Respondent operates a cold food storage facility and has on-site for use, 14,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia for cold food storage purposes. The respondent’s process is an RMProgram level 3 covered process. On March 29, 2017, the EPA conducted an onsite 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 stationary source. A review of the piping and instrument diagram, dated February 5, 2016, for the Respondent’s engine room identified a valve labeled HV12NR2 on the piping and instrument diagram that…
was not located during the walk-through inspection.
There were no National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) placards indicating the degrees of hazards in the machinery room. The American National Standards Institute/International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration 2-2014, American National Standard for Safe Design of Closed-Circuit Ammonia Refrigeration Systems (ANSI/IIAR 2-2014), Section 6.15.1 indicates
“Buildings and facilities with refrigeration systems shall b~ provided with placards [in] accordance with NFPA 704 and the Mechanical Code.”
There was no restricted access signage on the engine room door. ANSI/IIAR 2-2014, Section 6.15 .3 ., indicates
“Each machinery room entrance door shall be marked with a permanent sign to indicate that only authorized personnel are permitted to enter the room.”
No eyewash stations and showers were present outside 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.”
Recommendation item 16.13 “Verify new stairs are secured” was prioritized as a task to be completed within six months of the completion date of the September 21, 2016, PHA. There was no date of completion nor resolution for this recommendation. Multiple recommendations from April 10, 2014, PHA were incomplete, and there were no assigned completion dates. Some of the boxes in the “Date Completed” column contained check marks but there were no dates of completion. These findings include, but are not limited to, the following:
- Item 9.23 Verify with sensor manufacturer that the ammonia sensors are failsafe.
- Item 12.16 CIMCO to review emergency stop station with a trained operator and other XXXXXXX personnel that interface with the outside responders.
- Item 16.19 Review accessibility requirement door eyewash and shower outside the equipment room.
During the inspection, EPA requested annual certifications for their operating procedures for 2016, 2015, 2014 and 2013, but the Respondent could not provide the information. The Respondent indicated the March 28, 2017 certification was the first certification performed at the facility. An electronic notification for the inspection was sent March 22, 2017.
The Respondent could not provide information that an ammonia system operator had initial training in an overview of the process and/or any operating procedure-specific training for the process.
The Respondent could not provide information that they trained each employee involved in maintaining the on-going integrity of process equipment. Recommendations for the Mechanical Integrity Audit were not completed, the columns for assignment, the date assigned, proposed due date and date completed were all left blank.
The Respondent could not provide documentation that the findings of the July 31, 2013 compliance audit, were appropriately responded to and that the deficiencies were corrected.
The facility did not promptly determine and document an appropriate response to several findings in the compliance audit dated September 20, 2016. These findings include, but are not limited to, the Respondent’s need to:
- Obtain the correct UlA forms for pressure vessels; Include bloc flow with Process Safety Information; Keep a copy of the standard operating procedures in the engine room; and Update RMP contact information The Respondent could not provide information that they obtained and evaluated information regarding their contractor’s safety performance and programs before selecting them to work on the process prior to the date of the inspection notice on March 22, 2017. The contractor qualification form was signed March 24, 2017.
The Respondent could not provide information that they informed contractors working on or near the process of the known potential fire, explosion or toxic release hazards prior to the date of the inspection notice on March 22, 2017. The contractor site evaluation form was signed March 28, 2017.
The Respondent could not provide information indicating that they explained the applicable provisions of their emergency response to contractors working on or near the process.
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF LAW
Based on EPA’ s compliance monitoring investigation, the EPA alleges that the Respondent violated the codified rules governing the Act’s Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions, because Respondent did not adequately implement provisions of 40 C.F .R. Part 68 when it:
- Failed to compile written process safety information for the equipment in the process including a piping and instrument diagram, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(ii);
- Failed to document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2);
- Failed to establish a system to promptly address the team’s findings and recommendations of the Process Hazard Analysis (PHA); 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; develop a written schedule of when these actions are to be completed; and communicate the actions to operating, maintenance and other employees whose work assignments are in the process and who may be affected by the recommendations or actions, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e);
- Failed to review operating procedures as often as necessary and to annually certify that the operating procedures are current and accurate, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c);
- Failed to initially train each employee in an overview of the process and in the operating procedures before being involved in operating a newly assigned process, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(a)(1);
- Failed to train each employee involved in maintaining the ongoing 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 safely perform the job tasks, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(c);
- Failed to correct deficiencies in equipment that are outside acceptable limits ( defined by the process safety information in § 68.65) before further use or in a safe and timely manner when necessary means are taken to assure safe operation, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(e);
- Failed to promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit, and document that deficiencies have been corrected, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d);
- Failed to obtain and evaluate information regarding contract owner or operators’ safety performance and programs when selecting a contractor, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.87(b)(1);
- Failed to inform the contract owner or operator of the known potential fire, explosion, or toxic release hazards related to the contractor’s work and the process, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.87(b)(2); and
- Failed to explain to the contractor owner or operator the applicable provisions of the facility’s emergency response, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.87(b)(3). Penalty Payment
Respondent agrees to pay the civil penalty of FORTY-THREE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY-FOUR DOLLARS ($43,184)
CLICK HERE for CAFO