On June 3-5, 2015, an authorized representative of the EPA conducted a compliance inspection of the 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) of the CAA. The EPA found that the Respondent had violated regulations implementing Section 112(r) of the CAA by failing to comply with the regulations as noted on the enclosed Risk Management Program Inspection Findings (RMP Findings), which is hereby incorporated by reference.
VIOLATIONS
Executive Summary [68.155(c) & (f)]
No penalty assessed
The owner or operator failed to provide in the executive summary a brief description of the general accidental release prevention program, chemical specific prevention steps and planned changes to improve safety.
Facility addressed this post inspection.
Five-Year Accident History [68.168]
No penalty assessed
The owner or operator failed to submit in the RMP the information provided in §68.42(b) on each accident covered by §68.42(a).
Facility addressed this post inspection.
Prevention Program
Safety Information [ 68.65(c)(1)(iii)]
No penalty assessed
The owner or operator failed to document information pertaining to technology of the process for the maximum intended inventory.
How was this addressed:
Technology of all processes for maximum intended inventory determination was reviewed, recalculated and documented in the Risk Management Program.
Prevention Program
Process Hazard Analysis [68.67(e)]
No penalty assessed
The owner or operator failed to establish a system to promptly address the team’s findings and recommendations and failed to communicate the actions to operating, maintenance, and other employees whose work assignments were in the process and who may be affected by the recommendations.
Facility addressed this post inspection.
Process Hazard Analysis [68.67(c)(2)]
$600
The owner or operator failed to address in the PHA identification of any incident that had a likely potential for catastrophic consequences.
How was this addressed:
The team performed and completed a Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) that specifically focused on previous incidents that had the likely potential for catastrophic consequences. An Incident PHA has also been added as an addendum to the 2015 PHA.
Prevention Program
Operating Procedures [68.69(c)]
$1,200
The owner or operator failed to certify annually that the operating procedures are current and accurate and that procedures have been reviewed as often as necessary.
Facility addressed this post inspection.
Prevention Program
Training [68.71(a)(l)] $1,500
The owner or operator failed to initially train in an overview of the process and in the operating procedures.
Facility addressed this post inspection.
Training [68.71(b)]
No penalty assessed
The owner or operator failed to have refresher training been provided at least every three years, or 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.
Facility addressed this post inspection.
Prevention Program
Mechanical Integrity [68.73(e)]
$900
The owner or operator failed to correct 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 were taken to assure safe operation.
How was this addressed:
The deficiency of equipment observed in the ammonia machinery room has been corrected. All ammonia sensors in the machinery room are now being monitored daily for operation. Quantity and maintenance of the ammonia machinery room sensors exceeds the manufacturers and industry standards.
Prevention Program
Management of Change [68.75(b)(5)]
$300
The owner or operator failed to address the authorization requirements of the Management of Change for the proposed change prior to the change.
Facility addressed this post inspection.
Prevention Program
Pre-startup Safety Review (68.77(a)]
No penalty assessed
The owner or operator failed to conduct a PSSR for MOC-2013-41001 which was significant enough to require a change in the process safety information.
Facility addressed this post inspection.
Prevention Program
Compliance Audits [68.79(a)]
$1,200
The owner or operator failed to cert([v that the stationary source has evaluated compliance with the provisions of the prevention program at least every three years to verify that the developed procedures and practices are adequate and being followed; and foiled to document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the audit and documented that deficiencies had been corrected.
How was this addressed:
XXXXXXXXXX, Manager of Plant Engineering for XXXXXXXX Food, being a member of the compliance audit team has signed the past audits as the certifier for the plant. Future audits will be signed by the leading member of this team as the owner or operator. Documented response to each finding of the audit is entered into a tracking spreadsheet that identifies deficiency completion and action plans to complete.
Prevention Program
Compliance Audits [68.79(d)]
No penalty assessed
The owner or operator failed to promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the audit and documented that deficiencies had been corrected.
Facility addressed this post inspection.
Prevention Program
Incident Investigation [68.81(d)]
$600
The owner or operator failed to prepare a report at the conclusion of every investigation. May 13, 2012 incident on rooftop of an RMP facility an incident investigation report was not completed.
How was this addressed:
The team reviewed past incident investigations for completeness. A report for the May 13, 2012 incident was prepared with corrective actions currently being implemented.
Contractors (68.87(b)(1)]
$900
The owner or operator failed to obtained and evaluate information regarding the contract owner or operator’s safety performance and programs when selecting a contractor.
How was this addressed:
A request for the missing refrigeration contractor safety information was issued, received back, and filed. The information packet request relating to contractor has been updated to include the Contractor Qualification 1 (CQ1) Form. The CQ1 Form contains information requesting the required safety information. Contractor selection will be performed internally.
TOTAL $7,200
CLICK HERE for the CAFO