NOTE: Another EPA RMP inspection where they took issue with the use of “ribbons” used in lieu of lockout locks!
EPA has determined that Respondent violated the Risk Management Program (RMP) regulations promulgated at 40 C.F.R. Part 68 under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as noted on the enclosed Risk Management Plan Inspection Findings and Alleged Violations Summary (“Summary”), which is hereby incorporated by reference.
SETTLEMENT
In consideration of the penalty assessment factors set forth in Section 113(e) of the Act and upon consideration of the entire record, the parties enter into the ESA in order to settle the violations described in the enclosed Summary for the total penalty amount of $9,900.
REASON FOR INSPECTION
This inspection is for the purpose of determining compliance with Section 112(r)(7) accidental release prevention requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990. The scope of this inspection may include, but is not limited to:
- reviewing and obtaining copies of documents and records;
- interviews and taking of statements;
- reviewing of chemical storage, handling, processing, and use;
- taking samples and photographs; and
- any other inspection activities necessary to determine compliance with the Act
INSPECTION FINDINGS
IS FACILITY SUBJECT TO RMP REGULATION (40 C.F.R. § 68)? YES
DID FACILITY SUBMIT AN RMP AS PROVIDED IN 68.150 TO 68.185? YES
DATE RMP FILED WITH EPA: 4/29/2014
DATE OF LATEST RMP UPDATE: 6/19/2018
PROCESS/NAICS CODE: 31171
PROGRAM LEVEL: 3
REGULATED SUBSTANCE: Anhydrous Ammonia
MAX. QUANTITY IN PROCESS (lbs.): 12,000
DESCRIPTION OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
CAA Section 112(r) and its implementing regulations in 40 C.F. R. Part 68 require an owner or operator of a stationary source that has more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance (listed in§ 68.130) in a process, to develop a Risk Management Plan (RMP) and Risk Management Program.
Four EPA representatives and an EPA contractor inspected the Seafoods facility on August 15, 2018. Based upon the Inspection the facility is In violation of the following risk management program elements:
1. Process Safety Information: Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams (P&IDs) did not contain information on the equipment such as the valves as required by 40 C.F.R.§ 68.65(d)(1)(i).
The facility’s P&IDs did not identify the valve numbers for the operator. During the facility tour, the valves in the engine room were not physically tagged.
2. Process Safety Information: Process Safety Information (PSI) did not contain information pertaining to the equipment in the process on the relief system design and design basis as required by 40 C.F.R.§ 68.65(d)(1)(iv).
The facility was unable to produce documents on the relief system design basis calculations for the ammonia refrigeration system pressure relief valves.
3. Process Safety Information: The facility’s process safety information (PSI) did not contain information pertaining to the equipment in the process on the ventilation system design as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(v).
The actual ventilation capacity of 2,340 cubic feet per minute (cfm) for the engine room does not meet required ventilation system capacity of 10,954 cfm given in the ventilation system calculations. This compliance issue was identified in the 2017 compliance audit.
4. Process Safety Information: The facility has not documented that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices as required by 40 C.F.R.§ 68.65(d)(2).
The facility’s refrigeration system does not meet the International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration (IIAR) standards. The machine room contains numerous holes in the walls from piping penetrations that are not tightly sealed to meet IIAR 2-2008 with Addendum B, Section 13.1.5.2. The machine room contains wooden doors that are not self-closing, tight-fitting and equipped with panic-type hardware to meet IIAR 2-2008 with Addendum B, Section 13.1.10. The machine room ventilation system for the Inlet air, exhaust fans, normal mechanical ventilation and emergency mechanical ventilation are not designed to meet IIAR 2-2008 with Addendum B, Section 13.3.3, 13.3.7, 13.3.8 and 13.3.9.
5. Process Hazard Analysis: The facility has not established a system to promptly address the PHA team’s findings and recommendations assured that the recommendations are resolved in a timely manner and documented what actions are to be taken; communicated the actions to operating, maintenance and other employees whose work assignments are in the process and who may be affected by the recommendations as required by 40 C.F.R.§ 68.67(e).
The facility is not promptly addressing findings and recommendations in their June 2013 and May 2018 PHA. In the June 2013 PHA findings and Recommendation, there are 59 findings and recommendations that still remain open. In the May 2018 PHA Findings and Recommendations the proposed completion dates, person assigned, and action taken are not documented.
6. Operating Procedures: The facility has not developed and implemented safe work practices to provide for control of hazards during specific operations, such as lockout/tagout as required in 40 C.F.R.§ 68.69(d).
During the facility tour a lockout/tagout station was observed in the shop room. In addition, red and green ribbons were being used to show that valve is not in use for Blast Freezer# 1. The facility was unable to produce procedures on the lockout/tagout program.
7. Training: The facility has not assured each employee involved in operating a process, and each employee before being involved in operating a newly assigned process, has been initially trained in an overview of the process and in the operating procedure as required in 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(a)(1).
The facility was unable to produce initial training records for their three operators on the overview of the ammonia refrigeration process and the operating procedures. In the 2017 Compliance Audit, Finding T1 and T11, Identify training documentation as a compliance issue.
8. Training: The facility’s Initial training did not include emphasis on safety and health hazards, emergency operations including shutdown, and safe work practices applicable to the employee’s job tasks as required in 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(a)(1).
The facility was unable to produce Initial training records for their three operators. In the 2017 Compliance Audit. Finding T1 and T11, identify training documentation as a compliance issue.
9. Training: The facility did not provide refresher training as least every three years and 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 as required in 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(b).
The facility provided an incomplete operator refresher training log with dates training dates of 6/12/17 to 4/27/18 for the three operators. In the 2017 Compliance Audit, Finding T7, Identifies refresher training documentation as a compliance issue.
10. Training: The facility has not ascertained and documented in record that each employee involved in operating a process has received and understood the training required as required in 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(c).
The facility was unable to produce initial training records to demonstrate that their three operators received and understood the training. In addition, the incomplete operator refresher training log with dates training dates of 6/12/17 to 4/27/18 for the three operators shows that they did not receive training on all operating procedures.
11. Training: The facility has not prepared records containing the identity of the employee, the date of the training, and the means used to verify that the employee understood the training as required in 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(c).
The facility was unable to produce Initial training records for their three operators. In addition, the incomplete operator refresher training log with training dates of 6/12/17 to 4/27/18 for the three operators shows that they did not receive an oral test training on all operating procedures.
12. Mechanical Integrity: The facility has not followed recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices for inspections and testing procedures as required in 40 C.F.R.§ 68.73(d)(2).
The facility’s mechanical integrity program is not following recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices for the pre-season/annual maintenance inspections and testing prior to startup at the beginning of the operational season. Reference IIAR Bulletin 110, 6/07, Appendix C, Equipment Start-up Checklist.
13. Mechanical Integrity: The facility has not ensured the frequency of inspections and tests of process equipment is consistent with applicable manufacturers’ recommendations good engineering practices, and prior operating experience as required in 40 C.F.R.§ 68.73(d)(3).
The facility’s mechanical integrity program does not document the frequency of inspections and testing of process equipment for the ammonia refrigeration system. Reference IIAR Bulletin 110, 6/07, Appendix G.
14. Mechanical Integrity: The facility has not documented each inspection and test that had been performed on process equipment, which identifies the date of the inspection or test, the name of the person who performed the inspection or test, the serial number or other identifier of the equipment on which the inspection or test was performed, a description of the inspection or test performed, and the results of the inspection or test as required in 40 C.F.R § 68.73(d)(4).
The facility’s mechanical integrity program does not document the Inspection and testing of piping (Reference IIAR Bulletin 110, 6/07, Section 6.7, Piping). The facility provided blank piping and insulation inspection Record form that would be used.
15. Compliance Audits: The facility has not promptly determined and documented an appropriate response to each of the findings of the audit and documented that deficiencies had been corrected as required in 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d).
The facility’s 2017 PSM/RMP Compliance Audit Report Findings and Recommendation List does not provide the proposed completion date, responsible person assigned, actions taken and actual completion date.
16. Contractors: The facility’s has not obtained and evaluated information regarding the contract owner or operator’s safety performance and programs when selecting a contractor as required in 40 C.F.R.§ 68.87(b)(1).
The facility has no documentation on the safety performance evaluation when selecting the following contractors: DRS Electrical, Highland Refrigeration, Three Rivers Custom, Industrial Resources, and PermaCold.
17. Contractors: The facility has not informed the contract owner or operator of the known potential fire, explosion, or toxic release hazards related to the contractor’s work and the process as required In 40 C.F.R. § 68.87(b)(2).
The facility has no documentation on the contractor orientation for Wyatt Refrigeration who conducted work on site during 2017.
18. Contractors: The facility has not explained to the contract owner or operator the applicable provisions of the emergency response or the emergency action program as required in 40 C.F.R.§ 68.87(b)(3).
The facility has no documentation that the contractor Wyatt Refrigeration, received information on the facility’s emergency response or action program.
19. Contractors: The facility has not periodically evaluated the performance of the contract owner or operator in fulfilling their obligations as described at 40 C.F.R. § 68.87(c)(1)-(c)(5)), as required in 40 C.F.R.§ 68.87(b)(5).
The facility has no documentation of contractor performance evaluations.
During the facility tour, EPA inspectors observed the following issues that must be addressed:
- The valves on ammonia refrigeration process equipment were not physically tagged for the operators.
- The machine room contains numerous holes in the walls from piping penetrations that are not tightly sealed to meet IIAR 2-2008 with Addendum B, Section 13.1.5.2.
- The machine room contains wooden doors that are not self-closing tight-fitting and equipped with panic-type hardware to meet IIAR2-2008 with Addendum B, Section 13.1.10.
- Damaged insulation was observed on ammonia piping outside that connects the engine room to the Icehouse building.
- Ammonia piping located outside that connects the engine room to the Icehouse building is not labeled.
- Air intake covered with cardboard in engine room does not have a screen or louvers to meet IIAR 2-2008 with Addendum B, Section 13.3.3, Inlet Air.