Respondent owns and operates the winery facility that crushes grapes to produce wine, distilled spirits and juice for concentrate at its Facility. These products are stored prior to shipment to other facilities for further packaging and distribution. In September and November 2015, EPA performed inspections of the Facility pursuant to Section 112(r) of the, CAA,…...
Respondent is the owner and operator of a food service distribution facility. On October 18, 2017, EPA conducted an inspection of the Facility to determine the Facility’s compliance with Section 112(r)(1) and (7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 74 12(r)(l) and (7), and the Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions of 40 C.F.R. Part 68 (“Inspection…...
The business has operated a meat processing facility since 2013. The Facility uses 30,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in its refrigeration system at the Facility. EPA alleges the facility failed to ensure that its anhydrous ammonia refrigeration equipment complied with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, in violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA…...
NOTE: Another EPA RMP inspection where they took issue with the use of “ribbons” used in lieu of lockout locks! EPA has determined that Respondent violated the Risk Management Program (RMP) regulations promulgated at 40 C.F.R. Part 68 under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as noted on the enclosed Risk Management…...
Respondent owns and operates a chemical facility which had Chlorine (Cl2) as its “regulated substance”. On or about January 23-24, 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…...
This Consent Agreement and Final Order serves as notice that the EPA has reason to believe that Respondent violated the General Duty Clause set forth in Section 112(r)(1) of the CAA and the Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions in 40 C.F.R. Part 68 and that Respondent violated Section 112(r) of the CAA. Respondent’s Facility has ceased…...
Respondent operates an ammonia refrigeration plant and has on-site for use, 130,000 pounds of ammonia for cold food storage. Respondent has submitted and registered an RMPlan to the EPA for its stationary source and has developed an RMProgram accidental release prevention program for the stationary source’s single RMProgram level 3 covered process. On November 8,…...
OSHA has cited a beef processing plant after an employee suffered severe burns caused by exposure to anhydrous ammonia, the plants refrigerant. The beef processing plant faces penalties of $182,926 for 16 serious safety violations. OSHA cited the company for process safety management (PSM) program deficiencies, failing to guard roof openings, and electrical safety and…...
The United States and ADEQ allege that a pulp/paper manufacturing and chemical manufacturing facilities owned by the same business violated or continues to violate the following statutory and regulatory requirements The Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions for Air Programs promulgated at 40 C.F.R. Part 68, Subpart D, pursuant to Section 112(r) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C…....
EPA announced seven settlements with companies in four New England states for alleged violations of chemical accident prevention and reporting laws. All the cases address the safe use of anhydrous ammonia in refrigeration and cooling units. Collectively, the seven companies have spent more than $750,000 to comply with the laws and will pay more than…...
EPA has determined that Respondent violated the Risk Management Program (RMP) regulations promulgated at 40 C.F.R. Part 68 under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as noted on the enclosed Risk Management Plan Inspection Findings and Alleged Violations Summary (“Summary”), which is hereby incorporated by reference. In consideration of the penalty assessment factors…...
A seafood distribution company that formerly operated in Boston, Mass. will pay a cash penalty, subject to court approval, settling allegations by the U.S. EPA that the company violated federal environmental laws relating to the use of anhydrous ammonia, sulfuric acid, and lead at its facility. Under the settlement, the company has agreed to pay…...
