Respondent owned and operated a chemical plant where regulated substances and other extremely hazardous substances are produced, processed, stored, and handled, and from which an accidental release could occur. Within the Facility, at the time of the incidents described herein, Respondent used and produced butadiene, chlorine, pentane, sodium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, toluene, 1 ,4-dichloro-2-butene, 3,4-dichloro-1 butene, chloroprene monomer, resin, and neoprene rubber. On June 11th and 17th, 2015 the facility had two (2) toluene releases.
On June 11, 2015, a release of 3,940 pounds of toluene occurred at the Facility. Approximately 725 pounds of toluene material evaporated to the atmosphere through volatilization during the release. The release.was caused by the failure of a flange gasket due to thermal expansion. The toluene supply header pump was locked out
for maintenance and the header was not de-inventoried during the lock-out process, and remained blocked in through the heat of the day on June 11, 2015, which in turn allowed the gasket to suffer thermal expansion and associated loss of utility.
On June 17,2015, a Monomer area process operator discovered a leak occurring from a recirculation line on the Isomerization Reactor. Respondent calculated that approximately 12 pounds of 1 ,4-dichloro-2-butene and 10 pounds of 3 ,4-dichloro-1-butene volatilized to the ambient air. The release was caused by a process line failure which itself was caused by a failed gate valve located immediately upstream of the leak point. No conclusive determination was made as to why the gate valve failed.
Toluene is an extremely hazardous flammable substance. Respondent did not design and maintain a safe facility on June 11, 2015 by failing to ensure a leakage of toluene caused by the failure of a flange gasket. Pursuant to section 112(r)(1) of the CAA, an owner/operator of a stationary source producing, processing, handling or storing
substances listed pursuant to section 112(r)(3) of the CAA or any other extremely hazardous substance, has a general duty to:
- identify hazards which may result from accidental releases of such substances using appropriate hazard assessment techniques;
- design and maintain a safe facility, taking such steps as are necessary to prevent releases; and
- minimize the consequences of accidental releases that do occur
Respondent failed to design and maintain a safe facility and did not take such necessary steps to prevent accidental releases ofToluene by failing to de-inventory the toluene supply header while maintenance was performed on the associated pump.
Respondent’s failure constitutes a violation of the general duty clause in section 112(r)(1) of the CAA. Respondent is therefore subject to the assessment of penalties pursuant to sections 113(a)(3) and 113(d)(1)(B) of the CAA for at least one day of violation of the general duty clause of section 112(r)(1) of the CAA.
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 an appropriate penalty to settle this matter is $37,500.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO