The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Justice Department have reached a settlement with a food processing company to resolve alleged violations of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) at the company’s food processing facility in North Kingstown, Rhode Island. The alleged violations pertain to chemical release prevention and reporting requirements under both statutes. The company will pay $650,000 in civil penalties and ensure that 19 other facilities in the corporate family are audited to assess whether their ammonia refrigeration systems are being safely designed and operated.
The facility has been cited for violations of Section 112(r)(7) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), Section 312 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (“EPCRA”). One of the allegations – the failure to properly protect evaporators used in an ammonia refrigeration system from accidental impacts – resulted in an ammonia release at the Defendant’s Rhode Island facility when a forklift extended to reach the top level of a storage rack and impacted an ammonia pipe that was part of an evaporator installation.
The defendant operates a 107,000-square-foot facility that manufactures perishable prepared foods for retail locations and grocery stores (the “Facility”). The Facility is in a business park, near other businesses, a residential area, an elementary school, an airport, and a naval air station. Hundreds of people work at the Facility.
The Facility’s refrigeration system, which is comprised of a series of interconnected vessels, evaporators, piping, and other equipment, uses over 16,000 lbs. of anhydrous ammonia as a refrigerant (the “Refrigeration System” or “Process”).
Per 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(a)-(d), Defendant’s use, storage, and handling of anhydrous ammonia at the Facility is subject to the requirements of RMP Program 3. The covered process is subject to Program 3 because (1) the distance to a toxic or flammable endpoint for a worst-case release of anhydrous ammonia is more than the distance to a public receptor, making the process ineligible for Program 1; and (2) the process is subject to OSHA’s PSM regulations.
Greencore USA, Inc. constructed and opened the Facility in 2015. Greencore USA, Inc. shut down the Facility in March 2018, and Defendant began operations at the Facility in April 2019. In 2019, Defendant redesigned the Facility, added a compressor, condenser, and evaporators, and moved existing evaporators to other locations within the Facility.
- On August 23, 2019, Defendant’s contractor submitted a Program 3 RMP to EPA via EPA’s electronic system, and Defendant certified the RMP on September 3, 2019.
- On September 9, 2019, the Refrigeration System was filled with over 16,000 lbs. of anhydrous ammonia to begin use. Defendant did not provide the information necessary for developing the local emergency response plan to the LEPC before filling the Refrigeration System with ammonia.
- On October 11, 2019, about a month after the Refrigeration System started operating, the chair of the LEPC, which, under EPCRA Section 303, was in charge of developing the community emergency response plan, requested Defendant to meet and submit an EPCRA Tier II form, the RMP, and its Emergency Response Plan. The LEPC did not receive the EPCRA Tier II form until on or about November 15, 2019. The EPCRA Tier II form was in the wrong format and had errors, such as a lack of information about sulfuric acid-containing batteries, which were not fully resolved until February 26, 2020.
- On November 18, 2019, the LEPC reminded Defendant of the need to cooperate, described missing information (including a missing site plan), and stated that “our district plan does not reflect your business, the increase in your ammonia inventory and its potential consequences in the event of an accident.”
- On November 20, 2019, EPA inspectors, local emergency planners, and responders inspected the Facility (the “Inspection”) to assess Defendant’s compliance with the RMP regulations and EPCRA. On that date, EPA also asked the company to provide some further documentation.
Among the conditions, the EPA inspectors observed on the date of the Inspection were the following: