Respondent is a Dairy Company that was incorporated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1921. Respondent has owned and operated the fluid milk manufacturing facility since 1973. Respondent uses anhydrous ammonia for refrigeration of raw milk, juice concentrate, and product storage.
VIEWER DISCRETION IS STRONGLY ADVISED! This video is extremely graphic by way of the sounds and viewer discretion is advised. You may want to turn down the volume. The video is a classic example of flammable liquid flash fire and it is the only reason why I am sharing it. Keep your eyes on the white car at the bottom of the screen. Gasoline has a flash point of -50F and its vapor is heavier than air and can travel great distances across the ground to find an ignition source, which can be less than 1 mJ. A running car or even a hot engine/exhaust can be enough to ignite the vapor, as shown by this video.
A factory refrigeration technician who lost his lungs to an anhydrous ammonia leak has no case against his employer, a poultry plant in N.C. The incident in June 2009 killed one refrigeration technician and injured another refrigeration technician and their supervisor. The injured refrigeration technician was in a coma for four to five months and had to have a double-lung transplant. It all started in April 2009 when the U.S. Department of Agriculture inspected the poultry plant and ordered the facility to replace a part in its refrigeration equipment, a votator heat exchanger, which uses anhydrous ammonia to chill the poultry before packaging. The company received the part, an inner sleeve, in June 2009 and decided to use its own employees instead of hiring an outside contractor to install it. The instructions for replacing the inner sleeve include a warning that all of the refrigerant - the anhydrous ammonia - must be removed first.
Respondent is the owner and/or operator of a public water treatment facility that uses chlorine in its water treatment process. The amount of chlorine on hand at the facility is up to 9,000 pounds. At all times relevant to this Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO), Respondent produced, processed, handled or stored chlorine at its above listed facility. On or about August 27-28, 2013, EPA conducted an inspection of Respondent's facility to determine compliance with the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act ("EPCRA"), the release reporting provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), and Section 112(r) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Information collected as a result of this inspection revealed that Respondent had greater than 2,500 pounds of chlorine in a process at the Respondent's facility. Chlorine is a regulated substance pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. The threshold quantity for chlorine, as listed in 40 C.F .R. § 68.130, Table 1, is 2,500 pounds. EPA alleges that Respondent has violated the CAA and federal regulations, promulgated pursuant to the CAA, as follows:
OSHA has issued nine serious and two other-than-serious violations to a refrigeration warehouse after a January 2016 complaint investigation found the employer violated OSHA's process safety management standard in regards to the anhydrous ammonia used in the facility's refrigeration process where more than 10,000 pounds of ammonia are in use. An investigation by the agency's area office found the company specifically failed to:
OSHA began an inspection Nov. 12, 2015, at the coffee manufacturing facility after the release of carbon dioxide asphyxiated a 53-year-old shift supervisor. Following its inspection, OSHA issued citations for nine serious violations. The employer did not provide proper training to its workers for stopping the release of a hazardous chemical. Additionally, the company did not have the proper procedures in place for stopping releases. Here is a breakdown of the emergency response citations:
VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
May 5, 2016
Mark J. Langer, Clerk
United States Court of Appeals
District of Columbia Circuit
333 Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001
Re. 28(j) Letter – Agricultural Retailers Association, et al. v. United States Department of Labor, et al., Nos. 15-1326 and 15-1340
Dear Mr. Langer:
Respondents write to advise the Court that earlier today OSHA initiated Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act proceedings, the first step in a comprehensive rulemaking to update its 20-year-old Process Safety Management (PSM) Standard (see attached representative letter to Mr. Auger). As part of this rulemaking, OSHA is considering whether to codify its current interpretation of the term “retail,” i.e., the interpretation contained in the July 22, 2015 memorandum that is the subject of this litigation, in the text of the PSM Standard.
Dear Member of Congress,
I am writing to respond to concerns expressed regarding the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) July 2015 retail exemption interpretation and to update you on regulatory action OSHA is taking in this matter.
Permit-required confined spaces can present conditions that are immediately dangerous to workers’ lives or health if not properly identified, evaluated, tested and controlled. OSHA has developed a standard for Confined Spaces in Construction (29 CFR 1926 Subpart AA) for any space that meets all of the following criteria:
One provision of the standard requires employers to develop and implement procedures for summoning rescue or emergency services in permit-required confined spaces. An employer who relies on local emergency services for assistance is required to meet the requirements of §1926.1211- Rescue and emergency services. OSHA recognizes that not all rescue services or emergency responders are trained and equipped to conduct confined space rescues. When employers identify an off-site rescue service, it is critical that the rescuers can protect their employees. The emergency services should be familiar with the exact site location, types of permit-required confined spaces and the necessary rescue equipment.