Respondent owns and operates a facility with the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code of 311230 Breakfast Cereal Manufacturing. The manufacturing facility produces cereal products and snack bars. A refrigeration system is used for the operation of chillers, compressors, and condensers that support manufacturing activities, including the cereal processing area. The refrigeration system uses anhydrous ammonia.
Based on the quantity of the extremely hazardous substance present at the facility, the published occupational exposure limits, the facility’s NAICS code, and an evaluation of on-site and off-site receptors, the refrigeration system in question at the Respondent’s facility is subject to the following requirements of the General Duty Clause:
a. Identify hazards that may result from accidental releases using appropriate hazard assessment techniques;
b. Design and maintain a safe facility taking such steps as are necessary to prevent releases; and,
c. Minimize the consequences of accidental releases which do occur:
On March 27, 2020, contractor utility technicians smelled ammonia. At the same time, they received a call from operations that there was a strong smell of ammonia in the cereal processing area. The plant personnel immediately evacuated the facility and called the city fire department. After 2:00 am on March 28, 2020, fire department emergency responders entered the ammonia room and shut the main refrigeration system valve (the “King Valve”). Facility personnel was then cleared by the fire department to go into the distribution area to start the ammonia compressors to move the ammonia supply into the receiver.
After starting up the compressors, contractor utility technicians observed oil under Ammonia Compressor #1 East. They isolated the compressor, opened doors, and actuated additional exhaust fans to boost ventilation in the affected areas. Contractor utility technicians discovered the gasket on Compressor# 1 East oil filter extending outside of the flange, which caused the leak of oil and ammonia.
The release event resulted in the loss of approximately 2,989 pounds of ammonia to the atmosphere. The measured concentrations near the entrance to the ammonia room taken by the fire department during mitigation of the release over several hours varied from 38 to greater than 250 ppm.
During the release, air monitoring and personal protective equipment which would have allowed trained facility personnel to mitigate the duration and quantity of the release more quickly were stored in the area immediately affected by the incident, and therefore were not immediately available.
Following the incident, and prior to receipt of written response to the Complainant’s May 8, 2020, information request, Respondent identified 17 corrective actions, of which 16 were completed by the end of May 2020, while one final measure was scheduled to be completed by the end of December 2020. The corrective actions included updating purchase specifications for the critical equipment components involved in the incident, updated communication to personnel affected by the corrective actions implemented, relocation of monitoring and response equipment to an accessible area away from the ammonia system, and revising and updating the facility’s emergency response plan.
VIOLATIONS
Count 1: General Duty Clause [Clean Air Act§ 112(r)(1)] – Failure to minimize the consequences of an accidental release when it occurred.
Certain monitoring and personal protective equipment which would have allowed trained facility personnel to mitigate the duration and quantity of the release more quickly were located in the area of the release, and therefore not immediately available.
Therefore, the Respondent violated the General Duty Clause of Section 112(r)(1) of the CAA by failing to design and maintain a safe facility as necessary to prevent the release and failed to minimize the consequences of the accidental release when it occurred.
PENALTY AND TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
Upon consideration of the entire record herein, and upon consideration (in addition to such other factors as justice may require) of the size of the business, the economic impact of the penalty on the business, the violator’s full compliance history, and good faith efforts to comply (including Respondent’s prompt corrective actions as described above), the duration of the violation, payment by the violator of penalties previously assessed for the same violation, the economic benefit of noncompliance, and the seriousness of the violation, the parties agree that forty thousand dollars ($40,000) is an appropriate penalty to resolve this matter.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO