PSM and RMP Citations/Analysis

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…...

Respondent is the owner or operator of the refrigerated warehousing and storage area. Respondent’s refrigerated distribution center includes a Program Level 3 covered process, as provided by 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(d). Respondent uses 74,000 pounds of ammonia (anhydrous), a regulated substance in an amount that exceeds the threshold quantity as part of its covered process…...

On October 26, 2018, Respondent became the owner and operator of the facility upon the completion of a merger. According to Respondent’s RMP, Respondent handles approximately 22,477 pounds of anhydrous ammonia at the Facility. EPA conducted an inspection of the Facility on April 18, 2018, to evaluate the Facility’s compliance with CAA Section 112(r). On…...

Respondent owns and operates an agricultural storage and supply facility. On August 16, 2016, an accidental release of anhydrous ammonia occurred at Respondent’s Facility when filling a storage tank. The release resulted in the hospitalization of an employee. 22. On or about March 12, 2019, representatives of the EPA conducted an inspection of Respondent’s Facility…...

This inspection was for the purpose of determining compliance with Section 112(r)(7) accidental release prevention requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990. The scope of this Inspection may include, but is not limited to: reviewing and obtaining copies of documents and records Interviews and taking of statements reviewing of chemical storage, handling,…...

Respondent is a Poultry Processor doing business in the States of Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi. On November 10, 2016, the EPA issued to Respondent a Notice of Concern letter which informed the Respondent that EPA had concerns that the Respondent was not in compliance with the CAA Section 112(r). The Respondent and EPA met on…...