The respondent was the owner or operator of the cheese production facility that used anhydrous ammonia in its refrigeration processes. Respondent was required to have a material safety data sheet for anhydrous ammonia under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. ยง 651 et seq. , and its associated regulations. Respondent produced, processed, handled, or stored a regulated substance and was therefore subject to section 112(r)(1) of the CAA. Respondent was subject to the reporting requirements of section 312 of the EPCRA. From December 20, 2021, to May 17, 2022, authorized representatives of the EPA conducted an offsite compliance monitoring investigation of the Facility. During that investigation, the EPA representatives identified alleged violations of section 112(r)(1) of the CAA and section 312 of the EPCRA.
On March 13, 2024, Respondent notified the EPA that it had removed all anhydrous ammonia from the refrigeration processes at the Facility on February 29, 2024. Thereafter, Respondent sold the Facility to an unrelated entity.
EPA’S ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF LAW
COUNT I – FAILURE TO IDENTIFY HAZARDS
Respondent failed to conduct a hazard assessment to identify the hazards that may result in accidental release of anhydrous ammonia using recognized and appropriate hazard assessment techniques as described in “Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures” by the Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), or hazard review checklists developed by ammonia refrigeration industry organizations such as the Ammonia Refrigeration Management Program.
By failing to meet its general duty to identify hazards which may result from accidental releases, Respondent violated section 112(r)(1) of the CAA.
COUNT II- FAILURE TO DESIGN AND MAINTAIN A SAFE FACILITY
Respondent failed to design and maintain a safe facility by taking such steps as are necessary to prevent a release of a regulated substance, as evidenced by the conditions described below:
a. The Facility’s boiler was in the same machinery room as the anhydrous ammonia equipment, creating an ignition source if an ammonia leak were to occur. Industry codes and standards, such as those found at section 7.3.5 of ANSI/IIAR-9, provide that fuel-burning appliances like boilers should not be installed in ammonia machinery rooms.
b. The Facility did not have fire-rated doors on the ammonia machinery room. Industry codes and standards, such as those found in section 7.3.9.2 of ANSI/IIAR-9, require facilities to install fire-rated doors in ammonia machinery rooms.
c. Respondent failed to maintain documentation for certain ammonia equipment and system components on file at the Facility. Industry codes and standards, such as those found in chapter 4 of ANSI/IIAR-9, require facilities to maintain manufacturer documentation, data reports, and materials of construction information on file.
d. Respondent failed to maintain legible nameplates on ammonia equipment including the high-pressure receiver, accumulator, and southern chiller. Industry codes and standards, such as those found in section 5.14.5.1 of ANSI/IIAR-2, require facilities to maintain legible nameplates on certain ammonia refrigeration equipment.
e. Respondent failed to maintain U-1A forms and ASME stamps on equipment at their facility. Industry codes and standards, such as those found in chapter 5 of ANSI/IIAR-6 and chapter 12 of ANSI/IIAR-2, require facilities to maintain a copy of the U-1A forms and ASME stamps for certain equipment.
f. Respondent failed to maintain a five-vear pressure-relief valve replacement schedule. Industry codes and standards, such as those found in section 3.3 of ANSI/IIAR-9 and section 13.1.1 of ANSI/IIAR-6, require that all pressure-relief valves (PRVs) be recertified or replaced each five years, and that no PRV shall exceed five years of service once installed in the pressure relief system.
By failing to meet its general duty to design and maintain a safe facility, Respondent violated section 112(r)(l) of the CAA.
COUNT III – INACCURATE REPORTING OF ANHYDROUS AMMONIA INVENTORY (2019)
On or around February 10, 20 20, Respondent submitted a Tier II form indicating a maximum inventory of 750 pounds of anhydrous ammonia for reporting year 2019. During the offsite compliance monitoring investigation, the Respondent submitted to the EPA an engineering study commissioned by the Respondent indicating that approximately 3,936 pounds of anhydrous ammonia was estimated to reside in the Facility’s ammonia refrigeration system during normal operating conditions.
By failing to accurately report the maximum amount of anhydrous ammonia at the Facility in 2019, Respondent violated section 312 of the EPCRA.
COUNT IV – INACCURATE REPORTING OF ANHYDROUS AMMONIA INVENTORY (2020)
On or around February 1, 2021, Respondent submitted a Tier II form indicating a maximum inventory of 750 pounds of anhydrous ammonia for reporting year 2020. During the offsite compliance monitoring investigation, the Respondent submitted to the EPA an engineering study commissioned by the Respondent indicating that approximately 3,936 pounds of anhydrous ammonia was estimated to reside in the Facility’s ammonia refrigeration system during normal operating conditions.
By failing to accurately report the maximum amount of anhydrous ammonia at the Facility in 2020, Respondent violated section 312 of the EPCRA.
Based on the violations of law alleged above, and after consideration of the statutory factors, the EPA has determined a civil penalty of $178,934 is appropriate to settle this matter.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO