The respondent operates a water chlorination process. On July 27, 2021, EPA conducted an announced inspection of the Facility. The Facility maintains a maximum inventory of 14,000 pounds of chlorine, a regulated substance, as a liquified compressed gas in 1-ton cylinders. Here are the findings from the inspection:
Count 1: Process Safety Information
Under recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, chlorine and sulfur dioxide pipes should be labeled. During the July 27, 2021 inspection, EPA inspectors observed that the facility had not labeled the different sets of pipes for chlorine and sulfur dioxide that were going underground to distinguish the different chemicals in the pipes.
By failing to adequately label the pipes with the name of the chemical in the pipes and the direction of flow, the facility did not document that the equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2)
Count 2: Process Hazard Analysis
The facility completed a PHA on September 1-2, 2016.
Based on documentation provided to EPA inspectors, the facility had not established a system to promptly address the PHA team’s findings and recommendations of the September 2016 PHA. The facility had not assured that the recommendations would be resolved in a timely manner and documented; completed actions as soon as possible; developed a written schedule of when these actions were to be completed; nor communicated the actions to operating, maintenance, and other employees whose work assignments are in the Facility’s Process and who may be affected by the recommendations.
By failing to take the measures following the PHA as described above, the facility was in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e).
Count 3: Operating Procedures
Based on the documentation provided to EPA inspectors, the Facility’s disinfection process operating procedures do not incorporate information regarding safety and health considerations, safety systems, and their functions.
By failing to include safety and health considerations as well as safety systems and their functions in the written operating procedures, the facility failed to address the elements listed in 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(3) and (4).
Count 4: Training
EPA inspectors inquired about whether the facility provided the mandatory refresher training to employees involved in operating the Facility’s Process and requested documents required under 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(c)
The facility did not provide EPA inspectors with documents reflecting compliance with 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(b), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(c).
The facility personnel made statements to EPA inspectors indicating that the facility did not provide the required refresher training to each employee involved in operating the Facility’s Process to assure that the employee understands and adheres to the current operating procedures of the Facility’s Process.
The facility failed to produce a record of the training containing the employee’s identity, the date of training, and the means used to verify that the employee understood the training.
The facility violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(b) by failing to provide the required refresher training to each employee involved in operating the Facility’s Process.
The facility violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(c) by failing to produce a record of the required training, containing each employee’s identity, the training date, and the means used to verify that the employee understood the training.
Count 5: Mechanical Integrity
EPA inspectors reviewed documents the facility provided regarding mechanical integrity. In those documents, the facility did not establish and implement written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of the chlorine and sulfur dioxide underground pipelines.
By failing to establish and implement written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of chlorine and sulfur dioxide underground pipelines, the facility violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(b).
In the Facility’s annual preventative maintenance reports, the facility identified process equipment on which the mechanical integrity inspection or test was performed. However, the facility did not document the results for each piece of process equipment identified in inspections and tests.
By failing to document the results for each piece of process equipment identified in inspections and tests the facility violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(4).
Count 6: Compliance Audits
The facility completed a compliance audit under 40 C.F.R. § 68.79 on November 9, 2017.
The facility then failed to verify that the procedures and practices developed were adequate and were being followed within three years of the 2017 audit. The facility completed its next compliance audit on July 23, 2021, more than three years after the 2017 audit.
By failing to complete a compliance audit every three years, the facility violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(a).
Based upon the 2017 audit report provided to EPA, several findings had action items listed, but the facility did not provide information verifying that those items were addressed and completed.
By failing to document the completion of all action items of the 2017 audit report, the facility failed to document that the deficiencies have been corrected, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d).
Count 7: Incident Investigation
Two incidents occurred, one on August 26, 2019, when the facility identified a leak in the Chlorine and Sulfur Dioxide building, and the other on September 2, 2020, when an outlet shorted out, tripped the breaker and burned the outlet and wiring. Representatives of the facility told EPA inspectors that they did not review the incident investigation reports with all affected personnel whose job tasks are relevant to the incident findings, including contract employees, where applicable.
Failing to review the incident investigation reports with all affected personnel whose job tasks are relevant to the incident findings, including contract employees where applicable, the facility violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.81(f).
Penalty
Based on analysis of the factors specified in Section 113(e) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(e), the facts of this case, cooperation, and prompt return to compliance, the Complainant has determined that an appropriate civil penalty for settling this action is $6,600.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO