PSM and RMP Citations/Analysis

EPA found that Respondent had violated regulations implementing Section 112(r) of the Act at 40 C.F.R. Part 68 by failing to comply with the regulations as noted below.  Four EPA representatives inspected the facility on August 13, 2014.  In consideration of Respondent’s size of business, its full compliance history, its good-faith effort to comply, and…...

Respondent operates a food distribution plant with 33,400 pounds of ammonia for cold food storage purposes and is a RMProgram level 3 covered ammonia refrigeration process.  On February 11, 2016, the EPA conducted an onsite inspection of the RMProgram related records and equipment for the purpose of assessing the Respondent’s compliance with the RMProgram requirements,…...

There appears to have been no monetary fine issued with this agreement; instead, it looks as if the facility has agreed to correct all the deficiencies by June 2018. Respondent uses, handles, and/or stores more than a threshold quantity of a flammable mixture and anhydrous ammonia, both regulated substances. The EPA conducted an inspection on…...

One of OSHA “significant cases” in the month of August was a PSM case at a Frozen Specialty Food Manufacturing facility in KS.  Here is a breakdown of the citations:   NOTE: this case is PENDING ABATEMENT OF VIOLATIONS, PENDING PENALTY PAYMENT… Membership Required You must be a member to access this content.View Membership LevelsAlready a member?...

On May 14, 2014, EPA conducted a compliance inspection of Respondent’s facility to determine its compliance with the Risk Management Program (“RMP”) regulations promulgated at 40 C.F.R. Part 68 under Section 112(r) of the Act. EPA found that Respondent had violated regulations implementing Section 112(r) of the Act by failing to comply with the regulations as…...

Respondent owns and operates a beef slaughter and packaging facility and has Anhydrous Ammonia in excess of 10,000 pounds. On or about September 9, 2015, 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.  From the time Respondent first had onsite greater than…...

Respondent owns or operates three (3) fluid milk production facilities located in MI, IL, and MO (until operations ceased in 2014). At each of these facilities, Respondent operates or operated at all times relevant to this CAFO a closed-loop refrigeration system which utilizes or utilized anhydrous ammonia. Each system uses and stores, or used and…...

Respondent owns and operates a petrochemical facility which manufactures specialty chemicals in a variety of operating units. Respondent produces, processes, handles, or stores one or more regulated substances listed in 40 C.F.R. Part 68 above the threshold quantity. In April 2016, Respondent began work to replace a tube exchanger on the Petro I unit. The replacement…...

This posting includes some very interesting citations issued by EPA (not OSHA).  For example, EPA took issue with using “pink ribbons” on valves being used in an energy isolation for contractors installing a piece of equipment – rather than LOTO locks or tags!  This “ribbon” idea is still fairly prevalent in the refrigeration industry still…...

EPA found that Respondent, a fertilizer business, had violated regulations implementing Section 112(r) of the Act at 40 C.F.R. Part 68 by failing to comply with the regulations as noted on the enclosed “Risk Management Plan Inspection Findings and Alleged Violations Summary”. In consideration of Respondent’s size of business, its full compliance history, its good-faith…...

Respondent owns and operates a meat production and packaging facility. 20. Information gathered during the EPA inspection revealed that Respondent had greater than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in a process at its facility. On or a bout October 20-21, 2015, EPA conducted an inspection of Respondent’s Facility to determine compliance with Section 112(r) of…...

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Justice has announced they have entered into a consent decree that settles claims that the company violated provisions of the Clean Air Act that impose requirements regarding prevention of chemical releases from certain facilities. Under the settlement agreement, the company will assure that its…...