Respondent owns and operates a container molding facility where it manufactures and recycles high density polyethylene containers ranging in size from fifty-five to 330 gallons (“containers”). The larger containers are encased in a steel cage for extra support. As part of its recycling operations, the Facility accepts used containers which routinely contain small amounts of residual chemicals, including formaldehyde, a listed or other extremely hazardous substance. These used containers are processed at the return processing area. The return processing area includes a conveyor system and a cut-and-scrape area. At the return processing area, Respondent classifies return containers by chemical type and groups certain containers together to prevent the possibility of a chemical reaction. The return containers are placed on the assembly line, the inner plastic tank is removed and drained of any residue. The plastic is destroyed and the steel cage is washed and used for future containers. On October 7, 2015, Respondent’s employees reported that an unknown chemical reaction had started in the return processing area. The reaction was described as a smoke emitting foaming liquid. Employees attempted to stop the reaction with a fire extinguisher, but were unable to do so. Employees evacuated the area when flames appeared. The fire quickly engulfed the return process area. The fire was eventually extinguished with the help of the local fire department. Two firefighters were hospitalized and later released. Respondent suffered property damage as a result of the fire, including damage to inventory as well as the conveyor system and cut-and-scrape area.
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:
(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.
The Respondent is required to take measures to ensure that a safe facility is maintained, and that these measure achieve a level of quality, accuracy, and completeness in order to prevent releases. Respondent failed to maintain a safe facility so as to prevent releases by failing to accurately classify and separate chemicals to prevent accidental chemical reactions.
Respondent’s failure constitutes a violation of the general duty clause in section 112(r)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(l).
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 etTorts 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$ 37,500.00 (thirty seven thousand five hundred dollars).
CLICK HERE for the CAFO