Respondent is the owner and/or operator of a facility that uses, handles, and/or stores more than a threshold quantity of ammonia (anhydrous), ammonia (concentration 20% or greater), and chlorine, which are regulated substances, as specified at 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.115 and 68.130.
During the inspection, the EPA representative observed alleged violations of section 112(r) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r), and Part 68. The alleged violations identified in the inspection that remain uncorrected are described below.
Part 68 provides that the owner or operator must document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices. 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2). Respondent’s Nitric Acid #3 plant piping was not labeled in accordance with ANSI/ASME A13.1, Scheme for the Identification of Piping Systems. By not labeling Nitric Acid #3 plant piping per ANSI/ASME A13.1, Respondent did not comply with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices and violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2).
Part 68 provides that the owner or operator must 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; and 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. 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e). In its January 2017 Ammonia Plant process hazard analysis, in the Human Factors Checklist, Respondent stated, “Need to review primary equipment to ensure proper labeling,” and that, a “Program is being developed” for component labeling. However, Respondent did not assure that the recommendations were resolved in a timely manner and that the resolution was documented. By not resolving recommendations in the January 2017 Ammonia Plant process hazard analysis, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e).
Part 68 provides that inspection and testing procedures must follow recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices. 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(2). Respondent stated that its inspection and testing procedures follow API 510, Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: In-Service Inspection, Rating, Repair, and Alteration. However, the Respondent failed to calculate the remaining life of all pressure vessels to determine the required inspection frequencies per API 510. By failing to follow API 510 for its inspection and testing procedures, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(2).
Part 68 provides that inspection and testing procedures must follow recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices. 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(2). Respondent stated that its inspection and testing procedures follow API 570, Piping Inspection Code: Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Rerating of In-service Piping Systems. However, the Respondent failed to calculate the remaining life of all piping components to determine the required inspection frequencies per API 570. By failing to follow API 570 for its inspection and testing procedures, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(2).
Part 68 provides that inspection and testing procedures must follow recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices. 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(2). Respondent stated that its inspection and testing procedures follow API 510, Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: In-Service Inspection, Rating, Repair, and Alteration. However, Respondent failed to ensure that the period between internal or on-stream inspections for NH3 Synthesis Converter, 1212-D8.030, did not exceed one-half the remaining life of the vessel or 10 years, whichever was less, nor did Respondent justify this action by a Risk-Based Inspection assessment or deferral procedure, per API 510. By failing to follow API 510 for its inspection and testing procedures, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(2).
Part 68 provides that inspection and testing procedures must follow recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices. 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(2). Respondent stated that its inspection and testing procedures follow API 570, Piping Inspection Code: Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Rerating of In-service Piping Systems. However, Respondent failed to ensure that the intervals between thickness measurements for piping component 2033-AL-01, Liquid Ammonia to Urea Reactor, did not exceed one half the remaining life, per API 570. By failing to follow API 570 for its inspection and testing procedures, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(2).
Part 68 provides that the owner or operator must establish and implement written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of process equipment. 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(b). Respondent implements procedures for the on-going integrity of piping component 2033-AL-01, Liquid Ammonia to Urea Reactor, which are not documented in Respondent’s internal policy, GMES-SE-001, Static Equipment Management Standard. By not establishing written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of piping component 2033-AL-01, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(b).
Part 68 provides that the owner or operator must promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit, and document that deficiencies have been corrected. 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d). Respondent documented that the deficiency related to finding MI-1 in the May 2016 Compliance Audit report had been corrected. Finding MI-1 states, “The facility has not completed the development and implementation of its MI program to (1) adequately meet the requirements of the PSM and RMP regulations and (2) provide a complete program to ensure the integrity of the processes and equipment. The current MI program does not (1) include all covered equipment and safety systems, (2) provide adequate maintenance procedures and work orders, (3) establish frequencies for ITPM activities, and (4) ensure documentation of all maintenance activities that are performed.” Respondent has represented to the EPA that these deficiencies will continue to exist until at least October 2022. By erroneously documenting that the deficiencies from its May 2016 Compliance Audit report had been corrected while the deficiencies identified in paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 continue to exist, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d).
COMPLIANCE ORDER
EPA and Respondent agree that Respondent will, as expeditiously as possible, but in no event later than July 31, 2023, correct the violations. EPA and Respondent further agree that Respondent will, as expeditiously as possible, but in no event later than December 31, 2023, will establish a system to promptly address the team’s findings and recommendations.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO