Respondent owns and operates a processed cheese manufacturing facility. On or about December 16-18, 2024, representatives of the EPA conducted an inspection of Respondent’s Facility to determine compliance with 40 C.F.R. Part 68 (the “Subject Compliance Inspection”). Information gathered during the EPA’s Inspection revealed that the Respondent had greater than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in a process at its Facility and that the Respondent uses anhydrous ammonia for refrigeration of cheese products in storage as well as for cooling of manufacturing process lines and therefore is engaged in a process at its Facility as defined by 40 C.F.R. Part 68.
From the time Respondent first had onsite greater than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in a process, Respondent was subject to the requirements 40 C.F.R. Part 68 because it was an owner and operator of a stationary source that had more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a process. Respondent was subject to Program 3 prevention program requirements because, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 68.10(1), the covered process at its facility did not meet the eligibility requirements of Program 1 and was subject to the OSHA process safety management standard, 29 C.F.R. ยง 1910.119.
Allegations of Violation
Count I
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to implement the Program 3 prevention requirements of Subpart D of 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Specifically, Respondent failed to ensure that the process is designed and maintained in compliance with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, in violation of 40 C.F.R. 68.65(d)(2). In particular, the eyewash station was not adequately accessible, and the main engine room door was not tightly fitted nor equipped with panic hardware.
Count 2
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent had failed to conduct the annual emergency coordination with the local emergency planning and response organization between 2021 and December 2024 and failed to document those coordinated activities during that time.
Count 3
The EPA inspection revealed that in the chemical storage room, incompatible chemicals were stored in close proximity. This constitutes a failure to fulfill the general duty to design and maintain a safe facility.
CONSENT AGREEMENT
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of $93, 106, as set forth below.
CLICK HERE for CAFO