At all times relevant to this CA/FO, Respondent operated a facility (the “Facility”) that utilizes anhydrous ammonia to manufacture and produce citrus products, to develop frozen fruit concentrate, juice, oils, and pulps from oranges, lemons, and grapefruits. On October 24, 2023, EPA performed an inspection of the Facility to evaluate compliance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) Section 103, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (“EPCRA”) Sections 304-312, and CAA Section 112(r). Based upon the information gathered during the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that Respondent violated certain provisions of the CAA.
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
Based upon the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that Respondent lacked documentation that its equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (“RAGAGEP”), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2), such as open threaded valves, lack of adequate bump protection around its high-pressure receiver, extension cords used as a substitute for permanent wiring, open wall penetrations without sufficient sealing, and ammonia detection systems lacking either an audible or visible alarms that would activate upon a detection of ammonia.
Count I – Failure to Comply with Process Safety Information Requirements
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to comply with RAGAGEP, Respondent violated the process safety information requirements set forth at CAA Section 112(r)(7) and 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2).
Count II – Failure to Ensure Mechanical Integrity
Based upon the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that Respondent failed to replace multiple pressure relief values that were overdue for replacement and failed to replace damaged vapor barrier on its ammonia piping, as required by 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.73(d)(2) and 68.73(e).
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to failing to perform inspections and testing on its process equipment according to RAGAGEP and by failing to fix deficiencies in a timely manner, Respondent violated the mechanical integrity requirements set forth in CAA Section 112(r)(7) and 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.73(d)(2) and 68.73(e).
Count III – Failure to Develop and Implement Adequate Operating Procedures
Based upon the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that Respondent failed to develop and implement written operating procedures that included the consequences of deviation and the steps required to correct or avoid the deviation.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to adequately develop and implement adequate written operating procedures, Respondent violated the operating procedure requirements set forth at CAA 112(r)(7) and 40 C.F.R. §
68.69(a)(2).
Count IV – Failure to Comply with the Compliance Audit Requirements
Based upon the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that Respondent failed to update and certify its compliance of the stationary source with the provisions of the prevention program every three years.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to certify its compliance every three years, Respondent violated the compliance audit requirements set forth at CAA 112(r)(7) and 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(a).
Count V – Failure to Comply with the Recordkeeping Requirements
Based upon the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that Respondent failed to update its emergency contact information within one month of personnel changes at its Facility.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to update its emergency contact information within one month of any change, Respondent violated the recordkeeping requirements set forth at CAA 112(r)(7) and 40 C.F.R. § 68.195(b).
CIVIL PENALTY
Respondent agrees to pay a civil penalty in the amount of ONE-HUNDRED SIX THOUSAND EIGHT-HUNDRED FIFTY-NINE DOLLARS ($106,859)
CLICK HERE for the CAFO