EPA v. NASH-FINCH COMPANY

Case summary

June 01, 2026 - Consent Agreement Respondent is the owner and/or operator of the Facility, which is a stationary source as that term is defined by Section 112(r)(2)(C) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(2)(C). Respondent has registered an RMPlan with the EPA for its Facility and has developed an RMProgram accidental release prevention program for the Facility. At its Facility: (a) Respondent operates an ammonia refrigeration plant. (b) At all times relevant to the violations alleged in Section Vof this Consent Agreement, Respondent had on-site for use, 15,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia. (c) Respondent has one RMProgram level 3 covered process, which stores or otherwise uses anhydrous ammonia in an amount exceeding its applicable threshold of 10,000 pounds. On July 16, 2024, the EPA conducted an on-site inspection of the RMProgram related records and equipment for the purpose of assessing the Respondent's compliance with the RMProgram requirements and the implemented recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices {RAGAGEP) for its covered process at its Facility. Based on EPA's compliance monitoring investigation, the EPA alleges that the Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. Part 68, the codified rules governing the Act's Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions and Section 112(r) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7412(r) when it: (a) Failed to compile written process safety information documentation for the technology of the process including safe upper and lower limits for such items as temperatures, pressures, flows or compositions, as required by 40 C.F.R. 68.65(c)(l)(iv); (b) Failed to document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, as required by 40 C.F.R. 68.65(d)(2); (c) Failed to ensure the process hazard analysis addressed the identification of any previous incident which had a likely potential for catastrophic consequences, as required by 40 C.F.R. 68.67(c)(2); (d) Failed to establish a system to promptly address the team's findings and recommendations; and assure that the recommendations are resolved in a timely manner and that the resolution is documented, as required by 40 C.F.R. 68.67(e); (e) Failed to develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the process safety information and that at least addressed operating limits, as required by 40 C.F.R 68.69(a)(2); (f) Failed to ensure that the frequency of inspections and tests of process equipment be consistent with applicable manufacturers' recommendations and good engineering practices, and more frequently if determined to be necessary by prior operating experience, as required by 40 C.F.R. 68.73(d)(3); and (g) Failed to ensure that a change in process chemicals, technology, equipment, and/or procedures that resulted in a change to its process safety information required by 40 C.F.R. 68.65 and its operating procedures and/or practices required by 40 C.F.R. 68.69, was documented accordingly, as required by 40 C.F.R. 68.75(d)-(e). Respondent agrees to a civil penalty in the amount of $33,424 { Assessed Penalty ), to be paid within thirty {30) calendar days after the Effective Date of this CAFO.

Defendants (1)

• NASH-FINCH COMPANYNamed in complaintNamed in settlement

Facilities (1)

• NASH FINCH COMPANY - LUMBERTON, NC DIVISION

  121 COLD STORAGE ROAD, LUMBERTON, NC, 28360-5019

  Registry ID: 110012141896

Statutes cited

• CAA 112[R][7] — Prevention of Accidental Release/Risk Management Plans (RMPs)

Enforcement conclusions (1)

• NASH-FINCH COMPANYentered 2026-06-01

  Primary law: CAA

  Federal penalty: $33,424

Timeline (3 milestones)

• 2026-06-01Final Order Issued
• 2026-06-01Complaint Filed/Proposed Order
• 2026-07-08Enforcement Action Data Entered