Respondent is a municipality doing business in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. On October 27, 2015, the EPA issued to Respondent a notice of potential violation (“NOPV”), providing notice that the EPA found that Respondent had potentially committed alleged violations and providing Respondent an opportunity to confer with the EPA. On April 5, 2016, and May 26, 2016, representatives of Respondent and the EPA discussed the October 27, 2015, NOPV. For the purpose of this Agreement:
(a) At its stationary source, the Respondent operates a water treatment plant.
(b) At its stationary source, the Respondent, at the time of inspection, had 16,000 pounds of chlorine on site for water disinfectant purposes.
(c) At its stationary source, the Respondent, at the time of inspection, had one RMProgram level 3 covered process, which stores or otherwise uses chlorine in an amount exceeding its applicable threshold of 2,500 pounds.
(d) On January 29, 2015, the EPA conducted an onsite inspection of the RMProgram related records and equipment for the purpose of assessing the Respondent’s compliance with the RMProgram requirements and the implemented recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP) for its covered processes at its stationary source.
- The Respondent could not demonstrate that 2010 population data for the off-site consequence analysis or other updated information was used for the most recent RMP submittal, March 2012.
- The Respondent did not maintain any documentation of the off-site consequence analysis.
- The Respondent’s process safety information did not include a ventilation system design.
- At the time of the inspection, piping in the chlorine room did not have labels indicating pipe contents and directional flow. The American National Standards Institute’s, American Society Mechanical Engineer A13.1 requires identification and direction of flow for pipes containing hazardous substances. The facility could not provide documentation that piping complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.
- The Respondent could not provide any process hazard analyses conducted for the chlorine process.
- The Respondent could not provide annual certifications of the operating procedures since 2007.
- The Respondent could not provide any compliance audits for the chlorine process.
- The Respondent could not provide information that it informed its contractor of the known potential fire, explosion or toxic release hazards.
- The Respondent could not provide information that the applicable provisions of the emergency response plan were explained to the contractor.
- The Respondent could not provide information that it periodically evaluated the performance of the contractor in fulfilling their obligations.
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF LAW
Based on EPA’ s compliance monitoring investigation, the EPA alleges that the Respondent violated the codified rules governing the Act’s Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions, because Respondent did not adequately implement provisions of 40 C.F .R. Part 68 when it:
- Failed to use the most recent Census data, or other updated information, to estimate the population potentially affected when defining definingoff site impacts as required by 40 C.F .R. § 68.30(c);
- Failed to maintain documentation on the offsite consequence analysis as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.39;
- Failed to include ventilation system design in the process safety information as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(l)(v);
- Failed to document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices as required by 40 C.F .R. § 68.65( d)(2);
- Failed to perform an initial process hazard analysis as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(a);
- Failed to certify annually that operating procedures are current and accurate as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(c);
- Failed to certify compliance with the provision of subpart D at least every three years to verify that procedures and practices developed under subpart D are adequate and are being followed as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(a);
- Failed to inform the contract owner or operator of the known potential fire, explosion, or toxic release hazards related to the contractor’s work and the process as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.87(b)(2);
- Failed to explain to the contractor the applicable provisions of the facility’s emergency response actions as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.87(b)(3); and
- Failed to periodically evaluate the performance of the contract owner or operator as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.87(b)(5).
Respondent agrees to pay the civil penalty of TWENTY THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED TWENTY DOLLARS ($20,620) (“EPA Penalty”) within 30 calendar days of the Effective Date of this Agreement.
Supplemental Environmental Project
Respondent shall undertake and complete the following Emergency Planning and Preparedness project within 45 days of the effective date of this CAFO. Respondent shall expend no less than SIXTY-NINE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS ($69,600) for the purchase of twelve Self Contained Breathing Apparatuses for the local Fire Department.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO