PSM and RMP Citations/Analysis

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…...

Respondent is the owner or operator of a meat processing facility. On March 8, 2017, an authorized representative of the EPA conducted a compliance inspection of Respondent’s Facility to determine compliance with the Risk Management Plan (RMP) regulations promulgated at 40 C.F.R. Part 68 under section 112(r)(7) of the Act. Based on the March 8,…...

Respondent owns and operates a meat processing facility that handles approximately 170,300 pounds of anhydrous ammonia. 32. The Facility is a Program 3 Facility under the RMP Regulations, in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(d). EPA conducted an inspection of the Facility on June 27, 2017, to determine Respondent’s compliance with the RMP Regulations at…...

Respondent operates an ammonia refrigerant system which contains approximately 8,487 pounds of ammonia which is processed, handled, and stored in the ammonia refrigerant systems, and ammonia is a regulated extremely hazardous substance listed under Section 112(r)(3) at 40 C.F.R. § 68.130. EPA inspected the Facility on June 7, 2018. Prior to the June 7, 2018…...

OSHA cited a paper product manufacturer for exposing employees to hot steam and failing to ensure the use of proper hazardous energy control methods. The company faces $211,400 in proposed fines.  OSHA launched an investigation of the facility after hot steam burned an employee trying to repair a leak on a steam-line header.  OSHA determined the header…...

OSHA has cited a poultry processing company $119,341 for exposing employees to hazardous chemicals. On January 27, 2019, 12 employees needed transport to nearby hospitals after a leak caused the release of 2,100 pounds of anhydrous ammonia. OSHA cited the company for failing to provide an operable alarm responsible for indicating the release of hazardous…...