Respondent is the owner and/or operator of the facility, which produces fully cooked and ready-to-eat sauces and refrigerated entrees. On December 26, 2018, the EPA issued to Respondent a Notice of Potential Violation (“NOPV”), providing notice that the EPA found that Respondent potentially committed the alleged violations described in Section V of this Agreement and providing Respondent an opportunity to confer with the EPA.
At its Facility:
- Respondent has 23,250 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in on-site storage
- Respondent has one RMProgram level 3 covered process, which stores or otherwise uses anhydrous ammonia in an amount exceeding its applicable threshold of 10,000 pounds
On August 29, 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 Facility. At the time of the inspection, EPA observed the following:
- The Respondent was asked to provide documentation showing that its off-site consequence analysis was reviewed and updated at least once every five years. The Respondent could not provide the requested documentation.
- The Respondent did not document that equipment complies with RAGAGEP. During a walk-through of the Facility, the EPA inspectors made the following observations.
1) 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, indicates, “The [ammonia] alarm shall annunciate visual and audible alarms inside the refrigerating machinery room and outside each entrance to the refrigerating machinery room. The meaning of each alarm shall be clearly marked by signage
near the annunciators.”
2) 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, indicates, “All ammonia piping should have appropriate pipe markers attached to indicate the use of the pipe and arrows to indicate the direction of flow, such as in IIAR Bulletin 114.” Bulletin 114: Guidelines for Identification of Ammonia Refrigeration Piping and System Components, Section 4.1 Piping Markers, indicates, “Piping markers shall be designed to identify the refrigerant, the physical state of the refrigerant, and the relative pressure level of the refrigerant and the direction of flow.”
3) Some of the piping in the engine room was rusted. IIAR Bulletin 110, Section 6.7.1 indicates, “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 any remedial or corrective action [shall be] taken where necessary. Areas affected by slight corrosion should be cleaned off and appropriately treated before reinstating the protective finish.”
4) Many sections of insulated ammonia piping on the roof were damaged. There were also some sections of insulation missing from the insulated piping. IIAR Bulletin 110 Section 6.7.2, Insulated Piping indicates “Any mechanical damage to insulation should be repaired immediately and the vapor seal reinstated to prevent access to water or water vapor which will lead to the breakdown of insulation and corrosion of the pipework.”
5) Eyewash stations and showers were not present inside the engine room. 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.” The only available eyewash/shower unit in the maintenance room was obstructed with maintenance tools and other items. The eyewash/safety shower station was also not inspected weekly to determine if it is functioning properly.
6) There were no National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) placards indicating the degree of hazard, flammability, and reactivity on the doors entering ammonia engine room. The International Mechanical Code (IMC) Table 1103.1 “Refrigerant Classification, Amount and OEL” (Occupational Exposure Limit), shows degrees of hazard, flammability, and reactivity classification of 3-3-0 for ammonia. 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 door entrances reflecting the 3-3-0 for the indoor ammonia refrigeration equipment and 3-1-0 for the outdoor ammonia refrigeration equipment.
c. The Respondent did not demonstrate that existing equipment designed and constructed in accordance with codes, standards, or practices that are no longer in general use, were maintained, inspected, tested, and operating in a safe manner. There are two mechanical ventilation units in the engine room. One of the ventilation units is near the rear door towards the ammonia high-pressure receiver. However, IIAR 2 requires the prevention of re-entry of the exhausted air by discharging the exhaust high above the roof line and by ensuring no door, window, or outdoor air intakes, or other such openings, are located near the mechanical ventilation unit(s). One of the important roles of ventilation is to purge ammonia vapor from the machinery room in emergency situations to help prevent the concentration of ammonia from reaching the lower flammability limit, thereby minimizing the possibility of a deflagration occurring in the machinery room. Here, the subject ventilation system pushes contaminated air into the egress area that may be used during the emergency evacuation.
d. The Respondent did not assure that the Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) recommendations were resolved in a timely manner and actions were completed as soon as possible. EPA inspector reviewed the last two PHA revalidations conducted by the Respondent. The Respondent provided a document titled “XXXXXXXXX, Inc.; Process Hazard Analysis Recommendations; What-If Checklist for PHA Completed on March 12, 2015.” The Respondent set a priority schedule for all recommendations/action items to be initiated but did not indicate completion dates. The priority schedule must indicate “when these actions are to be completed,” not merely initiated.
e. The Respondent did not demonstrate that operating procedures were certified annually and were current and accurate. The Respondent provided documentation indicating that an annual review or certification of its operating procedures was conducted in May 2017. However, the Respondent failed to produce documentation that it reviewed and certified its operating procedures by May 2018, or any annual reviews prior to 2017
f. The Respondent could not demonstrate that it performed inspections and tests on process equipment with a frequency consistent with applicable manufacturers’ recommendations and that inspection and testing procedures followed RAGAGEP. The respondent did not provide records indicative of a daily log monitoring the entire ammonia system. The IIAR Bulletin 110 – Guidelines for Start-up, Inspection, and Maintenance of Ammonia Mechanical Refrigerating Systems, 6.2, indicates, preferably every four hours, but at least daily, the system should be observed in normal operation and a full log taken of operating conditions.
g. The Respondent had not evaluated the compliance audit at least every three years to verify that procedures and practices were adequate and were being followed. The Respondent provided the compliance audit conducted by Ammonia Safety Management, Inc. on May 17-18, 2017. The prior compliance audit was conducted by Ammonia Safety Management, Inc. on February 26, 2014. The duration between the two dates is 3 years, 2 months and 21 days.
h. The Respondent had not updated the Risk Management Plan with the emergency contact information within one month of the emergency contact leaving the Facility. The Respondent mentioned that the previous emergency contact personnel listed on the Risk Management Plan for the Facility had left the Facility in February 2018. The Respondent made the emergency contact change update on August 28, 2018, replacing the former employee’s name with that of a current employee, after receiving the Risk Management Program Notice of inspection emailed on August 24, 2018.
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
Based on EPA’s compliance monitoring investigation, the EPA alleges that the Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. Part 68, the codified rules governing the Act’s Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions and Section 112(r) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r), when it:
a. Failed to review and update the offsite consequence analysis at least once every five years as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.36(a);
b. Failed to document that equipment complies with RAGAGEP as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2);
c. Failed to determine and document that existing equipment designed and constructed in accordance with codes, standards, or practices that are no longer in general use, is designed, maintained, inspected, tested, and operating in a safe manner as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(3);
d. Failed to assure that the Process Hazard Analysis recommendations were resolved in a timely manner and to complete actions as soon as possible as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e);
e. Failed to certify annually that the operating procedures were current and accurate as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c);
f. Failed to perform the required inspections and tests of process equipment with a frequency consistent with applicable manufacturers’ recommendations and good engineering practices as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(3);
g. Failed to certify that the compliance audit has been evaluated at least every three years to verify that procedures and practices are adequate and are being followed as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(a); and
h. Failed to update the Risk Management Plan with the emergency contact information within one month of any changes as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.195(b).
Based on the Respondent’s substantiated ability to pay claim, Respondent consents to the payment of a civil penalty, which was calculated in accordance with the Act, in the amount of $66,080.00 (SIXTY-SIX THOUSAND AND EIGHTY DOLLARS), which is to be paid within thirty (30) calendar days of the Effective Date of this CAFO.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO