Respondent owns and operates a petrochemical facility which manufactures specialty chemicals in a variety of operating units. Respondent produces, processes, handles, or stores one or more regulated substances listed in 40 C.F.R. Part 68 above the threshold quantity. In April 2016, Respondent began work to replace a tube exchanger on the Petro I unit. The replacement tube exchanger was fabricated by a contract vendor off site and then delivered, installed, and insulated on site by contract personnel. Approximately four weeks after start-up of the process, on August 19, 2016, a leak developed and over a 14-hour period released approximately 235 lbs of 1,3 Butadiene, 8,616 lbs of ethylene, and 4,857 lbs of ethane. Ethylene, 1,3- Butadiene and Ethane are regulated substances pursuant to Section 112(r) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. Part 68.
While investigating the cause of the release, Respondent discovered…
that a gasket made of an unsuitable material was attached to a nozzle installed on a blinded flange at the location where the leak occurred. Respondent’s investigation also determined that during the QA/QC process performed by Respondent, Respondent did not verify with the contractor who performed the exchanger installation whether the gasket was suitable for the process application for which it would be used.
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R.§ 68.73(f)(1), when new equipment is fabricated, owners and operators must assure that it is suitable for the process application for which it will be used. If Respondent’s QA/QC process had covered verifying with the contractor whether the gasket was suitable for the process application for which it would be used, Respondent would have discovered that the gasket was made of an unsuitable material. Because Respondent’s QA/QC process did not include verifying with the contractor whether the gasket was suitable for the process application for which it would be used, Respondent violated the requirements 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(f)(1).
CIVIL PENALTY
Taking into consideration the size of Respondent’s business, the economic impact of the penalty on Respondent’s business, Respondent’s full compliance history and good faith efforts to comply, the duration of the violation, 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 civil penalty to settle this matter is Thirty-six thousand two hundred fifteen dollars ($36,215).
CLICK HERE for the CAFO