Respondent owns, operates, and maintains a refrigeration system that contains approximately 14,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia. The refrigeration system, consisting of piping, valves, and equipment, cycles ammonia through various physical states (high-pressure liquid, low-pressure liquid, low-pressure vapor, high-pressure vapor, and then back to high-pressure liquid) and provides refrigeration for the processing, production, and storage of ice.
On August 23, 2018, EPA performed an inspection of the Facility pursuant to Section 112(r) of the CAA; Sections 304-312 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (“EPCRA”); and Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). EPA provided its Notice of Inspection Findings conveying potential areas of noncompliance to Respondent on December 21, 2018. Based upon the information gathered during this inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA alleges that Respondent violated certain provisions of the CAA.
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF LAW
Count I (Failure to document Process Safety Information for pressure relief system)
40 C.F.R. §§ 68.65(a) and 68.65(d)(l)(iv) require that owners or operators compile written process safety information pertaining to the equipment in the process, including the relief system design and design basis.
Based on information gathered during the inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that Respondent’s pressure relief system design documentation for the Facility did not include calculations for recirculating compressor RC-6.
By failing to compile complete information for the Facility’s pressure relief system design and design basis, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.65(a) and 68.65(d)(1)(iv).
Count II (Failure to document Process Safety Information in accordance with RAGAGEP)
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2) requires owners or operators to document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (“RAGAGEP”).
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(3) requires owners and operators to determine and document that any existing equipment that was designed or constructed in accordance with standards that are no longer in general use, is designed, maintained, inspected, tested, and operating in a safe manner.
Based on observations during the inspection, EPA found inadequate and inconsistent labeling on process piping and equipment. The industry practice and standard of care is that all piping mains, headers, and branches shall be identified. See, e.g. ANSI/ Int’l Inst. of Ammonia Refrigeration, Standard 2-2014: Equipment, Design, and Installation of Closed-Circuit Ammonia Mechanical Refrigerating Systems (2014) [hereinafter “IIAR 2- 2014”] § 5.14.5; American Society for Mechanical Engineers [hereinafter “ASME” standard for Ammonia Refrigeration A13.1-2015.
Based on observations during the inspection, EPA found two open electrical junction boxes one box was located near the top of the high-pressure receiver, and the other box was located beneath a compressor. The recommended industry practice and standard of care is not to have open junction boxes. See, e.g., Section 605.6 of California Fire Code 2016.
Based on observations during the inspection, EPA determined that Respondent did not have an emergency eye wash station and deluge body shower installed outside of the Engine Room. The recommended industry practice and standard of care is that an emergency eye wash station and deluge body shower shall be located just outside the machine room exit door and that an additional emergency eye wash station and deluge body shower should be readily accessible inside the machinery room. See, e.g., as stated in Section 4.10 .1 0 ofIIAR Bulletin No. 109; Section 4.4.7 ANSJ//IIAR 2-1992.
Based on observations during the inspection, EPA determined that Respondent had operated the pressure relief system and ventilation system based on 1994 standards, which had since been updated, and did not document that the existing equipment could comply with IIAR 2-2014 pressure relief requirements as designed, maintained, inspected, tested, and operated in a safe manner until Respondent performed their analyses and upgrades in 2019-2020.
By failing to document that its process piping and equipment, electrical junction boxes, eye wash station and shower, and pressure relief system and ventilation comply with RAGAGEP, or were designed, maintained, inspected, tested, and are operating in a safe manner, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R.§68.65(d)(2)-(3).
Count III (Failure to timely update and revalidate the Process Hazard Analysis)
40 C.F.R. § 68.67(£) requires that at least every five (5) years after the initial process hazard analysis (“PHA”), the PHA shall be updated and revalidated to assure that the PHA is consistent with the current process.
Based on EPA’s inspection and information gathered during EPA’s investigation, EPA determined that the PHA for the Facility had been conducted February 7, 2017, approximately three months and 15 days past the five-year update requirement to update and revalidate the PHA.
By failing to update and revalidate the Facility’s PHA within the five-year requirement, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(£).
Count IV (Failure to correct deficiencies in a timely manner)
40 C.F.R. § 68.73(e) requires the owner or operator to correct deficiencies in equipment that are outside acceptable limits (defined by the process safety information 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, EPA determined that Respondent had not addressed 8 of the 26 recommendations in the Mechanical Integrity Inspection Final Report (October 4, 2014).
By failing to adequately document the resolution of 8 recommendations in its Mechanical Integrity Inspection Final Report in a complete or timely manner, Respondent violated 40 C .F.R.§ 68.73(e).
Count V (Failure to correct deficiencies identified in compliance audits)
40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d) requires owners and operators to promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit, and document that deficiencies have been corrected.
Based on EPA’s inspection and information gathered during EPA’s investigation, EPA determined that Respondent did not adequately document the resolution of the March 13, 2015 Compliance Audit Findings until June 14, 2021, indicating that the Facility did not promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the audit findings, and subsequently document that deficiencies had been corrected.
By failing to adequately document resolution of compliance audit findings in a complete or timely manner, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d).
Count VI (Failure to correct deficiencies in PHA findings)
40 C.F.R § 68.67(e) requires owners and operators to establish a system to promptly address the Process Hazard Analysis (“PHA”) findings and recommendations; assure that the recommendations are resolved in a timely manner and that the resolution is documented; document what actions are to be taken; complete actions as soon as possible; and develop a written schedule of when these actions are to be completed.
Based on EPA’s inspection and information gathered during EPA’s investigation, EPA determined that the Facility’s most recent PI-IA, dated February 7, 2017, identified six recommendations, some of which related to critical safety systems. According to the recommendations tracking spreadsheet, the six items indicated target completion dates by July 27, 2019, but full completion of outstanding recommendations did not occur until April 28, 2021.
By failing to adequately document resolution of the PHA recommendations in a complete or timely manner, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R § 68.67(e).
Count VII (Failure to correct equipment deficiencies)
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.
On August 23, 2018, EPA inspectors observed that two of the Evaporative Condensers, EC-3 and EC-4, had extensive algae growth and corrosion, significant corrosion on the ammonia vent line near Evaporative Condenser EC-2, and unusual ice buildup on the Compressor RC-5 piping.
EPA inspectors also observed water sweating on the insulation of the Recirculator LP-2 piping. Water sweating indicated compromised vapor barriers and/or damaged insulation.
EPA inspectors noted that Respondent’s own documentation found the pressure relief system was too small. Specifically, the pressure relief system design review in Figure PSI: 8.8 PRY Review, Refrigeration System (Pre-2001 Code) stated, “Relief vent too small – replace with larger pipe. Pipe all RV’s from RPV to top or side of the RV header.”
By failing to correct deficiencies in equipment in a safe and timely manner, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(e).
Count VIII (Failure to properly evaluate the performance of its contract owner or operator)
40 C.F.R § 68.87(6)(5) requires the owner or operator to periodically evaluate the performance of the contract owner or operator in fulfilling their obligations.
According to Respond ent’s contractor policy for the Facility, dated May 1, 2017, the Plant Manager was to meet and evaluate the performance of contract employees with respect to one-time work efforts, or annually for contractors involved in on-going programs. Based on EPA’s inspection and information gathered during its subsequent investigation, EPA determined that Respondent did not provide completed Contractor Evaluation forms in accordance with its contractor policy.
By failing to properly evaluate the performance of its contract owner or operator, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R § 68.87(6)(5).
Count IX (Failure to revise and update the RMP at least once eve11′ five years)
40 C.F.R. § 68.190(6)(I) requires the owner or operator of a stationary source to revise and update the RMP at least once every five years from the date of its initial submission or most recent update as required by the regulations.
Based on EPA’s inspection and information gathered during its investigation, EPA determined that the current RMP five-year update for the Facility was submitted on April 12, 2022, which was overdue by approximately 1 month and 25 days, from the previous five-year update submission on February 15, 2017. Additionally, Respondent’s previous five-year update submission for the Facility was on February 15, 2017, which was overdue by approximately 2 months and 6 days from its then-previous five-year update submission on December 9, 2011.
By failing to revise and update the RMP at least once every five years, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.190 (b)(l).
CIVIL PENALTY
EPA proposes that Respondent be assessed, and Respondent agrees to pay ONE HUNDRED SIXTY-NINE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS ($169,400) as the civil administrative penalty for the violations alleged herein.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO