Respondent is a Wisconsin corporation, with cream cheese and yogurt manufacturing facility. On April 17, 2017, EPA representatives conducted an inspection of the Facility following a reported release of anhydrous ammonia on September 6, 2016, to determine Respondent’s compliance with Section 103 of CERCLA and Sections 302-312 of EPCRA. During the EPA Inspection, Respondent ‘s personnel provided documentation to EPA regarding the September 6, 2016 event that had occurred at the Facility, when a conservatively estimated 172 pounds of anhydrous ammonia was released from a silo in the cream cheese plant at the Facility (“the Release”).
Respondent first became aware of the Release at approximately 7:40 a.m. on September 6, 2016, when processing employees smelled ammonia and evacuated the area, and the ammonia detection system alarm sounded. Respondent ‘s personnel discovered the source of the Release, reset the relief valves that were open due to a faulty dual pressure regulator in the cooling system, and terminated the Release at 7:55 a.m. Respondent replaced the faulty dual pressure regulator and the silo was returned into service by the end of the day.
Following the Release, Respondent performed several sets of calculations to estimate the amount of ammonia released, which ranged from 114 pounds to 172 pounds.
Respondent reported the Release as 172 pounds, based on the most conservative calculation performed.
On April 12, 2018, EPA sent to Respondent an EPCRA/CERCLA Post-Inspection Letter itemizing potential violations of, among other requirements, CERCLA and EPCRA release reporting requirements following the September 6, 2016 Release, and requesting that Respondent comply with its obligations under EPCRA and take steps to prevent recurrence of the compliance issues.
On May 7, 2018, Respondent replied to EPA’s Post-Inspection Letter, outlining steps it had taken to come into compliance and to prevent future violations of the requirements of CERCLA and EPCRA, including conducting multiple personnel training programs and updating its standard operating procedures related to the introduction of new chemicals on site and the release reporting requirements.
On September 27, 2018, EPA issued to Respondent a Request to Show Cause and Opportunity to Confer with EPA Regarding Alleged Violations of CERCLA Section 103 and EPCRA Section 304 at the facility.
Count 1 Failure to Immediately Notify the NRC of a Release
Section 103(a) of CERCLA, as implemented by 40 C.F.R. Part 302, requires , in relevant part, a person in charge of a facility to immediately notify the National Response Center (“NRC”) established under Section 311 (d)(2)(E) of the Clean Water Act, as soon as they have knowledge of a release ( other than a federally permitted release) of a hazardous substance from such facility in a quantity equal to or greater than the RQ.
The chemical ammonia is a hazardous substance, as defined under Section 101 (14) of CERCLA, and 40 C.F.R. § 302.3, with an RQ of 100 pounds, as listed in 40 C.F.R. § 302.4.
The September 6, 2016 Release from the Facility constituted a release of a hazardous substance in a quantity equal to or exceeding the RQ for that hazardous substance, requiring immediate notification of the NRC pursuant to Section 103(a) of CERCLA.
The September 6, 2016 Release was not a “federally permitted release” as that term is used in Section 103(a) of CERCLA and 40 C.F.R. § 302.6, and defined in Section 101(10) of CERCLA.
Respondent notified the NRC of the Release at 10:27 a.m. on September 6, 2016.
Respondent failed to immediately notify the NRC as soon as it had knowledge of the release of a hazardous substance from the Facility in a quantity greater than the RQ.
Respondent violated Section 103(a) of CERCLA and the relevant regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 302.6 by failing to immediately notify the NRC as soon as it had knowledge of the release of a hazardous substance from the Facility in a quantity greater than the RQ.
In failing to comply with Section 103(a) of CERCLA and 40C.F.R. Part 302, Respondent is subject to the assessment of penalties under Section 109(a) of CERCLA.
Count II Failure to Immediately Notify the SERC of a Release
Section 304(a)(l) and (b) of EPCRA, as implemented by 40 C.F.R. Part 355, Subpart C, requires, in relevant part , the owner or operator of a facility at which hazardous chemicals are produced, used, or stored to notify the SERC immediately following the release of an EHS in an amount exceeding the RQ for such substance. 40. Ammonia is an EHS as listed in 40 CFR Part 355, Appendix A, with an RQ of 100 pounds.
Section 304(a)(4) of EPCRA and 40 C.F.R. § 355.31(a) exempt from the reporting requirement any release that results in exposure to persons solely within the boundaries of the facility. Air modeling conducted by EPA shows that the Release plume traveled offsite from the facility property in the south-southeast direction at concentrations between 1 part per million (“ppm”) and 2 ppm.
The September 6, 2016 Release from the Facility constituted a release of an EHS in a quantity equal to or exceeding the RQ for that EHS, requiring immediate notification of the SERC pursuant to Section 304(a)(1) and (b) of EPCRA.
Respondent notified the SERC of the Release at 11:00 a.m. on September 6, 2016.
Respondent failed to immediately notify the SERC as soon as it had knowledge of the release of an EHS from the Facility in a quantity greater than the RQ.
Respondent violated Section 304(a)(1) and (b) of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 11004(a)(1) and (b), and the relevant regulations at 40 C.F.R. §§ 355.40 through 355.43, by failing to immediately notify the SERC as soon as it had knowledge of the release of an EHS from the Facility in a quantity greater than the RQ.
In failing to comply with Section 304(a)(1) and (b) of EPCRA and 40 C.F.R. Part 355, Subpart C, Respondent is subject to the assessment of penalties under Section 325(b) of EPCRA.
Count III Failure to Immediately Notify the LEPC of a Release
Section 304(a)(1) and (b) of EPCRA as implemented by 40 C.F.R. Part 355, Subpart C, requires, in relevant part, the owner or operator of a facility at which hazardous chemicals are produced, used, or stored to notify the LEPC immediately following the release of an EHS in an amount exceeding the RQ for such substance.
The September 6, 2016 Release from the Facility constituted a release of an EHS in a quantity equal to or exceeding the RQ for that EHS, requiring immediate notification of the LEPC pursuant to Section 304(a)(1) and (b) of EPCRA.
Respondent notified the LEPC of the Release at 11:10 a.m. on September 6, 2016.
Respondent failed to immediately notify the LEPC as soon as it had knowledge of the release of an EHS from the Facility in a quantity greater than the RQ.
Respondent violated Section 304(a)(1) and (b) of EPCRA and the relevant regulations at 40 C.F.R. §§ 355.40 through 355.43, by failing to immediately notify the LEPC as soon as it had knowledge of the release of an EHS from the Facility in a quantity greater than the RQ.
In failing to comply with Section 304(a)(1) and (b) of EPCRA, and 40 C.F.R. Part 355, Subpart C, Respondent is subject to the assessment of penalties under Section 325(b) of EPCRA.
Count IV Failure to Timely Submit Written Follow-up Report to the SERC
Section 304(c) of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 11004(c), as implemented by 40 C.F.R. Part 355, Subpart C, requires, in relevant part, that, when there has· been a release of an EHS in a quantity equal to or greater than the RQ from a facility at which hazardous chemicals are produced, used, or stored, the owner or operator of that facility must provide a written follow-up report regarding the release to the SERC as soon as practicable.
The September 6,2016 Release from the Facility constituted a release of an EHS in a quantity equal to or exceeding the RQ for that EHS, requiring provision of a written follow-up report to the SERC pursuant to Section 304(c) of EPCRA. Respondent provided a written follow-up report to the SERC regarding the September 6, 2016 Release on April 19, 2017, two days after the EPA Inspection. Respondent violated Section 304(c) of EPCRA and the relevant regulations at 40 C.F.R. §§ 355.40 through 355.43, by failing to provide a written follow-up report as soon as practicable to the SERC regarding the release of an EHS from the Facility in a quantity greater than the RQ.
In failing to comply with Section 304(c) of EPCRA and 40 C.F.R. Part 355, Subpart C, Respondent is subject to the assessment of penalties under Section 325(b) of EPCRA.
Count V Failure to Timely Submit Written Follow-up Report to the LEPC Section 304(c) of EPCRA, as implemented by 40 C.F.R. Part 355, Subpart C, requires, in relevant part, that, when there has been a release of an EHS in a quantity equal to or greater than the RQ from a facility at which hazardous chemicals are produced, used, or stored, the owner or operator of that facility must provide a written follow-up report regarding the release to the LEPC as soon as practicable.
The September 6, 2016 Release from the Facility constituted a release of an EHS in a quantity equal to or exceeding the RQ for that EHS, requiring the provision of a written follow-up report to the LEPC pursuant to Section 304(c) of EPCRA.
Respondent provided a written follow-up report to the LEPC regarding the September 6, 2016 Release on April 19, 2017, two days after the EPA Inspection.
Respondent violated Section 304(c) of EPCRA, and the relevant regulations at 40 C.F.R. §§ 355.40 through 355.43, by failing to provide a written follow-up report as soon as practicable to the LEPC regarding the release of an EHS from the Facility in a quantity greater than the RQ.
In failing to comply with Section 304(c) of EPCRA and 40 C.F.R. Part 355, Subpart C, Respondent is subject to the assessment of penalties under Section 325(b) of EPCRA. SETTLEMENT Respondent consents to the issuance of this Consent Agreement, and consents for purposes of settlement to the payment of the civil penalty cited in the following Paragraph 68, and to performance of the Supplemental Environmental Project, as set forth beginning at Paragraph 78, below.
Civil Penalty
In settlement ofEPA ‘s claims for civil penalties for the violations alleged in this Consent Agreement, Respondent consents to the assessment of a civil penalty in the amount of TWENTY-THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-NINE DOLLARS ($23,339), which total includes FIVE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTY-EIGHT DOLLARS ($5,368) for alleged violations of Section 103 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9603 (“CERCLA civil penalty”), and SEVENTEEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-ONE DOLLARS ($17,971) for alleged violations of Section 304(b) and (c) of EPCRA.
Supplemental Environmental Project
The following Supplemental Environmental Project (“SEP”) is consistent with applicable EPA policy and guidelines, specifically EPA’s Supplemental Environmental Projects Policy 2015 Update (“the SEP Policy”), effective March 10, 2015. Respondent agrees to upgrade the cooling system for the six milk silos at the Facility to minimize the potential for an ammonia release, and to minimize the amount of any such release that does occur. The respondent will interlock the cooling system with the plant Programmable Logic Controller, the automated computer system, to automatically disable the cooling system when the milk level in the tank is low and when the tank is in the clean-in-process (“CIP”) mode. This will prevent the addition of liquid ammonia to the cooling system during CIP mode when 180-degree water is added to the silo. This will mean that there will be less ammonia present in the cooling system to build up pressure upon the sudden change in temperature, thus reducing the likelihood of a release. The SEP is described further in the Supplemental Environmental Project Proposal (“SEP Proposal”), attached hereto as Attachment A and incorporated herein by reference.
Respondent shall complete the SEP by July 1, 2019 (“SEP Completion Deadline”). Respondent ‘s total expenditure for the SEP shall not be less than $6,100 in accordance with the specifications set forth in the SEP Proposal. Respondent shall include documentation of the expenditures made in connection with the SEP as part of the SEP Completion Report described in Paragraph 85 below.
Detailed Description of Proposed SEP
The objective of SEP: To add an additional level of safety to the equipment in the system that is most vulnerable to having an overpressure condition that could result in an ammonia release.
Evaluation of Potential Improvements to Ammonia Refrigeration System
The facility completed a process hazard analysis (PHA) of the ammonia refrigeration system involved in the September 6, 2016 ammonia release incident at its facility that is the subject of the EPA ‘s Request to Show Cause dated September 27, 2018. The purpose of the PHA was to determine what potential improvements or upgrades could be made to the system, particularly within the milk silos as that is where the release originated, to either reduce or minimize the amount of ammonia released from the system or improve the facility’s ability to respond to a release in a more timely fashion. In reviewing its current system and processes, the facility Foods determined that it could make improvements within the controls and processes for the milk silos to better maintain a steady pressure within the system and minimize the potential for a failure of the back pressure regulator valve, particularly when the facility puts the silos into the clean-in-process (Cf P) mode. When milk is cooling in the silo, the ammonia typically sits in a stable state. As the silo is emptied, the silo is placed into the CIP mode, which involves filling it with 180-degree water, resulting in a sudden temperature change within the silo. Accordingly, the silo heats up, causing the ammonia to expand. Although the facility already has several safety mechanisms built into the system, as described below, the facility looked at ways it may be able to further eliminate the hazard of a flash off or buildup of pressure within the ammonia refrigeration system. In order to further minimize the release potential in the milk silos the facility is proposing to complete the upgrade outlined below.
Description of Upgrade: The proposed upgrade is to interlock the cooling for the six silos with the plant Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) to automatically disable the cooling when the tank level is low, and when the tank is in the CIP mode. Currently, the facility ‘s standard operating procedures for the CIP process requires staff to manually turn off the cooling and agitator switches on the silos prior to initiating the CIP process; in other words, the system relies on staff ensuring the proper switches are turned off, allowing for potential human error.
Disabling the cooling means the liquid feed valve on the silo will not be allowed to open in order to maintain the liquid level in the surge drum. If one can prevent additional liquid ammonia from entering the surge drum, there will be less liquid to build pressure. Ultimately, the facility wants to be in control of the systems/components that remove heat and this upgrade will give the facility that additional control. the facility believes interlocking the cooling process is the most critical action to prevent a release from the system.
Furthermore, a key objective is to prevent additional buildup of pressure as that will minimize the amount of ammonia that may be released from the system.
Proposed Timeline for Implementation of the SEP As a capital improvement, the facility needs to submit a formal request to corporate headquarters for funding the project before it can order the necessary equipment. the facility expects the formal approval process to take approximately two to three weeks. the facility has selected Heim Company as a contractor to assist with implementation of the SEP. Upon corporate approval, the facility will enter into a contract with Heim Company for purchase of the necessary equipment and supplies to complete the proposed interlocking and upgrade. the facility commits to having the project completed on or before July l, 2019.
Project Costs – Capital Costs
The projected cost of the proposed SEP is $6,100 in equipment and supplies, plus labor costs. Attached to this SEP Proposal is a bid from Heim Company that provides additional information on the equipment to be installed and the projected cost. The only portion of the Heim bid that applies to the proposed SEP is the part titled “Receiving Bay Relays,” as highlighted in yellow. The proposed relays will allow for the interlocking of the cooling system during the CIP process.
Annual Operating Costs
Due to the nature of the upgrade, the facility does not anticipate any annual operating or maintenance costs for this particular project.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO