Respondent is the owner and operator of a facility that had greater than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in a process at each of its facilities. From the time Respondent first had onsite greater than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in a process, Respondent was subject to the requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 68 because…...
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 has two (2) program 3 processes: a chlorine cylinder storage process, and a sulfur dioxide…...
Respondent is the owner of a food transfer and storage facility and according to their risk management plan for the Facility, Respondent uses approximately 25,225 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in its closed-loop industrial ammonia refrigeration system. On October 2, 2018, EPA conducted an inspection of the Facility to determine whether Respondent was in compliance with…...
Respondent is the owner and/or operator of a facility that uses anhydrous ammonia in its chemical manufacturing process. EPA conducted an inspection of the Facility on April 13, 2016, to assess compliance with Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA (the “Inspection”) and the regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Respondent filed an RMP for the Facility…...
On November 1 through November 4, 2016, representatives from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) Region IX conducted an inspection of the XXXXXXXX refinery. EPA’s inspection was conducted to determine compliance with the Risk Management Program (“RMP”) promulgated under Section 112(r)(7) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”‘), and the General Duty Clause under Section 112(r)(l)…...
Here’s one you don’t see every day: 1) a state university needing an RMP for its power generation plant’s SCR, 2) the SCR uses 29% aqua ammonia rather than anhydrous ammonia, and 3) they exceeded the doubled TQ for Aqua Ammonia > 20% of 20,000 pounds. Respondent is part of a State University system and…...
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…...
