EPA RMP citations @ Water Treatment Plant & Waste-Waste Water Plant (CL2, SO3 & $80K)

By /

Respondent is a municipality operating two “stationary sources”, the Water Treatment Plant (WTP) and the Waste-Water Treatment Plant (WWTP). At the time of the inspection, respondent had submitted and registered RMPlans for each of its stationary sources at the WTP and the WWTP and had developed an RMProgram accidental release prevention program for each of these two (2) stationary sources. The WTP included one (1) RMProgram regulated water treatment process. The WWTP included two (2) RMProgram regulated wastewater treatment processes. The WTP process represents an RMProgram level 3 covered process which at the time of the inspection stored or otherwise used 12,000 pounds of chlorine, in an amount exceeding its applicable threshold of2,500 pounds. The WWTP processes represented two (2) RMProgram level 3 covered processes, one of which stored or otherwise used 6,000 pounds of chlorine and one of which stored or otherwise used 6,000 pounds of sulfur dioxide in amounts exceeding their respective applicable thresholds of 2,500 and 5,000 pounds.  

On March 5, 2014, the EPA conducted an onsite inspection of RMProgram related records and equipment at the WTP for the purpose of assessing the Respondent’s compliance with the RMProgram requirements and implementation of recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP) for its covered processes. At the time of inspection at the WTP and subsequent investigation:

  1. the process safety information (PSI) did not contain the consequences of deviation for the chlorine process.
  2. the PSI did not contain a piping and instrument diagram.
  3. the PSI did not contain a relief system design and design basis.
  4. the PSI did not contain a ventilation system design.
  5. the PSI did not contain the design codes and standards employed.
  6. the Respondent could not provide any process hazard analyses conducted for the chlorine process since the original Process Hazard Analysis, (PHA), conducted in 1999.
  7. the written operating procedures did not contain procedures that addressed the consequences of deviation.
  8. the written operating procedures did not contain procedures that addressed the safety systems and their functions.
  9. the Respondent could not provide annual certifications of the operating procedures.
  10. the Respondent could not provide a copy of a record documenting that its employees involved in operating a process had received and understood the training.
  11. the Respondent could not provide information indicating that a calibration on the sensors was conducted every six months. The Respondent’s procedures rely on the manufacturers’ recommendations which indicate sensors should be calibrated every six months.
  12. the Respondent could not provide information indicating that the chlorine hoist was inspected annually. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers/American National Standard Institutes’ B30.16 standard requires that the chlorine hoist be inspected annually.
  13. the Respondent was able to provide a compliance audit from January 20, 2014, for review, but could not provide a compliance audit from January 2011.
  14. the Respondent could not provide documentation that the findings of the January 2014 compliance audit were appropriately responded to and that the deficiencies have been corrected.
  15. the Respondent could not provide information that they evaluated their contactor’s performance recently. The RMPlan listed June 23, 2004, as the date of the most recent evaluation of contractor safety performance.
  16. the RMPlan indicated that the maximum quantity of chlorine in the process was 10,000 pounds. During the inspection the facility representatives stated that 12,000 pounds of chlorine could be housed on the site. The Kentucky Tab Q-7, which is submitted annually to the local emergency planning committee, also indicated that the maximum quantity of chlorine at the facility is 12,000 pounds.

On March 6, 2014, the EPA conducted an onsite inspection of RMProgram related records and equipment at the WWTP for the purpose of assessing the Respondent’s compliance with the RMProgram requirements and implementation of RAGAGEP for its covered processes. At the time of inspection at the WWTP and subsequent investigation:

  1. the Respondent indicated that responsibilities are shared for implementing requirements of the Risk Management Program. No documentation was provided, when requested, to identify the responsibilities of each person.
  2. the PSI did not contain the consequences of deviation for the chlorine or sulfur dioxide processes.
  3. the PSI did not contain piping and instrument diagrams for the chlorine or sulfur dioxide processes.
  4. the PSI did not contain a relief system design and design basis for the chlorine or sulfur dioxide processes.
  5. the PSI did not contain a ventilation system design for the chlorine or sulfur dioxide processes.
  6. the PSI did not contain the design codes and standards employed for the chlorine or Sulfur dioxide processes.
  7. the Respondent could not provide requested documentation that the sulfur dioxide piping complied with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices. The sulfur dioxide piping in the chlorinator room did not have labels indicating pipe contents and direction of flow. The American National Standards Institute/American Society of Mechanical Engineers A13.1 Standard requires a pipe labelling system that include identification of contents and direction of flow.
  8. the Respondent could not provide process hazard analyses or revalidations conducted for the chlorine and sulfur dioxide processes since the original PHA conducted in 1999.
  9. the Respondent could not provide any information that it retained resolution of recommendations for the 1999 PHA for the life of the process. 
  10. the operating procedures did not address consequences of deviation from operating limits.
  11. the written operating procedures did not contain procedures that addressed safety systems and their functions.
  12. the Respondent could not provide conformation of annual certifications of the operating procedures.
  13. the Respondent could not provide the requested information indicating that their chlorine hoist was inspected annually. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers/American National Standard Institutes’ B30.16 standard requires that chlorine hoists be inspected annually.
  14. the Respondent could provide a compliance audit from January 20, 2014, for review, but could not provide a compliance audit from January 2011.
  15. the Respondent could not provide documentation that the deficiencies from the January 2014 compliance audit had been corrected.
  16. the Respondent could not provide information that they evaluated their contractor’s performance recently. The RMPlan listed June 23, 2004, as the date of the most recent evaluation of contractor safety performance.
  17. the RMPlan indicated that the maximum quantity of chlorine in the process was 8,000 pounds. During the inspection, the Respondent stated that 6,000 pounds of chlorine could be housed on the site. The Kentucky Tab Q-7 which is submitted annually to the local emergency planning committee indicated that the maximum quantity of chlorine at the facility was 6,000 pounds.

ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF LAW

Based on the EPA ‘s compliance monitoring investigation, the EPA alleges that the Respondent violated the codified rules governing the Act’s Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions, because Respondent did not adequately implement provisions of 40 C.F .R. Part 68 at the WTP when it:

  1. Failed to include the consequences of deviations in the written process safety information for the technology of the process as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(c)(1)(v);
  2. Failed to include a piping and instrument diagrams in the written process safety information for the equipment in the process as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(ii);
  3. Failed to include a relief system design and design basis in the written process safety information for the equipment in the process as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(iv);
  4. Failed to include a ventilation system design in the written process safety information for the equipment in the process as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(v);
  5. Failed to include the design codes and standards employed in the written process safety information for the equipment in the process as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(vi);
  6. Failed to update and revalidate the process hazard analysis by a team every five years after the completion of the initial PHA as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(f);
  7. Failed to address consequences of deviation in the written operating procedures as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(2)(i);
  8. Failed to address safety systems and their functions in the written operating procedures as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(4);
  9. Failed to annually certify that operating procedures are current and accurate as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c);
  10. Failed to initially train each employee in an overview of the process and in the operating procedures as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(a)(1);
  11. Failed to perform inspections and tests on process equipment as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(1);
  12. Failed to certify evaluation of compliance with the risk management program provisions at least every three years as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(a);
  13. Failed to promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the audit and document that deficiencies had been corrected as required by 40 C.F.R. §68.79(d);
  14. Failed to periodically evaluate the performance of the contract owner or operator as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.87(b)(5); and
  15. Failed to include the maximum quantity of the regulated substance in the Risk Management Plan as required by required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.160(b)(7).

Based on the EPA’s compliance monitoring investigation, the EPA alleges that the Respondent violated the codified rules governing the Act’s Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions because Respondent did not adequately implement provisions of 40 C.F.R. Part 68 at the WWTP when it:

  1. Failed to document other persons responsible for implementing individual requirements of the risk management program and define lines of authority through an organization chart or similar document as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.15(c);
  2. Failed to include the consequences of deviations in the written process safety information for the technology of the process as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(c)(1)(v);
  3. Failed to include a piping and instrument diagrams in the written process safety information for the equipment in the process as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(ii);
  4. Failed to include a relief system design and design basis in the written process safety information for the equipment in the process as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(iv);
  5. Failed to include a ventilation system design in the written process safety information for the equipment in the process as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1)(v);
  6. Failed to include the design codes and standards employed in the written process safety information for the equipment in the process as required by 40 C.F.R.§ 68.65(d)(1)(vi);
  7. Failed to document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2);
  8. Failed to update and revalidate the process hazard analysis by a team every five years after the completion of the initial PHA as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(f); 
  9. Failed to retain 1999 PHA documented resolution of recommendations for the life of the process as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(g);
  10. Failed to address consequences of deviation in the written operating procedures as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(2)(i);
  11. Failed to address safety systems and their functions in the written operating procedures as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(4);
  12. Failed to annually certify that operating procedures are current and accurate as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c);
  13. Failed to perform inspections and tests on process equipment as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(1);
  14. Failed to certify evaluation of compliance with the risk management program provisions at least every three years as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(a);
  15. Failed to promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the audit and document that deficiencies had been corrected required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d);
  16. Failed to periodically evaluate the performance of the contract owner or operator as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.87(b)(5); and
  17. Failed to include the maximum quantity of the regulated substance in the RMPlan as required by required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.160(b)(7).

Penalty Payment

Respondent agrees to pay the civil penalty of EIGHTY THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($80,500) within 30 calendar days of the Effective Date of this Agreement.

 

CLICK HERE for CAFO

Related Posts

Scroll to Top