Facility a petroleum refinery where regulated Substances and other extremely hazardous substances are produced, processed, stored, and handled, and from which an accidental release could occur. On July 23, 2014, a fire occurred at the control valve station on Pass #3 to Vacuum Tower Heater H-1-1601 while facility operators were isolating flow control valve 02FC23 for replacement. While isolating the flow control valve, operators prepared the line on Pass #3 bleeder valve using a rod-out tool. The rod-out tool used by operators was too short to clear the bleeder valve allowing hot hydrocarbons substances to remain in the piping that were subsequently released.
The hydrocarbons were extremely hazardous flammable substances that ignited shortly after exposure lo the atmosphere. There were no injuries and the parties are unaware of any off-site property damage resulting from the fire. The respondent failed to ensure that the correct rod-out tool was used to clear the bleeder valves.
Pursuant to section 112(r)(1) an owner/operator of a stationary source producing, processing, handling or storing substances listed pursuant to section 112(r)(3) of the C.A.A or any other extremely hazardous substance, has a general duty to:
- identify hazards which may result from accidental releases of such substances using appropriate hazard assessment techniques;
- design and maintain a safe facility, taking such steps as are necessary to prevent releases; and
- minimize the consequences of accidental releases that do occur
Respondent failed to take such necessary steps to prevent accidental releases by not ensuring the use of proper rod-out tools. Respondent’s failure constitutes a violation of the general duty clause in 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 comply, the duration of the violation, payment 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 which justice may require. EPA and Respondent agree that an appropriate penalty to settle this matter is $30,000.