Respondent operated a facility (the “Facility”) to process, store, and distribute prepackaged salads, fresh-cut vegetables, and other food products. At all times relevant to this CAFO, Respondent produced, used or stored more than 10,000 pounds of ammonia (anhydrous) at the Facility and was subject to the requirements of CAA § 112(r)(7).
At all times relevant to this CAFO, Respondent was subject to Program 3 requirements because it had public receptors within the distance to the endpoint for the worst-case release and was subject to the OSHA process safety management standard set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119.
On January 17, 2024, EPA performed an inspection of the Facility pursuant to Section 112(r) of CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r) (the “Inspection”). Based upon the information gathered during the Inspection and subsequent investigation, the EPA determined that the Respondent violated certain provisions of the CAA.
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
Count 1 – Failure to Comply with Process Safety Information Requirement; 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2), (3)
Based upon the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that the Respondent failed to document that the ammonia machinery room, ammonia pipes, ammonia sensors, ammonia and fire alarms, emergency ventilation system, electrical wiring, and exhaust fans on the roof at the Facility complied with RAGAGEP from January 2024 to August 2024.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that Respondent violated the process safety information requirements set forth at CAA § 112(r) and 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2) from January 2024 to August 2024.
Count 2 – Failure to Comply with the Process Hazard Analysis Requirements; 40 C.F.R. § 69.67(c), (e)
Based upon the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that the Respondent failed to address the hazards of the process, engineering and administrative controls applicable to such hazards, and siting of the stationary source in the PHA performed at the Facility in 2019, and also failed to establish a system to promptly address the findings and recommendations for safety devices in the 2019 PHA.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that Respondent violated CAA § 112(r) and 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c) and (e) by failing to comply with the PHA requirements during 2020-2024.
Count 3 – Failure to Develop and Implement Adequate Operating Procedures; 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a), (c)
Based upon the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that the operating procedures printed inside the emergency control box at the Facility were outdated; the written operating procedures for the High Pressure Receiver at the Facility were inaccurate from January 2024 to April 2024; and all written operating procedures at the Facility lacked annual certifications.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that Respondent violated CAA § 112(r) and 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a) and (c) by failing to comply with the operating procedure requirements from during 2020-2024.
Count 4 – Failure to Comply with the Mechanical Integrity Requirements; 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d), (e)
Based upon the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that Respondent failed to adequately track repairs recommended after the inspections and tests of the process equipment at the Facility during 2024 and failed to address deficient ammonia pipes and tanks, valves, emergency ventilation louvers, insulation or vapor barriers, and ammonia sensors at the Facility that were outside acceptable limits from January 2024 to August 2024.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that Respondent violated CAA § 112(r) and 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d) and (e), by failing to comply with the mechanical integrity requirements during 2024.
Count 5 – Failure to Comply with the Management of Change Requirements; 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(a), (b)
Based upon the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that the Respondent failed to implement written procedures to manage upgrades of the emergency ventilation system at the Facility during 2020-2023.
Based upon the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that the Respondent failed to adequately document management approval of changes to process equipment at the Facility during 2020-2023.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that Respondent violated CAA § 112(r) and 40 C.F.R. § 68.75(a) and (b), by failing to comply with the management of change requirements for certain process equipment during 2020-2023.
Count 6 – Failure to Comply with Pre-Startup Safety Review Requirements; 40 C.F.R. § 68.77(b)
Based upon the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that the PSSRs performed by the Respondent at the Facility during 2020-2024 lacked appropriate signatures from management and completion dates for various required tasks.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that Respondent violated CAA § 112(r) and 40 C.F.R. § 68.77(b), by failing to comply with the Pre-Startup Safety Review requirements during 2020-2024.
Count 7 – Failure to Comply with Incident Investigation Requirements; 40 C.F.R. § 68.81(d)
Based upon the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that the incident investigation reports prepared by the Respondent at the Facility during 2020-2021 failed to include dates of investigation, factors that contributed to the incidents, and recommendations resulting from the investigations.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that Respondent violated CAA § 112(r) and 40 C.F.R. § 68.81(d), by failing to comply with the incident investigation requirements during 2020-2021.
Count 8 – Failure to Comply with the Requirements Regarding Contractors; 40 C.F.R. § 68.87(b)
Based upon the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that Respondent failed to obtain and evaluate information regarding safety performance and programs of two contractors it hired to work on the RMP processes during 2024.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that Respondent violated CAA § 112(r) and 40 C.F.R. § 68.87(b), by failing to comply with the requirements regarding contractors during 2024.
PENALTY
Respondent agrees to the assessment of a civil penalty of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY-ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY-NINE DOLLARS ($151,979)
CLICK HERE for the CAFO