At all times relevant to this CA/FO, Respondent operated a facility (the “Facility”) that utilizes anhydrous ammonia for cooling to pack, process, and distribute its food products. On July 11, 2024, 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 alleges that Respondent violated certain provisions of the CAA.
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
Count I – Failure to Comply with Documentation Requirements
Based upon the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA alleges that Respondent failed to maintain records of the methodology it used to determine distance to endpoints because there were inconsistencies between its RMP and its hazard assessment.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to properly maintain records for its offsite consequence analyses, Respondent violated the documentation requirements set forth at CAA Section 112(r)(7) and 40 C.F.R. § 68.39(d).
Count II – Failure to Comply with Process Safety Information Requirements
Based upon the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA alleges that Respondent failed to complete the compilation of process safety information in the following instances:
a. Respondent’s information pertaining to its safety systems, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(viii), included inconsistent alarm set points for ammonia machinery room detectors.b. Respondent lacked documentation that its equipment complies with RAGAGEP, as required by 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.65(d)(2) and (3), such as unclear and inconsistent labeling, not having tight-fitting doors, unsealed piping, exposed electrical wiring, and having incomplete information for its emergency shutdown procedures.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to have accurate information pertaining to equipment in a process, and by failing to comply with RAGAGEP or document that its existing equipment complied 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)(1), 68.65(d)(2), 68.65(d)(3).
Count III – Failure to Comply with Process Hazard Analysis Requirements
Based upon the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA alleges that Respondent failed to adequately address hazards of the process, specifically risk mitigation in its PHA, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c), and also failed to adequately track its PHA recommendations to completion, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e).
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to adequately address hazards of the process, and by failing to adequately track its PHA recommendations to completion, Respondent violated the process hazard analysis requirements set forth at CAA Section 112(r)(7) and 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.67(c) and 68.67(e).
Count VI – Failure to Develop and Implement Adequate Operating Procedures
Based upon the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA alleges that Respondent failed to develop and implement written operating procedures providing clear instructions for safely conducting activities for its ammonia operators, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a), and also failed to complete an annual certification of all operating procedures, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c).
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to adequately develop and implement written operating procedures, and by failing to annually certify that its operating procedures are current and accurate, Respondent violated the operating procedure requirements set forth at CAA 112(r)(7) and 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.69(a) and (c).
Count V – Failure to Ensure Mechanical Integrity
Based upon the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA alleges that Respondent failed to provide adequate inspection documentation of its piping, compressor, and ammonia refrigeration equipment, and failed to document equipment that was non-operational, as required by 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.73(d)(3), 68.73(d)(4), 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)(3), 68.73(d)(4), and 68.73(e).
Count VI – Failure to Comply with Management of Change Requirements
Based upon the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA alleges that Respondent failed to properly complete all pre-startup safety review checklists prior to its management of change closeouts, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(d).
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to adequately update its management of change program, Respondent violated the management of change requirements set forth at CAA 112(r)(7) and 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(d).
Count VII – Failure to Comply with the Compliance Audit Requirements
Based upon the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA alleges that Respondent failed to adequately track the recommendations in all compliance audits to completion.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to adequately track its compliance audit recommendations to completion, Respondent violated the compliance audit requirements set forth at CAA 112(r)(7) and 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d).
CIVIL PENALTY
Respondent agrees to pay a civil penalty in the amount of ONE-HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND SIXTY-NINE DOLLARS ($130,069)
CLICK HERE for CAFO