The Environmental Protection Agency has ordered a salami-processing plant in South San Francisco to replace its equipment after toxic chemicals were twice released into the atmosphere.
In February and August of 2009, hundreds of pounds of anhydrous ammonia were accidentally released by Columbus Manufacturing, a processing facility of Columbus Salame.
During the August accident, nearly 30 employees at a nearby Genentech facility were sickened, including 17 who were hospitalized. The factory, the Genentech office and several other local businesses were evacuated. Nearby streets and an exit off Highway 101 were temporarily shut down.
"We started to get a sore throat, getting dizzy, some of us threw up," UPS employee Sandra Garcia, told KGO at the time.
The chemical, used for refrigeration, is extremely harmful to humans if it is inhaled, ingested or comes into contact with skin. Prolonged contact can cause eye damage and temporary blindness, irritation of the mouth, throat, respiratory tract and mucus membranes – at elevated levels, anhydrous ammonia can be lethal.
Jeremy Johnstone, the lead EPA investigator on the case, said the agency decided to take action because of repeat releases despite an EPA site inspection in March.
“They had two releases within six months and people were injured," Johnstone said. "We're concerned about the public's safety."
Under an order from the EPA, Columbus has agreed to overhaul its refrigeration system, piping and control systems. EPA documents indicate that the ammonia releases were the result of pressure building up in the plant's piping system.
The facility will also have to provide the EPA with all documentation pertaining to the refrigeration system and anhydrous ammonia use for six years, and permit the EPA to review all relevant documents that are to be shredded.
If Columbus fails to comply with the EPA's requirements, it faces civil penalties of up to $37,500 per day for each violation under the Clean Air Act.
"We expect to complete all of the tasks outlined on or ahead of schedule," Bob Wynne, a Columbus spokesman, told the San Francisco Chronicle. "In fact, the work on the tasks outlined by the EPA today is already under way."
Comments
I believe this story deserves some deeper investigation, especially into the EPA's handling of the case. Johnstone's quotes should be read with skepticism.
First, consider the chronology ...
February 2009: Ammonia leak at Columbus plant, contained within the facility. No one harmed.
March 2009: The EPA inspects the plant.
July 2009: Four-alarm fire at a *separate* Columbus plant in South San Francisco, causing more than $5 million in damage and local evacuations. (Question: what was the cause of the fire?)
August 2009: Another ammonia leak at the Columbus plant, this time escaping the facility and sending 17 Genentech employees to the hospital.
Between August 2009 and February 2010: EPA inspects the plant a second time, along with San Mateo County's Division of Environmental Health Services.
February 2010: EPA announces order for Columbus to upgrade its facilities.
Second, consider one of the main problems EPA identified in Columbus' refrigeration equipment, which your article does not mention: it has pipe fittings that are made of copper or brass, which corrodes in the presence of ammonia, the coolant that Columbus uses. According to Johnstone, not to combine ammonia with copper or brass is "the Bible they should be going by." (See San Mateo County Times artice: http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocou...)
Third, consider the conflicting explanations of what caused the second ammonia leak. According to the EPA's press release, it was "caused by a buildup of hydrostatic pressure in a section of piping which caused the subsequent *rupture* of a nearby component." But Johnstone gave a different explanation to the San Mateo County Times: "The leak was apparently caused by a design error. A contractor working for Columbus had recently installed part of the refrigeration system on the plant’s roof, but it malfunctioned when it was turned on — sending ammonia spewing into the air, said EPA engineer Jeremy Johnstone."
Why does Johnstone make no mention of the "rupture" as a cause of the leak? No matter which explanation you embrace, "pressure building up in the plant's piping system" is NOT the EPA's full explanation of what happened.
Here are some more questions: Were corroded copper or brass fittings responsible in any way for either leak? What did the EPA find in its March 2009 inspection of the plant? Did the agency discover the problem of the copper or brass fittings? If it did, why weren't they immediately replaced, and why are they there to this very day (a year after the first leak)? If the agency didn't discover the problem, why not -- especially since it's "Bible," according to Johnstone, for anhydrous ammonia refrigeration to avoid using copper or brass? Why did the first EPA examination fail where the second one succeeded? Why did San Mateo County's Division of Environmental Health Services join the second inspection?
In closing, note that this company has a history. In 1994, it had to recall 10,000 pounds of its salami (under the San Francisco Sausage Co. label) for E.coli contamination, which sickened at least 20 peoople.
There's work to be done on this story. Care to collaborate?
More here: http://www.contrarianpundit.com/
via Twitter