SAFTENG NOTE: This is the first time I have come across a citation from either OSHA or EPA where they took issue with the Ammonia Flammability Limits as depicted on the NFPA 704 Diamond located on the engine/machinery room door. The facility had not updated their label to show NH3 as an F=3 for indoors; thus they still had a 1 in the RED section. The EPA referenced the IMC in their citations, and this is correct that the IMC differentiates between INSIDE and OUTSIDE for NH3 flammable ratings in the NFPA 704 Diamond; however, this facility could have taken in their SDS for their ammonia and merely stated: “we were using our SDS to establish our ratings.” I’m guessing it was just easier to change every engine/machinery room door in the company so that the NFPA Diamond Flammability is a “3”!!!! And to be sure the record is corrected… NH3 does NOT have a Flash Point as it is a GAS!
Respondent operates a food service distribution facility that includes refrigerated spaces that utilize 26,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia within an ammonia refrigeration system. Respondent has registered an RMPlan with the EPA for its stationary source and has developed an RMProgram accidental release prevention program for the fixed source showing the process is an RMProgram level 3 covered process. On March 23, 2017, the EPA conducted an onsite inspection of the RMProgram related records and equipment to assess the Respondent’s compliance with the RMProgram requirements and the implemented recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP). At the time of the inspection, the EPA determined there were issues with…
- Engine/Machinery room visual alarm(s)
- Engine/Machinery room NFPA 704 Diamond Rating for NH3 indoors (referenced the IMC)
- Not doing Compressor Oil Analysis per manufacturer’s frequency, nor more frequency based on their previous test results
- Issues with the “Daily Rounds” not including a check on the “auto-purgers” (IIAR Bulletin 110) and not tracking oil going into/out of the process
- Did not correct issues noted during some MI inspections/testing
- Not doing MOCs on temporary evaporator coil replacement and starting, but not finishing, a MOC on a change on instrument panels
Here is a break down of the citations:
- Employ visual and audible alarms inside its refrigeration machinery room and outside each entrance to the refrigeration machinery room, as required by ASHRAE 15, Section 8.11.2.1.
- In addition, the red quadrant (flammability hazard diamond signage) on the door to the Respondent’s refrigeration machinery room required by the National Fire Protection Association contained the incorrect value of “1”, indicating a flash point above 200 degrees F. The Refrigeration System Classification section of the International Mechanical Code requires that the red quadrant signage for indoor ammonia refrigeration equipment have a value of three (3), indicating a flash point below 200 degrees F.
- Conduct semi-annual compressor oil analysis, in accordance with the compressor manufacturer’s recommendation. The Respondent had not conducted any compressor oil analysis since October 2015. Further, the result of Respondent’s oil analysis indicated the need for more frequent analysis, on a quarterly basis.
- Conduct daily inspections of the entire ammonia refrigeration process, including its auto purger. The Respondent’s daily refrigeration checklist did not indicate affirmative inspection of the auto purger. In accordance with the IIAR Bulletin 110 – Guidelines for Start-up, Inspection, and Maintenance of Ammonia Mechanical Refrigerating Systems, 6.2, inspections should be performed, “preferably every four hours, but at least daily, the system should be observed in normal operation and a full log taken of operating conditions. Recognizing that a refrigerating system is designed to be a sealed system, the log should include a record of any quantities of oil or ammonia added to or purged from the system and any purging of noncondensable gases.
- Correct equipment deficiencies outside of acceptable limits as identified and documented in the September 2013 mechanical integrity audit conducted by the Respondent’s contractor.
- In March 2016, Respondent’s contractor cut out coil tube groups from the EC1 evaporator and welded the tube groups closed as a temporary operating condition. The facility continued to use the evaporator in this altered state until November 2016, when the evaporator was replaced. The facility did not issue a management of change (MOC) for this temporary and altered change to the EC 1 evaporator, and therefore did not implement the facility’s required MOC procedure.
- On February 24, 2017, the Respondent initiated a change to its ammonia system instrument panel without first obtaining approval authorizing the change as required by the facility’s MOC.
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 document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2);
- Was unable to perform inspections and tests of process equipment with a frequency consistent with applicable manufacturers’ recommendations and good engineering practices, and more frequently if determined to be necessary by prior operating experience, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68. 73(d)(3);
- Failed 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, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(e);
- Failed to establish and implement written procedures to manage changes (except for “replacements in kind”) to process chemicals, technology, equipment, and systems; and, changes to stationary sources that affect a covered process, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(a); and,
- Failed to establish procedures to assure management of change authorization requirements for a proposed change are addressed before any change, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(b)(5).
TERMS OF CONSENT AGREEMENT
Respondent agrees to pay the civil penalty of ONE HUNDRED SEVEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIXTY-ONE DOLLARS ($107,961)
CLICK HERE for this agreement