The Respondent manufactures bread and bakery products. The Respondent’s bakery processes meet the definition of”process” and “covered process “, as defined by 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. The Respondent had one RMP program level 3 covered process (anhydrous ammonia refrigeration system) which stores or otherwise uses a regulated substance in an amount exceeding the applicable threshold.
EPA Findings of Violation
Count 1 – Process Safety Information
At the time of the Inspection, Respondent failed to document that its equipment complied with recognized and generally good engineering practices for the safety relief valves that were replaced in 2017.
Respondent’s failure to document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
Count 2 – Process Hazard Analysis
At the time of the Inspection, the Respondent had not promptly addressed the team’s findings and recommendations and had not assured that the recommendations were resolved in a timely manner for the 2019 process hazard analysis completed.
Respondent’s failure to establish a system to promptly address the team’s findings and recommendations; failure to assure that the recommendations were resolved in a timely manner; and failure to complete actions as soon as possible pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e).
Count 3 – Operating Procedures
At the time of the Inspection, the operating procedures were not annually certified to assure that the procedures were current and accurate. During the inspection the Respondent provided the V-1 High-Pressure Receiver and the LTR Recirculator System Operating Procedure, both operating procedures were not annually certified.
Respondent’s failure to annually certify the operating procedures for the V-1 High Pressure Receiver and the LTR Recirculator System, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c), as required by40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3) is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CA.
Count 4 – Mechanical Integrity
At the time of the Inspection, the Respondent provided the Inspector with work orders to provide documentation that inspections and test were being conducted on process equipment. The work orders provided did not contain the serial number or other identifiers of the equipment on which the inspection or test was performed, did not contain a description of the inspection, or test performed, and did not contain the results of the inspection or test.
Respondent’s failure to provide adequate documentation of the inspection and test Performed on process equipment that identified the name of the person who performed the inspection or test, the serial number or other identifiers of the equipment on which the inspection or test was performed, a description of the inspection or test performed, and the results of the inspection or test, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(4), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3) is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 5 – Risk Management Plan – Required Corrections
At the time of the Inspection, EPA discovered the Respondent’s Emergency Contact personnel had changed and the Emergency Contact Information for the RMP had not been updated within the one-month timeframe allowed.
Respondent’s failure to submit a correction of the RMP Emergency Contact Information within one month of a change of the Emergency Contact personnel, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.195(b), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7).
CONSENT AGREEMENT
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of eighty thousand four hundred ninety-six dollars ($80,496.00)
CLICK HERE for the CAFO