I usually do not waste time posting the Expedited Settlement Agreements, as these cases are typically minor record-keeping violations with low-dollar amount citations. However, one thing that irks me is how public utilities receive lenient treatment regarding the amount they pay for violating the EPA’s RMP regulations. And to make matters worse, they dare to state that this is in the public interest. This plant was using Cl2, and its Cl2 room ventilation discharged onto a public sidewalk. They didn’t even have their NFPA 704 labels correct! They were not managing the use of their overhead crane properly. Had these issues been found at a private business, this could have resulted in tens of thousands of dollars in citations.
The Borough of Carlisle, Pennsylvania, uses Chlorine at a facility known as the “Region Water Pollution Control Facility”. On January 24, 2024, a representative of EPA conducted an inspection of the Respondent’s facility to determine compliance with Section 112(r) of the Act and the Risk Management Program (“RMP”) regulations promulgated at 40 C.F.R. Part 68, and observed that during the violation period set forth in the ESA. The Respondent was handling more than 2,500 pounds of chlorine at the Facility.
Based on the EPA’s inspection and subsequent investigation, the Complainant has identified the following violations of the RMP regulations:
a. From at least January 24, 2019, until January 24, 2024, Respondent’s emergency response program did not include sufficient procedures, including an evacuation plan. Additionally, employees lacked emergency response program training in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.95(a) .
b. From at least January 24, 2019, until January 24, 2024, Respondent had inadequate or incorrect signage warning of the dangers of chlorine. Specifically, the NFPA diamond in use was incorrect for identifying chlorine in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.48(a).
c. From at least January 24, 2019, until January 24, 2024, Respondent’s chlorine room’s exhaust system exhausted outside the building onto the sidewalk, and no warnings or labels were present on the vent identifying the hazard in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.48(b).
d. From at least January 24, 2019, until January 24, 2024, Respondent did not have Standard Operating Procedures that address the operation of the electric overhead hoist in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.52(a).
e. From April 5, 2022, until January 3, 2024, Respondent did not perform a compliance audit at least every three years to verify that the procedures and practices are adequate and are being followed in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.58(a).
f. From at least January 24, 2019, until January 24, 2024, Respondent did not have documentation of a management system, specifically an organizational chart or documentation of employees’ responsibilities in implementing individual elements of the RMP, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.15(c).
Complainant and Respondent agree that the settlement of this matter for a penalty of $2,640 (TWO THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FORTY DOLLARS) is in the public interest.
CLICK HERE for the ESA