Respondent owns and operates an ammonia refrigeration process, which is an RMProgram level 3 regulated process that stores or otherwise uses 95,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia for cooling and freezing capabilities for its waffle products. On August 20, 2013, EPA conducted an on-site inspection of the RMProgram related records and equipment for the purpose of assessing the Respondent’s compliance with the RMProgram requirements and the implemented recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP) for the covered process at its stationary source.
- 40 C.F.R. §68.65(d)(2) – Respondent could not provide the requested documentation certifying that the ammonia refrigeration equipment complied with the following industry standards:
- American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE);
- American National Standards Institute (ANSI); and
- International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration (IIAR)
- 40 C.F.R. §68.71(b) – Respondent could not provide the requested documentation to demonstrate that refresher training was provided, every three years or more often if necessary, to the employees involved in operating the ammonia refrigeration process at the facility.
- 40 C.F.R. §68.77(a) – Respondent could not demonstrate that they had performed a pre-startup safety review when significant modifications were made to the ammonia refrigeration process that required a change in the process safety information.
- 40 C.F.R.§ 68.79(d) – Respondent could not provide the requested information to demonstrate that they promptly determined and documented an appropriate response to several findings in the compliance audit dated May 2-3, 2012.
- 40 C.F.R.§ 68.81(f) – Respondent could not demonstrate that they reviewed incident investigation reports with all affected personnel, including contract employees where applicable, whose job tasks were relevant to the incident findings.
- 40 C.F.R. § 68.83(c) – Respondent could not demonstrate that they provided employees access to the process hazard analyses and to all other information required to be developed under the chemical accident prevention rule.
- 40 C.F.R. § 68.87(b)(4) – Respondent could not demonstrate that they developed and implemented safe work practices at the facility, consistent with 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(d), to provide for the control of the entrance, presence, and exit of the contract owner operator and contract employees in the covered process areas. 40
- C.F.R. § 68.87(b)(5) – Respondent could not demonstrate that they periodically evaluated the performance of contract owners or operators in fulfilling their obligations.
TERMS OF CONSENT AGREEMENT
Respondent agrees to pay the civil penalty of ONE HUNDRED AND TIDRTY-THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($133,000) within 30 calendar days of the Effective Date of this Agreement.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO