houstonlogo rjilogo

The Right-to-Know Network

Back to search

Hilcorp Harvest Grand Chenier

Parent Companies:
EPA Facility ID:
100000227783
Other ID:
Facility DUNS:
0

Location:

Address:
3110 Grand Chenier Hwy
Grand Chenier, LA 70643
County:
CAMERON
Lat / Long:
29.764, -92.959 (Get map)
Method:
GPS - Unspecified
Description:
Administrative Building
Horizonal accuracy:
3 m
Horizontal reference datum:
North American Datum of 1983
Source map scale:

Owner/Operator:

Name:
Hilcorp Harvest Grand Chenier
Phone:
(337) 538-2346
Address:
3110 Grand Chenier Hwy.
Grand Chenier, LA 70643
Foreign Address:

Person responsible for RMP implementation:

Name:
Stephen Whiteley
Title:
Engineering Mngr/PSM

Emergency contact:

Name:
Stephen Theunissen
Title:
Plant Manager
Phone:
(337) 643-7120
24-hour phone:
(337) 652-7243
Ext or PIN:

Other contacts:

Facility (or company) email:
Facility phone:
Facility (or company) URL:

Safety:

Local Emergency Planning Committee:
Full-Time Equivalent Employees:
8
Covered by OSHA PSM:
Yes
EPCRA section 302:
No
CAA Title Air Operating Permit:
Yes
CAA Permit ID#:
0560-00001-01
OSHA Star/Merit Ranking
No
Last Safety Inspection Date:
March 17, 2014
Inspecting Agency:
Fire Department
Using Predictive Filing:
No

Processes:

Pipeline
RMP ID:
1000059737
CBI claimed:
No
Program Level:
3
NAICS:
Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction (211111)
Chemical name
CAS#
Quantity (lbs.)
CBI
Flammable Mixture
00-11-11
819,000
No
Public OCA Chemical
0
No

RMP Preparer:

Name:
Glenn Foret
Address:
2644 S. Sherwood Forest Blvd.
Baton Rouge, LA 70816
Foreign Address:

Phone:
(225) 388-5918

Latest RMP Submission:

Date:
Feb. 10, 2015
Type:
First-time submission
Reason:
Registered:
Yes
RMP ID:
1000047562

Deregistration:

Date:
Effective Date:
Reason:
Other Reason:

2. Toxics: Worst-case

None

3. Toxics: Alternative release

None

4. Flammables: Worst-case

Some Risk Management Plan information is not provided in the available RMP data. You need to make an appointment at an EPA Reading Room In order to get access to details from the Off-Site Consequence Analysis (OCA) such as:

Instructions on how to make an EPA appointment can be found here.

Public OCA Chemical (in Pipeline)
CBI claimed:
No
Model used:
EPA's RMP*Comp(TM)
Passive mitigation
considered:
  • emergency shutdown
not considered:
  • Blast walls

5. Flammables: Alternative release

Some Risk Management Plan information is not provided in the available RMP data. You need to make an appointment at an EPA Reading Room In order to get access to details from the Off-Site Consequence Analysis (OCA) such as:

Instructions on how to make an EPA appointment can be found here.

Public OCA Chemical (in Pipeline)
CBI claimed:
No
Model used:
EPA's RMP*Comp(TM)
Passive mitigation
considered:
  • None
not considered:
  • Dikes
  • Fire wall
  • Blast walls
  • Enclosures
Active mitigation
considered:
  • None
not considered:
  • Sprinkler systems
  • Deluge systems
  • Excess flow valve

6. Five-year accident history

No Registered Accidents

7. Prevention: Program level 3

Pipeline, Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction (211111)
Prevention Program ID:
1000050041
Safety Review Date
March 27, 2014, since latest RMP submission
PHA Update Date
June 10, 2014, since latest RMP submission
PHA Techniques
  • HAZOP
Hazards Identified
  • Fire
  • Explosion
  • Overpressurization
  • Equipment failure
  • Cooling loss
  • Hurricanes
Process Controls
  • Vents
  • Relief Valves
  • Check Valves
  • Flares
  • Manual Shutoffs
  • Interlocks
  • Alarms
  • Emergency Air Supply
  • Emergency Power
  • Grounding Equipment
  • Excess Flow Device
  • Purge System
Mitigation Systems
  • Deluge System
Monitoring Systems
  • Process Area
Changes since PHA
  • None Recommended
Training Type
  • Classrom
  • On the Job
Competency Testing
  • Oral Test
  • Demonstration
  • Observation
Procedure Review Date
March 27, 2014, since latest RMP submission
Training Review Date
Nov. 30, 2014, since latest RMP submission
Maintenance Review Date
March 17, 2014, since latest RMP submission
Maintenance Inspection Date
Feb. 11, 2014, since latest RMP submission
Equipment Tested
Yes
Management of Change Most Recent Date
June 30, 2014
Management of Change Review Date
June 30, 2014
Pre-startup Review Date
July 3, 2014
Compliance Audit Date
None
Compliance Audit Change Completion Date
None
Incident Investigation Date
None
Incident Invest. Change Completion Date
None
Participation Plan Review Date
March 27, 2014
Hot Work Review Date
March 27, 2014
Contractor Safety Review Date
March 27, 2014, since latest RMP submission
Contractor Safety Eval. Date
March 27, 2014, since latest RMP submission

8. Prevention Program level 2

No Prevention Program level 2

9. Emergency response

Facility In Community Plan:
Yes
Facility Own Response Plan:
No
Specific Facility Response Plan:
Yes
Inform. Procedures in Response Plan:
No
Emergency Care in Response Plan:
Yes
Plan Review Date:
Response Training Date:
Dec. 5, 2014
Local Response Agency:
Local Response Agency Phone:
(713) 209-2400
Subject To - OSHA EAP:
No
Subject To - OSHA HAZWOPER:
Yes
Subject To - CWA:
No
Subject To - RCRA:
No
Subject To - OPA:
No
Subject To - State EPCRA:
Yes
Subject To - Other:

Executive Summary

The Harvest Grand Chenier facility receives a mixture of natural gas and condensates from off-site wells. The gas is separated and piped to the adjacent Plains facility for Fractionation. The remaining condensates are processed through separators where water and light hydrocarbons are removed. The remaining condensate or oil is either stored in atmosphere storage tanks or pumped out via pipeline.



The worst case senario chosen was a loss of product in the transfer pipe going to Plains. The facility is required to comply to PSM/RMP due to the amount of product stored in the main transfer line if blocked in. Analyzing the release being 10,000 pounds of material lost, the radius of impact from an explosive cloud is 0.1 miles from the source.The chemical used that was on the RMP list was Methane being volital and representative to the product base.



The alternate case scenario is the same transfer pipe as located in the "worst case" except a one inch hole has been identified as being the case study. This release would impact a radius of 0.05 miles of an explosive cloud.