NOTE: I have always said city/county governments get huge breaks in $’s when it comes to RMP citations. A private company who performed this poorly in an inspection would have gotten 10X’s the citation $’s.
On November 9, 2016, an authorized EPA representative conducted a compliance inspection of the Water Treatment Plant (“Facility”) to determine its compliance with the Risk Management Program (“RMP”) regulations and set forth at 40 C.F.R. Part 68 on October 18, 2018. EPA sent it Request for Information to the Facility to determine the status of compliance based on November 9, 2016, inspection and the February 25, 2019, response to the Request for Information, EPA has determined that Respondent violated the following regulations:
40 C.F.R. § 68.39(a): Respondent failed to maintain documentation on the offsite consequence analysis, specifically the worst-case scenario that included a description of the vessel or pipeline and substance selected as worst case, assumptions and parameters used, and the rationale for selection.
40 C.F.R. § 68.39(b): Respondent failed to maintain documentation on the offsite consequence analysis, specifically the alternative release scenario that included a description of the scenarios identified, assumptions and parameters used, and the rationale for the selection of specific scenarios.
40 C.F.R. § 68.39(c): Respondent failed to maintain documentation on the offsite consequence analyses that included the estimated quantity released, release rate and the duration of release.
40 C.F.R. § 68.39(d): Respondent failed to maintain documentation on the offsite consequence analyses that included the methodology used to determine distance to endpoints.
40 C.F.R. § 68.39(e): Respondent failed to maintain documentation on the offsite consequence analyses that included the data used to estimate population and environmental receptors potentially affected.
40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c)(5): Respondent failed to perform a process hazard analysis that addressed stationary source siting.
40 C.F.R. § 68.67(c)(6): Respondent failed to perform a process hazard analysis that addressed human factors.
40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e): 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; completed actions as soon as possible: and develop a written schedule of when these actions are to be completed.
40 C.F.R. § 68.67(f): Respondent failed to update and revalidate the process hazard analysis at least every five years after the completion of the initial process hazard analysis.
40 C.F .R. § 68.67(g): Respondent failed to retain process hazard analyses and updates or revalidations for each process as well as the documented resolution of recommendations for the life of the process.
40 C.F.R. § 68.69( a)(2): Respondent failed to develop operating procedures that address operating limits including consequences of deviation and steps required to correct or avoid deviation.
40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(3): Respondent failed to develop and implement written operating procedures that address safety and health considerations.
40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a)(4): Respondent failed to develop and implement written operating procedures that address safety systems and their functions.
40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c) Respondent failed to certify annually that operating procedures are current and accurate.
40 C.F.R. § 68.71(a)(2): Respondent failed to certify in writing that employees have the required knowledge, skills, and abilities to safely carry out their duties and responsibilities as specified in operating procedures.
40 C.F.R. § 68.71(b): Respondent failed to provide refresher training at least every three years or more often if necessary to each employee involved in operating a process to assure that the employee understands and adhered to the current operating procedures of the process.
40 C.F.R. § 68.71 (c): Respondent failed to ascertain and document that each employee involved in operating a process has received and understood the training required.
40 C.F.R. § 68.73(c): Respondent failed to train each employee involved in maintaining the ongoing integrity of process equipment in an overview of the process and its hazards and in the procedures applicable to the employee’s job tasks to assure that the employee can perform the job tasks in a safe manner.
40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(3): Respondent failed to conduct inspections and tests of process equipment that were consistent with applicable manufacturers’ recommendations and good engineering practices, and more frequently if determined to be necessary by prior operating
experience.
40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(4): Respondent failed to document each inspection and test that has been performed on process equipment.
40 C.F.R. § 68.79(a): Respondent failed to certify that compliance has been evaluated at least every three years to verify that procedures and practices developed are adequate and are being followed.
40 C.F.R. § 68.81(a): Respondent failed to investigate each incident which resulted in or could reasonably have resulted in a catastrophic release of a regulated substance.
40 C.F.R. § 68.81(b): Respondent failed to initiate an incident investigation as promptly as possible, but not later than 48 hours following the incident.
40 C.F.R. § 68.87(b)(1): Respondent failed to obtain and evaluate information regarding a contract owner or operator’s safety performance and programs.
In consideration of Respondent’s service size, its full compliance history, its good faith efforts to comply, other factors as justice may require, and upon consideration of the entire record, the parties enter into this ESA in order to resolve any civil penalties for these alleged violations for the total penalty amount of $8,800.
CLICK HERE for the ESA