Respondent is a municipality doing business in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. On November 13, 2014, the EPA issued to Respondent a notice of potential violation (“NOPV”), providing notice that the EPA found that Respondent had potentially committed the alleged violations described in Section E of this Agreement and providing Respondent an opportunity to confer with the EPA. On July 14, 2015, and October 14, 2015, representatives of Respondent and the EPA discussed the November 13, 2014, NOPV. Respondent operates a “stationary source” as that term is defined by Section 302(z) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7602(z). Respondent has submitted and registered an RMPlan to the EPA for its stationary source and has developed an RMProgram accidental release prevention program for the stationary source:
At its stationary source, the Respondent operates a wastewater treatment plant. The Respondent has on-site for use, 28,000 pounds of chlorine for water disinfectant purposes, and 24,000 pounds of sulfur dioxide for neutralization of chlorine. The Respondent has two RMProgram level 3 covered processes, one which stores or otherwise uses chlorine in an amount exceeding its applicable threshold of 2,500 pounds and one which stores or otherwise uses sulfur dioxide in an amount exceeding its applicable threshold of 5,000 pounds.
As part of this investigation, an authorized EPA representative conducted an onsite inspection of RMProgram related records on June 20, 2013. The focus of the onsite inspection was to assess the Respondent’s compliance with RMProgram requirements for its covered processes operating at its stationary source. The inspection consisted of an examination of Respondent’s relevant accident prevention program documentation as well as a visual inspection of various aspects of facility operations.
At the time of the inspection, the Respondent:
- could not provide information that it retained the initial (1992) and the 2004 PHAs for the chlorine and sulfur dioxide covered processes, as well as, the resolution of recommendations for the life of the process.
- could not provide documentation that each employee involved in operating the chlorine and sulfur dioxide covered processes, and each employee before being involved in operating a newly assigned process, had been initially trained in an overview of the process and in the operating procedures.
- could not provide information that it trained each employee involved in maintaining the on-going integrity of the process equipment for the chlorine and sulfur dioxide covered processes.
- could not provide documentation that calibration and maintenance tests for the chlorine and sulfur dioxide leak detector were conducted on a monthly basis per the manufacturer’s recommendations. The Respondent was able to provide monthly calibration and maintenance tests for the chlorine and sulfur dioxide leak detector for the year 2013 only.
- could not provide information indicating that it retained its two most recent compliance audits. Specifically, the Respondent could only produce one compliance audit dated June 2012.
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 retain PHAs and updated or revalidations for the chlorine and sulfur dioxide processes, and document the resolution of recommendations for the life of the process as required by 40 CFR § 68.67(g);
- to ascertain that each employee involved in operating a process has received and understood the training required;
- to prepare a record which contains the identity of the employee, the date of training, and the means used to verify the training as required by 40 CFR § 68.7l(c);
- to train each employee on the processes, hazards and procedures involved in maintaining the on-going integrity of the equipment for each covered process as required by 40 CFR § 68.73(c);
- to document each inspection and tests that had been performed on the equipment for each covered process as required by 40 CFR § 68.73(d)(4); and
- to retain the two (2) most recent compliance audit reports as required by 40 CFR § 68.79(e);
TERMS OF CONSENT AGREEMENT
For the purpose of this Agreement, Respondent agrees to pay the civil penalty of SIXTEEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED DOLLARS ($16,800).
CLICK HERE for the CAFO