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
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, has reached a settlement with a seafood cold storage facility in Unalaska, Alaska, for violations related to a 125-pound ammonia release on December 3, 2016 that seriously injured one of the facility’s workers. The facility’s failure to provide timely information about the ammonia release also put first responders at
Respondent owns a stationary source where anhydrous ammonia was present in a process above the 10,000 pound TQ from at least June 1, 2014. Therefore, Respondent was required to submit and have in place an RMP for the facility. Respondent submitted an RMP to EPA on April 9, 2015. Respondent has a Program 3 covered
Respondent is primarily engaged in the production of anhydrous ammonia, urea fertilizer, and urea ammonium nitrate, which includes two ammonia units (A1 and A2), a urea production unit, a UAN unit, and various ancillary units, including a carbon dioxide pipeline compressor station and a hydrogen recovery unit. Respondent produces, processes, stores, or handles more than
Respondent is the owner and/or operator of a stationary source that uses, handles, and/or stores more than a threshold quantity of anhydrous ammonia, a regulated substance, as specified at 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.115 and 68.130. EPA conducted an inspection of the Facility on December 12, 2016 and EPA observed alleged violations of 40 C.F.R. part 68.
On or about September 14, 2016, representatives of the EPA conducted an inspection (the 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’s Facility had greater than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in a process. From the time
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
