Respondent operates an ammonia refrigerant facility with 19,000 pounds of ammonia for food refrigeration purposes. The process is an RMProgram level 3 covered process. On March 24, 2016, 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 processes at its stationary source, at which time the Respondent could not document that the following equipment complied with RAGAGEP. At the time of the inspection, doors entering the ammonia engine room did not have visual and 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.”
One of the machine room doors, installed for allowing easier removal and addition or replacement of process vessels, was not tight-fitting.
The International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration (IIAR) Bulletin 2-2008, Equipment, Design, and Installation of Closed-Circuit Ammonia Mechanical Refrigeration Systems, Section 13.1.10.1, indicates:
“Each refrigerating machinery room shall have a tight-fitting door or doors opening outward, self-closing if they open into the building, and adequate in number to ensure freedom for persons to escape in an emergency.”
The initial process hazard analysis (PHA) of October 13, 2010, identified the lack of alarms for the ventilation system failure as an item to rectify (Item # 16.29); the recommendation to address this issue was assigned to an employee in January of 2015. At the time of the inspection, on March 24, 2016, there was no alarm for ventilation system failure.
The facility could not provide documentation that some of the findings of the August 2013 compliance audit were appropriately responded to and that the deficiencies have been corrected.
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF LAW
Based on the 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 CFR Part 68 when it:
- Failed to document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices as required by 40 CFR § 68.65(d)(2);
- Failed to establish a system to promptly address the team’s findings and recommendations (of the 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 operations as soon as possible; develop a written schedule of when these actions are to be completed; 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 CFR § 68.67(e); and
- 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 CFR § 68.79(d).
Respondent agrees to pay the civil penalty of THIRTY-THREE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED EIGHT DOLLARS ($33,108)
CLICK HERE for the CAFO