The Respondent produces, processes, handles and/or stores hydrogen cyanide as part of its Adiponitrile (ADN) Unit. Adiponitrile is manufactured by reacting butadiene with hydrogen cyanide to form Pentenenitrile, which is reacted with additional hydrogen cyanide to produce the Adiponitrile. The hydrogen cyanide is processed at the facility via reaction of natural gas, ammonia and air in the presence of precious metal catalyst at high temperature.
Release #1 – line break activity during clearing of the hydrogen cyanide equipment for scheduled maintenance work during a turnaround
Release #2 – hydrogen cyanide leaked during the start-up of certain process equipment, through out-of-service process equipment to the atmosphere
Release 1 (October 10, 2012)
On October 10, 2012, the Facility was performing a line break activity during clearing of the hydrogen cyanide equipment for scheduled maintenance work during a turnaround. Respondent’s employees isolated the work area, and employees of a contractor then performed the work activity. The work involved the removal of two blind flanges on a line in hydrogen cyanide service to connect a temporary line to the cooling water system to flush the hydrogen cyanide pump tank with water. When breaking the second of the two hydrogen cyanide blind flanges, hydrogen cyanide vapor was released. The isolation valve upstream of the blind that leaked locked in a partially open position, resulting in the hydrogen cyanide vapor release. Respondent determined that the contributing causes include the failure of the contractor to independently verify the isolation procedure and to verify that the isolation valve was closed, and the lack of a restricted area during the work activity. Respondent determined that access to the area was not controlled where line breaking activities were taking place in advance of the commencement of the work, which allowed workers not associated with the work activity to be present in the work area. Two workers suffered minor injuries as a result of the release.
Release 2 (December 1, 2012)
On December 1, 2012 INVISTA in Orange, TX had a release of an estimated 20 pounds of hydrogen cyanide. The release occurred when hydrogen cyanide leaked during the start-up of certain process equipment, through out-of-service process equipment to the atmosphere. The release may have impacted on-site fauna as four dead Grackles, birds that are covered by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, were discovered near the area of the release.
Pursuant to section 112(r)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 74 112(r)(1), an owner/operator of a stationary source producing, processing, handling or storing substances listed pursuant to section I 12(r)(3) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(3), or any other extremely hazardous substance, has a general duty, in the same manner and to the same extent as section 654 of Title 29, to:
(1) identify hazards which may result from accidental releases of such substances using appropriate hazard assessment techniques;
(2) design and maintain a safe facility, taking such steps as are necessary to prevent releases; and
(3) minimize the consequences of accidental releases that do occur.
At the Facility, Respondent produces, processes, handles, or stores substances listed in, or pursuant to, CAA § 112(r)(3) or other extremely hazardous substances identified as such due to toxicity, reactivity, flammability, volatility, or corrosivity. Complainant alleges that the releases of hydrogen cyanide at the Facility on October 10, 2012 and on December 1, 2012 each constituted an “accidental release” as that term is defined by section 112(r)(2)(A) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(2)(A). Complainant alleges that Respondent failed to design and maintain a safe facility and did not take such necessary steps to prevent accidental releases on October 10, 2012 and December 1, 2012, by not fully utilizing available and accepted practices to ensure safety with respect to the October 10, 2012 event by not fully and completely implementing lock-out tag-out procedures. Complainant alleges that, with respect to the October 10, 2012 event, Respondent failed to minimize the consequences of the accidental release that did occur by not restricting access to an area where line-breaking activities were taking place, allowing workers to potentially be exposed to hydrogen cyanide. Complainant alleges that the facts constitute violations of the general duty clause in section J 12(r)(J) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(J).
Complainant further alleges that Respondent is therefore subject to the assessment of penalties pursuant to sections 113(a)(3) and 113(d)(1)(B) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7413(a)(3) and 7413(d)(1)(B), for at least one day of violation of the general duty clause of section 112(r)(l) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. §7412(r)(I).
Pursuant to the authority granted in sections 113(a)(3) and 113(d)(1)(B) of the CAA, and taking into consideration the size of the Respondent’s business, the economic impact of the penalty on the Respondent’s business, the Respondent’s full compliance history and good faith efforts to comply, the duration of the violation, payment by Respondent of penalties previously assessed for the same violation (if any), the economic benefit of noncompliance, and the seriousness of the violation, as well as other factors which justice may require, EPA and Respondent agree that Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of sixty-three thousand dollars ($63,000) to resolve the two violations alleged in this matter.
CLICK HERE for the agreement