Respondent owns and operates a pet food ingredient manufacturing facility. Respondent reported three accidental releases to the National Response Center prior to EPA’s inspection. On January 9, 2023, Respondent reported a release of 12 pounds of anhydrous ammonia due to a safety release valve failure. On February 23, 2023, Respondent reported a release of 2 pounds of anhydrous ammonia from a pipe freezer hose that broke open. On March 18, 2024, Respondent reported a release of 221 pounds of anhydrous ammonia because a fan blade damaged evaporator coils. Due to these reported releases, which involve the mechanical integrity of process equipment, the EPA identified the Respondent’s Facility for inspection. EPA inspected the Respondent’s Facility on July 9 through 11, 2024, to determine compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. Part 68.
The EPA inspection confirmed that the reported releases did not result in any injuries, property damage, or off-site impacts. At the time of the EPA inspection, Respondent had greater than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in a process at the Facility. Complainant hereby states and alleges that Respondent has violated the CAA and federal regulations promulgated thereunder as follows:
Count 1 – Management System
The EPA’s inspection revealed that Respondent did not document the names or positions of the people responsible and the lines of authority for the risk management program elements at the Facility.
Respondent’s failure to comply with the management system requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.15(a)-(c), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(1), violates Section 1 12(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Count 2 – Program 3 Prevention Elements
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent did not compile and keep up to date written process safety information for the equipment in the process, as documented by:
a. Respondent did not have documentation of the materials of construction for the hoses on the plate freezers.
b. There were instances where the equipment labels on process equipment in the field did not match the relevant P&ID for that equipment, including but not limited to: two pressure relief valves and a compressor, three-way valve, check valve, globe valve, and thermostatic valve.
c. Respondent did not update the safety information for the relief system design and design basis after completing updates to the relief system in 2023. Respondent’s relief system design and design basis documentation was from 2021.
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent did not ensure and document the process was designed and maintained in compliance with Table 11.1 of lIAR 6 -2019, as documented by examples of pipe corrosion and instances of water under insulation on piping on the roof of the Facility creating a risk of corrosion, including:
a. Water under insulation indicated by bubbling insulation, ice against exposed insulation.
b. Pitting and general corrosion of pipes.
c. Exposed insulation on multiple sections of piping, including the high stage and high temperature recirculated suction lines.
Section 5.6.8 of lIAR 6- 2019 requires equipment and piping to be kept free from excessive ice buildup, and Section 5.6.8.2 provides that ice accumulation shall not displace components. Further, Table 9.1 of IIAR 6 – 2019 requires that evaporators are inspected for
excessive ice buildup. There was excessive ice buildup in the freezers and on evaporators in the Facility documented during the EPA inspection, including:
a. Excessive ice buildup on the floors.
b. Ice buildup on the evaporators in two freezers.
c. Ice buildup on the electrical conduit, which was disconnected from the ammonia alarm in a freezer.
Section 7.2.12.1 of IIAR 9 – 2020 requires guarding or barricading of ammonia containing equipment installed in a location subject to physical damage. The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to protect evaporators in a cooler in anhydrous ammonia service from impacts from forklifts.
Section 7.3.9.2 of IIAR 9 – 2020 requires that machinery room doors shall be selfclosing and tight fitting. The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent did not ensure that all doors to the machine room were tight fitting and sealed, and documented cracks in a door where light was getting through and doors that did not fully seal.
Section 7.2.9.1.1 of IIAR 9-2020 requires buildings and facilities with ammonia refrigeration systems to be marked with placards in accordance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 704: Standard System for the Identification of the Hazards of Materials for Emergency Response.
Appendix D.7. 1 of IIAR 9 – 2020 specifies that the appropriate NFPA diamond for indoor ammonia refrigeration equipment is 3-3-0. The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent did not label machine room doors with NFPA diamonds accurately portraying the hazards of the anhydrous ammonia in the room.
Section 7.2.7.1 of IIAR 9-2020 requires that piping shall be supported to prevent excess vibration and movement. The EPA inspection revealed piping near a condenser on the roof was not adequately supported and was observed to be vibrating during the inspection.
Table 13 of IIAR 6 – 2019 requires pressure relief valves to be replaced five years from the installation date or when lifted. The EPA inspection revealed that, based on Respondent’s tracking data, Respondent had not replaced pressure relief valves or safety relief valves at the interval required by RAGAGEP.
Mechanical Integrity
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent did not document all inspections and tests performed on process equipment as required by 40 C.F.R. Part 68, including but not limited to: the most recent inspection of the evaporator that occurred before the March 2024 release and ammonia sensor calibration records, which test to see if ammonia sensors correctly detect levels ammonia at specified concentrations.
Management ofChange
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent did not complete the management of change considerations of 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(b) prior to relabeling and changing the names of process equipment.
Count 3 – Emergency Response
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent did not have procedures for reviewing and updating the Facility’s hazard material response document (emergency response plan) to reflect changes and ensure that employees are informed of changes to the document.
Respondent’s failure to comply with the emergency response program requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.95, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(5).
Count 4 – Risk Management Plan
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent did not submit all public receptors within the distance to endpoint of the alternative release scenario. Specifically, the alternative release scenario map provided by Respondent shows a commercial facility/public receptor within the distance to endpoint of the alternative release scenario, but the Facility’s RMP does not identify any commercial/industrial facilities present within alternative release scenario distance to endpoint.
Respondent’s failure to identify all public receptors within the distance to endpoint of the alternative release scenario in the RMP, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.165(b)(12).
40 C.F.R § 68.195(b) requires the owner or operator to correct the RMP within one month of any change in emergency contact information. The EPA inspection revealed that the respondent updated the 24-hour emergency contact information six months after a change in personnel.
Respondent’s failure to correct the RMP emergency contact within one month of a change, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.195(b).
Penalty Payment
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of $176,654.
CLICK HERE for CAFO