Respondent is the owner or operator of a meat processing facility. On March 8, 2017, an authorized representative of the EPA conducted a compliance inspection of Respondent’s Facility to determine compliance with the Risk Management Plan (RMP) regulations promulgated at 40 C.F.R. Part 68 under section 112(r)(7) of the Act. Based on the March 8, 2017 inspection, the EPA has determined that Respondent violated those regulations as stated below.
NOTE: It is odd that this level of deficiencies resulted in only a $10,000 fine. The CAFO makes no mention of a SEP or factors that would have resulted in such a low dollar amount.
- Respondent failed to document persons responsible for implementing individual requirements of the risk management program and define the lines of authority through an organization chart or similar document as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.15(c).
- Respondent failed to have process-safety information pertaining to the equipment in the process that included materials of construction as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(i).
- Respondent failed to have process-safety information pertaining to the equipment in the process that included electrical classification as required by 40 C.F .R. § 68.65(d)(1)(iii).
- Respondent failed to have process-safety information pertaining to the equipment in the process that included relief system design and design basis as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(iv).
- Respondent failed to have process-safety information pertaining to the equipment in the process that included ventilation system design as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(v).
- Respondent failed to document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2).
- Respondent failed 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, more specifically, steps for normal operations (defrosting of ammonia equipment) as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(1)(ii).
- Respondent failed 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, more specifically, operating limits that include consequences of deviation as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(2)(ii).
- Respondent failed 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, more specifically, safety and health considerations as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(3)(ii).
- Respondent failed to conduct inspections and tests of process equipment that were consistent with applicable manufacturers’ recommendations and good engineering practices as required by 40 C.F .R. § 68.73(d)(2).
- Respondent failed to implement written procedures to manage changes to process chemicals, technology, equipment and procedures, and changes to stationary sources that affect a covered process as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(a).
- Respondent failed to implement the pre-startup safety review prior to the introduction of a regulated substance when significant modifications were made to the existing source as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.77(6).
In consideration of the factors contained in section 113(d)(1) of the Act and the entire record, the parties enter into this ESA in order to settle the violations referenced above for the total penalty amount of $10,000.00.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO