Respondent is a municipality in the state of Nebraska, which owns and operates a Water Treatment Plant. 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 on site greater than 2,500 pounds of chlorine in a process, Respondent was subject to the requirements of Section 112(r) of the CAA 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. Respondent was subject to Program 2 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. Although Respondent’s facility is a Program 2 facility, on March 6, 2017, Respondent filed an RMP for the facility which indicated the facility was subject to Program 3 requirements which are more stringent than Program 2 requirements.
Allegations of Violations:
Count 1
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 EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to submit an RMP pursuant to the requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.150 to 68.185, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a).
Count2
The regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.15 requires the owner or operator of a stationary source with processes subject to Program 2 or Program 3 to develop a management system to oversee the implementation of the Risk Management Program elements.
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to develop a management system to oversee the implementation of the Risk Management Program elements, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.15.
Count 3
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 conduct a hazard assessment as provided in 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.20 through 68.42.
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to conduct a hazard assessment as provided in 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.20 through 68.42, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(3).
Count4
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 through 68.60, or the Program 3 prevention requirements provided in 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.65 through 68.87.
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to implement Program 2 prevention requirements provided in 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.48 through 68.60, or the Program 3 prevention requirements provided in 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.65 through 68.87, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(c)(3). Specifically:
- Respondent failed to compile information regarding maximum intended inventory of equipment in which the regulated substances are stored or processed and safe upper and lower operating parameters, as required by 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.48(a)(2) and (3), or 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.65(c)(1)(iii) and (iv);
- Respondent failed to conduct a hazard review, as required by 40 C.F.R § 68.50, or a process hazard analysis, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67;
- Respondent failed to prepare written procedures for the chlorine detection system or for changing chlorine cylinders, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.52(a), or 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a);
- Respondent failed to prepare emergency shutdown procedures, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.52(b)(4), or 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(1)(iv);
- Respondent failed to prepare procedures regarding startup following a shutdown or significant change, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.52(b)(6), or 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(1)(vii);
- Respondent failed to prepare written procedures for ensuring the mechanical integrity of process equipment, including hoses and valves, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.56(a), or 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(a)(2);
- Respondent failed to conduct inspections and testing of chlorine scrubber consistent with manufacturer recommendations, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.56(d), or 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d); and
- Respondent failed to evaluate compliance with Subpart C, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.58, or 40 C.F.R. § 68.79.
CONSENT AGREEMENT
Respondent consents to the issuance of this Consent Agreement and Final Order and approvals for settlement to the payment of the civil penalty specified herein and to completion of the two Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) described below.
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of Ten Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety-Six Dollars ($10,796) and shall perform two SEPs as outlined in this Consent Agreement and Final Order. The projected cost of the SEPs is Sixty-Four Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Dollars ($64,480). The SEPs are further described below.
Supplemental Environmental Projects
Respondent shall complete the following SEPs, which are designed to assist in proactively identifying and preventing an accidental release of a toxic substance from Respondent’s facility, along with mitigating and minimizing the consequence of such unintentional discharge, and the attendant benefits to emergency planning and preparedness:
- installation of a magnetic card access system at all exterior doors, certain interior doors including the chlorine storage area, and at the entrance gate (14 locations in total) (SEP No. 1 ); and
- installation of a new front gate with keypad access (SEP No. 2).
Both SEPs will also include all necessary training to Plant personnel and first responders initially by the vendor and then on a regular basis by Respondent’s Plant, training officer.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO