On December 3, 2013, EPA conducted a compliance inspection of Respondent’s facility to determine compliance with the Risk Management Plan (RMP) regulations promulgated at 40 C.F.R. part 68 under section 112(r)(7) of the Act. The EPA found that the Respondent had violated regulations implementing section 112(r)(7) of the Act by failing to comply with the specific requirements outlined in the attached RMP Program Level 3 Process Checklist-Alleged Violations & Penalty Assessment (Checklist and Penalty Assessment). The Checklist and Penalty Assessment is incorporated into this ESA.
Prevention Program- Safety Information [68.65]
[68.65(d)(2)]; $1,500
Has the owner or operator documented that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices?
- The roof-top piping had many sections where the pipe labels were illegible or missing.
- All of the machinery (compressor) room doors did not open outward and were not equipped with panic type hardware.
- Production employees walk through the machinery room to access production areas from the office and break room area. During the inspection, the EPA observed several SDF employees who are not involved in operating the ammonia refrigeration process walk through the machinery room.
- ANSI/IIAR Standard 2-2008 Equipment Design and Installation of Closed-Circuit Ammonia Mechanical Refrigerating Systems, Section 10.5 Pipe Marking: “All piping mains, headers and branches shall be identified as to the physical state of the refrigerant, the relative pressure level of the refrigerant, and the direction of flow.” Note: See IIAR Bulletin 114.
- Section 13.3.3 Access and Egress: “Machinery rooms shall have tight fitting doors which open outward and are provided with panic type hardware.”
- Section 13.1.1.7 Room layout design: “Access to the machinery room shall be restricted to authorized personnel.”
Prevention Program- Training [68.71]
[68.71(b)]; $1,500
Has the owner or operator provided 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?
- There are no records that refresher training has been provided at least every three years, or more often if necessary.
[68.71(c)]; $600
Has the owner or operator ascertained and documented in record that each employee involved in operating a process has received and understood the training required?
- There are no records that the employees operating the process received or understood training on the operating procedures.
[68.71(c)]; $600
Does the prepared record contain the identity of the employee, the date of training, and the means used to verify that the employee understood the training?
- This was a finding in the 2009 and 2012 compliance audits. This is still an open item from the 2012 audit. The finding from the 2009 audit was marked closed but SDF could not produce the supporting documents used to close the finding.
Prevention Program – Mechanical Integrity [68. 73]
[68.73(d)(2)]; $900
Has the owner or operator ensured that inspection and testing procedures follow recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices? (RAGAGEP)
- SDF does not inspect or test the Shut-offValves or Control Valves of the ammonia refrigeration system.
- During the inspection, the EPA observed several areas of piping with sections missing from the aluminum jacket and vapor retarder leaving the inner insulation exposed to the elements. This can lead to corrosion of the piping and possible release of ammonia.
- IIAR Bulletin 110 (Revised 3/02) Guidelines for: Start-up, Inspection and Maintenance of Ammonia Mechanical Refrigerating Systems, Section 6.6.1 Shut-off Valves: “Every six months, for valves with exposed stems, the condition of the stem and of the gland seal should be inspected and the stem cleaned and regreased… Externally inspect valves annually… Test all shut-off valves for function every five years.”
[68.73(d)(4)]; $900
Has the owner or operator documented each inspection and test that has been performed on process equipment? Does the documentation identify the date of the inspection or test, the name of the person who performed the inspection or test, the serial number or identifier of the equipment, a description of the inspection or test performed, and the results of the inspection or test?
- The only documentation SDF was able to produce for inspections that occurred prior to 2012 was a Mechanical Integrity Audit performed by Rocky Mountain Mechanical Systems (RMMS) in April 2009. SDF used MP2, a computerized maintenance management system, prior to 2012. Jim Muth stated SDF has not been able to access records in MP2 since a former employee left the company and could not verify what inspections were performed on the process equipment.
- Starting in January 2012, the maintenance personnel started using a monthly “Ammonia System Integrity Checklist” with a list of designated maintenance or inspection tasks and checkboxes to fill out with initials, date and if task was completed. The “Ammonia System Integrity Checklist” used by SDF in 2012- 2014 does not include the identifier of the equipment. This is especially problematic when the inspection tasks refer to a broad category of equipment. For example:
- The July 2012 checklist includes the task “Inspect pipe insulation, brackets and hangers”
- The November 2012 checklist includes the task “Vessel Testing” Without including which vessels were tested or which piping section was inspected, it is difficult to verify that every vessel and piping section was actually inspected. This could lead to inadvertent gaps in maintaining the mechanical integrity of the process equipment.
- The “Ammonia System Integrity Checklist” used by SDF in 2012-2014 does not include the results of the inspection or test.
[68.73(e)]; $900
Has the owner or operator corrected deficiencies in equipment that were outside acceptable limits defined by the process safety information before further use or in a safe and timely manner when necessary means are taken to assure safe operation?
- Five ammonia detection sensors at SDF have not functioned properly since 3/11/2013. The five sensors are located in the compressor room, rack vault, hallway, main vault and ice cream vault. The 2013 quarterly bump tests performed by RMMS documented the ammonia sensors did not give a proper response. The semi-annual ammonia sensor calibration tests performed by RMMS on 11/25/13 also showed deficiencies in the same 5 sensors. There was a note written by the technician that stated, “Ammonia sensor system does not work. System out of date and can’t get parts.”
Prevention Program- Compliance Audits [68.79]
[68.79(d)]; 300
Has the owner or operator promptly determined and documented an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit, and documented that deficiencies have been corrected?
- The September 1-3, 2009 CA still had three findings open in 2013, closing one of them on June 10, 2013.
- The September 4-5, 2012 CA has seven findings open as of September 20,2013.