EPA conducted an inspection of the Facility on December 4, 2012. The Inspection was conducted to determine the Facility’s compliance with Sections 112(r)(7) and 112(r)(1) of the CAA, the RMP accident prevention program and the General Duty Clause, respectively. At the time of the Inspection, Respondent had designated the Facility as an RMP Program Level 3 facility. Respondent stored its chlorine gas in one-ton and 150-pound cylinders. At the time of the Inspection, Respondent stored up to a maximum of 11,750 pounds of chlorine gas at the Facility in the chlorine tank room. In February 2014, the WWTP modified its operations by removing all chlorine gas from the Facility and substituting the gas with sodium hypochlorite, a much less hazardous chemical. Accordingly, the WWTP is no longer required to maintain an RMP. Respondent spent in excess of seventeen million dollars to complete the chlorine gas removal project. But before they went with sodium hypochlorite, here are the EPA citations:
COUNT I: Failure to Update Process Hazard Analysis
As of March 2014, Respondent’s last documented PHA had been performed on June 1, 2004. Respondent’s failure to update its PHA at least every five years violated 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.67(f), 68.67(c) and 68.67(g).
COUNT II: Failure to Maintain Complete and Certified Written Operating Procedures
At the time of the Inspection, Respondent had only a generic cylinder change procedure on file. This procedure was not tailored to Respondent’s facility. This operating procedure failed to address the safety and health issues associated with chlorine gas or the handling of a chlorine gas 1-ton cylinder. The Facility’s emergency contact and Superintendent of Operation told EPA inspectors that he had not certified the operating procedure. During the Inspection, Respondent was unable to produce any further operating procedures when requested.
Respondent’s failure to address safety and health considerations in its operating procedures violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a). Respondent’s failure to certify its operating procedures annually violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(a) and (c).
COUNT III: Failure to Document Training and Maintain Proper Training Records
During the Inspection, the Superintendent of Operation stated that new operators were assigned to experienced operators for “training.” No formal or verifiable training was provided by Respondent and the informal training was not documented. There were no records confirming that the initial training included emphasis on safety and health hazards, emergency operations including shutdown, and safe work practices applicable to the employee’s job task.
During the Inspection, Respondent was unable to produce documentation confirming that refresher training had been provided to employees working with the chlorine gas process. During the Inspection, a water plant operator told EPA inspectors that he had not been provided refresher training in the last five years.
Respondent’s failure to maintain adequate training documentation violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(c).
COUNT IV: Failure to Conduct Compliance Audits
At the time of the Inspection, Respondent had failed to conduct timely, required compliance audits. During the Inspection, Respondent produced its most recent audit reports, conducted in February 2003 and October 2009. Based on the requirement for conducting audits every three years, Respondent should have also conducted audits in 2006 and 2012.
Respondent’s failure to conduct compliance audits at least every three years to verify that its procedures and practices developed under 40 C.F.R. Part 68, Subpart D were adequate and being followed and to document such audits violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.79.
COUNT V: Failure to Implement Contractor Program
At the time of the Inspection, Respondent had failed to implement the contractor program for the chlorine gas process. Respondent’s representatives told EPA inspectors that, although several contractors had worked on or around the chlorine gas process, the contractor program had not been used to document the contractors’ training and/or knowledge of specific hazards and emergency procedures associated with the chlorine gas process.
Respondent’s failure to implement and/or document a contractor program violated 40 C.F.R. § 68.87(b).
TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
Respondent certifies that it has terminated its chlorine gas process at the Facility by substituting chlorine gas with sodium hypochlorite. As a result of this substitution, Respondent certifies that it is no longer subject to Section 112(r) of the CAA and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 40 C.F.R. Part 68.
As a SEP, Respondent shall eliminate the use of chlorine gas at three municipally owned water-filtration facilities and four municipally-owned drinking water wells and convert to using calcium hypochlorite tablet feeder systems, as a substitute for chlorine gas (“Chlorine Elimination SEP”). The Chlorine Elimination SEP and the water filtration facilities and wells subject to the SEP are each further described in Appendix A, which is incorporated by reference and is enforceable under this CAFO. The parties agree that this Chlorine Elimination SEP is intended to secure significant public health benefits by protecting workers, emergency responders, and the community from the risk of chlorine gas releases.
The SEP is at least $140,000.
Respondent agrees to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $10,000
CLICK HERE for the CAFO