Respondent is the owner and operator of a facility where on October 13, 2019, there was an incident at the Facility that resulted in an accidental release. On April 4, 2020, the EPA requested, and Respondent provided, documentation and information concerning the Incident and Respondent’s compliance with Section 112(r) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. Part 68. Corroded piping caused a leak of approximately 258 lbs of a mixture of extremely hazardous chemicals that were released to the air and ground.
Respondent operates a large chemical production facility that includes at least two hydrocarbon cracking units, described as HCC3 and HCC3A. The material supply lines for HCC3 and HCC3A can be interconnected with an interplant transfer line such that the inputs for HCC3 and HCC3A can be directed into either unit. The supply lines, interplant transfer line, and HCC3 and HCC3A units at the Facility, meet the definition of ” process”, as defined by 40 C.F.R. § 68.3; the precise extent of the process appears to vary based on configuration, but on occasion includes both supply systems and a single hydrocarbon cracking unit.
Of the chemicals released during the incident from the interplant transfer line, at least 14, including ethylene and propylene, are ” regulated substances” pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. The threshold quantity for these regulated substances, as listed in 40 C.F.R. § 68.130 is 10,000 pounds. Respondent’s RMP indicates amounts of propylene and ethylene in greater than threshold quantities in the HCC3 and HCC3A processes 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 these regulated substances in a process, Respondent was subject to the requirements of 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.
From the time Respondent first had on-site greater than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a process, Respondent was required to submit an RMP pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(a) and comply with the Program 3 prevention requirements because, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(i), the covered process at the Facility did not meet the eligibility requirements of Program 1 and is in North American Industry Classification System code 32511.
EPA Findings of Violation
Complainant hereby states and alleges that Respondent has violated the CAA and federal regulations promulgated thereunder as follows:
Count 1 – Mechanical Integrity
The regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3) requires the owner or operator of a stationary source with a process subject to Program 3 to implement the prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.65 through 68.87. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.73(d)(1)-( 3), the owner or operator shall perform inspection and tests on process equipment that follows recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices and the frequency for which shall be consistent with applicable manufacturers’ recommendations and good engineering practices.
Respondent inadvertently did not include certain sections of an interplant transfer line – an exterior insulated pipe- in its corrosion under insulation inspection program.
Failure to conduct regular corrosion under insulation inspections is inconsistent with applicable recognized and generally acceptable good engineering practices.
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)(1)-(3), 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, seven hundred thirty-four dollars ($33,734.00).
CLICK HERE for the CAFO