PSM and RMP Citations/Analysis

At all relevant times, Respondent owned and operated a refrigerated food distribution warehouse with an ammonia refrigerant system which contains approximately 9,617 pounds of ammonia. EPA inspected the facility on August 9, 2018. Prior to the August 9, 2018, inspection, Respondent had not performed a hazard analysis nor developed standard operating procedures for the ammonia…...

At approximately 10:40 a.m. on April 2, 2019, the housing of a three-inch Y-strainer of an isobutylene line that fed into reactor K8 ruptured and isobutylene was released, forming a vapor cloud. Three employees responded to mitigate the isobutylene vapor in the reactor area. As Employee #1 was at an old control room area and…...

On or about August 10, 2018, representatives of the 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 the capacity to store 650,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia at the Facility, and regularly stored…...

Lesson’s learned:  A WRONG CHEMICAL – WRONG TANK incident produced a chlorine release and brought EPA to the facility.  The EPA inspection does not appear to have looked at the Cl2 incident, but rather stayed focused on the propylene oxide process – their “covered process”.  As well, in March of this year both the facility…...

Lesson’s learned:  A WRONG CHEMICAL – WRONG TANK incident produced a chlorine release and brought EPA to the facility.  The EPA inspection does not appear to have looked at the Cl2 incident, but rather stayed focused on the propylene oxide process – their “covered process”.  As well, in March of this year both the facility…...

Respondent operated an agriculture retail facility and receives, stores, and sells anhydrous ammonia. On or about June 19, 2018, representatives of the 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 the facility had ammonia…...

Respondent operated an agriculture retail facility and receives, stores, and sells anhydrous ammonia. On or about June 19, 2018, representatives of the 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 the facility had ammonia…...

Respondent is the owner and/or operator of a Brewery which uses, handles, and/or stores more than a threshold quantity of anhydrous ammonia, a regulated substance, as specified at 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.115 and 68. 130. Pursuant to CAA section 112(r)(7), Respondent is required to prepare and implement a risk management program to detect and prevent…...

Respondent is the owner and/or operator of an Oil Refinery which uses, handles, and/or stores more than a threshold quantity of Flammable Mixture and Hydrogen fluoride/Hydrofluoric acid, which are regulated substances, as specified at 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.115 and 68.130. The EPA conducted an inspection of the Facility from August 15 to August 18, 2016,…...

Respondent owns and operates a fresh produce storage and distribution facility comprised of approximately 35 acres that includes cold room facilities and ice making equipment. An ammonia refrigeration system is used to cool fresh produce while in storage and for shipment at the Facility. On September 13, 2017, EPA performed inspections of the Facility pursuant…...

The RMP CAFO is very interesting in that the facility stated they were under 10,000 pounds (NH3 TQ) and EPA challenged their numbers, even though the facility had completely pumped down their system and had exact pounds they charged the system with when they started up. So the case is going to court and EPA…...