Respondent is the owner and operator of a facility that repackages chlorine from rail tank cars into 150 lbs. cylinders and one-ton containers, produces sodium hypochlorite from blowdown operations, and distributes water and wastewater treatment chemicals by truck that are stored in bulk tanks and railcars. On July 26, 2021, there was an incident at the Facility that resulted in an accidental release.
The initial release occurred from the water chiller system and a secondary release occurred from a chlorine ton container. A total of approximately 500 lbs. of chlorine was released to the atmosphere. The initial release occurred when a heat exchanger developed a hole in one of the tubes which allowed liquid chlorine under pressure to back up into the chilled water tank and subsequently release chlorine gas from the vent. Once the leak was discovered, an emergency response was initiated, personnel evacuated, the chilled water to the heat exchanger was shut off, and the service road to the facility was closed.
A secondary release occurred from a chlorine-ton container. To mitigate the first release, personnel vacuumed residual chlorine from the system. Cooling water from the fill line backed up into a chlorine ton container, which generated heat, melted three fuse plugs, and caused the release of additional chlorine to the air.
On December 3, 2021, the EPA sent Respondent a Notice of Potential Violation and Opportunity to Confer letter. On January 10, 2022, the EPA responded to the documentation and information received from Respondent as a result of the opportunity to confer and articulated the EPA’s position concerning Respondent’s compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAA
Respondent has a chlorine and chlorine bleach manufacturing process at the Facility, meeting the definition of”process”, as defined by 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. Respondent has greater than a threshold quantity of chlorine, in a process at the Facility, meeting the definition of”covered process” as defined by 40 C.F.R § 68.3.
From the time Respondent first had on-site greater than a threshold quantity of chlorine in a process, Respondent was subject to the requirements of Section I 12(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7), and 40 C.F.R. Part 68 because it was the owner or operator of a stationary source that had more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a process.
Complainant hereby states and alleges that Respondent has violated the CAA and federal regulations promulgated thereunder as follows:
Count 1 – Mechanical Integrity
Respondent failed to perform an inspection and test on process equipment at a frequency consistent with applicable recognized and generally acceptable good engineering practices. Moreover, the uncompleted inspection and past due inspection were beyond frequency timelines set by Respondent’s mechanical integrity written procedures.
Respondent’s failure to perform inspections and tests on process equipment at a frequency consistent with applicable good engineering practices pursuant to 40 C.F.R. §§68.73(d)(2) as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
CONSENT AGREEMENT
Respondent agrees that, in settlement of the claims alleged herein, Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of thirty-three thousand four hundred and seventy-nine dollars ($33,479.00), as set forth below.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO