This is another example of how a “process” can be classified as a Program 2, based NOT on the hazards but merely because it is a public utility in a Federal OSHA state. Had this process been in a private business, it would have been a RMP Program 3 as it would have been a PSM Covered process. But since the process was located in a state covered by federal OSHA AND the process was located within a public utility, the public utility is NOT covered by OSHA and hence the process is classified as a RMP Program 2 rather than a Program 3. So much for the process being classified on “it’s off-site impact capability”!. This case also does a nice job providing a baseline cost of converting a Cl2 water treatment process to use sodium hypochlorite. The cost of this physical conversion is $230,000 – a no-brainer in my eyes. We can spend that much in a year just managing our PSM/RMP programs, especially if we have an on-site ERT!
Respondent is a municipality located in Missouri. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(c), a covered process is subject to Program 2 requirements if 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. The threshold quantity for chlorine as listed in 40 C.F.R. § 68.130 is 2,500 pounds. On or about February 3, 2016, representatives of EPA conducted an inspection (the inspection) of Respondent’s Facility to determine compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412, and 40 C.F.R. Part 68.
Information gathered during the EPA inspection revealed that the Facility had greater than 2,500 pounds of chlorine in a process at the Facility. From the time the Facility first had 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 Respondent 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 prevention program requirements because 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.
As a result of the EPA inspection and additional information obtained by the agency, Complainant has determined that violations of the Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions in 40 C.F.R. Part 68, occurred.