Respondent is the owner and operator of a facility that has five inorganic chemical manufacturing processes, meeting the definition of “process”, as defined by 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. Bromine, ammonia (anhydrous), chlorine, sulfur trioxide, propylene oxide, oleum (fuming sulfuric acid), and sulfur dioxide (anhydrous) are each a “regulated substance” pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. […]
An explosion and fire that killed a press operator and hospitalized eight other employees at a paint resins and coatings manufacturer could have been prevented had the employer not altered a kettle reactor vessel improperly and then returned the vessel to service after it failed following the alterations, a federal workplace safety inspection has found.
Respondent is the operator of a chemical manufacturing and distribution facility that ses anhydrous ammonia to produce several chemicals, including ammonium sulfate (made by reacting ammonia with sulfuric acid) and aqueous ammonia (a solution of anhydrous ammonia and water). Anhydrous ammonia arrives by railcar and is distributed through pipes to chemical processes around the Facility.
We don’t see these every day and to be honest, the incidents, the violations, and the compliance plan are too much for me to break down. I have broken out the incidents and the citations that EPA issued for each of these incidents, but you will have to go to the CAFO to get the
Respondent owns and operates a facility that processes, stores, and distributes produce. On June 21, 2018, EPA performed an inspection of the Facility pursuant to Section 112(r) of the CAA, Sections 304–12 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, and Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. §
Respondent owns and operates a facility that processes and packages fruit and vegetable products. Between June 5 and June 7, 2018, EPA performed an inspection of the Facility pursuant to Section 112(r) of the CAA, Sections 304–12 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, and Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Respondent owns and/or operates a refrigeration-based cold storage facility which is located within a populated residential, commercial, and industrial area and is adjacent to a significant roadway. At the Facility, Respondent handles, stores, and uses, and has handled, stored, and used anhydrous ammonia. On April 24, 2018, EPA performed an inspection of the Facility pursuant
Respondent owns and operates a carbon dioxide liquification plant, which uses anhydrous ammonia to produce and refrigerate liquid carbon dioxide. On September 19, 2017, EPA performed an inspection of the Facility pursuant to Section 112(r) of the CAA, Section 103 of CERCLA, and Sections 302-312 of EPCRA. Based upon the information gathered during this inspection
Respondent operates a facility to manufacture, store and distribute ice cream and other food products. 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 because it was subject to the OSHA process safety
Respondent is the owner and operator of a chemical wholesale distributor that repackages and custom-blends chemicals. Respondent formulates two mixes, paper adhesives and lacquer thinners, for sale. Respondent currently operates lacquer thinner mixing and flammable liquid storage systems at the Facility. With regard to the lacquer thinner mixing and flammable liquid storage systems, Respondent produces,
Respondent owns and operates a facility that produces approximately 300 tons of crushed, cubed, and block ice per day for retail, the fishing industry, and special events. The ice is produced using an anhydrous ammonia refrigeration system. On April 24, 2017, there was a release of anhydrous ammonia from the 6,500-pound ammonia refrigeration system at
A contractor lost consciousness from ammonia exposure at an ice cream plant leading OSHA to propose more than $200,000 in fines against the company and the contractor.Here is a breakdown of the citations to the facility and the contractor…
