OSHA found plant workers and temporary workers employed by two staffing agencies were exposed to hazards and other dangerous safety and health violations at the plant. The inspection resulted in 30 OSHA citations against the nail polish manufacturer and staffing agencies. Proposed penalties total $139,500. The plant faces $109,500 in penalties for 23 serious violations,…...
Respondent does business in the State of Alabama. Respondent operates a “stationary source” that has one RMProgram covered process, latex resin manufacturing, which stores or otherwise uses vinyl acetate monomer in an amount exceeding its applicable threshold of 15,000 pounds. Respondent has submitted and registered an RMPlan to the EPA for the stationary source identified…...
Respondent owns and operates a controlled-temperature storage warehouse for food products. The Facility is located adjacent to Interstate 91 and east of the Quinnipiac River, within a mile of numerous shops and business and approximately 1 mile from several schools. Respondent uses anhydrous ammonia in a refrigeration “process”. In 2009, Respondent filed a Program 3…...
Respondent operates water filtration plants which store or otherwise use chlorine in an amount exceeding its applicable thresholds of 2,500 pounds. Respondent has submitted and registered an RMPlan to the EPA for these stationary sources and has developed an RMProgram (accident release prevention program) for these stationary sources. Based on an RMProgram compliance monitoring investigation…...
Respondent is a Water Works Department (HWWD or Respondent), a municipal owned utility organized under the laws of the State of Indiana. Beginning prior to 1999 Respondent used, stored, handled, and moved, multiple one ton containers of the regulated substance chlorine at the Facility in amounts over the chlorine threshold quantity of 2,500 pounds per…...
The Respondent has three RMProgram covered processes, one chlorine dioxide process, which stores or otherwise uses chlorine dioxide in an amount exceeding its applicable threshold of 1,000 pounds, and two chlorine processes, which store or otherwise uses chlorine in amounts exceeding its applicable threshold of 2,500 pounds. Based on an RMProgram compliance monitoring investigation initiated…...
A May 1, 2014, inspection conducted after a complaint alleging three separate fires has resulted in the issuance of eight safety violations. Many of the violations were cited under the Process Safety Management Standard. OSHA cited one willful, two repeat and five serious safety violations and proposed penalties totaling $132,800. OSHA issued one willful violation…...
Following the death of an employee, 61, OSHA has cited the chemical manufacturer for 21 serious and two other-than-serious safety violations. Many of the violations involve OSHA’s Process Safety Management Standards. The company has been placed in OSHA’s Severe Violator Enforcement Program. OSHA’s investigation found the employee suffered fatal injuries on April 4, 2014, while…...
Respondent is the owner and/or operator of a facility which stores liquid propane (“LP”) for wholesale distribution. Respondent filed an RMP for the Facility with EPA on or about October 18, 2013 that identified a covered propane process at the Facility as a Program 3 process, and that specified a quantity of 822,500 pounds of…...
Respondent has a Program 3 covered process, as defined in 40 C.F.R. § 68.1O(d), using Anhydrous ammonia. 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a) and (d) require that, in addition to submitting a single RMP as provided in §§ 68.150 to 68.185, facilities with a Program 3 covered process shall among other things, develop a management system as…...
This CAFO resolves the following CAA violations that Complainant alleges occurred in conjunction with Respondent’s storage and handling of hazardous substances at its facility: Failure to prepare and submit a Risk Management Plan that includes all covered processes, in violation of 40 C.F.R. §68.12(a) and 68.150(a); Failure to comply with process safety information requirements, including…...
On December 3, 2013, EPA conducted a compliance inspection of Respondent’s facility to determine compliance with the Risk Management Plan (RMP) regulations promulgated at 40 C.F.R. part 68 under section 112(r)(7) of the Act. The EPA found that the Respondent had violated regulations implementing section 112(r)(7) of the Act by failing to comply with the…...
