PSM and RMP Citations/Analysis

Respondent was engaged in the pork processing business and operated a closed-loop refrigeration system at the Facility which utilized anhydrous ammonia as a refrigerant. Respondent also owned and operated an anhydrous ammonia storage tank at the Facility. Respondent used and stored up to 153,000 lbs. of anhydrous ammonia in the Facility’s refrigeration system and stored…...

The Respondent’s facility consists of a large distribution warehouse, including a cold storage area, over 100 truck loading bays, 80 trucks, a truck maintenance garage, a diesel fueling depot, an administrative office, and an employee cafeteria and locker rooms. There is an approximately 1,500 square foot ammonia refrigeration machinery room (the “Machinery Room”) located at the…...

Respondent owns a combined-cycle cogeneration power plant facility. From approximately 1991 to December 2013, the Facility was operated as a combined-cycle cogeneration power plant. Beginning in April 2012, the Facility halted full-time operations and began operating one or two days per year in order to conduct ISO-New England capability tests; however, the ammonia refrigeration system…...

On September 1, 2016, EPA conducted a compliance inspection of the Respondent’s facility to determine compliance with the Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions (CAPP) regulations promulgated at 40 C.F.R. Part 68 under Section 112(r) of the CAA. The EPA found that the Respondent had violated regulations implementing Section 112(r) of the CAA by failing to comply…...

Information collected during the September 14, 2016 inspection of Respondent’s Facility revealed that Respondent failed to develop and implement a risk management program that complied with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 68. EPA alleges that Respondent has violated the CAA and federal regulations promulgated pursuant to the CAA as follows: Count 1 Respondent failed…...

Respondent is the owner and operator or a commercial refrigeration facility that utilizes compressed anhydrous ammonia as the refrigerant. On or about January 28-29, 2015, EPA conducted an inspection at, and obtained information regarding the facility’s compliance with Sections 112(r)(1) and (7) of the CAA and the implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Preliminary…...

Respondent operates a chemical manufacturing plant that has one RMProgram level 3 covered chemical manufacturing process, which stores or otherwise uses 1,3-Butadiene in an amount exceeding its applicable threshold of 10,000 pounds. On November 9, 2015, the EPA conducted an onsite inspection of the RMProgram related records and equipment for the purpose of assessing the…...

Respondent’s facility is a frozen food processing facility which primarily produces frozen dinners and entrees. As part of this process, Respondent uses ammonia in its plate freezers. On May 2, 2016 at approximately 2:35 p.m., a change in position of the stacking trays or plates located in Plate Freezer 1-6 caused the routine horizontality a1mm to…...

Respondent owns and operates a poultry processing facility which handles and stores approximately 49,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in its ammonia refrigeration system. EPA conducted an inspection of the Facility on March 31, 2014 to determine Respondent’s compliance with CAA Section 112(r)(7) and the Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions at 40 C.F.R. Part 68. The Chemical…...

Respondent operates a breakfast food production facility that uses ammonia as its refrigerant and has on-site for use, 15,000 pounds of ammonia. Respondent has one RMProgram level 3 covered process, an ammonia refrigeration process. On May 20, 2014, the EPA conducted an onsite inspection of the RMProgram related records and equipment for the purpose of…...

Respondent owns and operates a Refinery and on August 26-28, 2014 EPA Region 6 conducted an unannounced, onsite CAA 40 C.F.R. Part 68 and Section 112(r) Partial Compliance Evaluation of the Facility. The facility’s Risk Management Plan (RMP) lists covered processes subject to Program 3 requirements with flammable substances that are held above the threshold quantities identified…...

Respondent is the “owner or operator” of a plastics and resins manufacturing facility. On May 15, 2014, EPA inspectors visited the Facility to assess Respondent’s compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAA and with Sections 302-312 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (“EPCRA”). Respondent uses vinyl acetate monomer in one or more “processes”…...