A safety aspiration is something like… “I don’t want anyone to get hurt”   Safety goals are… … HomeRead More »

We don’t see these every day and to be honest, the incidents, the violations, and the compliance plan are too much for me to break down.  I have broken out the incidents and the citations that EPA issued for each of these incidents, but you will have to go to the CAFO to get the full scoop.  Here are the incidents that led to this: May 2, 2013 Fire and Explosion September 13, 2013 Fire February...

Respondent owns and operates a facility that processes, stores, and distributes produce. On June 21, 2018, EPA performed an inspection of the Facility pursuant to Section 112(r) of the CAA, Sections 304–12 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, and Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9603(a) (“Inspection”). Based upon...

Respondent owns and operates a facility that processes and packages fruit and vegetable products. Between June 5 and June 7, 2018, EPA performed an inspection of the Facility pursuant to Section 112(r) of the CAA, Sections 304–12 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, and Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9603(a)...

Respondent owns and/or operates a refrigeration-based cold storage facility which is located within a populated residential, commercial, and industrial area and is adjacent to a significant roadway. At the Facility, Respondent handles, stores, and uses, and has handled, stored, and used anhydrous ammonia.  On April 24, 2018, EPA performed an inspection of the Facility pursuant to Section 112(r)...

Respondent owns and operates a carbon dioxide liquification plant, which uses anhydrous ammonia to produce and refrigerate liquid carbon dioxide. On September 19, 2017, EPA performed an inspection of the Facility pursuant to Section 112(r) of the CAA, Section 103 of CERCLA, and Sections 302-312 of EPCRA. Based upon the information gathered during this inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA asserts...

Respondent operates a facility to manufacture, store and distribute ice cream and other food products. Respondent produced, used, or stored more than 10,000 pounds of ammonia (anhydrous) at the Facility and was subject to the requirements of CAA§ 112(r)(7). Respondent was subject to Program 3 requirements because it was subject to the OSHA process safety management standard set forth in 29 C.F.R. §...

Respondent is the owner and operator of a chemical wholesale distributor that repackages and custom-blends chemicals. Respondent formulates two mixes, paper adhesives and lacquer thinners, for sale. Respondent currently operates lacquer thinner mixing and flammable liquid storage systems at the Facility. With regard to the lacquer thinner mixing and flammable liquid storage systems, Respondent produces,...

Respondent owns and operates a facility that produces approximately 300 tons of crushed, cubed, and block ice per day for retail, the fishing industry, and special events. The ice is produced using an anhydrous ammonia refrigeration system.  On April 24, 2017, there was a release of anhydrous ammonia from the 6,500-pound ammonia refrigeration system at the Facility, which resulted in the evacuation...

A contractor lost consciousness from ammonia exposure at an ice cream plant leading OSHA to propose more than $200,000 in fines against the company and the contractor.Here is a breakdown of the citations to the facility and the contractor… … HomeRead More »

Respondent is the owner and/or operator of a Refinery with the NAICS code of 32411, Petroleum Refineries. The Facility refines low sulfur yellow crude into ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, naptha, heavy gas oil, and vacuum tower bottoms and those processes contain flammable mixtures of regulated substances listed in Table 3 of 40 C.F .R. § 68.130. From September 18-19, 2018, EPA conducted an inspection...

A few years ago I wrote a piece about identifying ALL equipment, especially valves, with a unique identifier.  The purpose of that posting was brought about by a lot of facilities challenging our PHA, II, Audit findings/recommendations that all equipment be identified with a unique identifier in the field, on P&ID’s, in SOPs, LOTO procedures, and the CMMS (e.g. work order system). ...