Respondent is a producer of made-to-order frozen gourmet Italian entrees. The Facility uses anhydrous ammonia in its refrigeration process to cool the ingredients cooler and product freezers. Anhydrous ammonia is included on the List of Regulated Substances and Thresholds for Accidental Release Prevention requirements under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act. At approximately 1:40 […]
Respondent owns and operates a refrigeration system which consists of buildings, equipment, structures, and other stationary items which are located on a single site or on contiguous or adjacent sites, and which are owned or operated by the same person. On June 21, 2004, under Section 112(r) of the Act and implementing regulations at 40
Respondent owns and operates a fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides production facility which consists of buildings, equipment, structures, and other stationary items which are located on a single site or on contiguous or adjacent sites, and which are owned or operated by the same person. On November 1, 2004, under Section 112(r) of the Act, and
The Wyoming Department of Workforce Services (DWS) (WY-OSHA) has cited a refinery for seven (7) violations stemming from a September 2013 incident. An OSHA inspection following the September 27, 2013 explosion and subsequent fire resulted in seven citations and proposed penalties totaling $201,000. No injuries occurred as a result of the incident. WY-OSHA monetary penalties
The Respondent, at its stationary source, has one RMProgram covered process which stores or otherwise uses ammonia in amounts exceeding its applicable threshold of 10,000 pounds. Respondent has submitted and registered an RMPlan to the EPA for the stationary source. Respondent has developed an RMProgram accidental release prevention program for the stationary source. Based on
EPA alleges that Respondent has violated EPCRA Section 312 and the federal regulations promulgated pursuant to EPCRA; and Section 112(r) of the CAA. On or about February 12-13, 2013, EPA conducted an inspection of Respondent’s facility to determine compliance with EPCRA and Section 112(r) of the CAA. Respondent stores approximately 924,000 pounds of natural gasoline
NV-OSHA (state plan) have cited an oil refining company for three serious violations stemming from a December explosion that left one employee seriously burned. The action proposes the refinery pay up to $20,790 in fines. Final determination is still in the administrative process. According to the state, refinery workers were attempting to restore flow to an
U.S. Attorney Karen L. Loeffler announced today that a Fish Processor pled guilty in U.S. District Court in Anchorage to a charge of illegal dumping of ammonia into the Kodiak city sewer. The Fish Processor was sentenced today by Chief United States District Court Judge Ralph R. Beistline, to three years of probation, and $205,000
The Respondent, at its stationary source identified in Paragraph 5 of this CAFO, has one RMProgram covered process which stores or otherwise uses ammonia in an amount exceeding its applicable threshold of 10,000 pounds. Based on an RMProgram compliance monitoring investigation initiated on June 13, 2012, the EPA alleges that the Respondent violated the codified
The Respondent has two RMProgram covered processes which stores or otherwise uses chlorine and methyl chloride in amounts exceeding its applicable respective thresholds of 2,500 and 10,000 pounds. Based on an RMProgram compliance monitoring investigation initiated on January 15-16, 2013, the EPA alleges that the Respondent violated the codified rules governing the CAA Chemical Accident
Based on an RMProgram compliance monitoring investigation initiated on July 25, 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:
A chemical manufacturer has been cited by OSHA for 15 serious violations of the process safety management standard. The August 2013 inspection was initiated under OSHA’s Process Safety Management Covered Chemical Facilities National Emphasis Program. The company faces $73,500 in proposed penalties for exposing workers to hazardous chemical risks. The majority of violations relate to
