Respondent has a refining process meeting the definition of “process”, as defined by 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. Methane, ethane, propane, pentane, propylene, hydrogen, butane, hydrogen sulfide, and ammonia are each a “regulated substance” pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. The threshold quantity for methane, ethane, propane, pentane, propylene, hydrogen, butane, hydrogen · sulfide, and ammonia […]
Respondent owns and operates a petroleum product refinery. In May 2017 there was a refinery-wide power outage that resulted in flaring and a large release of sulfur dioxide and flammable materials from the Facility. In response to this incident, members of the public were evacuated, required to shelter in place, or visited the emergency room
A federal investigation into two workers’ fatal burns at an Oregon, Ohio, refinery’s crude unit found its operator violated OSHA’s process safety procedures for highly hazardous materials and failed to train the workers adequately. As the workers attempted to correct rising liquid levels in the fuel gas mix drum, a flammable vapor cloud formed, ignited,
At all times relevant to this CAFO, Respondent operated at a facility that refined transmix. Transmix is a mixture of refined products such as gasoline, diesel, and/or jet fuel that results when refined materials are transported in pipelines. The intermingling of products at portions of a pipeline stream can result in the material of an
This is an interesting agreement, none like I have seen before. Had OSHA done this inspection, using their new Wilfull Instance-by-Instance Penalty Adjustments, this case could have exceeded $1M in fines. Yet, the case resulted in $0 in fines and a correction plan. This facility had two (2) releases (Oleum and Ammonia) in the same
Respondent operated a facility to provide pre-cooling and short term storage for fresh vegetables harvested by local growers, including lettuce, cabbage, and brussels sprouts. Respondent produced, used, or stored more than 10,000 pounds of ammonia (anhydrous) at the Facility and was subject to the requirements of CAA§ 112(r)(7). Respondent was subject to Program 3 requirements
Respondent has a crude fractionation process at the Facility. EPA inspected the Facility on February 14 – 17, 2022, to determine the Respondent’s compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Butane, isopentane, ethane, propane, and pentane are “regulated substances” pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. The threshold quantity for butane,
Respondent manufactures a range of specialty surfactants for use predominantly in the oil and gas industry. The process of ethoxylation involves reacting ethylene oxide with various common chemicals, such as fatty alcohols and phenols, to produce a variety of products. The plant can also use propylene oxide instead of (or as well as) ethylene oxide
This case is significant as EPA used the International Fire Code as their basis for several General Duty Clause findings. They also used NFPA standards in their inspection. Respondent owns and operates a facility that manufactures consumer and industrial products in liquid form and for pressurized containers that use aerosol propellants. Respondent’s manufacturing process uses
The Respondent operates a frozen poultry storage facility. The Facility is located within several hundred feet of residences. Respondent uses 15,900 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in a refrigeration “process,” as defined by 40 C.F.R. § 68.3, in a system of pipes and vessels at the facility (the “Process”). On June 6, 2019, EPA inspectors visited
The respondent is the owner and operator of the water treatment plant, which treats and chlorinates water. The Facility maintains a maximum inventory of 32,000 pounds of chlorine as liquefied compressed gas. The Facility’s chlorine process is subject to the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) process safety management (PSM) standard, 29 C.F.R §
Respondent operates an ice rink facility with an ammonia refrigeration system. The System uses or used anhydrous ammonia, a chemical that is listed pursuant to Section 112(r)(3) as an “extremely hazardous substance” and that is subject to the General Duty Clause. In March of 2022, Respondent’s response to an Information Request issued by EPA revealed
