Respondent is a limited liability company which owns a chemical plant where regulated substances and other extremely hazardous substances are produced, processed, stored, and handled, and from which an accidental release occured. Within the facility, the Respondent produces nylon intermediates (adiponitrile (ADN), hexamethylene diamine (HMC), adipic acid, C12, and C12 co-products). On May 9, 2015, the facility started-up the OP-1 cyclohexane oxidation unit. Unknown to the unit operator there had been a failure of the cooling water inlet supply valve for the wash oil stripper condenser. Because of this failure the condenser did not properly cool the steam/cyclohexane mixture. As a result cyclohexane was released to the ambient air. The failed cooling waler valve was discovered five (5) days later. The unit operator, once alerted to the failed valve, shutdown the unit, had the valve repaired, and re-started the unit, which functioned properly. Over the five days 18,102 pounds of cyclohexane was released. The failed cooling water inlet supply gate valve was subsequently analyzed to determine causes of the metallurgic failure. The engagement slot of the valve gate was heavily corroded so as to be non-functional.
Although not listed under section 112(r)(3) of the CAA, EPA considers cyclohexane to be an extremely hazardous flammable substance. 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 duly 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 design and maintain a safe facility and did not take such necessary steps lo prevent accidental releases of cyclohexane by failing to properly maintain the cooling water supply inlet gate valve, which upon failure released cyclohexane to the ambient air. Respondent’s failure constitutes a violation of the general duty clause in section 112(r)(1) of the CAA. Respondent is therefore subject lo the assessment of penalties pursuant to sections 113(a)(3) and 113(d)(1)(B) of the CAA, for at least one day of 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 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.
CLICK HERE for the CAFO