The Department of Labor (DOL) administers the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) and the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), as amended by the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006 (MINER Act). DOL’s effective enforcement of these laws is critical to protecting workers from […]
During an opening conference, CSHOs can (FOM states “SHALL”) request a list of the chemicals on-site and their respective maximum intended inventories. CSHOs shall review the list of chemicals and quantities, and determine if there are highly hazardous chemicals (HHCs) listed in §1910.119, Appendix A or flammable liquids or gases at or above the specified threshold quantity. CSHOs may
On March 24-25, 2015, an authorized representative of the EPA conducted a compliance inspection of the Respondent’s facility, to determine compliance with the Risk Management Plan (RMP)’regulations promulgated at 40 C.F.R. Part 68 under Section 112(r) of the CAA. The EPA found that the Respondent had violated regulations implementing Section 112(r) of the CAA by
PLEASE NOTE: I normally do not post this type of citation as it is insignificant in dollar amounts; however, this one seems very odd so I posted it. Painting over a name plate, which is actually still legible (even if it was not, it was cleaned and fully legible) was a $1500 citation AND was
Respondent (s) is a private company which has 2 full time employees and sells NH3 as a fertilizer to farmers. The facility had 175,079 pounds of Anhydrous Ammonia on site at the time of the inspection. On May 21, 2015, EPA conducted a compliance inspection of the Respondent’s facility to determine compliance with the Risk
Respondent is the owner and/or operator of a facility that sells anhydrous ammonia to farmers for use as a fertilizer. At all times relevant to this action, Respondent processed, handled and stored anhydrous ammonia at its facility. On or about May 29, 2013, and April 29, 2014, EPA conducted inspections of Respondent’s facility to determine
On March 19, 2015, EPA conducted a compliance inspection of the Respondent’s facility to determine compliance with the Risk Management Plan (RMP) regulations. The EPA found that the Respondent had violated regulations implementing Section 112(r) of the CAA by failing to comply with the regulations as noted on the enclosed Risk Management Program Inspection Findings
Respondent owns and operates a facility that produces synthetic rubber, styrene butadiene rubber (SBR), using a hot emulsion polymerization process. Anhydrous ammonia, 1, 3-butadiene, and acrylonitrile are each a “regulated substance” as set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 68.130. Respondent has the following processes at the stationary source:
Respondent owns and operates several solvent blending, storage, and distribution facilities located in Iowa and Kansas. On July 17, 2007, a series of fires and explosions occurred at a KS Facility. The cause of the incident was a static charge that ignited Special Naphtholite 66/3 (VM&P), an EHS listed under Section 112(r)(3) of the CAA,
California is looking to REVISE their CalARP regulation with an additional “Program Level” specific to petroleum refineries. This is coming from Interagency Working Group on Refinery Safety and they are proposing to form a new Article 6.5 Program 4. Program 4 eligibility requirements are…
These proposed CalARP emergency response program amendments are intended to apply ONLY to petroleum refineries, and incorporate recommendations from the Report of the Interagency Working Group on Refinery Safety.
A frozen desserts is required to pay $122,518.89 to EPA’s Superfund program, with interest. The company manufactures and stores frozen desserts at its facility, which shares a building as a restaurant and theater and is located in close proximity to homes, schools and other businesses. After a 2010 ammonia release and a 2013 fire at
