throbber
Case 6:21-cv-00043 Document 1 Filed on 09/13/21 in TXSD Page 1 of 51
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`VICTORIA DIVISION
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`FORMOSA PLASTICS CORPORATION,
`TEXAS,
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
` )
` )
` )
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
` )
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`6:21-cv-0043
`
`Judge
`
`The United States of America, acting on behalf of the United States Environmental
`
`Protection Agency (“EPA”), files this Complaint and alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a civil environmental enforcement action for assessment of civil penalties
`
`and injunctive relief brought pursuant to Section 113(b) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”),
`
`42 U.S.C. § 7413(b), against Formosa Plastics Corporation, Texas (“Defendant”) for violations
`
`of Sections 112(r)(1) and 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7412(r)(1) and 7412(r)(7), and the
`
`Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions promulgated at 40 C.F.R. Part 68 (the “Risk
`
`Management Program” regulations), at Defendant’s petrochemical manufacturing plant located
`
`at 201 Formosa Drive in Point Comfort, Texas (the “Facility”).
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00043 Document 1 Filed on 09/13/21 in TXSD Page 2 of 51
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION, VENUE, AUTHORITY AND NOTICE
`
`2.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to
`
`Section 113(b) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(b), and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1345, and
`
`1355.
`
`3.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7413(b) and
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1395 because Defendant does business within this
`
`judicial district at its petrochemical manufacturing plant located in Point Comfort, Texas, and
`
`because the actions giving rise to the violations alleged in this Complaint occurred in this judicial
`
`district.
`
`4.
`
`Authority to bring this action is vested in the United States Department of Justice
`
`pursuant to Section 305 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7605.
`
`5.
`
`Notice of commencement of this action has been given to the State of Texas
`
`pursuant to Section 113(b) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(b).
`
`PARTIES
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff is the United States of America, acting at the request of the EPA.
`
`Defendant is Formosa Plastics Corporation, Texas, a corporation organized under
`
`the laws of the State of Delaware.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant is a “person” within the meaning of Section 302(e) of the CAA,
`
`42 U.S.C. § 7602(e), and within the meaning of Section 113(b) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(b).
`
`9.
`
`At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant owned and operated a
`
`petrochemical manufacturing plant at 201 Formosa Drive, Point Comfort, Texas.
`
`STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
`
`A. CAA Section 112(r)(1) – the “General Duty Clause”
`
`10.
`
`CAA Section 112(r)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(1), provides in pertinent part:
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00043 Document 1 Filed on 09/13/21 in TXSD Page 3 of 51
`
`
`
`The owners and operators of stationary sources producing,
`processing, handling or storing [any substance listed pursuant to
`Section 112(r)(3) of the CAA or any other extremely hazardous
`substance] have a general duty . . . 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.
`A “regulated substance” is any substance set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 68.130, tables 1,
`
`11.
`
`2, 3, and 4. 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(2)(B).
`
`12.
`
`Extremely hazardous substances include regulated substances and chemicals on
`
`the list of extremely hazardous substances published pursuant to Section 302 of the Emergency
`
`Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (“EPCRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 11002, at 40 C.F.R. Part
`
`355, Appendices A and B, but the CAA does not limit the term to such listed substances. Thus,
`
`the term “extremely hazardous substances” also includes other agents not listed or otherwise
`
`identified by any Government agency that may, as the result of short-term exposure associated
`
`with release to the air, cause death, injury or property damage. S. Rep. No. 228, reprinted in
`
`1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 3596.
`
`13.
`
`The term “accidental release” is defined by CAA Section 112(r)(2)(A), 42 U.S.C.
`
`§ 7412(r)(2)(A), as “an unanticipated emission of a regulated substance or other extremely
`
`hazardous substance into the ambient air from a stationary source.”
`
`B. CAA Section 112(r)(7) – Risk Management Program Regulations
`
`14.
`
`CAA Section 112(r)(7), 42 U.S.C. § 4712(r)(7), provides in pertinent part:
`
`In order to prevent accidental releases of regulated
`(A)
`substances, the Administrator is authorized to promulgate release
`prevention, detection, and correction requirements which may
`include monitoring, record-keeping, reporting, training, vapor
`recovery, secondary containment, and other design, equipment,
`work practice, and operational requirements.
`
` *
`
`
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00043 Document 1 Filed on 09/13/21 in TXSD Page 4 of 51
`
`
`
`
`(B) (ii) The regulations under this subparagraph shall require the
`owner or operator of stationary sources at which a regulated
`substance is present in more than a threshold quantity to prepare and
`implement a risk management plan to detect and prevent or
`minimize accidental releases of such substances from the stationary
`source, and to provide a prompt emergency response to any such
`releases in order to protect human health and the environment. Such
`plan shall provide for compliance with the requirements of this
`subsection.
`
` *
`
`
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`
`(B) (iii) The owner or operator of each stationary source covered by
`clause (ii) shall register a risk management plan prepared under this
`subparagraph with the Administrator before the effective date of
`regulations under clause (i) in such form and manner as the
`Administrator shall, by rule, require.
`In 1994, EPA promulgated the Risk Management Program regulations in
`
`15.
`
`accordance with CAA Section 112(r)(7), 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7). See 40 C.F.R. Part 68,
`
`Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions. These regulations require owners and operators of
`
`stationary sources that have more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a process
`
`to develop and implement a risk management program that must be described in a risk
`
`management plan (“RMP”) submitted to EPA. The RMP must include, among other things, a
`
`management system, a hazard assessment, and a prevention program.
`
`16.
`
`Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.10, the owner or operator of a stationary source that
`
`has more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a process must comply with the
`
`Risk Management Program regulations.
`
`17.
`
`CAA Section 112(r)(2)(C), 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(2)(C), and 40 C.F.R. § 68.3,
`
`define a “stationary source” as “any buildings, structures, equipment, installations, or substance
`
`emitting stationary activities (i) which belong to the same industrial group, (ii) which are located
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00043 Document 1 Filed on 09/13/21 in TXSD Page 5 of 51
`
`
`
`on one or more contiguous properties, (iii) which are under the control of the same person, …and
`
`(iv) from which an accidental release may occur.”
`
`18.
`
`A “process” is defined broadly to mean “any activity involving a regulated
`
`substance including any use, storage, manufacturing, handling, or on-site movement of such
`
`substances, or [any] combination of these activities” and “any group of vessels that are
`
`interconnected, or separate vessels that are located such that a regulated substance could be
`
`involved in a potential release, shall be considered a single process.” 40 C.F.R. § 68.3.
`
`19.
`
`A “covered process” means “a process that has a regulated substance present in
`
`more than a threshold quantity as determined under [40 C.F.R.] § 68.115.” 40 C.F.R. § 68.3.
`
`20.
`
`The regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 68 divide the covered processes into three
`
`categories, designated as Program 1, Program 2, and Program 3, and set forth specific
`
`requirements for owners and operators of stationary sources with processes that fall within the
`
`respective programs.
`
`21.
`
`A “Program 3” process is subject to the most stringent risk management
`
`requirements under the Risk Management Program regulations. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.12,
`
`the owner or operator of a stationary source with a process subject to the Program 3 requirements
`
`must, among other things, comply with the prevention requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.65 –
`
`68.87 and the emergency response program of 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.90-68.95.
`
`22.
`
`Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(a), the owner or operator must perform an initial
`
`process hazard analysis (“PHA”) on processes covered by 40 C.F.R. Part 68. The PHA must be
`
`“appropriate to the complexity of the process and shall identify, evaluate, and control the hazards
`
`involved in the process. The owner or operator must determine and document the priority order
`
`for conducting process hazard analyses based on a rationale which includes such considerations
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00043 Document 1 Filed on 09/13/21 in TXSD Page 6 of 51
`
`
`
`as extent of the process hazards, number of potentially affected employees, age of the process,
`
`and operating history of the process.” 40 C.F.R. § 68.67.
`
`23.
`
`Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(e), the owner or operator must establish a system to
`
`promptly address the PHA findings and recommendations, assure that the recommendations are
`
`resolved in a timely manner and the resolution is documented, and develop a written schedule of
`
`when these actions are to be completed.
`
`24.
`
`Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(f), at least every five years after the completion of
`
`the initiation process hazard analysis, the process hazard analysis must be updated and
`
`revalidated by a team meeting the requirements in 40 C.F.R. § 68.67(d) to assure that the process
`
`hazard analysis is consistent with the current process.
`
`25.
`
`Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.69(d), the owner or operator must develop and
`
`implement safe work practices (including wearing proper personal protective equipment) to
`
`provide for the control of hazards during operations such as lockout/tagout; confined space entry;
`
`opening process equipment or piping; and control over entrance into a stationary source by
`
`maintenance, contractor, laboratory, or other support personnel. These safe work practices must
`
`apply to employees and contractor employees.
`
`26.
`
`Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.71(b), refresher training must be provided at least
`
`every three years, and more often if necessary, to each employee involved in operating a process
`
`to assure that the employee understands and adheres to the current operating procedures of the
`
`process.
`
`27.
`
`Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(b), the owner or operator must establish and
`
`implement written procedures to maintain the ongoing integrity of work areas and process
`
`equipment, which includes pressure vessels and storage tanks, piping systems (including
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00043 Document 1 Filed on 09/13/21 in TXSD Page 7 of 51
`
`
`
`components such as valves), relief and vent systems and devices, emergency shutdown systems,
`
`controls (including monitoring devices and sensors, alarms, and interlocks), and pumps.
`
`28.
`
`Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d), inspections and tests must be performed on
`
`process equipment to ensure mechanical integrity. The inspections and testing must follow
`
`recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices. 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(2). Under
`
`40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(3), the frequency of inspections and tests of process equipment must be
`
`consistent with applicable manufacture’s recommendations and good engineering practices, and
`
`more frequently if determined to be necessary by prior operating experience.
`
`29.
`
`Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(d)(4), the owner or operator must document each
`
`inspection and test that has been performed on process equipment. The documentation must
`
`identify the date of the inspection or test, the name of the person who performed the inspection
`
`or test, the serial number or other identifier of the equipment on which the inspection or test was
`
`performed, a description of the inspection or test performed, and the results of the inspection or
`
`test.
`
`30.
`
`Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(e), the owner or operator must correct deficiencies
`
`in equipment that are outside acceptable limits (as defined by 40 C.F.R. § 68.65) before further
`
`use or in a safe and timely manner when necessary means are taken to assure safe operation.
`
`31.
`
`Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.73(f)(3), the owner or operator must assure that
`
`maintenance materials, spare parts and equipment are suitable for the process application for
`
`which they will be used.
`
`32.
`
`Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(a), the owner or operator must certify to having
`
`evaluated compliance with the provisions of 40 C.F.R. Part 68, Subpart D, at least every three
`
`years to verify that the procedures and practices developed under 40 C.F.R. Part 68, Subpart D
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00043 Document 1 Filed on 09/13/21 in TXSD Page 8 of 51
`
`
`
`are adequate and are being followed. The required evaluation is referred to as a compliance
`
`audit. 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(b).
`
`33.
`
`Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.79(d), the owner and operator must promptly
`
`determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit,
`
`and document that deficiencies have been corrected.
`
`34.
`
`Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.85(a), the owner or operator must issue a hot work
`
`permit for hot work operations conducted on or near a covered process. Hot work is any work
`
`that involves burning, welding, cutting, or using fire or spark-producing tools, or other work that
`
`produces a source of ignition.
`
`35.
`
`Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 68.95(a), the owner or operator must develop and
`
`implement an emergency response program for the purpose of protecting public health and the
`
`environment. Such program must include the following elements: (1) an emergency response
`
`plan, which shall be maintained at the stationary source; (2) procedures for the use of emergency
`
`response equipment and for its inspection, testing, and maintenance; (3) training for all
`
`employees in relevant procedures; and (4) procedures to review and update, as appropriate, the
`
`emergency response plan to reflect changes at the stationary source and ensure that employees
`
`are informed of changes.
`
`36.
`
`Pursuant to CAA Section 112(r)(7)(E), it is unlawful for any person to operate
`
`any stationary source subject to the Risk Management Program requirements and regulations in
`
`violation of such requirements and regulations.
`
`C. Enforcement of the Clean Air Act by the United States
`
`CAA Section 113(b)(2) provides that whenever a person violates any requirement
`37.
`or prohibition of Subchapter I of the CAA (42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7515), the Administrator of EPA
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00043 Document 1 Filed on 09/13/21 in TXSD Page 9 of 51
`
`
`
`“shall, as appropriate, in the case of any person that is the owner or operator of . . . a major
`
`stationary source, and may, in the case of any other person, commence a civil action for a
`
`permanent or temporary injunction, or to assess and recover a civil penalty of not more than
`
`$25,000 per day for each violation, or both . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 7413(b)(2). The Federal Civil
`
`Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. § 2461 note, as amended by the Debt
`
`Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 31 U.S.C. § 3701 note, and the Federal Civil Penalties
`
`Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114–74 § 701, 129 Stat. 584,
`
`599–60, requires EPA to periodically adjust its civil penalties for inflation. The statutory penalty
`
`amounts for violations of CAA Section 113(b)(2) were increased by EPA’s Civil Monetary
`
`Penalty Inflation Adjustment Rule to $37,500 per day per violation occurring between January
`
`12, 2009 and November 2, 2015, and to $102,638 for violations continuing or occurring after
`
`November 2, 2015, where penalties are assessed on or after December 23, 2020. See 40 C.F.R. §
`
`19.4 and 85 Fed. Reg. 83818-01 (December 23, 2020).
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`38.
`
`At all relevant times, Defendant has owned and operated the Facility within the
`
`meaning of CAA Section 112(r), 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r), and 40 C.F.R. Part 68.
`
`39.
`
`The Facility is located on approximately 2,500 acres of land in Point Comfort,
`
`Texas and produces petrochemicals.
`
`40.
`
`At all relevant times, Defendant has operated numerous “stationary sources” as
`
`defined in CAA Section 112(r)(2)(C), 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(2)(C), and 40 C.F.R. § 68.3 at the
`
`Facility.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00043 Document 1 Filed on 09/13/21 in TXSD Page 10 of 51
`
`
`
`41.
`
`At all relevant times, Defendant has been a “person” as defined in CAA Section
`
`302(e), 42 U.S.C. § 7602(e), and within the meaning of CAA Section 113(b), 42 U.S.C.
`
`§ 7413(b).
`
`42.
`
`At all relevant times, the Facility processed, handled, stored, and disposed of
`
`“regulated substances,” as defined in CAA Section 112(r)(2)(B), 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(2)(B), and
`
`40 C.F.R. § 68.130, and “extremely hazardous substances,” within the meaning of CAA Section
`
`112(r)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(1).
`
`43.
`
`At all relevant times, Defendant was subject to the “General Duty Clause” of
`
`CAA Section 112(r)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(1), regarding the prevention of “accidental releases”
`
`at the Facility, as defined in CAA Section 112(r)(2)(A), 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(2)(A).
`
`44.
`
`The Facility consists of several “covered processes,” including the High Density
`
`Polyethylene Unit No. 1; High Density Polyethylene Unit No. 2; Olefins 1 Unit; Linear Low
`
`Density Polyethylene Unit; and Chlor-Alkali Unit.
`
`45.
`
`At all relevant times, Defendant had at least one regulated flammable and toxic
`
`substance in the “covered processes” identified in Paragraph 44 above the threshold quantity as
`
`set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 68.130.
`
`46.
`
`At all relevant times, the Facility and the “covered processes” above were subject
`
`to the requirements of the “Program 3” Risk Management Program regulations pursuant to
`
`40 C.F.R. §§ 68.10(d) and 68.12(d).
`
`The May 2, 2013 Fire and Explosion
`
`47.
`
`During the construction of the High Density Polyethylene No. 1 production unit
`
`(“HDPE 1”) in 1994, an Ethylene Purification Unit (“EPU”) was installed to remove impurities
`
`from the ethylene supply. The EPU process was designed to have three stages of operation, with
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00043 Document 1 Filed on 09/13/21 in TXSD Page 11 of 51
`
`
`
`each stage consisting of columns (reactors containing catalyst) and other equipment such as heat
`
`exchangers (a system used to transfer heat between two or more fluids).
`
`48.
`
`The EPU was a “stationary source” within the meaning of CAA Section
`
`112(r)(2)(C), 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(2)(C).
`
`49.
`
`The EPU is an outdoor unit and is not enclosed in any building. In its second
`
`stage, the EPU stored and utilized the proprietary metal catalyst, Puraspec 3450, a mixture of
`
`copper, zinc, and aluminum oxides. Copper oxide is the active catalyst. During operation of the
`
`EPU, reduction reactions remove oxygen from the copper oxide, reducing it to metallic copper.
`
`This process requires periodic regeneration. The regeneration process oxidizes the copper back
`
`to copper oxide.
`
`50.
`
`Incomplete regeneration of the catalyst may result in residual hydrocarbons or
`
`deposited carbon which may be capable of combustion.
`
`51.
`
`The Material Safety Data Sheet for Puraspec 3450 recognizes the reduced or
`
`partially regenerated catalyst as pyrophoric, i.e., able to ignite spontaneously with exposure to
`
`oxygen or air, and cautions that contact with air should be minimized.
`
`52.
`
`Puraspec 3450 in its reduced or partially regenerated state is an extremely
`
`hazardous substance within the meaning of CAA Section 112(r), 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r).
`
`53.
`
`The risk of combustion associated with reduced or partially regenerated Puraspec
`
`3450 catalyst is a recognized hazard.
`
`54.
`
`In 1995, high temperatures were observed in one of the EPU’s second stage
`
`columns during the regeneration of the catalyst. The regeneration was stopped before
`
`completion, leaving the catalyst partially regenerated.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00043 Document 1 Filed on 09/13/21 in TXSD Page 12 of 51
`
`
`
`55.
`
`In September 1995, all three stages of the EPU were taken out of service, put in
`
`standby, and isolated from HDPE 1 by single block valves.
`
`56.
`
`The manufacturer’s operating instructions for the EPU state that after taking the
`
`second stage out of service the column should be immediately purged and pressurized with
`
`nitrogen. The purpose of purging the second stage column with nitrogen is to prevent any
`
`residual ethylene from having extended contact with the catalyst which can lead to polymers or
`
`carbon deposits on the catalyst.
`
`57.
`
`Defendant did not immediately purge and pressurize the system with nitrogen, as
`
`specified in the manufacturer’s operating instructions.
`
`58.
`
`In 1996, the third stage of the EPU was placed back in service, leaving the first
`
`and second stages out of service.
`
`59.
`
`In 2007, Defendant developed a facility-wide procedure for out-of-service
`
`equipment. In 2008, a PHA recognized the first and second stages of the EPU to be out of service
`
`and recommended decommissioning the equipment.
`
`60.
`
`61.
`
`Defendant did not implement its out-of-service equipment procedure at the EPU.
`
`In January 2011, in preparing the first and second stages of the EPU for blinding
`
`(blinding is the process of placing steel plates between two flanges to segregate fluids or isolate
`
`equipment prior to the commencement of work to prevent the release of hazardous substances
`
`into the work area), the system was found to have hydrocarbons present. Many days of purging
`
`the system with nitrogen took place to remove the hydrocarbons before blinding and air gaps
`
`could be installed.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00043 Document 1 Filed on 09/13/21 in TXSD Page 13 of 51
`
`
`
`62.
`
`In January 2011, Defendant completed the isolation and blinding of the first and
`
`second stages, including blinding (removing) the pressure relief valves, which left no pressure
`
`relief alternative in place.
`
`63.
`
`In September 2011, Defendant generated a proposal to remove the ethylene
`
`purification section equipment from HDPE 1 to make room for an expansion in production.
`
`64.
`
`65.
`
`No written work plan or hazard assessment for the EPU removal was conducted.
`
`Subject to a reasonable opportunity for further investigation and discovery,
`
`Defendant completed a bid proposal for the removal of the EPU on January 16, 2013.
`
`66.
`
`Subject to a reasonable opportunity for further investigation and discovery, on
`
`May 2, 2013, oxygen entered the column C212B, a reactor in the second stage of the EPU, as
`
`Defendant attempted to sample the inner vapor space of the column. The oxygen reached the
`
`partially-regenerated pyrophoric catalyst, Puraspec 3450. This began an exothermic reaction
`
`which heated the materials in the column. An exothermic reaction is a chemical reaction that
`
`releases energy through light or heat.
`
`67.
`
`Subject to a reasonable opportunity for further investigation and discovery, the
`
`indicated temperature within the column temporarily stabilized when the oxygen feed did not
`
`continue. However, the heat generated by the localized reaction was then reabsorbed by the
`
`catalyst. This heating initiated a slower second exothermic reaction in a localized area within the
`
`reactor, causing the temperature to gradually increase until it reached temperatures that resulted
`
`in a rapid exothermic reaction.
`
`68.
`
`This exothermic reaction along with the presence of gas produced a significant
`
`overpressure in the column. The pressure in the column could not be relieved as the pressure
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00043 Document 1 Filed on 09/13/21 in TXSD Page 14 of 51
`
`
`
`relief system was isolated and disabled. The extreme overpressure caused the top dome flange
`
`gasket to fail, resulting in an explosion, release, and fire.
`
`69.
`
`As a result of the explosion, pressurized flammable gases and particulate catalyst
`
`Puraspec 3450 were released into the air and from the Facility in the form of intense flames and a
`
`dark cloud of smoke and particulates.
`
`70.
`
`As a result of the May 2, 2013 explosion and fire at the Facility, Defendant
`
`released an “extremely hazardous substance” into the ambient air.
`
`71.
`
`The release of the extremely hazardous substance constituted an “accidental
`
`release” into the ambient air within the meaning of CAA Section 112(r)(2)(A), 42 U.S.C.
`
`§ 7412(r)(2)(A).
`
`72.
`
`Fourteen workers were injured, seven of whom required hospitalization, as a
`
`result of the fire and explosion.
`
`73.
`
`The EPU was dismantled and removed from the Facility after the May 2, 2013
`
`fire and explosion.
`
`September 13, 2013 Fire
`
`74.
`
`At times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant owned and operated the High
`
`Density Polyethylene Unit No. 2 (“HDPE 2”). HDPE 2 has ethylene and isobutene (regulated
`
`flammable substances) present in more than threshold quantities as determined by 40 C.F.R.
`
`§ 68.115 and is a covered process as defined by 40 C.F.R. § 68.3.
`
`75.
`
`On September 11, 2013, operators at the HDPE 2 observed problems in the
`
`Dehexanizer column of the unit, known as the C-301 column, which separates isobutane and
`
`hexene. Distillation columns fractionate or separate hydrocarbon constituents, with lighter
`
`fractions rising and heavier components circulating downward. Multiple trays are vertically
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00043 Document 1 Filed on 09/13/21 in TXSD Page 15 of 51
`
`
`
`staged inside columns to collect different liquid fractions depending on elevation inside the
`
`column. Vapor moves upward through risers and out through slots. The vapor bubbles up
`
`through surrounding liquid on the tray. The slots are covered with “bubble caps.”
`
`76.
`
`It was determined that the C-301 column had a restriction and needed to be shut
`
`down. Defendant’s maintenance group was required to isolate and remove all liquids from the
`
`C-301 column and purge it with nitrogen. While the C-301 column was shut down, Defendant
`
`planned to perform cleaning and maintenance on other pieces of equipment that required work.
`
`77.
`
`On September 13, 2013, operators for the HDPE 2 opened the manways on the C-
`
`301 column and conducted a visual inspection of the manways and trays that revealed a solid
`
`polymer buildup. Manways are small passage ways or openings which allow a person to perform
`
`interior maintenance activities on a column. The hardened polymer appeared to be plugging the
`
`bubble caps on the trays. The maintenance supervisor called for hydroblasting of the C-301
`
`column to remove the polymer.
`
`78.
`
` On September 13, 2013, at 7:30 a.m., HDPE 2 operations unit issued Line Break
`
`Permit No. 56790 to maintenance personnel and contractors working to install blinds in column
`
`C-301 and other permits for work to be performed on the unit.
`
`79.
`
`Initially, HDPE operators used a reciprocating saw to start cutting the polymer,
`
`but the polymer chunk was too hard. Operators then agreed that a small electric chainsaw would
`
`be more productive.
`
`80.
`
`Subject to a reasonable opportunity for further investigation and discovery, a non-
`
`intrinsically-safe electric chainsaw was purchased from a local hardware store and brought to the
`
`Facility.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00043 Document 1 Filed on 09/13/21 in TXSD Page 16 of 51
`
`
`
`81.
`
`At or about 9:55 a.m., HDPE 2 operations personnel started cutting the polymer
`
`chunk with the electric chainsaw.
`
`82.
`
`83.
`
`At approximately 10:19 a.m., a flash fire occurred at a manway on C-301.
`
`Defendant’s incident report found that the electric chainsaw motor was the likely
`
`ignition source for the incident by igniting an explosive environment created from dust combined
`
`with flammable vapors.
`
`84.
`
`The fire seriously injured five persons, causing second and third degree burns and
`
`$310,000 of property damage.
`
`February 19, 2014 Propylene Release
`
`85.
`
`At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant owned and operated the Olefins
`
`1 production unit (“Olefins 1”). At all times relevant to this Complaint, Olefins 1 had propylene
`
`(a regulated flammable substance) present in more than a threshold quantity as determined by 40
`
`C.F.R. § 68.115 and is a covered process as defined by 40 C.F.R. § 68.3.
`
`86.
`
`On February 19, 2014, Olefins 1 operators were having problems pulling their
`
`daily sample from the propylene feed line. The sample point was connected to a ¾″ valve that
`
`had been stripped. Operators then decided to move the sample location.
`
`87.
`
`Operators removed the sample hose from the stripped valve in order to install the
`
`sample hose at a new sample point. Before operators could install a plug, the stripped valve
`
`started sputtering and began releasing liquid propylene.
`
`88.
`
`An operator attempted to plug the valve with his hand but was unable to stop the
`
`release. The operator received a cold burn from the cryogenic propylene release.
`
`89.
`
`The operator then left the area of the release to start closing valves to block in the
`
`pipeline. An assisting operator responded to the area and sounded an alarm.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00043 Document 1 Filed on 09/13/21 in TXSD Page 17 of 51
`
`
`
`90.
`
`A supervisor assessed the leak and tried to install a plug by hand with a pair of
`
`pliers and standard issue gloves. The supervisor received a cold burn from the cryogenic
`
`propylene release.
`
`July 17, 2014 Cycle Gas Release
`
`91.
`
`At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant owned and operated the Linear
`
`Low Density Polyethylene Unit (“LLDPE”). LLDPE had ethylene and 1-butene (regulated
`
`flammable substances) present in more than a threshold quantity as determined by 40 C.F.R.
`
`§ 68.115 and, at all times relevant to this Complaint, was a covered process as defined by 40
`
`C.F.R. § 68.3.
`
`92.
`
`The High Pressure (“HP”) Nitrogen Line (N2H-41025-ABA-1 ½″ N) and the
`
`Process Line (C2-41023-HSG 1-6″-S1 (FE-1407A to 4001\), which contained flammable cycle
`
`gas, are connected by a pipe-to-pipe welded connection. The LLDPE, including where the HP
`
`Nitrogen Line and Process Line (C2-41023-HSG 1-6″-S1 (FE-1407A to 4001\) are connected, is
`
`not enclosed in any building and is open to the outdoors.
`
`93.
`
`The cycle gas contains ethylene and 1-butene, both regulated flammable
`
`substances.
`
`94.
`
`The HP Nitrogen Line is part of the LLDPE Unit and is therefore part of a
`
`covered process.
`
`95.
`
`The HP Nitrogen Line is interconnected with the LLDPE process and could cause
`
`a regulated substance release or interfere with mitigating the consequences of an accidental
`
`release and is therefore part of the LLDPE covered process.
`
`96.
`
`On July 17, 2014, operators of the LLDPE found the HP Nitrogen Line (N2H-
`
`41025-ABA-1 ½″ N) was no longer connected by weld to the Process Line (C2-41023-HSG 1-
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00043 Document 1 Filed on 09/13/21 in TXSD Page 18 of 51
`
`
`
`6”-S1 (FE-1407A to 4001\) and a release of highly flammable cycle gas was occurring from the
`
`LLDPE Train 1 reactor.
`
`97.
`
`Evaluation of the separated piping found that the weld area where the HP
`
`Nitrogen Line and the Process Line joined had “poor weld quality.”
`
`98.
`
`Defendant determined that the HP Nitrogen Line was subject to vibration, also
`
`contributing to the weld failure.
`
`99.
`
`As a result of weld failure and separation of the HP Nitrogen Line and the Process
`
`Line, approximately 11,418.4 pounds of ethylene and 13,147.8 pounds of 1-butene were released
`
`to the atmosphere over a 12 hour period.
`
`October 7, 2014 Chlorine Release
`
`100. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant owned and operated the Chlor-
`
`Alkali Unit. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the Chlor-Alkali Unit had chlorine (a
`
`regulated toxic substance) present in more than a threshold quantity as determined by 40 C.F.R.
`
`§ 68.115 and is a covered process as defined by 40 C.F.R. § 68.3.
`
`101. On October 7, 2014, the Chlor-Alkali Unit w

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket