, that Respondent did not document the equipment as complying with RAGAGEP, and that Respondent did not document the equipment as designed, maintained, inspected, tested, and operating in a safe manner.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65.
COUNT 4 – Failure to Comply with Process Hazard Analysis Requirements
40 C.F.R. § 68.67 requires that owners or operators perform a Process Hazard Analysis (“PHA”) and sets forth the process by which a PHA must be conducted.
40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e) requires owners and operators to establish a system to promptly address findings and recommendations made in a PHA, to assure that the recommendations are resolved in a timely manner and that the resolution is documented, and to complete actions as soon as possible, among other things.
At the time of the Inspection, Respondent had not timely resolved approximately half of the recommendations made in the Facility’s 2014 PHA, including numerous recommendations designated as “High Priority”.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e).
COUNT 5 – Failure to Comply with Operating Procedure Requirements
40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a) requires that owners or operators develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the process safety information and that provide information on certain specified subjects, including, as pertinent here, consequences of deviation.
At the time of the Inspection, Respondent’s written operating procedures did not address the consequences of deviation.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a).
CIVIL PENALTY
The Complainant proposes that Respondent be assessed, and Respondent agrees to pay TWO HUNDRED SIX THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED TWENTY-ONE DOLLARS ($206,621.00), as the civil penalty for the violations alleged herein.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO