PSM and RMP Citations/AnalysisNOTICE: The OSHA cases found in these posts may be taken from OSHA citations BEFORE the "informal conference" takes places. These cases are posted for AWARENESS and EDUCATIONAL purposes only. I have scrubbed company names and locations from my postings, but not from the OSHA and EPA documents. These posts are in NO WAY meant to shame any company, just providing information showing the things OSHA/EPA are finding in their PSM/RMP inspections.
This is an unusual case in that it involved a 20-pound release of NH3 during a "line break" on a refrigeration system. There was only a single citation and it came at a price of $38,500. The employee was injured. I have been unable to locate an OSHA investigation regarding this incident, which occurred in TX. This case is also interesting in that the company agreed to implement:
Respondent is the owner and operator of a cheese manufacturing plant. On March 16, 2023, there was an incident at the Facility that resulted in the accidental release of 22 pounds of anhydrous ammonia and the injury of one (1) employee (the “Incident”). On January 11, 2024, the EPA requested documentation and information concerning the Incident and Respondent’s compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. Part 68 (the “Investigation”). The process includes fluid milk unloading, cheese manufacturing, cheese packaging and storage, liquid whey processing, whey powder packaging, storage, and shipping. Processing aid substances handled and stored onsite consist of ammonia and sanitation chemicals. The Respondent’s processes meet the definition of “process” and “covered process”, as defined by 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. The Respondent’s RMP Program Level 3 covered process stores or otherwise uses a regulated substance in an amount exceeding the applicable threshold. Anhydrous ammonia is a “regulated substance” pursuant to Section 112(r)(2)(B) of the CAA, and the regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. The threshold quantity for anhydrous ammonia is 10,000 pounds, as listed in 40 C.F.R. § 68.130. Respondent has greater than a threshold quantity of anhydrous ammonia in a process at the Facility, meeting the definition of “covered process” defined by 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. EPA Findings of Violation Membership Content
The Facility uses, handles, and/or stores more than a threshold quantity of ammonia (anhydrous), ammonia (concentration 20% or greater), and chlorine, which are regulated substances, as specified at 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.115 and 68.130. The Facility’s Cooling Tower 2 chlorine injection area contains up to 4,000 lbs of chlorine in two (2) 1-ton cylinders, above the chlorine RMP threshold quantity of 2,500 lbs set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 68.115. Respondent did not include the Cooling Tower 2 chlorine injection area as part of an RMP covered process. By failing to include the Cooling Tower 2 chlorine injection area as part of an RMP covered process, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(a).
Respondent has a P-Tank Farm Vinyl Acetate Monomer {VAM), D-Tank Farm Toluene Diisocyanate (TDI), and the Isopentane and Isopentane/n-Pentane blend Intermodal Transfer processes at the Facility, meeting the definition of "process," as defined by 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. Isopentane, pentane, acrylonitrile, toluene diisocyanate (unspecified isomer), and vinyl acetate monomer are each a "regulated substance" of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(2)(B), and the regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. The threshold quantity for both isopentane and pentane, as listed in 40 C.F.R. § 68.130 is 10,000 pounds. The threshold for acrylonitrile, as listed in 40 C.F.R. § 68.130 is 20,000 pounds. The threshold for toluene diisocyanate (unspecified isomer), as list ed in 40 C.F.R. § 68.130 is 10,000 pounds. The threshold for vinyl acetate monomer, as listed in 40 C.F.R. § 68.130 is 15,000 pounds. Respondent has at times maintained greater than a threshold quantity of isopentane, pentane, acrylonitrile, toluene diisocyanate (unspecified isomer), and vinyl acetate monomer in a process at the Facility, meeting the definition of "covered process" as defined by 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. From the time Respondent first had on-site greater than a threshold quantity of isopentane, pentane, toluene diisocyanate (unspecified isomer), and vinyl acetate monomer in a process, Respondent was required to submit an RMP pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a) and comply with the Program 3 prevention requirements because pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.1O(i), the covered process at the Facility did not meet the eligibility requirements of Program 1, is subject to Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements for Process Safety Management pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1910.119, and is in North American Industry Classification System code 49311. Respondent's storage of acrylonitrile on-site greater than a threshold quantity triggered Program 2 prevention requirements for the respective process. EPA Findings of Violation
Respondent owns and operates a cheese manufacturing facility. On March 22, 2022, EPA performed an inspection of the Facility to evaluate compliance with CERCLA Section 103, EPCRA Sections 304-312, and CAA Section 112(r). Based upon the information gathered during the Inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that Respondent violated certain provisions of CERCLA, EPCRA, and the CAA. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF LAW
OSHA issued $290,358 in proposed penalties following an August 2023 explosion at a paint factory in Garland, TX. One employee was injured in the explosion at the factory. OSHA issued one repeat and eight serious citations. The repeat citation was a $161,310 proposed penalty. The proposed penalties for the eight other citations are $16,131 each.
Respondent owns and operates a metal parts heat treatment operation and maintains a maximum inventory of 60,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia, at the Facility, which exceeds the threshold quantity of 10,000 pounds. Respondent uses anhydrous ammonia in its heat treatment process. EPA inspectors completed an announced CAA 112(r) inspection on June 15 through June 16, 2022 (June 2022 Inspection). Respondent provided records during and after the June 2022 Inspection relating to its implementation of the CAPP, including the Facility’s RMP involving the management system, process safety information, the Process Hazard Analysis (PHA), operating procedures, training, mechanical integrity, management of change, pre-startup safety review, compliance audits, hot work permits, employee participation, and contractors. Respondent’s RMP was due on July 24, 2020, five years after the RMP was previously submitted on July 24, 2015. The Facility did not submit its RMP until June 20, 2022, 696 days late. On January 23, 2023, EPA issued a Finding of Violation (FOV) to Respondent. |
Partner Organizations
I am proud to announce that The Chlorine Institute and SAFTENG have extended our"Partners in Safety" agreement for another year (2024) CI Members, send me an e-mail to request your FREE SAFTENG membership
Member Associations
|