EPA RMP citations @ WWTP (Cl2 & $71K)

By /

Respondent is a municipality in the state of Kansas, which owns and operates a Water Treatment Plant. On or about August 24, 2016, representatives of the EPA conducted an inspection of Respondent’s Facility to determine compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Information gathered during the EPA inspection revealed that Respondent had greater than 2,500 pounds of Chlorine in a process at its facility. From the time Respondent first had onsite greater than 2,500 pounds of Chlorine in a process, Respondent was subject to the requirements of Section 112(r) of the CAA, 42 U .S.C. § 7412(r), and 40 C.F .R. Part 68 because it was an owner and operator of a stationary source that had more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a process.  From the time Respondent first had onsite greater than 2,500 pounds of Chlorine in a process, Respondent was subject to Program 2 prevention program requirements because pursuant to 40 C.F .R. § 68.10( c), the process does not meet the eligibility requirements of either Program 1 or Program 3, as described in 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(b) and (d), respectively. Complainant hereby states and alleges that Respondent has violated the CAA and federal regulations promulgated there under as follows:

Count I

The regulation at 40 C.F .R. § 68.12(a) requires the owner or operator of a stationary source subject to the Risk Management Program, 40 C.F.R. Part 68, to submit a single RMP as provided in 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.150 to 68.185. The regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.190(b)(1) requires the owner or operator of a stationary source subject to the Risk Management Program, 40 C.F.R. § 68, to revise and update the RMP submitted under 40 C.F.R. § 68.150, at least once every five years from the date of its initial submission.

The regulation at 40 C.F .R. § 68.195(b) requires the owner or operator of a stationary source subject to the Risk Management Program, 40 C.F.R. § 68, to submit a correction, within one month of any change, in the emergency contact information required under 40 C.F .R. § 68.160(b)(6).

The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to submit a complete, and updated, RMP. Specifically:

  1. Respondent failed to provide in the RMP an executive summary that includes a brief description of all the elements, as described at 40 C.F.R. § 68.155(a)-(f).
  2. Respondent failed to revise and update the Risk Management Plan submitted under 40 C.F.R. § 68.150 at least once every five years from the date of its initial submission, as described at 40 C.F.R. § 68.190(b)(1).
  3. Respondent failed to correct the Risk Management Plan within one month of any change in the emergency contact information, as described at 40 C.F.R. § 68.195(b).

Respondent’s failure to submit an RMP pursuant to 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.150 – 68.185, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a), is a violation of Section 112(r) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r).

 

Count 2

The facts stated in Paragraphs 16 through 23 above are herein incorporated. The regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(l) requires the owner or operator of a stationary source with a process subject to Program 2 to develop and implement a management program as provided at 40 C.F.R. § 68.15.

The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to develop or implement a management program. Specifically:

  1. The Respondent failed to develop a management system to oversee the implementation of the risk management program elements, as described at 40 C.F.R. § 68.15(a).
  2. The Respondent failed to document the names or positions of people, and the lines of authority defined through an organization chart or similar document, when the responsibilities for implementing individual requirements of this part are assigned to persons other than the person identified under paragraph (b) of this section, as described at 40 C.F.R. § 68.15(c).

Respondent’s failure to develop and implement a management program pursuant to the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.15(a) and (c), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(1), is a violation of Section 112(r) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 74.12(r).

 

Count 3

The regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(2) requires the owner or operator of a stationary source with a process subject to Program 2 to conduct a hazard assessment pursuant to 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.20- 68.42.

The regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.36(a) requires the owner or operator to review and update the offsite consequence analyses at least once every five years.

The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent had not conducted a review and update the offsite consequence analysis at least once every five years, as described at 40 C.F.R. § 68.36(a).

Respondent’s failure to update the offsite consequence analysis at least once every five years pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.36(a), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(2), is a violation of Section 112(r) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r).

 

Count 4

The regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(3) requires the owner or operator of a stationary source with a process subject to Program 2 to implement the Program 2 prevention requirements provided in 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.48 – 68.60.

The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to implement the following Program 2 prevention requirements:

  1. The Respondent failed to compile and maintain the up-to-date safety information related to the regulated substances, processes, and equipment, as described at 40 C.F.R. § 68.48(a).
  2. The Respondent failed to ensure that the process is designed in compliance with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, as described at 40 C.F.R. § 68.48(b).

Respondent’s failure to compile and maintain up-to-date safety information related to the regulated substances, processes and equipment, and failure to ensure the process was designed in compliance with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.48(a) -(b), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(3), is a violation of Section 112(r) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r).

 

Count 5

The regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(3) requires the owner or operator of a stationary source with a process subject to Program 2 to implement the Program 2 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.48 – 68.60.

The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to implement the following Program 2 prevention requirements:

  1. The Respondent failed to conduct a review of the hazards associated with the regulated substances, process, and procedures, as described at 40 C.F.R. § 68.50(a).
  2. The Respondent failed to prepare written operating procedures that provide clear instructions or steps for safely conducting activities associated with each covered process consistent with the safety information for that process, as described at 40 C.F.R. § 68.52(a) – (b).
  3. The Respondent failed to ensure that each employee presently operating a process, and each employee newly assigned to a covered process have been trained or tested competent in the operating procedures described at 40 C.F.R. § 68.52 that pertain to their duties, as described at 40 C.F.R. § 68.54(a).
  4. The Respondent failed to provide refresher training at least every three years to each employee operating a process to ensure that the employee understands and adheres to the current operating procedures of the process, as described at 40 C.F.R. § 68.54(b).
  5. The Respondent failed to prepare and implement procedures to maintain the on-going mechanical integrity of the process equipment, as described at 40 C.F.R. § 68.56(a).
  6. The Respondent failed to train or cause to be trained each employee involved in maintaining the on-going mechanical integrity of the process, as described at 40 C.F.R. § 68.56(b).
  7. The Respondent failed to perform and certify appropriate compliance audits at least every three years, as described at 40 C.F.R. § 68.58.

Respondent’s failure to comply with Program 2 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.48-68.60, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(3), is a violation of Section 112(r) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r).

 

Count 6

The regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(4) requires the owner or operator of a stationary source with a process subject to Program 2 to develop and implement an emergency response program as provided in §§ 68.90 – 68.95.

The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent’s employees would respond to an accidental release of a regulated substance, and as a result should have developed and implemented an emergency response program for the purpose of protecting public health and the environment as described at 40 C.F.R. § 68.95.

Respondent’s failure to comply with the emergency response program requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 68.95, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(4), is a violation of Section 112(r) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 74.12(r).

 

Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a mitigated civil penalty of Seventy-One Thousand One Hundred Seventy-Eight Dollars ($71,178), as set forth below.

 

CLICK HERE for the CAFO

Related Posts

Scroll to Top