Respondent is a municipality which owns and operates a Water Treatment Plant. On or about May 16-17, 2016, EPA inspected the Respondent’s Facility to determine compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. Part 68. From the time Respondent first had on site greater than 2,500 pounds of Chlorine in a process, Respondent was subject to Program 3 prevention program requirements because pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(d), the covered process at its facility did not meet the eligibility requirements of Program 1 and was subject to the OSHA process safety management standard, 29 C.F.R.§ 1910.119.
NOTE: this is a significant case, as the SEP requires the WTP to end their use of elemental Cl2 and convert their system over to sodium hypochlorite (e.g., “Bleach”)
Allegations of Violation
Count 1
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to develop a management system to oversee the implementation of the Risk Management Program. 40 C.F.R. § 68.15
Count2
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to review and update the offsite consequence analyses at least once every five years, and did not maintain records of any such analyses. 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.36 and 68 .39
Count3
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to implement the Program 3 prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.65 through 68.87, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3). Specifically:
- Respondent failed to compile written process safety information pertaining to the equipment in the covered process, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1);
- Respondent failed to document that equipment in the covered process complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(2);
- Respondent failed to perform an initial process hazard analysis appropriate to the complexity of the process, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67;
- Respondent failed to develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions, address each operating phase, contain operating limits, contain safety and health considerations or include safety systems per 40 CFR 68.69(a);
- Respondent failed to certify annually that the operating procedures of the covered process are current and accurate, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c);
- Respondent failed to establish safe work practices for employees and contractors to control hazards during operations, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(d);
- Respondent failed to provide standard operating procedure refresher training every three years, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.68.71(b) and failed to document employee training as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(c);
- Respondent failed to establish and implement a mechanical integrity program and perform inspections and tests on process equipment, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(b) and (d);
- Respondent failed to establish and implement written procedures to manage changes to its covered process, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.75;
- Respondent failed to conduct pre-startup safety reviews, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.77(a); and
- Respondent failed to conduct compliance audits and retain the two most recent reports, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.79;
- Respondent failed to have a written employee participation plan, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.83;
- Respondent failed to have a contractor program, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.87.
Count4
The EPA inspection revealed that Respondent failed to file and maintain an RMP for the facility as required by 40 C.F.R. Subpart G, specifically:
- Respondent failed to submit an RMP that correctly included the information required regarding the emergency response program, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.180;
- Respondent failed to review and update the RMP at least every five years, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.190(b)(1);
- Respondent failed to submit an RMP that included accurate information about the facility as required by 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.155 through 68.185 and 68.150(a);
- Although the emergency contact person at the facility changed in August 2012, Respondent failed to update this change, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.195(b).
Respondent’s failures to comply with 40 C.F.R. Subpart G, 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.150 through 68.195, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)
CONSENT AGREEMENT
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of Twenty Thousand Three Hundred Sixty-Two Dollars ($20,362) and shall perform a Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) as set forth in this Consent Agreement and Final Order. The projected cost of the SEP is One Hundred Thirty-Three Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($133,750). The SEP is further described below.
Supplemental Environmental Project
Respondent shall complete the following SEP:
Replace the current chlorine gas disinfection system with a sodium hypochlorite decontamination system. The SEP shall cost at least One Hundred Thirty-Three Thousand and Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($133,750).
CLICK HERE for the CAFO