PSM and RMP Citations/Analysis

On or about September 18, 2018, 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 Respondent had greater than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in a process at its facility. From the time Respondent first…...

Respondent owns and operates the chemical manufacturing and distribution facility. Anhydrous ammonia is a “regulated substance” pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.3 with a threshold quantity, as listed in 40 C.F.R. § 68.130, of 10,000 pounds. Ammonia in the concentration of greater than 20% is a “regulated substance” pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.3 with…...

I am not sure how much of the $4 million was for RMP, as there were other issues in this Consent Decree and I have only pulled out the RMP issues. On or about September 4, 2017, heater tube 23 ruptured in the CRU2/HTU2 charge heater process due to creep, a molecular failure mechanism that…...

OSHA has cited a texas chemical company for exposing employees to workplace safety and health hazards after a fire and explosion at the plant in November 2019. The company faces $514,692 in fines. OSHA opened an investigation after vapor formed at the base of a butadiene finishing tower ignited and caused several explosions and fires…....

Respondent owns and operates an agricultural storage and supply facility where on August 16, 2016, an accidental release of anhydrous ammonia occurred when filling a storage tank. The release resulted in the hospitalization of an employee. On or about March 12, 2019, representatives of the EPA conducted an inspection of Respondent’s Facility to determine compliance…...

Respondent owns and operates an agricultural feed, fertilizer, chemical, and grain storage and supply business with two different facilities in Iowa. On March 7, 2016, an accidental release of anhydrous ammonia occurred at one Facility while an employee was replacing a pump near a supply vessel and resulted in injuries to the employee. On or…...

A gas distributor and its parent company have agreed to pay $257,000 to settle RMP violations discovered during inspections following a fatal 2013 explosion at a Texas facility.  On the morning of February 9, 2013, at the La Porte #1 facility, there were explosions and a fire. The Incident occurred in the Gravimetric Unit (“Unit”)…...

NOTE:  I have always said city/county governments get huge breaks in $’s when it comes to RMP citations.  A private company who performed this poorly in an inspection would have gotten 10X’s the citation $’s. On November 9, 2016, an authorized EPA representative conducted a compliance inspection of the Water Treatment Plant (“Facility”) to determine…...

At its stationary source, the Respondent operates a Polystrene Foam Production facility using butane and has 132,235 pounds of butane in onsite storage. At its stationary source, the Respondent has one RMProgram level 3 covered process, which processes butane in an amount exceeding its applicable threshold of 10,000 pounds. On August 30, 2018, the EPA…...

On July 12, 2017, authorized EPA representatives conducted a compliance inspection of the facility to determine its compliance with the Risk Management Program (“RMP”) regulations promulgated at 40 C.F.R. Part 68 under Section 112(r) of the Act. Following the inspection, EPA requested certain documents and information and reviewed the provided information with support from outside…...

Section 112 (r)(1) of the Act, commonly referred to as the General Duty Clause addresses the prevention of releases of substances listed pursuant to Section 112(r)(3) ofthe Act, or any other extremely hazardous substance. The purpose of this section is to prevent the accidental release of extremely hazardous substances and to minimize the consequences of…...

Respondent is engaged in business at the Facility at which a hazardous chemical is produced, used, or stored. On March 13, 2017, EPA conducted an inspection of the Facility to ascertain Respondent’s compliance with Section 103 of CERCLA and Sections 302-304 and 311 -312 of EPCRA. During and following the Inspection, Respondent submitted information to…...