EPA RMP Citations @ Water Treatment Facility (CL2 & $20K, with $200K SEP)

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:

1. From at least 1999 until May 2015, Respondent failed to develop a management system to oversee the implementation of the risk management program elements, assign a qualified person or position that has overall responsibility for the RMP, and document persons or positions, other than the qualified individual, who have been assigned responsibilities for implementing elements per 40 CFR § 68.15(a-c).
2. From at least June 2009 until May 2015, Respondent failed to review and update the offsite consequence analyses at least once every five years per 40 CFR § 68.36(a).
3. From at least June 2009 until May 2015, Respondent failed to maintain the records for the offsite consequences analyses per 40 CFR § 68.39(a-e).
4. From at least 1999 until May 2015, Respondent failed to compile written process safety information pertaining to the technology of the process that included process chemistry, consequences of deviation per 40 CFR § 68.65(c)(1)(ii & v), and information pertaining to the equipment in the process that included documentation that the equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices per 40 CFR § 68.65(d)(2).
5. From at least 1999 until May 2015, Respondent failed to establish a system to promptly address the process hazard analysis team’s findings and recommendations; assure that the recommendations are resolved in a timely manner and that the resolution is documented; document what actions are to be taken; complete actions as soon as possible; develop a written schedule of when these actions are to be completed and communicate the actions to operating, maintenance, and other employees whose work assignments are in the process or who may be affected by the recommendations or actions per 40 CFR § 68.67(e).
6. Between 2004 and May 2015, Respondent failed to update and revalidate the initial process hazard analysis at least every five years after its completion by a team meeting the requirements in§ 68.67(d) to assure that the process hazard analysis is consistent with the current process per 40 CFR § 68.67(f).
7. Between 2004 and May 2015, Respondent failed to retain all PHAs and updates as well as resolutions for the life of the process per 40 CFR § 68.67(g).
8. From at least 1999 until May 2015, Respondent failed to develop and implement written operating procedures that provided clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in the covered process that addressed each operating phase, operating limits, safety and health considerations, and safety systems per 40 CFR § 68.69(a)(1-4).
9. Between 1999 and May 2015 Respondent failed to certify annually that the operating procedures are current and accurate per 40 CFR § 68.69(c).
10. From at least 1999 until May 2015, Respondent failed to develop and implement safe works practices to provide for opening process equipment or piping and control over entrance into a stationary source by maintenance, contractors, laboratory, or other support personnel per 40 CFR § 68.69(d).
11. From at least 1999 through May 2015, Respondent failed to provide refresher training at least every three years, and prepare a record which contains the identity of the employee, the date of training and the means used to verify that the employee understood the training per 40 CFR§ 68.71(b-c).
12. From at least 1999 through May 2015, Respondent failed to establish and implement written procedures to maintain the ongoing integrity of process equipment per 40 CFR§ 68.73(b).
13. From at least 1999 through May 2015, Respondent failed to document each inspection and test that has been performed on process equipment. The documentation did not identify the date of the inspection or test, the name of the person who performed the inspection or test, the serial number or other identifier of the equipment on which the test or inspection was performed, a description of the test or inspection and the results of the inspection or test per 40 CFR § 68.73(d)(4).
14. From at least 1999 through May 2015, Respondent failed to assure that the construction of new plants and equipment, as it is fabricated, is suitable for the process application for which they will be used. There was also a failure to perform appropriate checks and inspections to assure that equipment was installed properly and consistent with design specifications and the manufacturer’s instructions per 40 CFR§ 68.73(f)(1&2).
15. From at least 1999 through May 2015, Respondent failed to establish and implement written procedures to manage changes to process chemicals, technology, equipment, and procedures; and changes to stationary sources that affect a covered process and other elements of 40 CFR § 68.75(a-e).
16. From at least 1999 through May 2015, Respondent failed to perform a pre-startup safety review for modified stationary sources when the modification was significant enough to require a change in the process safety information and other elements of 40 CFR§ 68.77(a-b).
17. From at least 1999 through May 2015, Respondent failed to certify that it has evaluated compliance with the provisions of Subpart D at least every three years to verify that procedures and practices developed under this subpart are adequate and are being followed. They also failed to have an audit conducted by at least one person knowledgeable in the process; develop a report of the findings; promptly determine and document an appropriate response to the findings; document that deficiencies have been corrected and retain the two most recent compliance audit reports per 40 CFR § 68. 79(a-e).
18. Since at least the year 2000, Respondent failed to prepare an investigation report at the conclusion of an incident investigation that included at a minimum the date of the incident, date investigation began, description of the incident, factors that contributed to the incident and any recommendations resulting from the investigation. It also failed to establish a system to promptly address and resolved any incident report findings; document any resolutions and corrective actions; review the report with all affected personnel and retain any reports for five years per 40 CFR § 68.81(d-g).
19. From at least 1999 through May 2015, Respondent failed to develop a written plan of action regarding the implementation of the employee participation required per 40 CFR §68.83(a).
20. From at least 1999 through May 2015, Respondent failed to issue hot work permits for such work near covered processes per 40 CFR § 68.85(a).
21. From at least 1999 through May 2015, Respondent failed to develop and implement safe work practices consistent with§ 68.69(d) to control the entrance, presence, and exit of the contract owner or operator and contract employees in covered process areas per 40 CFR § 68.87(b)(4).
22. From at least 1999 through May 2015, Respondent failed to provide an executive summary in the RMP that included a brief description of planned changes to improve safety per 40 CFR § 68.155(f).
23. From at least 1999 through May 2015, Respondent failed to review and update the RMP at least once every five years from the date of its initial submission or most recent update required by§ 68.190(b)(2-7) per 40 CFR § 68.190(b)(1).

Respondent’s failures to comply with 40 C.F.R. Part 68, as set forth above, are all violations of Section 112(r) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r).

Respondent and EPA agree to the terms of this CAFO and Respondent agrees to comply with the terms of the Final Order portion of this CAFO. Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged in this CAFO, Respondent shall pay a mitigated civil penalty of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000), as set forth in Paragraph I of the Final Order below, and shall perform a Supplemental Environmental Project (“SEP”) as set forth in this CAFO.

Respondent agrees to complete the following Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP), which the parties agree is intended to secure significant environmental and/or public health benefits:

Respondent shall install a road that will allow emergency vehicles to safely access Respondent’s facility and be outside of the 100 year flood plain. The surface of the road would be composed of approximately 5,500 square yards of asphalt at a cost of no less than Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000), in accordance with the Respondent’s SEP Work Plan (attached hereto as Attachments A and Band are incorporated by reference).  The total expenditure for the SEP shall be no less than $200,000 and the SEP shall be completed no later than May 31, 2017. All work required to complete the SEP shall be performed in compliance with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations.

CLICK HERE for the CAFO