PSM and RMP Citations/Analysis

Respondent is a municipality doing business in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. On November 13, 2014, the EPA issued to Respondent a notice of potential violation (“NOPV”), providing notice that the EPA found that Respondent had potentially committed the alleged violations described in Section E of this Agreement and providing Respondent an opportunity to confer with…...

Respondent is a municipality doing business in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. On October 27, 2015, the EPA issued to Respondent a notice of potential violation (“NOPV”), providing notice that the EPA found that Respondent had potentially committed alleged violations and providing Respondent an opportunity to confer with the EPA. On April 5, 2016, and May…...

Respondent submitted and EPA has approved a single RMPlan that includes an accidental release prevention program for its stationary source. EPA alleges for the purpose of this Agreement: At the time of the EPA inspection, the Respondent had an RMProgram level 2 covered process that stores or otherwise uses peracetic acid, which is a regulated…...

SPECIAL NOTE:  I normally do not post small cases like this; however, this case involves a facility not counting railcars that have been disconnected from their motive power in the Maximum Intended Inventory for the Process Quantaties. On September 1, 2015 an authorized representative of the EPA conducted a compliance inspection of the Respondent’s facility to…...

On Dec. 2, 2016, OSHA issued citations to a poultry processing facility for five serious safety violations, including one issued as a violation of the OSH Act’s general duty clause. Two hazard alert letters were issued on Dec. 2, 2016. OSHA’s inspection began on June 3, 2016, after the employer reported that a worker suffered…...

The CAFO resolves the following CAA and CERCLA violations that EPA alleges occurred in conjunction with Respondent’s handling of ammonia at its cold storage warehouse: Failure to Comply with RMP emergency contact requirements, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.160(b)(6); Failure to comply with Program 3 safety information requirements, in violation of 40 C.F.R. 68.65;…...

Respondent owned and operated a chemical manufacturing facility that produces anhydrous ammonia at a quantity of approximately 1,500 tons per day. The produced ammonia is used on site for the production of granulated fertilizers. Ammonia (anhydrous) is identified at 40 C.F.R. Part 68.130 as a toxic regulated substance with a threshold quantity of 10,000 pounds…....

OSHA found multiple safety violations at an ethanol refinery expansion project after a 38-year-old pipefitter suffered fatal burn injuries when ethanol spilled from a process pipe he was working on and was ignited by flames from nearby welding operations.  On Nov. 1, 2016, OSHA issued five serious safety violations to the worker’s employer, the project’s…...

Respondent is the owner and operator of a facility which receives and stores liquefied petroleum gas (“LPG”) for wholesale customers. Respondent filed an RMP for the Facility with EPA, which was most recently updated on March 21, 2013 and identified a covered LPG storage process at the Facility subject to Program 3 requirements, with specified…...

Respondent is the owner and/or operator of a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility which uses ammonia (conc. 20% or greater) (“aqueous ammonia”) and methylamine gas in two (2) processes for the manufacture of pharmaceuticals. EPA conducted an inspection of the Facility on or about January 31 , 2014 to assess compliance with 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Respondent subsequently…...

Respondent is the owner and/or operator of a manufacturing facility located in New York. The Facility uses phosgene in a process for the manufacture of organic chemicals. Respondent filed an RMP for the Facility with EPA on or about May 14, 2009, that, among other things, identified a covered phosgene process at the Facility subject…...

Respondent owns and operates the bulk anhydrous ammonia storage facility located in Nebraska. On or about August 18, 2014, 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 had greater than 10,000 pounds of…...