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
NOTE: The overall value of this settlement exceeds $160 million, which makes it the largest settlement in the history of the EPA’s enforcement of the Risk Management Plan Rule under Clean Air Act Section 112(r). This is also the first case in which the United States and a state have jointly brought suit to enforce
Respondent operates a facility where it processes fish to produce ingredients used by pet food manufacturers. The Facility is located in a designated industrial area within approximately 300 feet (0.05 mile) of JFK Memorial Highway, less than 500 feet (0.09 mile) from the nearest residence, and approximately 600 feet (0.11 mile) from Buzzard’s Bay. At
Respondent operates a chemical manufacturing which has 2,400,000 pounds of ammonia in onsite storage. Respondent has one RMProgram level 3 covered process. On August 16, 2017, the EPA conducted an onsite inspection of the RMProgram related records and equipment for the purpose of assessing the compliance with the RMProgram requirements and the implemented recognized and
Respondent owned and operated two food warehousing facilities. One is used for food manufacturing and refrigerated warehouse and storage and the other is used for refrigerated storage. Respondent, as owner/operator of the Facilities, has handled and/or stored anhydrous ammonia at an amount greater than the threshold quantity of 10,000 pounds in a process since at
Respondent owned and operated a petroleum refinery and it’s RMP lists covered processes subject to Program 3 requirements, including the Ultracracker (ULC) unit which consists of three sixty-three-foot-tall pressure cylindrical reactors, each containing five individual catalyst beds. The hydrocracking reaction converts the larger hydrocarbon chains into smaller, more valuable hydrocarbons. On March 10, 2018, operators
The facility uses xylene as a cleaning agent to clean the reactors. Xylene is an extremely hazardous flammable substance, and is stored at the facility. On August 14, 2017, at 11:24am, an operator was cleaning the RX-2 reactor with xylene between tolling processes. The operator overfilled the reactor with xylene, leaving the reactor without a vapor space.
EPA Region 6 inspector arrived on May 1, 2018, for an announced inspection with an inspector from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ). The scope of the inspection was a partial compliance evaluation (PCE) and included an evaluation of the compliance of the facility. On April 18, 2018, the facility received an announcement email
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 Inspector (1) and Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) Inspectors (3) arrived at the facility on May 1, 2018, for an announced inspection. On April 19, 2018, the facility received an announcement email, which outlined the directions for conducting an on-site inspection, as well as a list of documents
I came across this EPA Region 6 RMP inspection report while doing some research for a client and this is an amazing insight into the difficulties and details of implementing a Process Safety Management System. I always take out names and company names when I post inspection reports, as it is NEVER about the company,
