PSM and RMP Citations/Analysis

Respondent operates a seafood processing and distribution facility in New Bedford, Massachusetts that uses anhydrous ammonia in a refrigeration “process” as defined by 40 C.F.R. § 68.3, in a series of interconnected pipes and vessels at the Facility (the “Process”). According to the respondent’s 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 Reporting Year Tier II reports,…...

The respondent owns and operates a single-site aerosol can manufacturing facility that uses, stores, and handles Isobutane (CAS# 85-28-5), a regulated substance, at the Facility in amounts over the threshold quantity for Isobutane of 10,000 lbs. The facility used, stored, and handled Butane (CAS# 106-97-8), a regulated substance, at the Facility in amounts over the…...

Respondent was the “owner or operator” of the Facility. The Facility’s refrigeration system used approximately 5,913 pounds of anhydrous ammonia. Accordingly, at the time of the violations alleged herein, Respondent operated a stationary source that handled and stored anhydrous ammonia, listed at 40 C.F.R. § 68.130, and thus was subject to the General Duty Clause…...

Respondent is the owner and operator of a facility where EPA inspected from May 17 to May 19, 2022, to determine Respondent’s compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. Part 68 (“the Inspection”).  The Respondent’s facility is a metal alkyl manufacturing facility.  The facility produces a variety of highly reactive metal alkyls…...

Respondent owns or operates the AMPI production facility that uses anhydrous ammonia in its refrigeration processes. From December 20, 2021, to May 17, 2022, EPA conducted an offsite compliance monitoring investigation of the Facility. During that investigation, the EPA representatives identified alleged violations of section 112(r)(1) of the CAA and section 312 of the EPCRA…....

Respondent is the owner and operator of a facility that has more than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia and Hydrogen in processes. Information gathered during the EPA inspection revealed that Respondent uses anhydrous ammonia in the production of food ingredients and produces and stores hydrogen, and therefore, is engaged in a process at its facility…....

This case is interesting, as I have always challenged the concept that an engine room (membership required)with large roll-up utility doors and windows and personnel/fire doors that are found propped open more often than not would contain the “catastrophic release of NH3”.  It seems this EPA inspector was one who attended one of my 5-Day…...

This case is interesting, as I have always challenged the concept that an engine room (membership required)with large roll-up utility doors and windows and personnel/fire doors that are found propped open more often than not would contain the “catastrophic release of NH3”.  It seems this EPA inspector was one who attended one of my 5-Day…...

This EPA CAFO has me wondering who upset the U.S. EPA. There are only two (2) violations; one is the most cited RMP violation in the past seven years and is quite minor; the other was one of the newest RMP requirements, and those two violations netted a $93,000 citation. Respondent is the owner and…...

The Respondent owns and operates a bleach manufacturing facility, which operates a bleach manufacturing process (the Process) and maintains a maximum chlorine inventory greater than the threshold quantity of 2,500 pounds. The Process is subject to OSHA’s process safety management standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119, because the Process involves greater than the threshold quantity of…...

Respondent is the owner and operator of a facility. Respondent operates a bulk liquid storage facility and offers a full range of heating, blending, and product services. Various products, such as vegetable oil, chemicals, and petroleum products, are received in tanks for storage and transferred out of the facility to customers. Some of the petroleum…...