PSM and RMP Citations/Analysis

Respondent Ag’s facility includes bulk ammonia storage operations. On or about September 11, 2013, EPA inspected the facility to determine compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r), and 40 C.F.R. Part 68. At the time of the September 2013 inspection, Respondent had greater than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia stored in…...

On September 11, 2012, a Facility experienced a 284-pound release of anhydrous ammonia from its ammonia refrigeration system. The incident occurred when a worker attempted to defrost an ammonia chiller and opened the oil valve instead of the hot gas valve, causing ammonia to release into the environment. As a result of the release, an…...

The Respondent owns a milk production facility and according to the U.S. Census data from 2010, several thousand people live near the Facility. The Facility has been in use as a dairy since 1886, and at the time of EPA’s inspection, included a milk production site, office space, chemical storage, warehousing, and production areas. The Facility…...

From the time Respondent first had on site greater than 10,000 pounds of methyl mercaptan, isopropylamine, and/or dimethylamine in a process, and/or greater than 20,000 pounds of aqueous ammonia in a process, Respondent was subject to the requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 68 because it was an owner and operator of a stationary source that…...

Respondent owns and operates meat processing facilities located in Pennsylvania. As stated in Respondent’s RMP for each of the PA Facilities, Respondent has anhydrous ammonia in the following approximate quantities: 88,000 pounds at the Wyalusing Facility; 20,500 pounds at the Hazleton Facility. On June 27, 2017, EPA conducted an inspection of the Wyalusing Facility to…...

Respondent operates a pork processing plant with the following two (2) covered anhydrous ammonia refrigeration systems at the stationary source: Main System; and Auxiliary System Respondent has exceeded the threshold quantity for ammonia (anhydrous) at the Main System and the Auxiliary System.  On or about August 19, 2014, and March 30, 2015, EPA conducted an inspection…...

Respondent is a municipality in the state of Kansas, which owns and operates a Water Treatment Plant. On or about August 24, 2016, 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 operates enclosed, anaerobic biodigester systems that process food processing, biomass waste streams to produce a biogas intermediate that contains methane. This biogas is further processed (in an enclosed system) to produce a final compressed natural gas that is sold as a transportation fuel. Gaseous hydrogen sulfide has on occasion been released in small concentrations when…...

Respondent owns and operates a refinery which produces, processes, handles, or stores, over the threshold amount, hydrogen, methane, ethane, ethylene, propane, propylene, butane, iso-butane, pentane, pentene, and iso-pentane. All are listed at 40 C.F.R. § 68.130 as regulated substances based on their flammability. At the Facility, the Respondent also produces, processes, handles, or stores, over…...

This is from a recently posted Consent Decree for a fish processing facility.  From all I have seen this facility did NOT have RMP Covered processes using Anhydrous Ammonia, Chlorine or Butane and all of these actions stem from a General Duty Clause agreement, which is by far the most significant GDC agreement I can remember. …...

On or about November 2, 2016, representatives of the EPA conducted an inspection (the EPA inspection) of the 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 greater than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in a process. From…...

This is another example of how a “process” can be classified as a Program 2, based NOT on the hazards but merely because it is a public utility in a Federal OSHA state.  Had this process been in a private business, it would have been a RMP Program 3 as it would have been a…...