Respondent owned and operated a pesticide and specialty chemical manufacturing facility located in Louisiana. On January 8, 2014, EPA Region 6 conducted an on-site CAA 40 C.F.R. Part 68 and Section 112(r) Partial Compliance Evaluation of the Facility. The facility has 11 regulated substances that are held above the threshold quantities identified in 40 C.F.R.§ 68.130. During a maintenance outage, Respondent installed a blind flange on a column stripper as an intended in-kind replacement. The blind flange corroded, causing a release of2.2 pounds of chlorine and 0.22 pounds of cyanogen chloride. Later analysis showed that the installed blind flange was made of carbon steel rather than titanium, which caused the corrosion and release. Here’s what EPA found:
VIOLATIONS
Count 1. Incorrect Temperature Calculation in Offsite Consequence Analysis
Respondent failed to calculate its offsite consequence analysis at 98 degrees Fahrenheit, which is the highest average daily temperature for the Baton Rouge area. Respondent’s failure to calculate its offsite consequence analysis at the highest average daily temperature for the Baton Rouge area constitutes a violation of 40 C.F.R. §68.22(g).
Count 2. Incorrect Temperature Calculation in Worst-Case Scenario Analysis
Respondent failed to calculate its worst-case release scenario that included a volatilization rate that accounted for the highest maximum temperature occurring in the past three years. Respondent’s failure to calculate its worst-case release scenario with the highest maximum temperature in the past three years constitutes a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.25(d)(2).
Count 3. Process Safety Information
40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1) requires information pertaining to the equipment in the process shall include, among other requirements, materials of construction. During a maintenance outage, Respondent installed a blind flange on a column stripper as an intended in-kind replacement. The blind flange corroded, causing a release of2.2 pounds of chlorine and 0.22 pounds of cyanogen chloride. Later analysis showed that the installed blind flange was made of carbon steel rather than titanium, which caused the corrosion and release. Respondent’s failure to identify the materials of construction constitutes a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.65(d)(1).
Count 4. Inspection and Testing
40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(1) requires that inspections and tests be performed on process equipment. The blind flange on a column stripper was never inspected or tested prior to or after conducting the in-kind replacement to confirm that the flange met all standard codes. Respondent erroneously used a paint code to indicate that the blind flange was of titanium when it was actually carbon steel. Had the Respondent conducted the proper inspection and testing of the blind flange, the Respondent would have determined that the blind flange was made of carbon steel rather than titanium. Respondent’s failure to inspect and test the replaced blind flange before or after installation to confirm that the part was according to the standard codes constitutes a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(1).
Count 5. Inspection and Testing
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 68.73(d)(3), the frequency of inspections and tests of process equipment shall be consistent with applicable manufacturers’ recommendations and good engineering practices and more frequently if determined to be necessary by prior operating experience. During a June 19, 2015 incident, Respondent discovered a failed relief valve on the 201-E HCL stripper which caused the release of approximately 28 pounds of chlorine gas into the atmosphere. The cause of the failed relief valve was due to internal corrosion on the discharge side of the relief valve. Had the Respondent conducted timely and proper inspection and testing of the relief valve, Respondent would have determined that it failed to apply sufficient corrosion resistant coating to the relief valve. Respondent’s failure to conduct a timely and proper testing of the relief valve constitutes a violation of 40 C.P.R.§ 68.73(d)(3).
Count 6. Quality Assurance.
Pursuant to 40 C.P.R. 68.73(f)(2), appropriate checks shall be performed to assure that equipment is installed properly and consistent with design specifications and manufacturer’s recommendations. Respondent failed to verify that tubing connected to a local pressure gage was reconnected following a turnaround. Respondent’s failure to conduct the appropriate checks to assure that the tubing connected to a local pressure gage was installed properly and consistent with design specifications and manufacturer’s recommendations constitutes a violation of 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(f)(2).
CIVIL PENALTY AND TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
Upon consideration of the entire record herein, including the Respondent’s willingness to take measures to prevent a recurrence of the above described incident, and upon consideration of the size of the business, the economic impact of the penalty on the business, the violator’s full compliance history and good faith efforts to comply, the duration of the violation, payment by the violator of penalties previously assessed for the same violation, the economic benefit of noncompliance, the seriousness of the violation, specific facts and equities, litigation risks, and other factors as justice may require, the parties agree that one hundred twenty-four thousand dollars ($124,000) is an appropriate penalty to resolve this matter.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO