DAQ-2024-004352

195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144820 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4820
Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • T.D.D. [phone]
www.deq.utah.gov
Printed on 100% recycled paper
State of Utah

Department of
Environmental Quality

Kimberly D. Shelley
Executive Director

DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY
Bryce C. Bird
Director

SPENCER J. COX
Governor

DEIDRE HENDERSON
Lieutenant Governor
DAQC-1358-23
Site ID 16032 (B1)

Stuart Spencer
Tyson Foods
2200 West Don Tyson Parkway
Springdale, AR 72762

Dear Mr. Spencer:

Re: RE: Self-Disclosure Notification and Request for Full Enforcement Mitigation
DAQE-AN160320002-23, Eagle Mountain, UT

The Utah Division of Air Quality (DAQ) has reviewed your self-disclosure notification and
request for full enforcement mitigation under the Environmental Self-Evaluation Act, Utah Code
§§ 19-7-101 through 19-7-109 (the Act). The request was received via email on December 8,
2023, following an internal evaluation conducted at the Tyson Foods Eagle Mountain Meat
Packaging Plant which operates under DAQ Approval Order (AO) DAQE-AN160320002-23.
Potential non-compliance with AO condition II.B.4.b was discovered on November 20, 2023, as
part of this self-evaluation for the presence of hydrochloric acid, a hazardous air pollutant (HAP),
in an intervention chemical used as part of source operations.

Following this discovery, Tyson Foods conducted a full self-evaluation under the Act and
submitted the aforementioned notification. The notification explained that the source addressed
the non-compliance by working to remove the HAP-containing intervention chemical from use
and transitioning to a HAP-free alternative in a timely manner. The violation will be fully
remedied within 60 days of discovery (four to six weeks) or within a reasonable amount of time.
Recurrence is not possible because the HAP-free alternative will comply with the environmental
requirements.

DAQ “shall waive civil penalties for an instance of noncompliance with an environmental law or
requirement” if the following conditions are met: (1) the regulated entity discovers noncompliance
through an environmental self-evaluation; (2) the regulated entity voluntarily discloses
noncompliance to DAQ in writing within 21 days of violations’ discovery; (3) the regulated entity
corrects the violation within 60 days after the discovery or within a reasonable amount of time;
and (4) the regulated entity submits to DAQ a written outline of reasonable steps it will take to
prevent recurrence. Utah Code § 19-7-109(2). Tyson Foods’ self-evaluation and disclosure
" " * " / Û Ù Û Ù Û Ü
DAQC-1358-23
Page 2

submitted to DAQ on December 8, 2023, fully satisfies each of the statutory elements.
Additionally, any circumstances that would prevent DAQ from waiving civil penalties as listed in
Subsections 19-7-109(3) and (4) of the Utah Code are not present in this case. Based on this
voluntary self-disclosure notification, the DAQ concurs with Tyson Foods’ request to waive all
compliance actions and any potential penalties associated with this instance of non-compliance
conditional on return to compliance within 60 days of discovery or within a reasonable amount of
time.

Please notify the DAQ once the transition to a HAP-free intervention chemical is complete and we
will issue the final determination.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at [phone] or
[e-mail].

Sincerely,

Chad Gilgen, Manager
Minor Source Compliance Section

CG:rh

cc: Marina Thomas, Utah Attorney General’s Office

Attachments: RE: Self-Disclosure Notification and Request for Full Enforcement Mitigation
DAQE-AN160320002-23, Eagle Mountain, UT

1
December 8, 2023
Via Electronic Mail Transmission
Mr. Chad Gilgen
Minor Source Compliance Manager
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
195 N. 1950 W.
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]
RE: Self-Disclosure Notification and Request for Full Enforcement Mitigation
DAQE-AN160320002-23
Eagle Mountain, UT
Dear Mr. Gilgen:
The Tyson Foods, Inc. (“Tyson”) Eagle Mountain, UT facility (“facility”) is submitting this
correspondence to the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”) as a self-disclosure
notification and request for review and approval for further processing pursuant to the Utah Code’s
Environmental Self-Evaluation Act (“the Act”). Below we are providing background information
and an analysis of the factors enumerated in Utah Code Sec. 19-7-109 to demonstrate our
qualification for further review and disposition of our voluntary disclosure such that full mitigation
shall be applied to any penalty of our alleged non-compliance that would otherwise be imposed.
Background
The facility’s initial Air Permit (DAQE-AN160320001-21) was issued January 11, 2021. The
facility subsequently commenced operations on August 21, 2021.
Thereafter, a modified Air Permit (DAQE-AN160320002-23) was issued on June 9, 2023. The
revised Air Permit allowed for the use of intervention chemicals, cleaners, and sanitizers; however,
the condition to use intervention chemicals did not allow for the use of any that contain hazardous
air pollutants (“HAPs”). The facility utilizes an intervention chemical to ensure our products meet
food safety requirements. More specifically, the intervention process is a Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) antimicrobial food surface treatment that is applied to the fresh meat to
reduce and prevent food safety risks.
REVIEWED
Initials: CG Date: 12-14-23
Compliance Status: Self-Disclosure
Notification
File # 16032 (B2)

2

Incentives for Voluntary Disclosures and Compliance – Waiver of Civil Penalties Factors
According to Utah Code Sec. 19-7-109, “[t]he Department shall waive civil penalties for an
instance of noncompliance with an environmental law or requirement” if a facility meets a set of
enumerated factors. Those factors and our responses to each are as follows:
(a) a regulated entity discovered the alleged noncompliance through an environmental self-
evaluation;
The facility’s Air Permit was reviewed by the Complex Environmental Manager (“CEM”) this
November as part of conformance with Tyson’s Air Compliance Standard. Per that review, the
CEM took note of the following provision of the Air Permit that was introduced in the 2023
modification:

Per a subsequent self-audit of the facility’s Air Permit and associated review of chemicals used
on-site, it was determined that there was uncertainty as to whether or not the intervention chemical
Citrilow contained HAPs based on conflicting information provided by the chemical vendor. Via
further investigation, the vendor confirmed to Tyson that Citrilow does indeed contain HAPs in
the form of 11% Hydrochloric Acid.
(b) a regulated entity voluntarily disclosed to the department in writing within 21 days after the
entity's discovery of the violation;
The alleged non-compliance was confirmed by the facility on November 20, 2023 after receiving
confirmation from the chemical vendor. This voluntary disclosure is being made within 21 days
of the discovery of the non-compliance.
(c) a regulated entity remedied or corrected within 60 days after discovery of the violation, or
within a reasonable amount of time if the violation cannot be remedied within 60 days;
The facility has begun the process to switch out Citrilow for Promoat XL, a Peracetic Acid based
chemical, and is working in conjunction with Tyson’s Food Safety and Quality Assurance
(“FSQA”) team regarding the transition. The Capital Investment Request (“CIR”) associated with
the transition of intervention chemicals is in the process of being submitted for pre-approval. The
current and best estimate is that delivery and installation of the new hardware and chemistry will
take four to six weeks after the CIR is approved and Purchase Orders are issued.

3

(d) a regulated entity submitted to the department a written outline of reasonable steps the
regulated entity will take to prevent a recurrence;
Promoat XL does not contain HAPS. Thus, once the facility replaces Citrilow with Promoat XL
as its intervention chemical, the non-compliance issue will be eliminated and resolved.
Further, none of the following factors have been triggered such that waiver of civil penalties should
not apply:
(a) noncompliance resulted from a lack of due diligence in complying with environmental laws,
taking into account the size and nature of the regulated entity;
The facility proactively engaged in a voluntary assessment of its environmental compliance
obligations. The assessment was undertaken as part of the facility’s environmental management
system of review.
(b) the instance of noncompliance is a recurrence of a similarly caused specific violation or a
violation of the specific terms of a judicial or administrative consent order or agreement;
The information disclosed via this correspondence is being submitted in the first instance. It is
novel for this facility and is not recurrent. Further, the facility is currently not subject to a consent
order or agreement and thus is not in violation of either.
(c) the instance of noncompliance resulted from reckless or willful disregard of environmental
laws;
The noncompliance was discovered via a voluntary review of the facility’s Air Permit and its
associated requirements related to the use of intervention chemicals.
(d) the regulated entity conducted the environmental self-evaluation for a fraudulent purpose;
The audit was done above board and with the most genuine and best intent. The noncompliance
was discovered via a voluntary review of the facility’s Air Permit and its associated requirements
related to the use of intervention chemicals.
(e) the department had already initiated a compliance investigation at the time of the disclosure
and the regulated entity had been advised of or was aware of the investigation;
Based on the facility’s knowledge, the DEQ has not initiated a compliance investigation of the
information contained in this disclosure. Nor has the facility been advised or been made aware of
a current or ongoing investigation.
(f) the instance of noncompliance was discovered pursuant to a legally mandated monitoring,
testing, or sampling requirement prescribed by law, rule, permit, order, or consent agreement;

4

The noncompliance was discovered via a voluntary review of the facility’s Air Permit and its
associated requirements related to the use of intervention chemicals.
(g) the instance of noncompliance resulted in serious actual harm or imminent and substantial
endangerment to human health or the environment;
Based on information available to the facility, the noted issue has not resulted in actual harm or
imminent endangerment. To the contrary, Citrilow was used in order to comply with FSQA
requirements, which are of paramount importance regarding the safe consumption of our products.
We appreciate your review and consideration of our self-disclosure submittal, and we respectfully
request that you apply maximum enforcement discretion and penalty mitigation in light of the
voluntary and proactive nature of our disclosure. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please contact me at [e-mail] with questions concerning the
information we have provided.

Sincerely,

Stuart Spencer
Tyson, Senior Environmental Counsel

cc: Mr. Steve Patrick, Tyson
Mr. Andy Lieberum, Tyson
Mr. Zach Hardman, Tyson
Mr. Tom Sharp, Tyson
Mr. Eric Rodriquez, Tyson
Mr. Mike Hays, Tyson
Mr. Daniel Goldfarb, Tyson
Ms. Phoebe Christ, Tyson