Respondent is a Dairy Company that was incorporated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1921. Respondent has owned and operated the fluid milk manufacturing facility since 1973. Respondent uses anhydrous ammonia for refrigeration of raw milk, juice concentrate, and product storage.
Pursuant to Section 112(r)(1) of the CAA, the owners and operators of stationary sources producing, processing, handling or storing substances listed pursuant to Section 112(r)(3) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 74 l 2(r)(3), or any other extremely hazardous substance, have a general duty to identify hazards which may result from accidental releases of such substances using appropriate hazard assessment techniques, to design and maintain a safe facility taking such steps as are necessary to prevent releases, and to minimize the consequences of accidental releases which do occur. Section I l 2(r)(1) is hereinafter referred to herein as the “General Duty Clause.”
The General Duty Clause applies to any stationary source producing, processing, handling, or storing substances listed pursuant to Section 112(r)(3) of the CA.A., or other extremely hazardous substances. Extremely hazardous substances include, but arc not limited to, regulated substances listed pursuant to Section 112(r)(3) or the CAA, at 40 C.F.R. § 68.130, and chemicals on the list of extremely hazardous substances published pursuant to the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, at 40 C.F.R. Part 355.
FINDINGS OF FACT RELATED TO VIOLATION OF SECTION 112(r)(1) OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
On July 29, 2015, EPA conducted an inspection of the Facility to determine Respondent’s compliance with the Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions at 40 C. F.R. Part 68. At the time of the inspection, EPA inspectors observed that Respondent stored anhydrous ammonia in three separate processes:
- an ammonia refrigeration system and co-located storage tank with a combined capacity of approximately 12,000 pounds;
- a tri-tray freezing ammonia system with a capacity of 4,420 pounds; and
- a cooler area ammonia system with a capacity o f 4,407 pounds.
In January 2016, Respondent removed from the Facility the co-located storage tank listed in (a), above, which had an ammonia storage capacity of approximately 2,250 pounds; as a result, the maximum capacity for anhydrous ammonia in any one process at the Facility is approximately 9,750 pounds.
Applicable industry codes relevant to the safe design of ammonia refrigeration systems include the following:
- American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 15-2013: Safety Standard for Refrigeration Systems (ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 15);
- International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration (IIAR) Bulletin 109, Minimum Safety Criteria for a Safe Ammonia Refrigeration System, (1997) (IIAR 109); and
- International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration (IIAR) Bulletin 110, Start-up, Inspection and Maintenance Ammonia Mechanical Refrigeration System, (1993) (IIAR 110).
During the inspection, EPA inspectors identified inconsistencies between the conditions at the Facility and the applicable industry standards in the following areas:
- alarms
- signage
- self-contained breathing apparatuses
- protection for evaporators
- training
- training, and
- inspections and maintenance
Alarms
Section 8.11.2. 1 of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 15 states:
Each refrigerating machinery room shall contain a detector, located in an area where refrigerant from a leak will concentrate, that actuates an alarm and mechanical ventilation in accordance with Section 8.11.4 at a value not greater than the corresponding [threshold limit value time-weighted average (TLV-TWA)] (or toxicity measure consistent therewith). The alarm shall annunciate visual and audible alarms inside the refrigerating machinery room and outside each entrance to the refrigerating machinery room. The alarms required in this section shall be of manual reset type whith the reset located inside the refrigerating machinery room. Alarms set at other levels (such as IDLH) and automatic reset alarms are permitted in addition to those required by this section. The meaning of each alarm shall be clearly marked by signage near the annunciators.
During the inspection, EPA inspectors determined that Respondent’s ammonia detection alarm system has three levels:
Level I – advisory alarm that activates visual alarm at alarm control box;
Level 2 – activated visual and audible alarm that alerts alarm company who calls facility contact to follow-up;
Level 3 – emergency alarm that activates visual and audible alarms that evacuate the building, shut off all system compressors, turn on ventilation system, and alert alarm, company who calls 911 to dispatch emergency personnel.
The three alarm set points were set well above TLV-TWA for ammonia, which is 25 ppm.
Level 1 alarm set points ranged from 150-500 ppm. Level 2 alarm set points ranged from 400-700 ppm. All Level 3 alarm set points were 850 ppm.
Process safety information provided by the Facility at the time of the inspection indicates that even at the lower Level 2 alarm level, 400 ppm, which is the first level at which evacuation would occur, unprotected workers would experience major irritation of the throat. The level at which ammonia is immediately dangerous to life or health (“IDLH”) is 300 ppm. Thus, EPA inspectors determined that the alarms were not set at a value less than or equal to the corresponding TLV-TWA, and they were set at levels that would pose a risk to unprotected workers. In addition, EPA inspectors determined that the alarms did not annunciate visual and audible alarms inside the refrigerating machinery room and outside each entrance to the refrigeration machinery room.
Signage
Section 11.7 of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 15 states:
When a refrigerated machinery room is used, the emergency procedures shall be posted outside the room, immediately adjacent to each door. The emergency procedures shall forbid entry into the refrigerating machinery room when the refrigerant alarm required by Section 8.11.2.1 has been activated except by persons provided with the appropriate respiratory and other protective equipment and trained in accordance with jurisdictional requirements.
EPA inspectors observed that Respondent did not have emergency procedures posted immediately adjacent to each door entering the refrigerating machinery room.
Missing Self-Contained Breathing Apparatuses
Section 4.10.11 of IIAR 109 states:
Every machinery room shall have a self-contained breathing apparatus located outside of, but close to, the exit door. A second, backup self-contained breathing apparatus shall also be provided …
EPA inspectors observed that Respondent provided only an air purifying respirator with PH/AM/CL/P100 cartridges inside the door of the refrigerated machinery room and self-contained breathing apparatus (“SCBA”) in an alternate location on the other side of the Facility.
Protection for Evaporators
Section 4.4.2 of IIAR 109 states:
Evaporators should be installed in locations where they are not exposed to possible physical damage through traffic hazards, for example: forklifts.
EPA inspectors observed that Respondent did not provide protection around evaporators in the cold storage areas, where forklifts could pose a threat of physical damage.
Training
Section 5.2.3 of IIAR Bulletin 110 states:
The Employer shall verify that training has been completed for the following items and personnel:
a. Employees involved in operating the process shall be trained in an overview of the process and the operating procedures. The training shall include safety and health hazards, emergency operations and safe work practices. This training shall be documented and it shall be verified that employees understood the training.
b. Employees involved in the ongoing integrity of the equipment shall be trained in an overview of the process and its hazards. The training shall include the procedures applicable to the employees’ tasks.
c. Employees involved in the emergency plan or the emergency response plan shall be properly trained to fulfill their duties in this regard.
EPA inspectors observed that Respondent did not provide protection consistent with industry standards regarding employee training for process activities and maintenance.
EPA inspectors determined that Respondent did not have documentation of process-related trainings. Respondent provided all of its training documentation to EPA inspectors, but the training documentation was limited to health and safety related trainings, including “Emergency Action Plan/Fire Extinguisher” and “SCBA Yearly Recertification”. Respondent had created a new training plan for process training the day before the inspection, but had not yet implemented the training.
Inspections and Maintenance
Section 6.0 of IIAR Bulletin 110 states:
This section contains recommendations on the type and frequency of inspection and maintenance required to ensure the safety of refrigerating systems. Subsections 6.3 to 6.7 cover the major groups of equipment likely to be incorporated in systems and within those subsections are details of routine inspection (and maintenance where applicable) to be carried out with the system in normal use and more detailed inspection and maintenance to be undertaken periodically. Hazards particular to the equipment and requirements in relation to protection devices are also included in the appropriate subsection.
EPA inspectors observed that Respondent did not provide protection consistent with industry standards regarding the type and frequency of process inspection and maintenance.
Upon request by EPA inspectors for documentation of process inspections and maintenance, Respondent did not provide any documentation to EPA of proccss maintenance, process equipment inspection/testing, or calibration/replacement of ammonia sensors according to manufacturer’s instructions. EPA inspectors determined that Respondent had developed a mechanical integrity plan in October 2014, but had not yet implemented the plan.
Based on information provided by Respondent to EPA during and after the inspection, EPA notified Respondent by letter dated April 11, 2016, that Respondent had not ensured that the process was designed in compliance with industry standards.
Based on information provided by Respondent to EPA on April 20, 2016, Respondent has, since the inspection, made the following improvements to the design and maintenance of the anhydrous ammonia system at the Facility:
Alarms
Respondent reset its alarm settings to a value less than or equal to the corresponding TLV -TWA, and installed horns/strobes for audio and visual alarms.
Signage
Respondent installed emergency procedure signs on the doors entering the machinery room.
SCBAs
Respondent relocated SCBAs to a cabinet outside the machinery room.
Protection of Evaporators
Respondent installed protection around the evaporators in the cold storage area to protect from forklift damage.
Training
Respondent has trained all of its maintenance staff in storage and handling of anhydrous ammonia and process safety management. In addition, Respondent initiated a process whereby all maintenance personnel attend a course at the Industrial Refrigeration Technical
College.
Inspections and Maintenance
Respondent retained a contractor who conducted a mechanical integrity inspection of the Facility during the week of March 14, 2016.
From the time of the inspection on July 16, 2015 until the work described in the preceding Paragraph was completed on April 20, 2016, EPA determined that Respondent had failed to design and maintain a safe facility taking such steps as are necessary to prevent releases, because Respondent had failed to provide safety protection consistent with that provided by applicable industry codes and standards.
Respondent agrees to:
a. Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this CA/FO pay the civil penalty of $35,991.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO