EPA v. Duckwall-Pooley Fruit Company

Case summary

The owner or operator has not established a system to promptly address the Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) team’s findings and recommendations; assured that the recommendations are resolved in a timely manner and documented; documented what actions are to be taken; completed actions as soon as possible; developed a written schedule of when these actions are to be completed; and communicated the actions to operating, maintenance, and other employees whose work assignments are in the process and who may be affected by the recommendations. [68.67(e)]The PHA has not been updated and revalidated by a team every five years after the completion of the initial PHA to assure that the PHA is consistent with the current process. [68.67(f)]. The operator has not followed recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices for inspections and testing procedures. [68.73(d)(2)]. The operator has not ensured that the frequency of inspections and tests of process equipment is consistent with applicable manufacturers’ recommendations, good engineering practices, and prior operating experience. [68.73(d)(3)]

Defendants (1)

• Duckwall-Pooley Fruit CompanyNamed in complaint

Facilities (1)

• DUCKWALL POOLEY FRUIT COMPANY

  3430 DAVIS DR, HOOD RIVER, OR, 97031

  Registry ID: 110000547347

Statutes cited

• CAA 112[R][7] — Prevention of Accidental Release/Risk Management Plans (RMPs)

Enforcement conclusions (1)

• Duckwall-Pooley Fruit Companyentered 2009-09-23

  Primary law: CAA

  Federal penalty: $720

Timeline (4 milestones)

• 2009-01-26Enforcement Action Data Entered
• 2009-09-23Final Order Issued
• 2009-09-23Complaint Filed/Proposed Order
• 2009-09-29Enforcement Action Closed