Respondent has a liquid natural gas pretreatment process at the Facility, meeting the definition of ” process” as defined by 40 C.F.R. § 68.3. Respondent receives natural gas by pipeline and pretreats the natural gas to remove carbon dioxide, sulfur compounds, water, mercury, and heavy hydrocarbons. The regulated substance under 40 C.F.R. Part 68 Chemical Accident RMP regulations is Natural Gas Liquid (NGL) condensate, a mixture of regulated flammable gas hydrocarbons. The components of the NGL condensate are present at or above the minimum threshold for RMP applicability. NGL condensate is comprised of varying percentages of methane, ethane, propane, and pentane, each of which are flammable substances (the “Regulated Flammable Substance”s). As a result, Respondent produces, processes, handles, and stores the Regulated Flammable Substances at the Facility. Respondent has greater than a threshold quantity of the Regulated Flammable Substances in a process at the Facility, meeting the definition of”covered process” as defined by 40 C.F.R. § 68.3.
EPA Findings of Violation
Complainant hereby states and alleges that Respondent has violated the CAA and federal regulations promulgated there under as follows:
Count 1 – The General Duty Clause
Pursuant to Section 112(r)(1) of the CAA the owners and operators of stationary sources producing, processing, handling or storing such substances [i.e., a chemical in 40 C.F.R. part 68 or any other extremely hazardous substance] have a general duty [in the same manner and to the same extent as the general duty clause in the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OS HA)] to identify hazards which may result from (such) releases using appropriate hazard assessment techniques, to design and maintain a safe facility taking such steps as are necessary to prevent releases, and to minimize the consequences of accidental releases which do occur.
Respondent failed to identify hazards using appropriate hazard assessment techniques and, thus, failed to maintain a safe facility. This failure to maintain a safe facility
resulted in an incident on June 8, 2022, caused by the closure of certain valves on Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) piping, thereby trapping LNG in a pipe, which led to overpressure and explosion that released flammable methane to the atmosphere. The explosion caused approximately $275 million in damage to Respondent’s liquefaction facility. No deaths, injuries, or evacuations were reported as a result of the incident.
Prior to the inspection, EPA was provided confidential business information documents regarding the direct root cause and contributing causal factors of the incident.
Respondent’s failure to design and maintain a safe facility, taking such steps as are necessary to prevent a release, is a violation of Section 112(r)(1) of the CAA.
Count 2 – Process Hazard Analysis
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e), the owner or operator shall establish a system to promptly address the process hazard analyses team’s findings and recommendations; assure that the recommendations are resolved in a timely manner and that the resolution is documented; document what actions are to be taken; complete actions as soon as possible; develop a written schedule of when these actions are to be completed; communicate the actions to operating, maintenance and other employees whose work assignments are in the process and who may be affected by the recommendations or actions.
Respondent failed to promptly address the Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) team’s 12 recommendations identified in the report for the PHA conducted in 2021. At the time of the inspection, 7 were still open and 5 were unresolved.
Respondent’s failure to promptly address the team’s findings and recommendations, assure that the recommendations were resolved in a timely manner, and complete actions as soon as possible pursuant to 40 C.F .R. § 68.67(e), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.12(d)(3), is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
Count 3 – Emergency Contact Information
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.195(b), beginning June 21, 2004, within one month of any change in the emergency contact information required under §68.160(b)(6), the owner or operator shall submit a correction of that information.
The facility failed to update its RMP emergency contact information within one month after the individual assigned as the emergency contact retired in June 2022.
Respondent’s failure to update its RMP emergency contact information within one month of any change pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.195(b) is a violation of Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA.
CONSENT AGREEMENT
Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of One Hundred Sixty-Three Thousand Fifty-Four Dollars ($163,054).
CLICK HERE for the CAFO