Respondent operated a facility that manufactures ammonium phosphate fertilizers and sulphuric acid. EPA conducted an on-site investigation of Respondent’s operations at the Facility pursuant to CAA Section 112(r), EPCRA Sections 304-12, and CERCLA Section 103 on January 30, 2020 (the “Inspection”). Respondent has informed EPA that the Facility no longer has any ammonia onsite as of May 24, 2024.
At all times relevant to this CAFO, Respondent produced, used or stored more than 10,000 pounds of ammonia (anhydrous) at the Facility. At all times relevant to this CAFO, Respondent produced, used or stored more than 20,000 pounds of ammonia (concentration 20% or greater) at the Facility. At all times relevant to this CAFO, Respondent was subject to Program 3 requirements because there are public receptors within the distance to the endpoint for the worst case release from its Facility and was subject to the OSHA process safety management standard set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119.
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
Count 1 – Failure to Comply with Process Safety Information Requirements
Based on evidence gathered during the investigation, EPA determined that Respondent did not document the assumptions or calculations required for the maximum intended inventory of ammonia (concentration 20% or greater) stored at the Facility.
Based on evidence gathered during the investigation, EPA found that Respondent’s calculation of the maximum intended inventory of anhydrous ammonia includes an assumption regarding number of ammonia trailers, which is inconsistent with process safety information.
Under 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d}{1){ii), an owner or operator of a facility must compile information pertaining to the equipment in the covered process, including piping and instrument diagrams (“P&IDs”).
During the inspection, the EPA observed that some process equipment was not consistent with the P&IDs for the facility.
Based on evidence gathered during the investigation, EPA determined that some of the Facility’s pressure relief system design and design basis did not contain accurate documentation pertaining to the safe upper and lower limits for such items as temperatures, pressures, flows or compositions.
Under 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2), an owner or operator of a facility must document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP).
Based on evidence gathered during the investigation, EPA identified multiple deficiencies at the Facility and determined that the Facility did not document that equipment complies with RAGAGEP.
Specifically:
a. The pressure gauges on anhydrous ammonia tank 4925-TK-604 and 4925-TK-605 at the Facility are graduated from Oto 300 pounds per square inch gauge (“psig”), not the required O psig to 400 psig.
b. Some facility piping containing RMP covered chemicals lacked labels to indicate the contents in the piping and arrows to indicate direction of flow.
c. Respondent did not have an emergency notification sign posted in the Facility’s storage area.
d. Several of the emergency stops at the Facility are faded and no longer red and had faded labeling and coloring.
e. Emergency shutoff valves 25-HV-011 and 25cHV 114 on the liquid and vapor lines from anhydrous ammonia tank 4925-TK-604 and the emergency shutoff valves 25 HV-017 and 25-HV-121 on the liquid and vapor lines from anhydrous ammonia tank 4925-TK-605 are not easily accessible.
Based on evidence gathered during the investigation, EPA determined that the Facility did not document that the deviations from RAGAGEP were designed, maintained, inspected, tested, and operating in a safe manner.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to compile all information pertaining to the maximum intended inventory of the anhydrous ammonia, by failing to compile all information pertaining to the equipment in the covered process including P&IDs, by failing to compile all information pertaining to the safe upper and lower limits for such items as temperatures, pressures, flows or compositions, and by failing to comply with RAGAGEP or document that its existing equipment was safe, Respondent Violated the process safety information requirements set forth at 40 C.F.R. § 68.65{d).
Count 2 – Failure to Comply with Process Hazard Analysis Requirement
Based on evidence gathered during the investigation, EPA determined that the 2018 PHA did not adequately address Facility siting. For example, the Pellet Plant locker room and the control room, located above the Pellet Plant’s furnace and adjacent to the plant pipe reactor containing anhydrous ammonia and other toxic substances, do not appear to be designed to protect occupants against explosion, fire, and toxic material releases.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to establish a system to promptly address the findings and recommendations and adequately address facility siting of PHAs from May of 2018 to May 2024, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68,67(e).
Count 3 – Failure to Develop and Implement Adequate Operating Procedures
Based on evidence gathering during the investigation, EPA determined that Respondent’s written emergency shutdown procedures did not include:
i) all of the conditions under which emergency shutdown is required, and the assignment of shutdown responsibility to qualified operators to ensure that emergency shutdown is executed in a safe and timely manner;
ii) operating limits such as consequences of deviation or steps to correct or avoid deviation;
iii) safety and health considerations such as properties of, and hazards presented by, the chemicals used in the process and precautions necessary to prevent exposure, including engineering controls, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment.
Based on evidence gathered during the investigation, EPA determined that Respondent failed to implement safe work practices on September 15, 2018, when one Safe Working Permit and one Confined Space Permit were not properly filled out and implemented.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to adequately develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the process safety information, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a).
Count 4 – Failure to Conduct Refresher Training
Based on evidence gathered during the investigation, EPA determined that Respondent failed to adequately document refresher training of some employees who work on or near covered processes at least every three years from January 2020 to December 2022.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to adequately document refresher training of some employees who work on or near covered processes at least every three years, Respondent violated 4O C.F.R. § 68.71(b) and (c).
Count 5 – Failure to Ensure Mechanical Integrity
Based on evidence gathered during the investigation, EPA determined that Respondent failed to address one expired anhydrous ammonia hose at the Facility that was outside acceptable limits in January 2020.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to perform adequate inspections on process equipment and by failing to correct deficient equipment that are outside acceptable limits before further use, or in a safe and timely manner when necessary means are taken to assure safe operation, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R, § 68.73(d).
Count 6 – Failure to Comply with the Management of Change Requirement
Based on evidence gathered during the investigation, EPA determined that Respondent failed to establish and implement adequate written procedures to manage changes to process chemicals, technology, equipment, and procedures, as well as changes to stationary sources that affect a covered process relating to temporary and emergency changes.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to document the technical basis for and impact on safety and health associated with changes to certain process equipment, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(a) and (b).
Count 7 – Failure to Perform Incident Investigation and Promptly Address Recommendation
Based on evidence gathered during the investigation, EPA determined that Respondent did not investigate all incidents which could reasonably have resulted in a catastrophic release. A July 2018 incident investigation report documented that ammonia was
observed to be dripping during railcar loading. The incident investigation report noted that this was not the first instance in which leaking was observed during railcar loading, and that a similar incident months prior had occurred, but the Facility was unable to locate an incident investigation for the prior leaking event.
Based on evidence gathered during the investigation, EPA determined that Respondent failed to document the date the investigation began in the incident investigation report for an August 10, 2018, release of ammonia at the Facility.
Based on evidence gathered during the investigation, EPA determined that Respondent did not document that all investigation findings and recommendations were promptly addressed and resolved for the July 2018 incident in which ammonia was observed leaking from a railcar. The incident report for the July 2018 incident did not include the required signatures from the Environmental Health and Safety Manager to document that the recommendations in the report had been addressed and resolved as of the date of EPA’s inspection.
Based on evidence gathered during the investigation, EPA determined that Respondent did not provide incident investigation reports to.affected personnel whose job tasks are relevant to the incident findings, as evidenced by some late or missing staff acknowledgments on the incident report for the July 2018 incident. The Facility stated that incident investigation reports are provided to managers and supervisors to share with affected personnel whose job tasks are relevant to the incident findings during safety meetings.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to perform or document an adequate incident investigation in response to incidents that could reasonably have resulted in a catastrophic release in 2018, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.81.
Count 8 – Failure to Periodically Evaluate Performance of Contractors
Based on evidence gathered during the investigation, EPA determined that Respondent did not periodically evaluate the performance of its contractors from January 2020 to January 2023.
Accordingly, by failing to periodically evaluate the performance of its contractors, EPA alleges that Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.87(b)(S).
Count 9 – Failure to Comply with the Emergency Response Plan Requirements
Based on evidence gathered during the investigation, EPA determined that Respondent failed to develop and implement procedures to review and update, as appropriate, the emergency response plan to reflect changes at the stationary source and ensure that employees are informed of changes from January 2020 to October 2022.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to develop and implement procedures to review and update, as appropriate, the emergency response plan to reflect changes at the stationary source and ensure that employees are informed of changes, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.95(a).
Count 10 – Failure to Correct the RMP
Based on evidence gathered during the investigation, EPA determined that Respondent failed to submit until August 6, 2020, information regarding an accidental August 10, 2018; release at the Facility that triggered the five-year accident history reporting criteria of 40 C.F.R. § 68.42.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to timely submit information regarding an accidental release, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68,195(a).
Count 11 – Failure to Immediately Report Releases to the National Reporting Center
Based upon information obtained during EPA’s investigation, EPA determined that Respondent notified the NRC 1 hour and 19 minutes after the start of a release of 1,742 pounds of sulfuric acid from the Facility on January 17, 2018. 100. Based upon information obtained during EPA’s investigation, EPA determined that Respondent notified the NRC 3 hours and 58 minutes after the start of a release of 250 pounds of ammonia from the Facility on July 25, 2018.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to notify the NRC immediately upon having knowledge that a RQ of a hazardous substance had been released at its Facility, Respondent violated CERCLA Section 103, 42 U.S.C. § 9603.
Count 12 -Failure to Immediately Report Releases to the California Office of Emergency Services
Based upon the information obtained during EPA’s investigation, EPA found that Respondent notified Cal OES, the SERC in California, 61 minutes after the start of a release of 1,742 pounds of sulfuric acid from the Facility on January 17, 2018.
CIVIL ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY
Respondent agrees to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $363,700 (“Assessed Penalty”) within thirty (30) days after the date the Final Order ratifying this Agreement is filed with the Regional Hearing Clerk (“Filing Date”},
a. The CERCLA portion of the penalty totals TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND AND FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS ($ 25,400;00).
b. The EPCRA and CAA portions of the penalty total THREE HUNDRED AND THIRTY- EIGHT THOUSAND AND THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS($ 338,300).