United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
Office of Enforcement
and Compliance
Assurance (2201 A)
EPA 325-R-014-0001
Enforcement Alert
*j
Volume 14, Number 2
Office of Civil Enforcement
Februarv 2015
Anhydrous Ammonia at Refrigeration Facilities
Under Scrutiny by U.S. EPA
EPA Enforcement Efforts Focus on Prevention of Chemical Accidents
Purpose
Evidence gathered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicates that some
refrigeration facilities may be failing to properly manage hazardous chemicals, including anhydrous
ammonia, as required by the Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 112(r). This Alert is intended to inform the
industry that companies must take responsibility to prevent accidental releases of dangerous chemicals
like anhydrous ammonia through compliance with CAA's Chemical Accident Prevention Program.
Introduction
The Clean Air Act designates anhydrous ammonia as a
regulated substance for accident prevention. Anhydrous
ammonia presents a significant health hazard because it is
corrosive to the skin, eyes and lungs. Exposure to 300 parts
per million is immediately dangerous to life and health.
Anhydrous ammonia is also flammable at concentrations of
about 15 to 28 percent by volume in air. It can explode if it
is released in an enclosed space with a source of ignition
present, or if a vessel containing anhydrous ammonia is
exposed to fire.
Deficient chemical accident prevention practices at some
refrigeration facilities have resulted in releases of anhydrous
ammonia into surrounding communities. Recently, chemical
releases stemming from CAA 112(r) violations at 9
different refrigeration facilities have resulted in property
damage, numerous injuries and hospitalizations and several
deaths. Since 2012, EPA responded to these incidents with
enforcement actions, imposing over $8.4 million in civil
penalties. In addition, companies will spend approximately
$10 million on supplemental environmental projects, including purchasing equipment and providing training for
emergency responders as well as converting refrigeration equipment to safer technologies.
Case Study: Columbus Manufacturing Inc.,
San Francisco, CA
• In 2009, facility had two releases, each over 200
pounds of anhydrous ammonia, puttingthe surrounding
community at risk. As a result of the second release:
„
• All facility employees and several neighborin
businesses were evacuated.
• Nearly 30 people from the downwind facility
sought medical attention.
• 17 individuals were transported to the hospital. One
person was hospitalized for four days.
• Off-ramps from Highway 101 and
several local streets were shut down.
Settlement required Columbus to spend $6 million
to improve facility safety by upgrading its refrigeration
technology and emergency notification system and to
pay a $685,446 penalty.
http: //www2. epa. gov/enforcement
-------
Enforcement Alert
To help refrigeration facilities comply with
CAA requirements and thereby prevent these
types of dangerous accidents from occurring,
EPA is highlighting the following aspects of the
CAAs Chemical Accident Prevention Program:
• The Risk Management Program (RMP)
Regulations
The General Duty Clause
• Industry Standards
• Enforcement Focus on Accident Prevention
Risk Management Program Regulations
The Clean Air Act requiredEPA to publish regulations
and guidance for chemical accident prevention at
facilities using substances that posed the greatest risk
of harm from accidental releases. These regulations,
which are in 40 CFR Part 68, require facilities that have
more than a threshold quantity of certain regulated
chemicals in a "process" (such as use or storage) to
develop a Risk Management Program. For example,
the threshold for anhydrous ammonia is 10,000 pounds.
Among other requirements, facilities must:
• Analyze the worst-case release scenario to
determine the potential effects of a release of an
extremely hazardous substance;
• Complete a five-year accident history;
• Coordinate response actions with the local
emergency response agencies; and
• Submit to EPA a written Risk Management Plan,
which is a summary of the Program, updating the
plan every five years or as changes occur.
Facilities that have processes from which worst-case
releases could reach the public or where accidental
releases within the past 5 years have resulted in certain
offsite impacts have additional requirements. For
example, owners and operators of Program 3 processes
must:
Conduct an analysis to identify and resolve
hazards associated with the process, which must
be updated every five years;
• Have a release prevention program, with
requirements to:
• compile process safety information about the
chemicals, equipment, and applicable industry
standards, and ensure compliance with such
industry standards
• use safe operating procedures,
• train employees,
• maintain equipment,
• conduct compliance audits every three years,
• investigate accidents,
• manage changes that could affect a process,
• perform pre-startup review
• have an employee participation plan,
• prevent accidents from hot work, and
• have a program to manage contractors who are
working on or around a process.
Comply with more comprehensive emergency
response planning requirements if employees of
the facility will respond to accidental releases of
regulated substances.
Use of Emergency Orders to Prevent
Ammonia Releases: RBF Frozen Desserts,
LLC, West Hartford, CT
• RBF manufactures and stores frozen desserts at its
facility, which shares a building as a restaurant and
theater and is located in close proximity to homes,
schools and other businesses.
• After a 2010 ammonia release and a 2013 fire at
the facility, EPA was contacted by Connecticut's
Department of Environmental Protection.
• During two inspections, one with an ammonia
refrigeration expert, EPA discovered extremely
dangerous conditions at the facility. Removal of the
ammonia from the system was necessary.
• In August 2014, EPA issued a Clean Air Act Section
303 emergency order which requires the facility to
remove the ammonia and prohibits it from adding
ammonia back into the system until unsafe conditions
are addressed.
• When RBF tried but was unable to remove the
ammonia expeditiously, EPA triggered removal
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in order
to minimize the chance of an ammonia release and
protect the surrounding community.
February 2015
-------
Enforcement Alert
Recentcasesindicatethatrefrigerationfacilitiesmaynot
be fully implementing RMPs, despite the requirements
of the Chemical Accident Prevention Program. Note
that if your ammonia refrigeration facility is subject
to these regulations, it is also likely to be subject to
the Occupational Health and Safety Administration's
Process Safety Management standard.
The General Duty Clause
When Congress amended the Clean Air Act in
1990, it added the General Duty Clause (GDC) at
CAA Section 112(r)(l). Under the GDC, owners and
operators of facilities that have regulated substances
and other extremely hazardous substances are
responsible for ensuring that these chemicals are
managed safely. Safe management includes taking
steps to both prevent accidental releases of the
extremely hazardous substances and to minimize the
consequences of any accidental releases that may occur.
Facilities have been required to comply with the GDC
since November 1990. Facilities subject to the General
Duty Clause are, among other things, responsible for:
• Identifying the hazards posed by the chemicals
and assessing the impacts of possible releases,
• Designing and maintaining a safe facility to
prevent accidental releases, and
• Minimizing the consequences of accidental
releases that do occur.
Some points to remember about the GDC:
• The GDC applies to many chemicals; it is not
limited to the chemicals subject to the RMP
regulations.
The GDC applies facility-wide, regardless of the
amount of chemical stored.
• In analyzing the standard of care, EPA consults
industry standards, codes and practices, including
those mentioned below.
Recent GDC cases indicate that some facilities may
not be taking required steps to design and maintain safe
facilities or take precautions that would minimize the
consequences of an accidental release of ammonia.
Industry Standards
In light of the potential hazards posed by the
mishandling of anhydrous ammonia, industry
trade associations have issued standards outlining
good engineering and operating practices in the
ammonia refrigeration industry. In collaboration
with the American National Standards Institute, the
International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration
("IIAR") has issued (and updated) "Standard 2:
Equipment, Design, and Installation of Closed-Circuit
Ammonia Mechanical Refrigeration Systems,"
along with other applicable standards and guidance.
Also in collaboration with the American National
Standards Institute, the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers
("ASHRAE") has issued (and updated) "Standard 15:
Safety Standard for Refrigeration Systems." These
standards and guidance are consistently relied upon by
refrigeration experts and are sometimes incorporated
into state building, fire, and mechanical codes. In
addition, IIAR has published a guidance document
for owners of smaller refrigeration systems that are
subject to the GDC but not the RMP regulations.
•P /
Ice Buildup Blocking Stairway
February 2015
-------
Enforcement Alert
Enforcement Focus on Accident Prevention
The following cases illustrate EPA's enforcement focus on preventing chemical accidents before accidental
releases threaten human health and the environment.
• In November 2012, EPA and Olympic Fruit Company reached an agreement to settle alleged
violations of RMP requirements. The company, based in Union Gap, WA, was required to
develop an RMP because it uses more than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia. Olympic
Fruit Company agreed to spend $40,659 to install new ammonia detection sensors, safety shut-
off valves, and an emergency pressure control system as well as pay a civil penalty of $33,964.
The company also agreed to purchase a hand-held ammonia detector for a local fire department.
• In December 2012, EPA issued an Administrative Order in response to RMP violations identified
through an inspection at Millbrook Cold Storage, Inc., located in Somerville, MA. The inspection re-
vealed many dangerous conditions at the facility, including dangerous amounts of ice that made valves
inaccessible, absence of a qualified operator to run or maintain the system, and lack of documentation
explaining how the system worked. The Administrative Order required the company to hire a refrigera-
tion expert to systematically review the hazards associated with the refrigeration system and recom-
mend steps to address those hazards.
• In May 2013, EPA and Reddy Ice Corporation, an ice manufacturer, agreed to a settlement
resolving alleged violations of the RMP requirements, specifically for failing to ensure that
storage vessels containing hazardous chemicals were constructed according to safe engineering
standards and for inadequately implementing the required accident prevention program at its
facility located in Denver, CO. Reddy Ice Corporation, which is based in Dallas, TX, has taken
steps to ensure that process vessels containing ammonia are properly constructed and will update
the Denver facility's risk management plan. The company also paid a $61,500 civil penalty.
• In May 2014, EPA reached a settlement with Cold Storage Solutions, Inc. and its three sister companies,
each of which operates a cold storage warehouse in Lakeville, MA. The facilities are located near stores,
schools, and other businesses. The complaints alleged violations of the GDC for failing to, among other
things: identify hazards; maintain sufficient documentation to safely operate systems; employ adequate
basic safety practices; and have adequate emergency mechanisms and response plans in place. Further a
small release of ammonia occurred at one of the Facilities while EPA inspectors were on site, requiring
an evacuation. The companies corrected the identified deficiencies and agreed to spend $346,800 to
enhance the safety of the neighboring communities. They will install various protective features at
the facilities that will help prevent accidental or intentional ammonia releases and they will enhance
emergency response capabilities in the surrounding area by providing equipment to local and regional
first responders. The companies also paid a civil penalty of $108,000.
February 2015
-------
Enforcement Alert
Lessons Learned from recent inspections of ammonia refrigeration systems:
• Identifying the hazards that a facility's refrigeration systems present is crucial. Guidance on how to
conduct a proper hazard analysis is available from the International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration
or in EPA's General Duty Clause Guidance, found at http://www.epa.gov/osweroel/docs/chem/
gdcregionalguidance.pdf. Part of this analysis should include understanding the gap between the safety
requirements of new industry codes and standards and the standards to which the facility was built and
developing a plan to address safety deficiencies. In some cases, that plan must include making facility
upgrades.
• Preventive maintenance is the standard for the industry. The maintenance program, including
inspections, should be documented.
• Gathering sufficient information about the piping and equipment is crucial so that facilities
understand the hazards associated with their refrigeration system and can develop a proper
maintenance program.
• Refrigeration systems that are missing key controls, such as emergency shutoff valves, because they
were not built to industry codes and standards in effect at the time of construction need to be upgraded.
• Halting corrosion of pipes and equipment should be a priority.
• Hammering and shaking of equipment and pipes risks breakage and ammonia releases.
• Defrosting is important. Ice buildup can impede access to important equipment and dangerously
weigh down piping.
• Adequate ventilation in a safe location is required for machinery rooms.
• Ability to shut down the system without entering the machinery room is necessary.
• Ammonia pressure relief devices should not be located where they could spray ammonia onto
people.
• A trained operator is critical to running an ammonia refrigeration system.
• A well-maintained closed loop system should limit accidents occurring during startup.
Disclaimer: This document attempts to clarify in plain language some EPA regulatory provisions. Nothing in the Enforcement Alert
revises or replaces any regulatory provisions in the cited part, any other part of the Code of Federal Regulations, the Federal Register,
or the Clean Air Act. For more information go to: www2.epa.gov/enforcement
February 2015
------- |