Respondent owns and operates an ammonia refrigeration system at its ice cream novelty manufacturing facility, which maintained a maximum inventory of the regulated toxic substance anhydrous ammonia at the Facility, exceeding the threshold quantity of 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia. The ammonia refrigeration system at the Facility services 3 freezer rooms and consists of 12 compressors (including compressor BC-02), 46 vessels, 23 evaporators, 1 purger, 32 heat exchangers, 2 condensers, 8 ammonia pumps, and 3 water pumps (the Covered Process).
On July 12, 2022, EPA conducted an announced inspection of the Facility. During the Inspection, EPA inspectors reviewed documents. The RMP Documents included aspects of the Facility’s RMP involving the management system, process safety information, process hazard analysis, operating procedures, training, mechanical integrity, management of change, pre-startup safety review, compliance audits, hot work permits, employee participation, and contractors.
I. Process Hazard Analysis
During the Inspection, EPA reviewed Process Hazard Analyses (PHA) documentation from 2014 (2014 PHA) and 2019 (2019 PHA). The 2014 PHA had three recommendations that had not been resolved by the time of the Inspection and six were completed between 2019 and 2022. The 2019 PHA had four recommendations that had not been resolved by the time of the Inspection and six recommendations that took greater than a year from the scheduled completion date to be resolved.
II. Operating Procedures
During the Inspection, EPA reviewed the Facility’s written operating procedures. EPA reviewed the written operating procedure for the inspection of compressor BC-02 during the Inspection and compared it to the daily inspection log utilized by operators while inspecting the compressors. EPA noted a discrepancy between the operating procedure and the inspection log.
EPA asked personnel about the discrepancy between the compressor BC-02 operating procedure and the inspection log and personnel informed EPA that the operating procedure was written incorrectly.
III. Mechanical Integrity
During the Inspection, EPA reviewed mechanical integrity documentation. The facility’s mechanical integrity program includes annual ammonia system inspections and an in-depth mechanical integrity inspection every five years. EPA reviewed a Mechanical Integrity inspection report (MI Report) from 2021 and recommendation documentation from the 2016 MI Report. EPA also reviewed annual ammonia system inspection reports for 2019 (2019 AAI Report) and 2020 (2020 AAI Report).
The facility took longer than a year from the scheduled completion date to resolve six recommendations from the 2016 MI Report and one finding was not resolved by the time of the Inspection. It took greater than a year from the scheduled completion date to resolve 14 recommendations from the 2019 AAI and 203 recommendations were not addressed by the time of the Inspection.
IV. Compliance Audits
During the Inspection, EPA reviewed two most recent compliance audits, which were completed in April 2017 and April 2020. It completed three recommendations from the April 2017 compliance audit after 2020 and 15 recommendations did not have a date of completion recorded.
V. Emergency Response
During the Inspection, EPA reviewed documents related to emergency response at the Facility and interviewed ICS personnel about emergency response at the Facility. The facility held no annual coordination activities with Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPC) nor the local fire department. At the time of the Inspection, the facility was not aware of whether the Facility was addressed in the community emergency response plan.
CAPP Violations
I. Process Hazard Analysis
In violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e), ICS failed to establish a system to promptly address PHA findings and recommendations, assure that the recommendations are resolved in a timely manner, and complete actions as soon as possible.
II. Operating Procedures
In violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c), ICS failed to assure that their operating procedures reflect current operating practices.
III. Mechanical Integrity
In violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(e), ICS failed to correct deficiencies in equipment in a safe and timely manner.
IV. Compliance Audits
In violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d), ICS 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.
V. Emergency Response
In violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.93(a-c), ICS failed to coordinate annually with the LEPC and local fire department, ensure that the Facility is addressed in the community emergency response plan, and document the annual coordination activity.
Civil Penalty
Based on analysis of the factors specified in Section 113(e) of the CAA, the facts of this case, cooperation, and a prompt return to compliance, Complainant has determined that an appropriate civil penalty to settle this action is $176,708.
Supplemental Environment Project
In response to the alleged violations of the CAPP and in settlement of this matter, although not required by the CAPP or any other federal, state, or local law, Respondent agrees to complete a supplemental environmental project (SEP) with three separate components as described in Attachment A.
This SEP is consistent with applicable U.S. EPA policy, specifically the “2015 Update to the 1998 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Supplemental Environmental Projects Policy,” dated March 10, 2015. The SEP advances at least one of the objectives of the CAPP by providing new and upgraded emergency response equipment and training to the local fire department and installing and operating a remote display ammonia detection system. The SEP is not inconsistent with any provision of the CAPP. The SEP relates to the alleged violations and is designed to reduce the overall risk to public health and the environment potentially affected by the alleged violations by increasing the effectiveness of emergency response organizations that serve the Facility and other sources in the region.
Respondent shall complete this SEP related to Emergency Planning and Preparedness, consisting of providing emergency response equipment and training to the local fire department, and installing and operating a remote display ammonia detection system. The SEP is more specifically described in Attachment A and incorporated herein by reference.
Respondent agrees to spend at least $84,500 on implementing the SEP. Respondent shall include documentation of the expenditures made in connection with the SEP as part of the SEP Completion Report. If Respondent’s implementation of the SEP as described in Attachment A does not expend the full amount set forth in this paragraph, and if U.S. EPA determines that the amount remaining reasonably could be applied toward the purchase of additional emergency-response equipment, Respondent will identify, purchase and provide additional emergency-response equipment to the local fire department identified in Attachment A.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO