Respondent operates a dairy plant and has on-site, 13,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia which is used in its ammonia refrigeration process. Respondent submitted a single RMPlan that included an accidental release prevention program, to the EPA for its stationary source. At its stationary source, the Respondent has one RMProgram level 3 covered process. On January 27, 2015, the EPA conducted an onsite inspection of the RMProgram related records and equipment to assess the Respondent’s compliance with the RMProgram requirements including the implemented recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP) for its covered processes at its stationary source.
During the inspection, the EPA requested and was provided process safety information. The process safety information contained no information with regard to:
- electrical classification information,
- relief system design and design basis information, or
- documentation that the following equipment complied with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.
(1) Doors entering the ammonia engine room did not have visual or audible alarms to alert of an ammonia release. 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. Signage near the annunciators shall clearly mark the meaning of each alarm.”
(2) Some of the ammonia piping did not have labels indicating the pipe contents or direction of flow. The International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration (IIAR) Bulletin 109: Minimum Safety Criteria for a Safe Ammonia Refrigeration System, Section 4.7.6, indicates, “All ammonia piping should have appropriate pipe markers attached to indicate the use of the pipe and arrows to indicate the direction of flow, such as in IIAR Bulletin 114.” Bulletin 114: Guidelines for Identification of Ammonia Refrigeration Piping and System Components, Section 4.1 Piping Markers, indicates, “Piping markers shall be designed to identify the refrigerant, the physical state of the refrigerant, and the relative pressure level of the refrigerant and the direction of flow.”
Some of the piping supports in the engine room were rusted. IIAR Bulletin 110, Section 6.7.1 indicates, “All uninsulated piping and associated components such as flanges and supports shall be inspected annually for any damage to or deterioration of the piping or its protective finish, and remedial action is taken where necessary. Areas affected by slight corrosion should be cleaned off and appropriately treated before reinstating the protective finish.”
During the inspection, the EPA requested and was provided a copy of Respondent’s 2014 process hazard analysis. The Respondent did not address stationary source sitting in its process hazard analysis dated January 2014.
During the inspection, the EPA requested information to show that the Respondent had established a system to address the thirteen recommendations from its January 2014 process hazard analysis. Respondent could not provide such information.
During the inspection, the EPA requested information showing that an ammonia system operator had received refresher training specific to the operating procedures for the process during any time between October 2012 and March 2015. Respondent could not provide such information.
During the inspection, the EPA requested information showing that it established written procedures to maintain the ongoing integrity of the process equipment. Respondent could not provide such information.
During the inspection, the EPA requested information showing that it provided training to any of its seven employees involved in maintaining the on-going integrity of the process. Respondent could not provide such information.
During the inspection, the Respondent could not provide information showing that it followed recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, with respect to inspecting and testing the ammonia system. The IIAR Bulletin 110 – Guidelines for Start-up, Inspection, and Maintenance of Ammonia Mechanical Refrigerating Systems, 6.2, indicates, preferably every four hours, but at least daily, the system should be observed in normal operation and a full log taken of operating conditions. Respondent could not provide such information.
During the inspection, the EPA requested information showing that it informed contractors working on or near the process of the known potential fire, explosion or toxic release hazards. Respondent could not provide such information.
During the inspection, the EPA requested information showing that it explained the applicable provisions of their emergency response to contractors working on or near the process. Respondent could not provide such information.
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 C.F.R. Part 68 when it:
- Failed to include electrical classification in the written process safety information for the equipment in the process as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(iii);
- Failed to include a relief system design and design basis in the written process safety information for the equipment in the process as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(iv);
- 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 address stationary source citing in the process hazard analysis as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c)(5);
- Failed to establish a system to promptly address the team’s findings and recommendations; assure that the proposals 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; 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 provide 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 as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(b);
- Failed to establish and implement written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of process equipment as required by 40 C.F.R.§ 68.73(b);
- Failed to train each employee involved in maintaining the on-going 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, and establish and implement written procedures to maintain the ongoing integrity of process equipment as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(c);
- Failed to follow recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices for inspection and testing procedures as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(2);
- 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);
- Failed to explain to the contractor the applicable provisions of the facility’s emergency response actions as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.87(b)(3).
Respondent agrees to pay the civil penalty of EIGHTY-SIX THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED DOLLARS ($86,800) (“EPA Penalty”)
CLICK HERE for the CAFO