PSM and RMP Citations/Analysis

A polyethylene foam product manufacturing facility has been cited by OSHA with 21 safety violations carrying fines of $128,700. OSHA’s January inspection followed an explosion that resulted in the injury of three workers and significant property damage.  The explosion occurred when isobutane gas entered exhaust ductwork associated with the foam extrusion manufacturing process, and it…...

A business has paid a $73,790 penalty for not submitting a required risk management plan for a facility in Pa.  Under the federal Clean Air Act, facilities that maintain certain quantities of regulated substances must submit a risk management plan to EPA that explains steps the facility would take to reduce the risk of accidental…...

EPA announced that a gas and oil exploration company will pay a $42,504 penalty to settle Clean Air Act violations at its natural gas liquid extraction plant.  EPA alleged that the company failed to comply with federal clean air regulations intended to prevent accidental releases of flammable substances.  The settlement follows up on an EPA…...

Respondent owns and operates a refrigerated juice facility. On July 10, 2000, under Section 112(r) of the Act and implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 68, Respondent submitted to U.S. EPA an RMP for the Facility. According to the RMP submitted to U.S. EPA, the Facility is “frozen fruit, juice, and vegetable manufacturing”.  They use…...

Respondent owned and operated the natural gas production site which stored produced water including residual hydrocarbons in a 400-barrel fiberglass tank, and natural gas condensate in a 21O-barrel steel tank (tank battery), from natural gas production wells located at the site. A second 210-barrel steel tank was also present in the tank battery. On July…...

OSHA issued 23 serious violations, with a penalty of $118,000, regarding PSM, electrical, confined space and lockout-tagout of hazardous energy sources and respirator protection standards. Some of the serious PSM violations include failing to develop a written plan of action ensuring worker involvement in the PSM program; conduct inspections and tests of process equipment, such…...

Company failed to lockout and/or positively seal off an oil discharge which are readily adaptable to lockable controls and readily sealed to prevent the release of ammonia gas into the atmosphere when performing a “Hot Gas” procedure to correct an operational defect, product icing in the chiller.  As direct result of this violation, an employee…...

On September 11, 2012 EPA conducted a compliance inspection of a Bulk Petroleum and Anhydrous facility to determine its compliance with the Risk Management Plan (“RMP”) regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 112(r) of the Act, and set forth at 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Based on the inspection and documents submitted by Respondent, EPA has determined…...

The Respondent manufactures adsorbent synthetic magnesium silicate, ammonium chloride, and lignosulfonate. The facility contains hydrochloric acid and ammonia. Tank T-5C is a Hydrochloric Acid storage tank thats used to feed raw materials to the blending reactor to make NH4CL solution. At approximately 10:15 pm on October 24, 2012, there was a tank failure of the…...

On December 5, 2010, EPA conducted an inspection (EPA inspection) of the Facility to determine compliance with CAA § ll2(r)(7). During the inspection, EPA observed alleged violations of the CAA § 112(r)(7). The alleged violations are described below…… Membership Required You must be a member to access this content.View Membership LevelsAlready a member? Log in...

On August 31, 2007, a release of ammonia occurred at the company’s Waterloo Facility during the transfer of ammonia via a “pump out” line. This release resulted in the death of one employee and the permanent disability of a second employee. Based on EPA’s investigation of the 2007 accident, the Complaint alleges violations of Section…...

Based on a compliance monitoring inspection conducted at the Respondent’s facility on August 16, 2012, EPA alleges that the Respondent violated the Act’s Chemical Accident Prevention Program, when at the time of inspection, the Respondent did not provide evidence that:… Membership Required You must be a member to access this content.View Membership LevelsAlready a member?...