Respondent owns and operates a pulp and paper mill. Respondent operates the pulp mill using the Kraft process to digest wood chips under pressure in batch digesters for pulp production. The finished cooked Wood chips are blown to blow tanks, Which reduce the pressure and separate steam and digester gases from the pulp. Uncondensed steam and gases generated by this process include regulated substances and other extremely hazardous substances. The un-condensed stream and gases are transferred via ducts through the Munters Mist Eliminator to the blow heat accumulator. The gases continue though the blow heat evaporators and additional processing that eventually recovers the gases into turpentine, removes the thermal energy, and condenses the steam.
LVHC system cleans the collection of equipment including the digester, turpentine recovery, evaporator, steam stripper systems, and any other equipment serving the same function as those previously listed. Non-condensible LVHC gases (NCGs) arc flammable and can be acutely toxic. They are collected and transported at concentrations above their upper explosive limit and can present significant explosion and safety hazards if not maintained above the UEL. The collection system must be scaled to prevent air from entering the system and creating a potentially explosive situation.
The LVHC gases contain reduced sulfur compounds, including hydrogen sulfide (H2S), a regulated substance pursuant to Part 68.130. The Respondent created Work Order No. 1540074 to repair leak on ‘Munters Separator” with a reported date or February 21, 2014, and a targeted repair start date of April 3, 2014. Respondent reported a potential release of methyl mercaptan and H2S to the National Response Center and to the Louisiana State Police. The reports state that the release occurred on August 27, 2014, and was discovered at 8:00 am. The Respondent provided information that the cause of the August 27, 2014 release was due to a 24 inch by 1/4 inch crack in the Munters Mist Eliminator. Respondent reported that the unit was immediately shut down and temporary repairs were conducted the same day.
Respondent used a Work order tracking system regarding preventative maintenance and repairs at the Facility, including work on the Munters Mist Eliminator. Entries noted that the final repairs to the Munters Mist Eliminator were completed October 3, 2014.
Respondent indicated that Work Order No. 1540074 was closed out on October 8, 2014, and included initial repairs completed February 22, 2014 to the access cover leak observed February 21, 2014, as well as the repairs completed October 3, 2014, for the leak observed August 29, 2014.
Respondent indicated that the consistency of dates in the work order system can depend upon the diligence of the individual maintenance planner. Respondent also stated that Work orders can be opened and not closed out after the work is completed.(?????)
Pursuant to section I 12(r)( l) of the C:AA, 42 U.S.C. § 74l2(r)(1 ), 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 or such substances using appropriate hazard assessment techniques; (2) design and maintain a safe facility, taking such steps that are necessary to prevent releases; and (3) minimize the consequences of accidental releases that do occur.
Respondent failed to maintain a safe facility so as to prevent releases by not accurately tracking preventative maintenance and repairs in the Work Order system. Respondent’s Failure constitutes a violation of the general duty clause of section 112(r)(1) of the CAA.
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 efforts to com1ply, the duration of the violation, paynent 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. An appropriate penalty to settle this matter is $37,500.00 (thirty seven thousand five hundred dollars).
Click Here for the Agreement