PSM and RMP Citations/Analysis

Complainant alleges that Respondent violated the provisions identified herein and seeks the assessment of a civil penalty. Respondent owns and operates a refinery. At all times relevant to this action, Respondent processed, handled. and stored regulated flammable substances listed in 40 C.F.R. § 68.130 in a mixture at its facility. At all times relevant to…...

OSHA has issued 14 serious violations ($80,000) after an October 2015 complaint investigation found the manufacturer and distributor of chemicals used in a variety of industries including manufacturing, water treatment and oil and gas violated OSHA’s PSM standard. Here is a breakdown of the citations:… Membership Required You must be a member to access this...

OSHA has cited a food manufacturing company for 25 serious and one other violation for exposing workers to hazardous chemicals, electrical dangers and fall hazards. OSHA discovered the violations after an inspection of the facility. The agency inspected the plant after an evacuation of the facility sent workers to the hospital as a precaution on…...

Respondent owns and operates a carbonated beverage bottling plant. At the facility, respondent produces, processes, handles, or stores substances listed in, or pursuant to, CAA 112(r)(3) or other extremely hazardous substances identified as such due to toxicity, reactivity, flammability, volatility. or corrosivity, including anhydrous ammonia. On March 29, 2015, there was a 3,750 pound release of…...

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 on the enclosed Risk Management Plan Inspection Findings and Alleged Violations Summary, which is hereby incorporated by reference.  In consideration of Respondent’s size of business, its full compliance…...

Hundreds of workers evacuated a candy manufacturing plant when an evaporator unit pipe failed and released approximately 22 pounds of anhydrous ammonia throughout the facility. No workers were injured in the incident which closed the plant for more than two hours. OSHA investigated the Sept. 23, 2015, incident and cited the company with three repeat,…...

OSHA found that the nation’s largest chicken producer failed to use proper safety procedures that allowed a release of 79 pounds of anhydrous ammonia and endangered workers at its Waco facility on Sept. 28, 2015. OSHA cited the facility for two repeat and two serious violations under its Process Safety Management Standard. The company faces…...

OSHA initiated an investigation after learning of two explosions at the pyrotechnic facility on Oct.1, 2015 and issued citations to the employer on March 18 for four repeated, six serious and five other-than-serious safety violations. The repeated citations relate to the employer not: Documenting that safety equipment complies with generally accepted engineering practices for the…...

Respondent operates a facility located in Vermont, where it makes cheese (the “Facility”). The Facility is located in an industrial section of Swanton, Vermont, within approximately 700 feet (0.13 mile) of Route 78, which runs up to the Canadian border, 590 feet (0.11 mile) of the nearest residence, 1,000 feet (0.19 mile) of the Missisqoui…...

OSHA initiated the October 2015 inspection following a report of an ammonia release (apparently during a manual purge of NH3) at the warehousing and logistics company. The agency cited the company for nine serious violations, six for process safety management standards violations, two for not fit testing or providing a medical evaluation of employees before…...

This investigation began after a 9.6 pound vinyl chloride release from an improperly installed rupture disc (RD). The rupture disk had been improperly installed per original design, and its identification tag had been improperly inserted in the rupture disc holder.  Just last night I posted an incident where a “low pressure” vessel catastrophically failed because it did…...

This is an interesting CAFO!  The facility has a 30,000 gallon LPG tank which they use the fuel for heating water to produce steam to cook its product.  The LPG is exempted from Part 68 since it is “used as a fuel”; HOWEVER, EPA pulled out their “General Duty Clause” and cited the facility for the…...