This inspection appears to have begun as an RMP GDC, but when the facility submitted an RMP after the first inspection, they stated the process was a Program 3, and thus it appears EPA paid them another visit. On both visits, EPA seems to have found items of concern. Respondent is the owner and/or operator of […]
This week the EPA released an EXCEL spreadsheet that lists all the “RMP Accidents” that occurred in 2017. I noticed a couple of key items: Not sure where they obtained the data, as many of the incidents listed did not rise to the level of a “5-year Accident History” incident, but are shown in this data
As we approach the mid-term elections in November there is a significant push to try and paint President Trump as some kind of worker and community killer. These accounts are being pushed by major media outlets and even more, sadly some of the Occupational Publications are following suit. Just tonight, BLR posted this article “House Bill would
OSHA has cited a refinery for failing to control the use and release of highly hazardous chemicals after an explosion and fire injured several employees. The company faces $83,150 in proposed penalties. Here is a break down of the citations:
Many program administrators already know that OSHA does not require that medical evaluations be done annually, and many companies take full advantage of this. But all too often, we come across employees wearing respirators that were never medically evaluated and cleared by the PLHCP to wear in the workplace. Here is how this happens…
Respondent operates a facility where it processes fish to produce ingredients used by pet food manufacturers (the “Facility”). The Facility is located in a designated industrial area within approximately 300 feet (0.05 mile) of JFK Memorial Highway, less than 500 feet (0.09 mile) from the nearest residence, and approximately 600 feet (0.11 mile) from Buzzard’s
Respondent owned and operated two food warehousing facilities. One is used for food manufacturing and refrigerated warehouse and storage. The other is used for refrigerated storage. On January 26, 20 17, EPA conducted a compliance inspection at the food manufacturing facility, as well as a records review of the risk management plan (submitted to EPA
Respondent is the owner and operator of the facility where anhydrous ammonia is a “regulated substance” pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. On or about November 15, 2017, EPA conducted an inspection of Respondent’s Facility to determine compliance with 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Information gathered during the EPA inspection revealed that Respondent had greater than
Respondent is the owner and/or operator of a meat processing facility that uses, handles, and/or stores more than a threshold quantity of anhydrous ammonia, which is a regulated substance, listed under 40 C.F.R. § 68.130. Respondent meets the Program 3 eligibility requirements under 40 C.F.R. § 68.10. On December 12, 2016, EPA conducted an inspection
Respondent is a Plant Food Company and is an owner or operator of vessels containing anhydrous ammonia located at the Facility. The vessels are a “stationary source” pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. On or about March 1, 2017, EPA conducted an inspection of the Facility to determine compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAA
