Respondent operates an ammonia refrigeration plant and has on-site for use, 130,000 pounds of ammonia for cold food storage. Respondent has submitted and registered an RMPlan to the EPA for its stationary source and has developed an RMProgram accidental release prevention program for the stationary source’s single RMProgram level 3 covered process. On November 8, 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 processes at its stationary source.
At the time of the inspection:
- the Respondent provided an off-site consequence analysis (OCA) that was completed August 24, 1999. The Respondent confirmed the OCA had not been reviewed or updated.
- one door entering the ammonia engine room did not have visual or 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 door entering the ammonia engine room was not equipped with panic-type hardware as required by IIAR Bulletin No. 112, section 4.2.1(b).
- the Respondent conducted a process hazard analysis (PHA) in October of 2016. At the time of the inspection, many of the recommendations remained unresolved.
- the last RMP submitted by the facility was done on August 30, 2012. The inspection was conducted on November 8, 2017. The facility did resubmit it’s RMP on November 29, 2017.
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 CFR Part 68 when it:
- Failed to review and update the offsite consequence analyses at least once every five years, as required by 40 CFR § 68.36(a);
- 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; 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; 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 revise and update the RMP submitted under§ 68.150 at least once every five years from the date of its initial submission or most recent update, as required by 40 CFR § 68.190(b)(1).
Penalty Payment
Respondent agrees to pay the civil penalty of THIRTY-FOUR THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED THIRTY-SIX DOLLARS ($34,336)
CLICK HERE for the CAFO