The company owns and operates an ammonia refrigeration system at its production facility, specializing in egg products and breakfast-style entrees. The Facility uses a two-stage, closed-loop, ammonia refrigeration system to refrigerate the food items. The ammonia refrigeration system at the Facility includes eleven compressors, fifteen evaporators, ten make-up air units, seven condensers, three heat exchangers, seventeen ammonia detection sensors, a ventilation system, pumps, piping, vessels, and refrigeration controls. The Facility maintains a maximum inventory of the regulated toxic substance anhydrous ammonia, which exceeds the threshold quantity of 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia. The Facility is subject to Program 3 because the covered process is subject to the OSHA
process safety management standard (29 C.F.R. § 1910.119) and does not meet the Program 1 eligibility requirements at 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(j), in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(1).
On January 17, 2024, EPA conducted an announced inspection of the Facility (January 2024 Inspection). During the January 2024 Inspection, EPA inspectors reviewed documents relating to the RMP that the facility provided (RMP Documents). The RMP Documents included aspects of the Facility’s RMP involving the management system, offsite consequence analysis, process safety information,
process hazard analysis, operating procedures, training, mechanical integrity, management of change, pre-startup safety review, compliance audits, incident investigation, hot work permits, employee participation, emergency response, and contractors.
From February 28, 2024 to November 20, 2025, Respondent completed the following actions:
a. OCA: conducted a new OCA to identify public and environmental receptors that could be affected by the worst-case release scenario based on their distance to the endpoint.
b. PSI: commenced the building and equipment reconstruction project to ensure that equipment associated with the covered process complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices. Specifically, the following were completed:
i. Installed placards in accordance with NFPA 704.
ii. Installed guarding and barricading where necessary.
iii. Installed necessary eyewash/safety shower units.
iv. Installed panic hardware on egress doors.
v. Installed emergency shut-off switches with tamper-resistant covers.
vi. Installed necessary leak detection sensors that account for the air movement.
vii. Extended termination of pressure relief device discharge piping to the correct lengths.
c. PHA: completed the revalidation of the PHA conducted on June 24 – 25, 2019, (2019 PHA).
d. Operating procedures: updated necessary operating procedures and completed the review process to ensure that all operating procedures are current, accurate, and certified annually.
e. Training: updated training for employees.
f. Mechanical Integrity: commenced the building and equipment reconstruction project to correct deficiencies in equipment that were outside acceptable limits defined by the process safety information, including the 2019 mechanical integrity audit recommendations.
g. Emergency Response: achieved initial contact with the local emergency planning and response organizations and obtained the community emergency response plan to ensure the facility is addressed.
h. RMP: resubmitted the RMP with updated emergency contact information on February 28, 2024.
Allegations
Based on information gathered during the January 2024 Inspection, EPA alleges the following violations of CAPP requirements:
OCA
The RMP Documents contain a worst-case release scenario analysis for a toxic release of ammonia. The worst-case release documentation did not list public or environmental receptors within the radius, determined by the distance to the endpoint from the Facility.
The facility failed to identify the presence of public receptors within the radius of a distance to the endpoint modeled by the worst-case release scenario, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.30(b). The facility failed to list environmental receptors that would be affected by a worst-case release scenario based on the distance to the endpoint, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.33(a).
PSI
During the January 2024 Inspection, material of construction information was not maintained for the entire ammonia system. The facility did not provide the information pertaining to the materials of construction for compressor C-6 and make-up air unit MAU-5.
The facility failed to maintain information pertaining to the materials of construction for equipment used in the process, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68. 65(d)(1)(i).
During the January 2024 Inspection, The facility provided material and energy balances that had an inaccurate number of the process equipment.
The facility failed to maintain information regarding the material and energy balances for processes built after June 21, 1999, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68. 65(d)(1)(vii).
During the January 2024 Inspection, inspectors toured the Facility and made several observations (Inspector Observations).
Inspector Observations included:
a. The exit door #14, on the southwest corner of the machine room, did not have panic-opening hardware installed.
b. An ammonia sensor and ventilation exhausts were on opposite walls with compressors between them in the high-stage machine room.
c. The intercooler referenced as “V-3” in the RMP Documents was labeled “V-4 Intercooler” at the site.
d. The intercooler oil pot relief valve did not have a replacement tag to indicate the date of installation and the date in which replacement is required and showed signs of heavy corrosion.
e. The atmospheric discharges of some pressure relief valves did not appear to meet required height above roof or adjacent roof/platform elevation.
f. No eyewash/safety shower units were located outside the exit machine room exits.
g. The NFPA placard on the outside of exit door #15 was damaged, partially peeled off and unreadable.
h. The emergency shut-off switch outside the machine room door #15 was not identified with a tamper-resistant cover, and its function was not clearly marked by signage near the controls.
i. Evaporator EV-15 was located near the storage rack, however it was not protected or guarded from the physical impact of the storage handling equipment.
j. Vessels and piping on the roof of the building were not properly labeled.
Based on the observations noted in paragraph 93, Echo Lake failed to ensure that equipment associated with the covered process complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices as set forth in the Recognized And Generally Accepted Good Engineering Practices, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2).
PHA
Some of the engineering and administrative controls applicable to the hazards and interrelationships checklist developed during the 2019 PHA indicated “NO” to some questions and then did not have a recommendation to address or an explanation to demonstrate that the current system/safeguards were enough.
As described in paragraph 95, Echo Lake failed to conduct the 2019 PHA appropriate to the complexity of the process and identify, evaluate, and control the hazards involved in the process, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(a) and 68.67(c)(1).
Operating procedures
During the January 2024 Inspection, The facility provided the standard operating procedures (SOPs) for review.
The King Valve actuates if the ammonia concentration in the room reaches 250 ppm, however, the compressors’ SOP stated that the King Valve will actuate at an ammonia concentration of 300 ppm.
The facility failed to develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the process safety information and address safety systems and their functions, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(4).
Some of the SOPs provided during the January 2024 Inspection had not been reviewed and certified annually. Echo Lake representatives stated that while some procedures were annually recertified, they had not completed the annual certification of all SOPs.
The facility failed to certify annually that operating procedures are current and accurate, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c).
Training
The RMP Documents indicated that the most recent refresher training was conducted on July 31, 2020. The facility failed to provide refresher training at least every three years, or more often if necessary, to each employee involved in operating a process to assure that the employee understands and adheres to the current operating procedures of the process, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(b).
Mechanical Integrity
At the time of the January 2024 Inspection, the latest 5-year mechanical integrity program audit had been conducted on December 17-18, 2019, (2019 Audit) by a Mechanical PSM Services contractor. The 2019 Audit resulted in 51 recommendations. As of the January 2024 Inspection, 23 recommendations have yet to be addressed. Some of the recommendations were addressed in 2020, and two more were addressed in 2021. However, no action was taken in 2022. Echo Lake resumed addressing the recommendations towards the end of 2023.
During the January 2024 inspection, EPA inspectors observed that some of the deficiencies identified in the 2019 Audit have not yet been addressed. For instance, EPA inspectors noted that the atmospheric discharges of certain pressure relief valves did not appear to meet the required height above the roof or adjacent roof/platform elevation. Additionally, safety equipment such as eyewash/safety shower units were still not installed outside the machine room exits.
The facility failed to correct deficiencies in equipment that were outside acceptable limits defined by the process safety information before further use or in a safe and timely manner when necessary means were taken to assure safe operation, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(e).
Incident investigation
EPA inspectors reviewed an incident investigation report during the January 2024 Inspection that did not include the date of the incident, the factors that contributed to the incident, and any recommendations resulting from the investigation.
The facility failed to prepare a report at the conclusion of the investigation which includes at a minimum: date of incident, date investigation began, a description of the incident, the factors that contributed to the incident, and any recommendations resulting from the investigation, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.81(d).
Emergency Response
During the January 2024 Inspection, a representative of Echo Lake informed EPA inspectors that Echo Lake is a non-responding stationary source, per 40 C.F.R. § 68.90(a).
The RMP Documents failed to indicate that Echo Lake had coordinated response needs with local emergency planning and response organizations to determine how the stationary source is addressed in the community emergency response plan and to ensure that local response organizations are aware of the regulated substances at the stationary source, their quantities, the risks presented by covered processes, and the resources and capabilities at the stationary source to respond to an accidental release of a regulated substance pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.93.
The facility failed to coordinate response needs with local emergency planning and response organizations at least annually, and more frequently, if necessary, to address changes: at the stationary source; in the stationary source’s emergency response and/or emergency action plan; and/or in the community emergency response plan, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.93(a).
Due to the lack of coordination with the local emergency planning committee (LEPC), the facility did not provide its emergency response plan, emergency action plan, or current emergency contact information, or other information necessary for developing and implementing the local emergency response plan.
The facility failed to provide to the local emergency planning and response organizations: the stationary source’s emergency action plan; updated emergency contact information; and other information necessary for developing and implementing the local emergency response plan, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.93(b).
At the time of the January 2024 Inspection, the facility indicated that the LEPC and Fire Department had not been responsive to the annual coordination. However, the facility did not document its attempts to reach the LEPC to initiate the coordination.
The facility failed to document coordination with local authorities, including: the names of individuals involved and their contact information (phone number, email address, and organizational affiliations); dates of coordination activities; and nature of coordination activities, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.93(c).
RMP
At the time of the January 2024 Inspection, XXXXXXXXXX was no longer employed with the facility, and had been replaced on December 11, 2023, by the current plant manager, making the information contained in the RMP outdated. The facility resubmitted the RMP with the current emergency contact information on February 28, 2024.
The facility failed to submit a correction of the emergency contact information within one month of any change in the emergency contact information required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.160(b)(6), in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.195(b).
Based on analysis of the factors specified in Section 113(e) of the CAA, the facts of this case, and the Respondent’s cooperation, the EPA has determined that an appropriate civil penalty to settle this action is $164,410.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO