Several times year we upset a client who has hired us to do a “wall-to-wall” compliance audit with their PSM/RMP programs. These audits are our most intense audits in which we leave no rock unturned. One of the items we audit in this level of auditing is the RMP submittal and all of the supporting documentation for the Off-Site Consequence analyzes. This comes as a not so happy movement for some of these clients and they actually will shut us down and claim that is outside the scope of a Program 3 Prevention Program audit. We suggest that “wouldn’t it be best if we found an issue rather than letting EPA find it” and not no avail the attorneys usually lasso us back in and we move on to other elements. Here is the proof that EPA actually requires the supporting documentation be with the ARS and WCS; although not an expensive NOV, none-the-less it is proof that EPA does include this documentation in their inspections.
On June 11, 2012 an authorized EPA representative conducted a compliance inspection of food s business in Holland, Michigan to determine its compliance with the Risk Management Plan (“RMP”) regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 112(r) of the Act, and set forth at 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Based on the June 11, ·
2012 inspection and documents submitted by Respondent, EPA has determined that Respondent violated the following regulations:
- 40 C.F.R. § 68.39(a) Respondent failed to maintain records on the offsite consequence analyses for the worst-case scenarios, 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 records on the offsite consequence analyses for the alternative release scenarios, 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 of estimated quantity released, release rate, and duration of release.
- 40 C.F.R. § 68.39(d) Respondent failed to maintain records on the methodology used to determine distance to endpoints.
- 40 C.F.R. § 68.39(e) Respondent failed to maintain records on data used to estimate population and environmental receptors potentially affected.
In consideration of Respondent’s 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 $2,400.00.
CLICK HERE to download this case.