Respondent owns and operates a fresh produce storage and distribution facility comprised of approximately 35 acres that includes cold room facilities and ice making equipment. An ammonia refrigeration system is used to cool fresh produce while in storage and for shipment at the Facility. On September 13, 2017, EPA performed inspections of the Facility pursuant to Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, and Section 304-312 of EPCRA. Based upon the information gathered during this inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA asserts that Respondent violated certain provisions of the CAA and EPCRA.
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
EPA alleges that Respondent has violated Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, Section 312 of EPCRA, and the codified rules of 40 C.F.R. Part 68, governing the CAA’s Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions, as follows:
COUNT 1 (Failure to submit annual chemical inventory forms)
Respondent did not list the hazardous chemical anhydrous ammonia among the hazardous materials inventory for the Facility in 2016, although the Facility maintains approximately 140,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia on-site.
By failing to report the required inventory information on hazardous chemicals at the Facility above threshold amounts, Respondent violated Section 312 of EPCRA and 40 C.F.R. § 370.45(a).
COUNT II (Failure to comply with process safety requirements)
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2)-(3) require that owners or operators document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (“RAGAGEP”) and, for existing equipment designed and constructed in accordance with codes, standards, or practices that are no longer in general use, requires that the owner or operator determine and document that the equipment is designed, maintained, and operating in a safe manner.
EPA generally determines RAGAGEP with reference to standards published by established industry organizations and manufactures’ requirements and recommendations.
Based on EPA’s inspection, EPA determined that the west machine room door did not display signage restricting access to authorized personnel, the door was not self-closing or tight sealing, was without a panic hardware, and was missing a National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) placard to alert those entering of the dangers of ammonia.
By these conditions, Respondent failed to meet industry standards consistent with American National Standards Institute/International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration (ANSI/IIAR) 2-2014, Sections 6.3.4, and American Society of Heating, Air-conditioning Engineers (ANSI/ASHRAE) 15-2013, Section 8.11.8, which states that access to a machinery room shall be restricted to authorized personnel and that doors shall be clearly marked, or permanent signs shall be posted at each entrance to indicate this restriction.
ANSI/IIAR Section 6.10.2 and ANSI/ ASHRAE Section 8.11.2 also state that machinery room doors shall be self-closing and tight fitting. Doors that are part of the means of egress shall also be equipped with panic hardware and shall be side hinged to swing outward to facilitate egress of personnel from the machinery room in an emergency.
In addition, ANSI/IIAR 2-2014, Section 6.15.3 states each machinery room entrance door shall be marked with a permanent sign to indicate that only authorized personnel are permitted to enter the room. NFPA 1-2012, Section 53.3.4.1 states that refrigeration units or systems shall be provided with approved hazard identification signs in accordance with NFPA 704, Standard System for the identification of Hazardous Emergency Response and ANSI/IIAR 2-2014, Section 6.15.1 states that the building and facilities with refrigeration systems shall be provided with placards in accordance with NFPA 704 and the Mechanical Code.
By failing to restrict access to the west machine room, not having a self-closing and tight sealing door with panic hardware, and failing to mark entry with appropriate signage and NFPA placard, the Respondent failed to meet recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, in violation 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2).
COUNT III (failure to comply with process safety requirements)
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2) require that owners or operators document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (“RAGAGEP”).
Based on the inspection, EPA determined that portions of ammonia piping in multiple locations at the Facility did not include appropriate labels; valves in multiple locations did not contain identification tags; a pressure vessel in a machine room did not include a label; emergency stop switches were not labeled properly; and two high pressure receivers did not include an NPFA placard.
ANSI/HAR 2-2014, Sections 5.14.5, HAR Bulletin 109, Section 4.7.6, HAR Bulletin 114, Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.8 and ANSI/ American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) 13.1-2007 specify requirements for the labelling and other identification of ammonia refrigeration system piping and other components. These requirements state that ammonia piping, mains, headers, and branches shall be identified with the contents (“AMMONIA”), include the physical state of the ammonia, the pressure level of ammonia being low or high, pipe service, and direction of flow. ANSI/ ASHRAE 15, Section 11.2.2 states that systems containing more than 110 pounds of refrigerant shall be provided with durable signs having letters not less than 0.5 inch in height designating valves or switches for controlling the refrigerant flow. ‘ ANSI/IIAR 2, Section 5.14.2 and IIAR Bulletin 114 Section 4.2 (2014) state that refrigeration machinery shall be provided with labels, and component markers will bear the name of the equipment they identify (e.g., RECEIVER, ACCUMULATOR, RECIRCULATOR, etc.). NFPA 1-2012, Section 53.2.3.4.5 and ANSI/IIAR 2-2014, Section 6.12.2 state that a clearly identified switch of the break-glass type shall be located outside and adjacent to the designated principal machinery room door and have an approved tamper-resistant cover and provide off-only control of refrigerant compressors, refrigerant pumps, and normally closed, automatic refrigerant valves located in the machinery room. NFPA 1-2012, Section 53.2.4.1 and ANSI/IIAR 2-2014, Section 6.15.1 require facilities with refrigeration systems be provided with placards accordance with NFPA 704 and the Mechanical Code, which describe the details of the placards.
Based on EPA’s inspection, equipment at the Facility was inadequately labeled. By these conditions the Respondent failed to meet RAGAGEP in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2).
COUNT IV (failure to comply with process safety requirements)
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2) require that owners or operators document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (“RAGAGEP”).
ANSI/IIAR 2-2014, Section 17.6 states that ammonia leak detection alarms shall be identified by signage adjacent to visual and audible alarm devices.
ANSI/IIAR 2-2014, Section 6.6.2 state that pipes penetrating the machinery room separation shall be sealed to the walls, ceiling, or floor through which they pass.
Based on EPA’s inspection, EPA determined that ammonia detection alarms did not contain alarm signage, and pipe penetrations in and through the machine rooms were not tight fitting. By failing to comply with RAGAGEP, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2).
COUNT V (failure to comply with process safety requirements)
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2) require that owners or operators document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (“RAGAGEP”).
ANSI/IIAR 2-2014, Section 13.4.2 states that refrigerant piping shall be isolated and supported to prevent damage from vibration, stress, corrosion, and physical impact.
ANSI/HAR 2-2014, Section 7.2.4 states that equipment shall be protected where a risk of physical damage exists.
Based on EPA’s inspection, EPA determined ammonia piping was not securely fastened to supports in multiple locations, and some suspended evaporators were observed to not be protected from potential physical damage. By failing to comply with RAGAGEP, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2).
COUNT VI (failure to comply with process safety requirements)
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2) require that owners or operators document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (“RAGAGEP”). ANSI/IIAR 2-2014, Section 15.5.1.5 states that the termination of a PRV discharge shall be directed upward and arranged to avoid spraying ammonia on personnel in the event of a discharge.
Based on EPA’s inspection, EPA determined that a pressure relief valve (PRV) was positioned to discharge horizontally rather than upward. By failing to comply with RAGAGEP, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2).
COUNT VII (failure to comply with operating procedures)
40 C.F.R. § 68.69 requires the owner or operator to 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, and addressing certain elements including safety systems and their functions.
40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c) requires that owners or operators review operating procedures as often as necessary to assure that they reflect current operating practice, including changes that result from changes in process chemicals, technology, and equipment, and changes to stationary sources, and further, certify annually that these operating procedures are
current and accurate.
Based on EPA’s inspection, EPA determined that Respondent did not review and certify operating procedures for 2017. By failing to comply with operating procedure requirements, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c).
COUNT VIII (failure to comply with mechanical integrity requirements)
40 C.F.R. § 68. 73 requires that owners and operators perform inspections and tests on process equipment and correct deficiencies in 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.
Based on EPA’s inspection, EPA determined that pressure vessel SA-13 was in poor condition but in service, although a 2015 mechanical integrity audit had identified the poor condition of vessel SA-13. EPA observed that the vapor barrier and insulation on SA-13 were also in poor condition, and that significant surface corrosion existed on the level column and external piping entering SA-13.
By failing to correct deficiencies in equipment that are outside acceptable limits before further use or in a safe and timely manner, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(e).
COUNT IX (failure to comply with mechanical integrity requirements)
40 C.F.R. § 68.73 requires that owners and operators perform inspections and test on process equipment.
40 C.F.R. § 68.73(e) specifies that the owner or operator shall correct deficiencies in equipment that are outside acceptable limits before further use or in a safe a timely manner when necessary means are taken to assure safe operation.
During the inspection, EPA found damaged insulation barrier and damaged insulation in four locations. This damage included ( 1) a split insulation barrier and exposed insulation in the east AMR; (2) split and deteriorating or missing insulation vapor barrier at the condenser stand at 1140 Meeks Street; (3) removed or split vapor barrier on the exterior of ammonia piping at 1080/1100 cold storage warehouse above the loading dock exposing insulation to the elements and potential pipe corrosion; (4) removed vapor barrier covering low-pressure receiver on mobile refrigeration unit L9, exposing the insulation beneath to the elements; and (5) non-insulated piping that was blistered and had chipped paint in some locations, and other piping and piping supports showing signs of corrosion. EPA also observed open electrical conduit with exposed wiring in numerous locations, including a corroded and unprotected electrical outlet adjacent to the ammonia condenser.
NFPA 1-2012, Section 53.3.1.1 states that refrigeration systems shall be operated and maintained in a safe and operable condition, free from accumulations of oil, dirt, waste, excessive corrosion, other debris, or leaks, and in accordance with ASHRAE 15 and the mechanical code. ANSJ/IIAR 2-2014, Section 5.10.1 states piping and equipment surfaces not intended for heat exchange shall be insulated, treated or otherwise protected to mitigate condensation and excessive frost buildup where the surface temperature is below the dew point of the surrounding air during normal operation and in areas where condensation and frost could develop and become a hazard to occupants or cause damage to the structure, electrical equipment, or refrigeration system.
IIAR Bulletin 109, Section 4.7.4 states that uninsulated refrigeration piping should be examined for signs of corrosion, and if corrosion exists, the pipe should be cleaned down to bare metal and painted with a rust preventative paint and badly corroded pipe should be replaced, and Section 4. 7 .5 requires insulated piping showing signs of vapor barrier failure should have the insulation removed and the piping inspected. IIAR Bulletin 110, Section 6.4.4.3 requires all wet insulation be removed and the affected surface of the pressure vessel examined. The pressure vessel surface should be appropriately treated with rust preventative coating before re-insulating. In addition, Section 6.4.4.3 states that where insulation is unsound or damaged, the insulation shall be removed and the underlying pressure vessel or shell-and-tube heat exchanger be inspected.
NFPA 70 2014, Section 110.12(B) states that, for electrical components, there be no damaged parts that adversely affect safe operation or mechanical strength of the equipment, such as parts that are broken, bent, cut, or deteriorated by corrosion, chemical action, or overheating. Based on the inspection, EPA determined that Respondent had not corrected a significant number of deficiencies that were outside the acceptable limits. By failing to comply with mechanical integrity requirements, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(e).
COUNT X (failure to comply with management of change requirements)
40 C.F.R. § 68.75 requires that owners and operators establish and implement written procedures to manage changes to process chemicals, technology, equipment, and procedures; and changes to stationary sources that affect a covered process.
40 C.F.R. § 68.75(c) specifies that employees involved in operating a process and maintenance and contract employees whose job tasks will be affected by a change in the process shall be informed of, and trained in, prior to start-up of the process or affected part of the process.
EPA found that documentation for installation of a new water chiller indicated the standard operating practice to retrain personnel following installation, but the management of change was not signed to indicate training had been performed.
65. By these conditions, Respondents failed to ensure that employees involved in operating process and maintenance, and any contract employees whose job tasks will be affected by a change in the process, are informed of, and trained in, any change prior to start-up of the process or affected part of the process.
By failing to properly document retraining of personnel following installation of new water chiller, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(c).
COUNT XI (failure to conduct compliance audit requirements)
40 C.F.R. § 68.79 requires owners or operators to certify that they have evaluated compliance with the provisions for each covered process, at least every three years to verify that the procedures and practices developed under the rule are adequate and are being followed.
40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d) specifies that the owner or operator shall promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit, and document that deficiencies have been corrected.
Based on EPA’s inspection, EPA found that Respondent had not promptly determined and documented that all deficiencies identified during the 2015 compliance audit had been corrected. The 2015 compliance audit found that operating procedures were not being certified annually and general site entrance control was not adequate. EPA identified these same items in their 2017 inspection of the Facility.
By failing to promptly correct certain deficiencies identified during the 2015 compliance audit, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R § 68.79(d).
CIVIL PENALTY
The Complainant proposes that Respondent be assessed, and Respondent agrees to pay THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($30,000.00), as the civil penalty for the violations alleged herein.
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT
As a condition of settlement, Respondent shall perform the SEP specified in this Section. Performance of the tasks detailed in this Section shall constitute satisfactory performance of the SEP, which the parties agree are intended to provide significant environmental and/or public health protection and improvements. The SEP includes the following upgrades:
(1) Liquid Recirculator Pump: Install two Cornell CB Pumps. The canned motor pumps shall employ a structure in which the pump and motor are integrated, and the liquid transported is sealed inside.
(2) Control system: Install a new control system with liquid valve automation that controls the existing liquid solenoid valves, including the King Valve piping and allows for remote shut off of the valves to the system.
The SEP upgrades will have the following environmental, health and safety benefits:
(1) Reduce potential leaks of hazardous material at the valve seals on the Liquid Recirculator Pump;
(2) reduce maintenance relating to seal replacement; and (3) enable remote shut off of valves, as well as closer monitoring and notification of potential releases. The upgrades specified in this SEP are not required by 40 C.F.R. Part 68 or currently reflected in RAGAGEP references.
Respondent shall expend at least ONE HUNDRED FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($105,000) to complete the SEP described herein.
Respondent shall complete the SEP within twelve (12) months of the Effective Date of this CA/FO.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO