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…...
This is a lesson in reporting your releases! Two releases of anhydrous ammonia from a refrigeration process result in $150,000 in fines ($75K for EPCRA and $75K for CERCLA) and a $425,000 SEP to install detectors and emergency shutdown systems. The Complaint alleges that: Respondent violated Section 103(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and…...
Respondent owns a chemical supply outlet where chlorine was present in a process above the 2,500 pounds TQ, and sulfur dioxide was in a present in a process above the 5,000 pounds TQ from at least March 16, 2010. Respondent was required to submit and have in place an RMP for the facility. Under 40…...
Respondent is a business that owns and operates two (2) refrigerated warehouse and storage facilities located in Nebraska and Minnesota. The Nebraska facility is located in EPA Region 7 and the Minnesota facility is located in EPA Region 5. Information gathered during the EPA inspection revealed that Respondent had greater than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous…...
Respondent operates a seafood processing facility where anhydrous ammonia was present in a process above the 10,000 pounds TQ. Respondent has one program 3 process, an ammonia refrigeration process consisting of a brine chiller system, seven plate freezers, one blast freezer and one ice house with three ice machines. An RMP was submitted for the…...
OSHA has cited a refinery for serious violations of safety and health hazards related to process safety management (PSM) following a fire and subsequent explosions at the company’s Refinery Complex in June 2019. The company faces $132,600 in penalties. OSHA’s inspection found deficiencies in the refinery’s PSM program, including failing to establish or implement written…...
