Respondent’s facility is a frozen food processing facility which primarily produces frozen dinners and entrees. As part of this process, Respondent uses ammonia in its plate freezers. On May 2, 2016 at approximately 2:35 p.m., a change in position of the stacking trays or plates located in Plate Freezer 1-6 caused the routine horizontality a1mm to sound indicating that the plates were askew and out of acceptable specification for operation. Maintenance personnel visually inspected the system components and performed activities consistent with the standard operating procedure to reset the trays. However, the horizontality a1mm was not fixed by following the standard operating procedure and the machine was not returned to normal operation. Personnel observed all equipment components in place and observed some oil seepage around a hydraulic cylinder. At 3:45 p.m., Respondent’s employee detected an ammonia odor. Between 2:35 and 3:45 p.m., the weight of the plates and the frame shifted, placing undue stress on the hydraulic equipment mountings. The significant weight load on the hydraulic components caused the bolts securing the equipment to sheer off and fail. As a result, this pulled unduly on the refrigeration hoses, containing ammonia, to loosen and rupture.
On May 2, 2016, at approximately 4:15 p.m., it was determined·’that the release of ammonia would exceed 100 pounds and the maintenance manager contacted the hazmat team. At approximately 4:45 p.m., the final valve to Plate Freezer 1-6, was “valved” off, thus isolating the pressure to the unit and ending the release. The immediate area was evacuated, in addition to workers in a nearby area due to increased vapor concentrations of ammonia.
Due to the release, Respondent sustained property damage to seven freezer plates and a hydraulic cylinder. Respondent estimated a total release of 1,559 pounds of ammonia (anhydrous).
The release of chemicals at the facility on May 2, 2016, constituted an “accidental release” as that term is defined by section 112(r)(2)(A) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(2)(A). Pursuant to section 112(r)(l) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(l), an owner/operator of a stationary source producing, processing, handling or storing substances listed pursuant to section 112(r)(3) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(3), or any other extremely hazardous substance, has a general duty to:
- identifY hazards which may result from accidental releases of such substances using appropriate hazard assessment techniques;
- design and maintain a safe facility, taking such steps as are necessary to prevent releases; and (3) minimize the consequences of accidental releases that do occur.
Respondent’s failure constitutes a violation of the general duty clause in section 112(r)(1) of the CAA, 42U.S.C. § 7412(r)(1). Respondent is, therefore, subject to the assessment of penalties pursuant to sections 113(a)(3) and 113(d)(1)(B) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7413(a)(3) and 7413(d)(l)(B), for at least one day of violation of the general duty clause of section 112(r)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
CIVIL PENALTY
Taking into consideration the size of the Respondent’s business, the economic impact of the penalty on the Respondent’s business, the Respondent’s full compliance history and good faith efforts to comply, the duration of the violation, payment by Respondent of penalties previously assessed for the same violation (if any), the economic benefit of noncompliance, the seriousness of the violation, and Respondent’s cooperation, as well as other factors which justice may require, EPA and Respondent agree that an appropriate penalty to settle this matter is $35,600.00.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO