Respondent operates a seafood processing and distribution facility in New Bedford, Massachusetts that uses anhydrous ammonia in a refrigeration “process” as defined by 40 C.F.R. § 68.3, in a series of interconnected pipes and vessels at the Facility (the “Process”).
According to the respondent’s 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 Reporting Year Tier II reports, the facility maintained an average daily inventory of 28,000 lbs. of anhydrous ammonia on site in its two (2) refrigeration systems. Accordingly, the anhydrous ammonia Process at the Facility is a “covered process” subject to the RMP provisions of Part 68. The endpoint for a worst-case release of the amount of anhydrous ammonia used in the process is greater than the distance to a public receptor. Additionally, the Process is subject to OSHA’s PSM requirements at 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119 because it uses anhydrous ammonia in an amount over the threshold quantity of 10,000 pounds. Therefore, in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 68.10, Respondent’s use, storage, and handling of anhydrous ammonia in the Process is subject to the requirements of RMP Program 3.
EPA visited the Facility (the “Inspection”) and reviewed documents to assess compliance with Part 68.
The complainant alleges the following violations of Part 68.
Count 1: Failure to File a Risk Management Plan
The respondent filed its first risk management plan on December 29, 2017, despite having had over the threshold amount of anhydrous ammonia in its Process for years before that. Accordingly, the respondent failed to file a risk management plan when due and thus operated the Process in violation of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.12(a), 68.150, and Section 112(r)(7)(E) of the CAA.
Count 2: Failure to Comply with Hazard Assessment Requirements
Respondent violated the hazard assessment requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.25, 68.36, and 68.42.
Count 3: Failure to Comply with Process Hazard Analysis Requirements
Respondent documented completion of a PHA in conjunction with its New Facility Pre-Startup Review Verification, dated May 10, 2004.
Respondent reported completion of a PHA on October 6, 2016, in its initial RMP filing on December 29, 2017, and completed a PHA initial validation review in January 2018. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.10(a)(3) and 68.12(d), Respondent should have complied with the Program 3 PHA requirements, including performance of periodic PHA updates and revalidations, between 2004 and 2016. Further, although Respondent identified the hazard of vehicular impacts to the ammonia receivers in its 2004 PHA, at the time of the Inspection, the hazard had still not been fully controlled.
Accordingly, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.10(a)(3) and 68.12(d), the PHA requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(a) and (e) for the Process.
Count 4: Failure to Comply with Process Safety Information Requirements
At the time of Inspection, Respondent had not compiled all of the necessary process safety information pertaining to the technology and equipment of the Process, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1). Specifically, Respondent did not have
(i) piping and instrument diagrams for the entire facility that reflected as-built conditions and that
labeled and listed key valves (including valves required for emergency shutdown of the
system) and
(ii) ventilation system design documentation.
Additionally, as more fully described in Attachment A, at the time of the Inspection Respondent had also failed to document that the Process equipment complied with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (“RAGAGEP”) and that equipment designed according to outdated standards was designed, maintained, inspected, tested, and operated in a safe manner. Specifically, among other things, Respondent did not have required certificates for pressure vessels; sufficient labeling on piping and valves; an eyewash/safety shower inside or directly outside the ammonia machinery room (“AMR”); sufficient ventilation for the AMR; high pressure receivers protected from potential vehicle impacts; an accessible isolation valve for one of its high pressure receivers; a properly-located emergency shutoff switch; quick-closing valves on oil pots; adequate ammonia detection alarms; sealed piping penetrations into the AMR to prevent escape of ammonia vapor; or tight-fitting doors to the AMR outfitted with panic bars.
Also, there was clutter (including combustible items) around the high-pressure receivers and in the AMR, which could impede access and create a fire hazard.
Accordingly, by failing to compile the necessary information about the technology and equipment of the Process, including documenting that the Process complied with RAGAGEP and that equipment designed to outdated standards was safe, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. 68.65.
Count 5: Failure to Comply with Program 3 Mechanical Integrity Requirements
At the time of the Inspection, Respondent had not performed all the necessary inspections and tests of the equipment in the Process, following RAGAGEP, and had not maintained documentation thereof, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d). Specifically, Respondent had not properly tested and maintained, or documented the maintenance and proper calibration of, ammonia detectors at the Facility.
As more fully described in Attachment A, Respondent had not corrected deficiencies in equipment that were outside of acceptable limits, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(e). Specifically, Respondent had failed to properly maintain piping, valves, and pressure vessels, which exhibited several instances of significant corrosion, including on the high pressure receivers and associated piping and pressure relief valves.
By failing to comply with the Program 3 mechanical integrity requirements, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73.
Count 6: Failure to Comply with Hot Work Permit Requirements
In 2018, inspectors again observed grinding (hot work) being conducted on the ammonia system piping at the Facility, which again had been conducted without a hot work permit having been issued.
- By failing to comply with the Program 3 hot work permit requirements, Respondent
violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.85 for the Process.
Count 7: Failure to Comply with Training Documentation Requirements
At the time of the Inspection, the Facility did not maintain the required training records for the person responsible for RMP for the ammonia refrigeration system (process), nor for the other employees involved in the operation of the process.
Accordingly, by not maintaining documentation of employees’ training and understanding of the hazards, operations, and maintenance of the ammonia refrigeration systems, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.71 for the Process.
Count 8: Failure to Submit Chemical Inventory Forms in Violation of EPCRA Section 312
At the time of the Inspection, EPA alleges an average daily inventory of 28,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia were present at the facility, exceeding the threshold level established in 40 C.F.R. § 370.10(a)(1). Respondent had not reported the presence of this hazardous chemical at the Facility despite being in operation with threshold amounts of ammonia since at least 2013.
Respondent was required to submit Inventory Forms to the SERC, LEPC, and the fire department with jurisdiction over the Facility, on or before March 1, 2016, for the reporting year 2015.
At the time of the EPA Inspection, Respondent had not submitted Inventory Forms to the appropriate LEPC, the SERC, and the fire department with jurisdiction over the Facility.
Accordingly, Respondent’s failure to submit the required Inventory Forms for reporting year 2015 violated Section 312 of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 11022, and 40 C.F.R. Part 370.
Penalty Payment
Respondent agrees to pay the civil penalty of $220,000 (“EPA Penalty”).
CLICK HERE for CAFO