“Having found that settlement is consistent with the provisions and objectives of the Act and applicable regulations, the Parties have agreed to settle this action pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 22.18 and consent to the entry of this CAFO without Respondent’s admission of violation or any adjudication of any issues of law or fact herein.”

💡 The company closes the case without admitting it did anything wrong, shielding itself from future liability and public accountability.

“The emergency shutoff valves (King Valve) for the new and old high-pressure receivers (HPRs) could not be operated from ground level. A fixed ladder was attached to the old HPR. However, it would require emergency response personnel to walk on the top of the tank to reach the King Valve.”

💡 In an emergency, workers must climb onto a pressurized tank full of toxic gas to shut it off, violating industry safety standards and risking their lives.

“The emergency eyewash station and safety shower on the exterior of the building could not be easily accessed by personnel leaving the ammonia machine room. The shower is not visible from the exit stairway in the AMR, is adjacent to the low temperature recirculator and ammonia pump and requires personnel to move around the stairway leading to the roof.”

💡 Workers exposed to ammonia have only seconds to rinse chemical burns, but the shower is hidden and blocked by equipment and stairs.

“Open electrical conduit and exposed wiring were present in two locations in the AMR. An extension cord had been cut and fashioned into permanent wiring in the AMR.”

💡 Exposed wiring and improvised electrical cords create ignition sources in a room filled with flammable ammonia vapor, risking explosion.

“Surface corrosion was present on ammonia piping in various locations in the AMR.”

💡 Corroded pipes weaken over time and can rupture without warning, releasing 146,200 pounds of toxic gas into the facility and surrounding neighborhood.

“Anhydrous ammonia visual alarms outside the machinery room were not properly labeled or indicated otherwise as ammonia leak detection alarms.”

💡 Workers cannot tell if a flashing light means a leak or a routine alert, delaying evacuation and increasing exposure to toxic gas.

“Respondent agrees to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $13,066.00 within thirty (30) calendar days after the Effective Date of this CAFO.”

💡 The fine is less than the cost of a single industrial freezer and represents 0.002 percent of the parent company’s annual revenue, making it a trivial cost of doing business.

“Respondent shall spend no less than $48,996 on implementing the SEP. Respondent shall include documentation of the expenditures made in connection with the SEP as part of the SEP Completion Report.”

💡 The company must spend nearly four times the penalty amount on firefighting equipment, outsourcing emergency response to the public sector instead of fixing its own facility.

“The EPA had no role in the selection of the SEP Recipient or specific equipment identified in the SEP, nor shall this CAFO be construed to constitute EPA approval or endorsement of the SEP Recipient or specific equipment identified in this CAFO.”

💡 The government disclaims any endorsement of the donation, undercutting the company’s ability to spin this as a partnership rather than a penalty.

“That, as of the date of executing this CAFO, Respondent is not required to perform or develop the SEP by any federal, state, or local law or regulation and is not required to perform or develop the SEP by agreement, grant, or as injunctive relief awarded in any other action in any forum; That the SEP is not a project that Respondent was planning or intending to construct, perform, or implement other than in settlement of the claims resolved in this CAFO.”

💡 The company certifies this is mandatory corrective action, not voluntary charity, despite how it will likely be portrayed in press releases.

“Any public statement, oral or written, in print, film, or other media, made by Respondent or a representative of Respondent making reference to the SEP from the date of its execution of this CAFO shall include the following language: This project was undertaken in connection with the settlement of an enforcement action taken by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for alleged violations of the federal laws.”

💡 The company must publicly disclose that the donation is part of an enforcement settlement, not a voluntary good deed, whenever it mentions the project.

“The EPA and the United States Department of Justice jointly determined that this matter, although it involves alleged violations that occurred more than one year before the initiation of this proceeding, is appropriate for an administrative penalty assessment.”

💡 Federal agencies acknowledge the violations are old but choose a weak administrative process instead of aggressive enforcement, allowing continued operation during delay.

“Anhydrous ammonia is colorless but far from benign. Inhalation at high concentrations can cause lung edema, permanent vision damage, and fatal chemical burns. The facility stores more than 14 times the threshold that triggers the federal Risk Management Program, placing it in the most stringent Level 3 category.”

💡 The facility stores enough toxic gas to cause mass casualties if a rupture occurs, yet the settlement does not mandate pipe replacement or valve relocation.

“The company’s own emergency-response plan, filed with EPA, assumes that outside firefighters—now better equipped thanks to the mandated donation—will bear the brunt of front-line exposure.”

💡 The company plans to rely on public first responders to handle any disaster, transferring emergency costs and risks to taxpayers instead of preventing releases.

“During the 685 days between inspection and final order filing on July 8, 2024, the plant kept running, revenues kept flowing, and every repair still on the to-do list quietly accumulated risk—not cost. Late-stage capitalism rewards such delay: regulators move at the speed of due process; profit moves at the speed of demand.”

💡 Nearly two years passed between documentation of hazards and settlement, during which the company saved money by not making repairs and continued profiting from unsafe operations.