This is a very interesting case, as it involved an error by the manufacturer of a new vessel and not the facility; however, it was the facility that was cited the $35K! On March 26, 2012, there was an incident at the facility involving the release of hydrogen gas to ambient air from a newly installed process vessel. Specifically, the new vessel had a transportation (neoprene) gasket improperly installed by the manufacturer and the gasket failed releasing hydrogen gas to the ambient air. One worker was seriously injured in the incident and one worker sustained minor injuries. Pursuant to section 112(r)( I) of the CAA, 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 of such substances using appropriate hazard assessment techniques;
(2) design and maintain a safe facility, taking such steps as are necessary to prevent releases; and
(3) minimize the consequences of accidental releases that do occur.
The release of hydrogen at the facility on March 26, 2012, constituted an “accidental release” as that term is defined by section 112(r)(2)(A) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(2)(A). Respondent failed to design and maintain a safe facility and did not take such necessary steps to prevent accidental releases by not fully utilizing commonly available and accepted practices to ensure safety. Respondent’s failure constitutes a violation of the general duty clause in section ll2(r)(l) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 74l2(r)( I).