EPA v. Morton International, Inc.

Case summary

EPA requests that a civil action be initiated pursuant to Section 113(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act against Defendant for violations of Section 112(r)(1) of the Clean Air Act. EPA seeks both the imposition of civil penalties and injunctive relief against Morton for its violations of Section 112(r)(1), commonly known as the General Duty Clause. Operators subject to the General Duty Clause are required, among other things, to identify potential hazards posed by extremely hazardous substances which they handle and maintain a safe facility. Defendant is a multinational dye manufacturer maintaining a facility along the Passaic River in Paterson, NJ. On April 8, 1998 an explosion occurred in a 2000-gallon process reactor at the Paterson facility. This explosion blew a hole in the roof, created a massive fireball, coated the neighborhood with yellow dye, and injured two employess. Multiple state and federal agencies responded to the incident, which may have released as much as 286 pounds of ortho-nitrochlorobenzene (o-NCB) into the environment. EPA believes that o-NCB is an extremely hazardous substance. At the time of the explosion, Morton was manufacturing a liquid dye known as Yellow 96. Yellow 96 is used to color petroleum products. The evidence reveals that the explosion occurred after a batch experienced an exothermic or overheated condition, resulting in over-pressurization of the reactor vessel. The increase in vapor concentration inside the reactor overwhelmed the blow-off valves and other safety devices, resulting in an explosion. In 1988 Defendant decided to determine if Yellow 96 could be safely manufactured at its Paterson, NJ facility. Research into the manufacture of Yellow 96 in the US continued thereafter, and in September, 1990 the first batch of Yellow 96 was successfully manufactured at the Paterson facility. The raw materials used to make Yellow 96 are o-NCB, a yellow-oily solid, and 2-ethylhexylamine (2-EHA), a colorless liquid that reacts violently with acids and oxidizers. These materials are mixed in a reactor at elevated temperatures and pressure for a 14-hour period, and then transferred to other equipment where the reaction is completed resulting in the final product. Defendant made 31 previous batches of Yellow 96 without incident over an 8 year period. The vessel in which Batch 32 was made was inherently unable to control the heat generated during the reaction, that there was a lack of adequate management oversight of employees, and that an inadequate process hazard analysis was performed on the reactor vessel and the chemical reaction used to manufacture Yellow 96. The reactor vessels safety devices were not designed to relieve the pressure quickly enough. Enough pressure was generated by the event (the kettle essentially behaved like a jet engine) to cause the kettle to fall 4 feet to the floor. This movement severed all connections to the reactor, including electrical connections. It is believed that sparks from shorted wires ignited flammable vapors in the room. The fireball created by the explosion was visible to a motorist more than 1/4 mile away, and burned nine Morton employees, two seriously enough to require emergency room treatment. The Paterson Fire Department responded to the scene, and the fire was extinguished about four hours later. Most of the interior of Building 11 near the reactor was gutted by the flames. The building itself suffered structural and cosmetic damage, including loss of the roof, blown out window frames, and warped support beams and doorways.

Defendants (1)

• Morton International, Inc.Named in complaintNamed in settlement

Facilities (1)

• MORTON INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED

  335 MCLEAN BOULEVARD, PATERSON, NJ, 07504

  Registry ID: 110000320117

Statutes cited

• CAA 112[R][1] — Prevention of Accidental Release/General Duty Clause

Enforcement conclusions (1)

• Morton International, Inc.entered 2005-09-15

  Primary law: CAA

  Federal penalty: $50,000 · SEP: $200,000

Timeline (7 milestones)

• 2001-06-07Referred To Dept Of Justice
• 2005-06-16Final Order Lodged
• 2005-06-16Complaint Filed With Court
• 2005-09-15Concluded
• 2005-09-15Final Order Entered
• 2005-10-12Enforcement Action Data Entered
• 2006-01-15Enforcement Action Closed