In 2022, a process hazard analysis at JBS Tolleson’s meat-processing facility identified recommendations involving defective piping used to transport anhydrous ammonia and a machinery control room that was not adequately isolated. EPA later alleged that the company failed to address those recommendations promptly through the period described in the agreement.

That was one part of a much wider enforcement case. The agreement lists 11 counts involving how the facility assessed hazards, documented its ammonia system, inspected equipment, handled engineering changes, closed audit findings and prepared employees for an emergency.

A regulated refrigeration system with public consequences

JBS Tolleson processes meat at 651 South 91st Avenue in Tolleson, Arizona. Its refrigeration operations use anhydrous ammonia. EPA said the facility used or stored more than the 10,000-pound threshold that triggers federal risk-management requirements.

Because the process was also subject to the federal occupational process-safety standard, the facility fell under the more demanding Program 3 rules. Those rules require a company to understand its equipment and hazards, maintain the system, prepare workers and emergency gear, and plan for accidental releases.

1. Map the riskAccurate diagrams, equipment information and offsite consequence analysis.
2. Control the processHazard analysis, operating limits and documented engineering safeguards.
3. Maintain and verifyInspections, tests, audit follow-up and correction of deficiencies.
4. Prepare to respondEmergency equipment, trained employees and current contact information.

Conceptual summary of the regulatory safety chain. It is not a measurement of relative risk or severity.

The agreement’s allegations touch every stage of that chain. Some concern records and calculations. Others concern physical conditions and emergency capacity, including piping deficiencies, pressure vessels, safety-relief valves and protective suits.

Warnings, a release and an inspection

1. 2019 and 2021EPA later alleged that JBS failed to determine and document responses to every finding from compliance audits and failed to document that identified deficiencies were corrected.
2. March 2021An anhydrous ammonia release occurred at the facility. EPA alleged that the company did not establish a system to promptly address and resolve the incident report’s findings and recommendations.
3. 2022A hazard analysis produced recommendations involving defective ammonia piping and isolation of the machinery control room. EPA also alleged that several annual equipment inspections were not performed.
4. February 6 to 8, 2023EPA conducted its facility inspection.
5. April 14, 2023EPA dated its inspection report, which is referenced but not reproduced in the supplied agreement.
6. September 2026JBS and EPA signed the settlement documents resolving the civil penalty proceeding without adjudicating the factual allegations.

The 11 allegations, in plain language

The counts are legally distinct, but together they describe an alleged failure to turn hazard information into verified corrective action.

The document establishes risk-management failures, not documented injuries

The agreement states that federal risk-management rules exist to detect, prevent or minimize accidental releases and to provide a prompt emergency response that protects human health and the environment. That makes accurate population estimates, working protective equipment and employee training more than administrative details.

At the same time, the supplied record does not say that workers or nearby residents were injured. It confirms that an ammonia release occurred in March 2021, but it does not provide the quantity released, describe any exposure, or identify environmental damage. Those outcomes cannot be inferred from the list of alleged compliance failures.

The supported concern is narrower and still consequential: EPA alleged that several layers intended to prevent or manage an accidental release were incomplete, overdue or insufficiently documented.

JBS settled without admitting the factual allegations

The consent agreement simultaneously opened and concluded the administrative penalty proceeding. JBS Tolleson admitted EPA’s jurisdiction, consented to the penalty and waived its right to contest the allegations or appeal the final order. It did not admit the specific factual allegations.

The company also certified under penalty of law that it had taken all steps necessary to return to full compliance with the Clean Air Act provisions underlying the allegations. The agreement requires the $308,765 penalty to be paid within 30 calendar days of its effective date.

Payment resolves federal civil penalty liability only for the violations listed in the agreement. The document says it does not prevent EPA from pursuing appropriate equitable relief or criminal sanctions for other violations, and it does not release unrelated claims.

What the settlement leaves outside the public record

The agreement records a compliance certification, but it does not provide an itemized public remediation plan. It does not show inspection photographs, the full hazard analysis, corrective-action records, testing results or the referenced 2023 inspection report.

The penalty is the clearest numerical outcome. The deeper record is about whether a hazardous refrigeration process had functioning layers of protection before an emergency required them. EPA’s allegations say those layers repeatedly failed to meet federal requirements. The settlement says JBS certified that they had been restored, but the supporting proof is not included in the document made available here.