Using “bailing wire” to hold open your deadman valves on oil-pots is a really bad idea… leaving the bailing-wire (e.g. evidence) on the valve after each use is just stupid and shows an auditor/inspector that this is an accepted and continual practice! Another tell-tale indication of cheating a deadman valve is the indentions left in…...
Respondent is a refrigerated warehousing and storage business which experienced a release of anhydrous ammonia on March 29, 2017 that resulted in a response from the local Fire and Rescue department. Following this event, the facility was requested to provide answers to a Chemical Release Questionnaire (CRQ) by EPA, pursuant to CERCLA § 104(e). Respondent’s…...
Respondent operates a petrochemical manufacturing facility (NAICS Code 32511) that produces vinyl chloride for use in the plastics industry. The production areas represent a single RMProgram covered process involving sixteen (16) RMProgram regulated chemicals. At its stationary source, the Respondent has 27,000,000 pounds of vinyl chloride and 6,700,000 pounds of chlorine. At its stationary source,…...
Respondent owns and operates a controlled temperature storage warehouse. The Facility is located within a mixed business-residential area within half a mile of many businesses and residences. At the time of the EPA inspection, approximately 14,600 pounds in total ammonia was present at the Facility; however, the facility had two (2) separate refrigeration systems, each…...
OSHA cited a chemical manufacturer after a chemical release at the manufacturing plant exposed workers to ethylene oxide. The company faces $262,548 in penalties. OSHA initiated an inspection after the exposure hospitalized one employee and left five others suffering symptoms of ethylene oxide (EtO) exposure. The Agency cited 25 serious violations, including deficient emergency action…...
OSHA has cited the company contracted to clean lines and vessels at the plant and the processing plant for serious safety violations after a fatal fire at a natural gas processing plant in Pennsylvania. OSHA inspected the company contracted to clean lines and vessels at the plant after four contractors suffered burns and needed hospitalization. One of…...
Respondent owns and operates a cleaning and maintenance product manufacturing and supply facility where greater than 15,000 pounds of vinyl acetate monomer in a process at its facility. On or about April 4-5, 2017, 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…....
OSHA has cited a food facility after a worker required medical treatment due to an anhydrous ammonia leak in the packaging house. OSHA found issues with the Emergency Action Plan and Employee Alarm System, RAGAGEP compliance with IIAR standards, PSM Initial and Refresher Training, HAZCOM Training, PSM Incident Investigation Procedures, Lack of an Emergency Response Plan…...
Respondent is a Wisconsin corporation, with cream cheese and yogurt manufacturing facility. On April 17, 2017, EPA representatives conducted an inspection of the Facility following a reported release of anhydrous ammonia on September 6, 2016, to determine Respondent’s compliance with Section 103 of CERCLA and Sections 302-312 of EPCRA. During the EPA Inspection, Respondent ‘s…...
Respondent owns and operates a food facility that had greater than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in a process at its facility. 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 Section 112(r) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r),…...
The defendant is the operator of a facility that handles, stores, and uses anhydrous ammonia in its industrial refrigeration system. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS At all relevant times, Defendant maintained a refrigeration system at the Facility and that system utilized, processed, handled, or stored anhydrous ammonia, a “regulated substance” under CAA Section 112(r)(3). EPA conducted an inspection…...
Respondent owned and operated a facility that stored and used sulfur dioxide, a “regulated substance” under 40 C.F.R. § 68.3, at the facility when it brined cherries. At all times relevant to this CAFO, Respondent’s brining process contained more than the threshold quantity (5,000 pounds) of sulfur dioxide. Respondent’s brining process did not meet the…...
