PSM and RMP Citations/Analysis

A plant that produces films used in packaging has been cited by OSHA for 19 PSM related violations. The plant has been cited for exposing workers to flammable chemicals. OSHA has proposed penalties of $112,500. The inspection was initiated in July 2013 under OSHA’s PSM NEP and found employees were exposed to health and safety…...

This case may be the “whopper” that sinks the General Duty Clause perverbal teeth into the refrigeration industry.  From all accounts, it appears this facility was inspected and issued some NOVs, which the facility agreed to take care of.  A year later, EPA returned for a follow-up inspection and found items not corrected. Here are…...

On August 10, 2012, EPA conducted a compliance inspection of a refrigerated Distribution Center to determine its compliance with the Risk Management Program (“RMP”) regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 112(r) of the Act, and set forth at 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Based on the August 10, 2012 inspection, EPA has determined that Respondent violated the…...

On June 23, 1999, Respondent submitted a Risk Management Plan (“RMP”) for the Facility for the storage of acrolein. Respondent de-registered the RMP from EPA’s national database on July 15, 2010. EPA conducted an inspection of the Facility on August 11, 2010, to assess Respondent’s compliance with Section 112(r)(l) and (7) of the CAA, 42…...

OSHA has cited a Frozen Food Manufacturer for six serious process safety management (PSM) violations.  At about 1:40 PM on July 20, 2013, approximately 13,800 pounds of anhydrous ammonia was released when a telescoping boom attachment being moved by a forklift under one of the HPR’s struck the pipe stem located at the bottom of…...

Based on an RMProgram compliance monitoring investigation initiated on June 12, 2012, the EPA alleges that the Respondent violated the codified rules governing the CAA Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions, because Respondent did not adequately implement provisions of 40 CFR Part 68 when it:… Membership Required You must be a member to access this content.View Membership...

Based on an RMProgram compliance monitoring investigation initiated on April 10, 2012, the EPA alleges that the Respondent violated the codified rules governing the CAA Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions, because Respondent did not adequately implement provisions of 40 CFR Part 68 when it:… Membership Required You must be a member to access this content.View Membership...

OSHA has cited a refinery for 11 safety violations, with proposed penalties totaling $43,400, mainly for exposing workers to chemical hazards. The inspection, which began in July 2013 after a referral from the Environmental Protection Agency, focused on the refinery’s process safety management program for handling flammable liquids in excess of 10,000 pounds. The majority…...

OSHA’s inspection found several deficiencies in the plant’s process safety management program to identify, address and eliminate hazards associated with processes using, storing, manufacturing, handling or moving of large amounts of highly hazardous chemicals onsite. In this case, the hazardous chemical is the flammable liquid, vinyl acetate, which is used in large amounts at the…...

If you ever wondered if the “inventory” in your railcars or tank trucks that are NOT attached to their mode of transportation (i.e. locomotive or tractor) is part of your threshold calculation, here’s your answer, eight railcars of Chlorine sitting on the property was tallied by EPA to establish the amount of the EHS on…...

On September 1, 2010, EPA conducted a compliance inspection at the facility to determine its compliance with the 40 C.F.R. Part 68. 34. Based on the inspection and a review of additional information received by U.S. EPA subsequent to that date, it has identified the following violations by Respondent of the Risk Management Program Regulations:…...

Plant was cited for six process safety management standard violations, including one willful, after an explosion in June killed two workers and injured 80 people. A willful violation was cited for failing to develop clear, written procedures for how to change and put idle pressure vessels into service. The five (5) serious and one (1)…...