NOTE: this is a GAME CHANGER for the cold storage business! Now EPA is pulling in the business that is merely leasing space AND the real estate broker who is managing the lease agreement!! Imagine the shock when a business who is just storing their goods in a cold storage facility receives a NOV from EPA for RMP just because the business operating the refrigeration process was not doing it correctly. I am thinking that this direction in PSM/RMP may have HUGE BUSINESS ramifications to do PSM/RMP correctly, as if a cold storage business keeps getting its tenants cited there will be a mass exit of tenants! This specific case will NOT make it to a court room as this was settled in an agreement with EPA; and keep in mind this was a GENERAL DUTY CLAUSE citation so the cold storage process was BELOW 10,000 pounds of NH3!!!
The Facility is a frozen food storage and distribution facility, which contains anhydrous ammonia refrigeration equipment. On September 15, 16 and 20, 2011 , EPA conducted inspections at the facility to determine compliance with Section 112(r) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r). The 2011 Inspections revealed a number of safety concerns regarding the physical state of the anhydrous ammonia refrigeration equipment, which created the potential for an accidental release of anhydrous ammonia and/or that could increase and/or exacerbate the harmful effects of such a release.
At the time the 2011 Inspections, Respondent subleased the Facility to a food company. The cold storage operator had a principal lease agreement with a real estate broker. On September 23, 2011, Complaintant issued a Compliance Order to the cold storage operator, and also to the food company storing their products in the building and the real estate broker (“the Order”) pursuant to Section 113 of the Act regarding the Facility. The Order required these parties to perform certain activities at the Facility including the performance of repairs to the ammonia equipment.
Respondent has a general duty, pursuant to Section 112(r)(l) of the Act, to:
- identify hazards which may result from accidental releases of a regulated substance or other extremely hazardous substance, using appropriate hazard assessment techniques,
- design and maintain a safe facility taking such steps as are necessary to prevent releases, and minimize the consequences of accidental releases which do occur.
Respondent failed to satisfy the general duty referred to above, in that, among other things, at the time of the 2011 Inspections, Respondent did not identify hazards which may result from accidental releases of a regulated substance, design and maintain a safe facility taking such steps as are necessary to prevent releases of a regulated substance, and did not minimize the consequences of accidental releases. Therefore, Respondent violated the provisions of Section 112(r)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(1). Respondent is therefore subject to the assessment of penalties under Section 113(d) of the Act. Respondent agrees to pay a civil penalty in the total amount of fifty five thousand five hundred and thirty seven dollars ($55,537.00).
CLICK HERE to see the agreement.