RESPONDENT'S RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN SHOULD INCLUDED ONE COVERED PROCESS, BUT SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED AT LEAST TWO COVERED PROCESSED. THE MAXIMUM QUANTITY OF AMMONIA IN EACH OF THE PROCESS WAS NOT PROVIDED IN THE REGISTRATION. AT THE TIME OF THE INSPECTION, NO DOCUMENTATION WAS PROVIDED TO THE INSPECTOR REGARDING THE METHODOLOGY USED TO DETERMINE DISTANCE TO ENDPOINTS. WHILE THE RMP INDICATED THAT RESPONDENT HAD USED THE TFI-DEGADIS MODEL FOR THIS DETERMINATION, MODELING DOCUMENTATION WAS UNAVILABLE AT THE TIME OF THE INSPECTION. RESPONDENT DID NOT COMPLETE A COMPILATION OF WRITTEN PROCESS SAFETY INFO PERTAINING TO THE TECHNOLOGY IN THE PROCESS AND THE EQUIPMENT IN THE PROCESS. AT THE TIME OF THE INSPECTION, RESPONDENT DID NOT HAVE THE FOLLOWING REQUIRED INFO REGARDING THE TECHNOLOGY OF THE PROCESS: BLOCK FLOW DIAGRAM OR SIMPLIFIED PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM; SAFE UPPER AND LOWER LIMITS FOR SUCH ITEMS AS TEMPERATURES, PRESSURES, FLOWS OR COMPOSITIONS; AND AN EVALUATION OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF DEVIATIONS. AT THE TIME OF THE INSPECTION, RESPONDENT DID NOT HAVE THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENT INFO: PIPING AND INSTRUMENT DIAGRAMS; ELECTRICAL CLASSIFICATION; DESIGN CODES AND STANDARDS EMPLOYED; AND RELIEF SYSTEM AND DESIGN BASIS. NO PROCESS HAZARD ANALYSIS WAS PROVIDED BY THE RESPONDENT. NO WHAT-IF METHODOLOG