At all times relevant to this CAFO, Respondent operated a facility that utilizes anhydrous ammonia to produce approximately one-quarter billion frozen burritos for distribution nationwide each year. On July 20, 2022, EPA performed an inspection of the Facility to evaluate compliance with the CERCLA Section 103, 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 EPCRA and the CAA.
At all times relevant to this CA/FO, Respondent produced, used or stored more than 10,000 pounds of ammonia (anhydrous) at the Facility. At all times relevant to this CA/FO, Respondent was subject to Program 3 requirements because there are public receptors within the distance to the endpoint for the worst-case release from its Facility and was subject to the OSHA process safety management standard set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119.
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
Count I – Failure to Comply with Tier II Inventory Requirements
Based upon the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that Respondent failed to timely submit its Tier II hazardous materials and waste inventory reports.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to timely submit its Tier II hazardous materials and waste inventory reports, Respondent violated the EPCRA requirements set forth at EPRCRA Section 312 and 40 C.F.R. § 370.42(s)(6).
Count II – Failure to Comply with Process Safety Information Requirements
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) and (3), such as doors that were not equipped with panic hardware, exposed electrical wiring and conduit, extension cords used as permanent wiring, doors that were not tight-fitting and tight-sealing, lack of labelling for ammonia piping, not identifying the main shutoff valve (King valve), emergency exhaust and temperature- control fans discharging horizontally and downwards, unlabelled ammonia alarms, not having ammonia alarms in its ammonia machinery rooms, unlabelled natural gas piping and hydraulic oil piping, corrosion on multiple pieces of equipment, unsupported ammonia piping, ammonia transfer vessel nameplates corroded beyond recognition, frosted site glass on the ammonia high pressure receiver, missing warning labels on electrical panels, and unsealed pipe penetrations in ammonia machinery rooms.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to include accurate information concerning the equipment of a process, and by failing to comply with RAGAGEP or document that its existing equipment was safe, Respondent violated the process safety information requirements set forth at 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.65(d)(2) and 68.65(d)(3).
COUNT III – Failure to Comply with Process Hazard Analysis Requirements
Based upon the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that Respondent failed to adequately address hazards of the process, specifically external events 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). 33. 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 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 determined that Respondent failed to develop and implement written operating procedures providing clear instructions for safely conducting activities for its ammonia operators.
Under 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c), the owner or operator must annually certify that its operating procedures are current and accurate. Based upon the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that Respondent failed to complete an annual certification of its operating procedures since 2013.
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 40 C.F.R. 68.69(a) and (c).
COUNT V – Failure to Ensure Mechanical Integrity
Based upon the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA observed significant ice buildup on the ammonia recirculation vessel and piping in the main refrigeration system, damaged vapor barrier and insulation in numerous locations on the roof and on ammonia piping in the main refrigeration system, and broken electrical wiring in the main refrigeration system.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that the ice buildup, damaged vapor barrier and insulation, and broken electrical wiring were outside acceptable limits, and by failing to fix these deficiencies in a timely manner, Respondent violated the mechanical integrity requirements set forth in 40 C.F.R. 68.73(e).
COUNT VI – Failure to Complete Incident Investigation Requirements
Based upon the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that Respondent failed to establish a system to promptly address and resolve incident report findings and recommendations because Respondent’s incident investigation report lacked adequate detail regarding the resolution of proposed corrective actions.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to establish a system to promptly address and resolve incident report finding and recommendations, Respondent violated the incident investigation requirements set forth at 40 C.F.R. 68.81(e).
COUNT VII – Failure to Confirm Employee Participation
Based upon the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that Respondent failed to consider language as a potential barrier or employee access to RMP-related training, documentation, and participation.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to consult with its employees knowledgeable in the process and confirm that its employees understand all the risks of ammonia, Respondent violated the employee participation requirements set forth at 40 C.F.R. 68.83(c).
COUNT VIII – Failure to Develop and Implement Safe Work Practices for Contractors
Based upon the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that Respondent did not have any documentation of its contractor policy, did not have a list of its contractors who work in and around its ammonia refrigeration system, and did not have evaluation records of its contractors.
Accordingly, EPA alleges that by failing to develop and implement a contractor policy, Respondent violated the contractor requirements set forth at 40 C.F.R. 68.87(b).
CIVIL PENALTY
Respondent agrees to pay a civil penalty in the amount of ONE-HUNDRED SIXTY-THOUSAND DOLLARS ($160,000).