Respondent is the owner and operator of a paint facility. On August 7, 2023, an incident occurred at the Facility that EPA alleges resulted in an accidental release (the “Incident”) of byproducts from a temperature-sensitive organic peroxide, leading to an overpressure release event. EPA conducted an investigation of the Facility beginning September 12, 2023, to […]
On March 25, 2003, two employees working for an power generation facility were instructed to remove a cover plate from an electrical generator. The hydrogen gas had been purged from the generator and replaced with air pressurized at approximately 40 psi. The generator was pressurized with air so that the workers could perform a leak
On July 26, 2006, Employee #1 performed a pneumatic leak test on a 6-in. diameter, Schedule 40, jacketed, steel pipe, after coworkers welded sections of it. Employee #1 then secured a test tree on the end of the pipe with an adjustable wrench, then pressurized the pipe, and checked it for leaks for ten minutes.
At 2:00 p.m. on March 15, 2018, Employee #1 was conducting a leak test. Sulfuric acid sprayed out and onto the employee. He suffered chemical burns to his legs and thighs and was hospitalized. Source: https://www.osha.gov/ords/imis/establishment.inspection_detail?id=1340616.015
Way too many have a serious lack of respect for the hazards a “Fire Watch” may face. I say this, because in my years of experience, I almost always find the “fire watch” role is assigned to the youngest, least experienced, and lowest paid person on the job. In many situations, these workers are NOT
At about 2:45 a.m. on March 13, 2001, Employee #1 and Employee #2, two operators, and Employee #3, a maintenance mechanic, were assigned the task of cleaning out a waste vessel, KD 502A. The three employees were removing the flange to the pot, and had removed several of the 44 bolts holding the flange, when
At 1:30 a.m. on December 6, 2024, a truck driver, 53, was unloading 40,000 pounds of salt from a dry bulk pneumatic trailer into salt brine tanks. The driver attached the truck’s power take-off to pressurize the trailer and connected the unloading hose to Salt Brine Tank #1. While standing near the pressure gauges on
At 2:45 p.m. on April 17, 2023, an employee and a manager, 49, were attempting to drain a stillage tank so that repairs could be made to its internal agitator. They needed to verify the quantity level of stillage, so they attempted to remove a manway access cover on top of the tank. They encountered
Respondent is the “owner or operator” of the Facility that uses, handles, and/or stores as much as 7,810 pounds of sulfur dioxide (anhydrous). Respondent’s RMP describes a covered process, furnace off-gas handling, that is subject to Program 3 requirements. On July 25, 2022, and July 26, 2022, authorized representatives of the EPA conducted an inspection
Respondent is the owner and operator of a facility that utilizes Anhydrous ammonia in a refrigeration process. On or about April 30, 2024, representatives of the EPA conducted an inspection of Respondent’s Facility to determine compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Information gathered during the EPA inspection revealed that
Do you see it? The safety system. It’s right there in front of your eyes. This is a PSM-covered process involving flammable liquids. And what we are seeing is an air line made of plastic. This is intended to melt in a fire scenario, which would release the air, and the Fail-Safe-CLOSED valve will close.
Respondent operated a facility (the “Facility”) that utilizes anhydrous ammonia to provide cooling capabilities to package, refrigerate, store, and ship cherries and grapes. On September 16, 2021, EPA performed and inspection of the Facility to evaluate compliance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act Section 103, EPCRA Sections 304-312, and CAA Section 112(r)
