Respondent is the owner and/or operator of a facility that sells anhydrous ammonia to farmers for use as a fertilizer. At all times relevant to this action, Respondent processed, handled and stored anhydrous ammonia at its facility. On or about May 29, 2013, and April 29, 2014, EPA conducted inspections of Respondent’s facility to determine…...
On March 19, 2015, EPA conducted a compliance inspection of the Respondent’s facility to determine compliance with the Risk Management Plan (RMP) regulations. The EPA found that the Respondent had violated regulations implementing Section 112(r) of the CAA by failing to comply with the regulations as noted on the enclosed Risk Management Program Inspection Findings…...
Respondent owns and operates a facility that produces synthetic rubber, styrene butadiene rubber (SBR), using a hot emulsion polymerization process. Anhydrous ammonia, 1, 3-butadiene, and acrylonitrile are each a “regulated substance” as set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 68.130. Respondent has the following processes at the stationary source:… Membership Required You must be a member...
Respondent owns and operates several solvent blending, storage, and distribution facilities located in Iowa and Kansas. On July 17, 2007, a series of fires and explosions occurred at a KS Facility. The cause of the incident was a static charge that ignited Special Naphtholite 66/3 (VM&P), an EHS listed under Section 112(r)(3) of the CAA,…...
A frozen desserts is required to pay $122,518.89 to EPA’s Superfund program, with interest. The company manufactures and stores frozen desserts at its facility, which shares a building as a restaurant and theater and is located in close proximity to homes, schools and other businesses. After a 2010 ammonia release and a 2013 fire at…...
The Respondent owns and operates a chemical manufacturing facility. On or about April 8 – 12, 2013, an EPA instructor conducted an inspection of the Respondent’s facility after several incidents with on-site and off-site impacts…. Membership Required You must be a member to access this content.View Membership LevelsAlready a member? Log in here...
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS Respondent operates a controlled temperature laboratory, where it conducts research on the effect of cold temperatures on equipment, structures and technological systems, at its Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. The Facility is located approximately two miles north of the center of Hanover, New Hampshire. The 30-acre site is bordered on the north…...
Respondent owns and operates a disposal facility associated process equipment. At the facility the Respondent stored produced water, including residual hydrocarbons, in a 500-barrel fiberglass tank. Produced water stored in this tank was generated from multiple wells. Produced waters, and their associated vapors, are extremely hazardous substances due to their flammability and explosive nature. On…...
Respondent is the owner and/or operator of a facility which operates as an aluminum chloride manufacturing Facility. On December 3, 2013, EPA conducted an inspection at the Facility to determine, among other things, Respondent’s compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAA. The Inspection included discussions with Facility representatives concerning the Facility’s covered process and risk…...
Respondent is the owner and/or operator of a manufacturing facility, where vinyl fluoride is a raw material used at the Facility during the polymerization process, which is a risk management program covered process. The equipment in the polymerization process includes a supply tank, a reactor, separators, and a slurry flash tank. At the slurry flash…...
A grocer has settled with EPA for alleged chemical release reporting, risk management, and emergency planning violations at its warehouse facility in Seattle, Washington and will pay EPA a $110,200 penalty. The company will also complete a Supplemental Environmental Project which includes ammonia release detection improvements valued at over $180,000. The facility is a distribution…...
EPA conducted an inspection of the Facility on December 4, 2012. The Inspection was conducted to determine the Facility’s compliance with Sections 112(r)(7) and 112(r)(1) of the CAA, the RMP accident prevention program and the General Duty Clause, respectively. At the time of the Inspection, Respondent had designated the Facility as an RMP Program Level…...
