DOCSLIB.ORG

Petroleum Refinery Consent Decree Emission Reduction Assessment for Ozone and Regional Haze Sips

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Petroleum Refinery Consent Decree Emission Reduction Assessment for Ozone and Regional Haze Sips APPENDIX D PETROLEUM REFINERY CONSENT DECREE EMISSION REDUCTION ASSESSMENT FOR OZONE AND REGIONAL HAZE SIPS 2013-013-SIP-NR Adoption February 26, 2014 Petroleum Refinery Consent Decree Emission Reduction Assessment for Ozone and Regional Haze SIPs Work Order No. 582-07-84005-01 Prepared for: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Austin, Texas Prepared by: ENVIRON International Corporation Steven H. Ramsey, P.E., BCEE Christopher J. Colville, EIT, EPI Alessandra R. Carreon Shagun Bhat, Ph.D. November 2007 Project No. 06-17477A 10333 Richmond Avenue, Suite 910, Houston TX 77042 Tel: 713.470.6546 CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... iv LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ............................................................................................................v ACCRONYMS .............................................................................................................................. vi 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose.............................................................................................................................1 1.2 Background Information..................................................................................................1 1.3 EPA Petroleum Refinery Enforcement Initiative ............................................................1 2. REFINERY CONSENT DECREE REQUIREMENTS AND EMISSION CHANGES............7 2.1 BP.....................................................................................................................................8 2.2 Chalmette Refining........................................................................................................16 2.3 CITGO ...........................................................................................................................23 2.4 Conoco / ConocoPhillips ...............................................................................................34 2.5 ExxonMobil ...................................................................................................................50 2.6 Giant Industries (Western Refining)..............................................................................62 2.7 Koch Industries (Flint Hills Resources).........................................................................66 2.8 Lion Oil Company .........................................................................................................73 2.9 Marathon Petroleum Company LLC .............................................................................78 2.10 Navajo Refining Company, L.L.C. (Holly Corporation)...............................................88 2.11 Shell Joint Ventures: Motiva and Deer Park Refining ..................................................94 2.12 Sunoco, Inc..................................................................................................................106 2.13 Total Petrochemicals U.S.A.........................................................................................111 2.14 Valero...........................................................................................................................117 3. NON-REFINERY CONSENT DECREE REQUIREMENTS AND EMISSION CHANGES130 3.1 Equistar Chemicals ......................................................................................................130 3.2 Rhodia..........................................................................................................................132 4. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................................................135 4.1 Flexible Permits ...........................................................................................................135 Petroleum Refinery Consent Decree Assessment -i- E N V I R O N TCEQ Work Order 582-07-84005-01 4.2 Emissions Trading.......................................................................................................135 4.3 MECT Cap...................................................................................................................136 4.4 Overly Conservative Emission Estimates....................................................................136 4.4 NSPS Subpart Ja ..........................................................................................................137 5. RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................139 5.1 Data Acquisition..........................................................................................................139 5.2 Inventory Reconciliation..............................................................................................140 Petroleum Refinery Consent Decree Assessment -ii- E N V I R O N TCEQ Work Order 582-07-84005-01 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1-1 Summary of Consent Decree Status....................................................................................... 3 Table 2.1-1 BP Texas City Refinery FCCU Emissions........................................................................... 11 Table 2.1-2 BP Texas City Refinery FCCU Emissions Used in Revised Modeling Inventory .............. 12 Table 2.1-3 BP Texas City Refinery Heater and Boiler Emissions......................................................... 13 Table 2.2-1 Chalmette Refining FCCU Emissions.................................................................................. 20 Table 2.3-1 CITGO FCCU NOX Emissions ............................................................................................ 29 Table 2.3-2 CITGO FCCU SO2 Emissions ............................................................................................. 29 Table 2.3-3 CITGO FCCU PM Emissions.............................................................................................. 29 Table 2.3-4 CITGO Heater and Boiler NOX Emission............................................................................ 30 Table 2.4-1 ConocoPhillips FCCU Emissions ........................................................................................ 43 Table 2.4-2 ConocoPhillips Alliance Refinery Heater and Boiler Emissions......................................... 43 Table 2.4-3 ConocoPhillips Borger Refinery Heater and Boiler Emissions ........................................... 44 Table 2.4-4 ConocoPhillips Lake Charles Refinery Heater and Boiler Emissions ................................. 44 Table 2.4-5 ConocoPhillips Ponca City Refinery Heater and Boiler Emissions..................................... 45 Table 2.4-6 ConocoPhillips Sweeny Refinery Heater and Boiler Emissions.......................................... 46 Table 2.4-7 ConocoPhillips SRP 2006 Actual Emissions....................................................................... 47 Table 2.5-1 ExxonMobil Baton Rouge Refinery Actual NOX Emissions............................................... 55 Table 2.5-2 ExxonMobil Baytown Refinery FCCU Emissions .............................................................. 56 Table 2.5-3 ExxonMobil Beaumont Refinery FCCU Emissions ............................................................ 57 Table 2.5-4 ExxonMobil Beaumont Refinery Combustion Unit Emissions ........................................... 58 Table 2.5-5 ExxonMobil Beaumont Refinery SRU Emissions............................................................... 60 Table 2.5-6 ExxonMobil Beaumont Refinery Flare Emissions............................................................... 60 Table 2.6-1 Giant FCCU Emissions........................................................................................................ 65 Table 2.7-1 Flint Hills Resources FCCU Emissions ............................................................................... 69 Table 2.7-2 Flint Hills Resources Heater and Boiler Emissions ............................................................. 70 Table 2.8-1 Lion Oil FCCU Emissions ................................................................................................... 76 Table 2.9-1 Marathon Petroleum Company FCCU Emissions................................................................ 83 Petroleum Refinery Consent Decree Assessment -iii- E N V I R O N TCEQ Work Order 582-07-84005-01 Table 2.9-2 Marathon Petroleum Company Garyville Refinery Heater and Boiler Emissions............... 84 Table 2.9-3 Marathon Petroleum Company Texas City Refinery Heater and Boiler Emissions ............ 84 Table 2.10-1 Navajo Refining FCCU Emissions ...................................................................................... 91 Table 2.10-2 Navajo Refining Heater and Boiler Emissions .................................................................... 92 Table 2.11-1 Motiva / Deer Park Refining FCCU Emissions ................................................................... 99 Table 2.11-2 Deer Park Refining Heater and Boiler Emissions.............................................................. 100 Table 2.11-3 Motiva Convent Refinery Heater and Boiler Emissions.................................................... 101 Table 2.11-4 Motiva Norco Refinery Heater and Boiler Emissions.......................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Louisiana Crude Oil Refinery Survey Report: Eleventh Edition
    LOUISIANA CRUDE OIL REFINERY SURVEY REPORT Eleventh Edition Louisiana Fiscal Year 1999 Survey by Sam Stuckey, P.E. Refining, Alternative Energy & Power Systems Program LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Jack C. Caldwell Secretary of Natural Resources Technology Assessment Division T. Michael French, P.E. Director Baton Rouge, Louisiana November 15, 1999 This edition of Louisiana Crude Oil Refinery Survey Report is funded 100% ($320.30) with Petroleum Violation Escrow funds as part of the State Energy Conservation Program as approved by the U.S. Department of Energy and Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. This public document was published at a total cost of $320.30. 300 copies of this public document were published in this first printing at a total cost of $320.30. The total cost of all printings of this document, including reprints, is $320.30. This document was published by the Department of Natural Resources, 625 N. 4th Street, Baton Rouge, LA, to promulgate the State Energy Conservation Plan developed under authority of P.L. 94-163. This material was printed in accordance with the standards for printing by State agencies established pursuant to R.S. 43:31. Printing of this material was purchased in accordance with the provisions of Title 43 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes. -ii- TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE FOREWORD ......................................................... 1 DISCUSSION ......................................................... 3 DEFINITIONS ......................................................... 33 FIGURES 1 Location Map of Louisiana Refineries ..................................... 2 2 Operating Rates of Louisiana, Texas Gulf Coast, and all U.S. Refineries 1989-1999 .................................................................................. 17 3 Operating Capacity of Louisiana and U.S. Refineries 1947-1999 .................. 21 4 Louisiana Oil Production and Refinery Operating Capacity 1900-1998 ........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Exxonmobil Refinery Proposed Expansion: Operational Review and Neighborhood Demographic Profile
    ExxonMobil Refinery Proposed Expansion: Operational Review and Neighborhood Demographic Profile Louisiana Democracy Project asked EBIC to examine the environmental track record of ExxonMobil’s Baton Rouge Refinery and also provide a demographic analysis of the neighborhoods within 2 miles of the Refinery. The ExxonMobil Refinery, previously knows as the Exxon Refinery, is located at 4045 Scenic Hwy. in Baton Rouge, LA. It borders the Mississippi River to the West and a densely populated neighborhood to the East with additional refineries extending to the north from its property boundary. The facility itself borders another Exxon Chemicals America plant (4999 Scenic Hwy.) which is also a significant source of toxic environmental releases, workplace hazards and regulatory problems. ExxonMobil is seeking a permit to expand its air pollution emissions at the Baton Rouge refinery. The company has claimed that even though the plant will produce more emissions, its overall operational effect on the environment would be make the air cleaner by producing a fuel that would lower automobile emissions. ExxonMobil is seeking permits to increase air pollution emissions at its Baton Rouge refinery. But, the company says the cleaner gasoline created by the project will mean fewer emissions from cars. The refinery wants to make changes so it can produce cleaner, low-sulfur gas as ordered by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rules for 2004 model year cars and trucks. The new gasoline will mean that each year, vehicles in Baton Rouge's five-parish area will produce 2,238 fewer tons of nitrogen oxides and 842 fewer tons of volatile organic compounds.
    [Show full text]
  • Clean Air Act (CAA) Watch List
    Facilities on the Active May 2012 CAA Watch List The list of facilities below composes OECA's May 2012 Clean Air Act (CAA) Watch List. EPA maintains a "Watch List" to facilitate dialogue between EPA, state and local agencies on enforcement matters relating to facilities with alleged violations identified as either significant or high priority. Being on the Watch List may not mean that the facility has actually violated the law only that an evaluation or investigation by EPA or a state or local environmental agency has led those organizations to allege that an unproven violation has in fact occurred. The Watch List does not identify which alleged violations of environmental laws may pose the greatest risk to public health or the environment. It is an automated report based on data from the Air Facility System (AFS), which is used by federal, state and local agencies to track environmental enforcement and compliance information. Agencies input information into AFS, including information about violations that are identified as high priority violations (HPVs). Some facilities may appear on the Watch List due to data errors, which typically are identified and addressed during the EPA-state-local dialogue. EPA expects the government agency with jurisdiction over a facility with an HPV to initiate an appropriate enforcement response, in a timely manner, and input the action into AFS. Some facilities on the list are the subject of existing orders, are actively participating in negotiations with regulators, or are the subject of an investigation. While progress is being made toward resolving the violations, further activities may be required to achieve compliance.
    [Show full text]
  • DISCUSSION GROUP 1 on TURBOMACHINERY OPERATION and MAINTENANCE
    DISCUSSION GROUP 1 on TURBOMACHINERY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Charles R. (Charlie) Rutan, Coordinator, is an Engineering Fellow for Lyondell/Equistar Chemicals, LP, at the Chocolate Bayou Chemical Complex, in Alvin, Texas. Initially, he was a Project Engineer for Monsanto Company, then moved into equipment specification, installation, startup, and problem solving. After Monsanto, Mr. Rutan worked for Conoco Chemicals, DuPont, and Cain Chemicals. He was a Mechanical Area Maintenance Manager at the Chocolate Bayou facility prior to being promoted to his present position. Mr. Rutan received his B.S. degree from Texas Tech University (1973). He was appointed to the Texas Tech University Department of Mechanical Engineering Academy of Mechanical Engineers and is a member of the Turbomachinery Symposium Advisory Committee. He has been active in ASME, the Turbomachinery and the International Pump User’s Symposia, the Southern Gas Compression Conference, the Hydraulic Institute, and AIChE. Richard Beck, Coordinator, has been the Equipment Reliability Group Supervisor at Chevron Phillips Chemical Company, Cedar Bayou Plant, in Baytown, Texas, since 1990. He has been employed with Chevron since May 1980, primarily in the equipment inspection and machinery reliability fields. Mr. Beck serves as the team leader of the Chevron Phillips Chemical Machinery Best Practice team and is one of the implementation coordinators for a company-wide reliability software system. His previous Chevron assignments include work at the Pascagoula, Mississippi, refinery; the Belle Chasse, Louisiana, chemical plant; and the Maua, Brazil, chemical facility. Mr. Beck completed his undergraduate studies at Mississippi State University (Education, 1979) and taught high school mathematics prior to his career with Chevron.
    [Show full text]
  • Safety Bulletin • Exxonmobil • Baton Rouge, Louisiana
    Key Lessons from the ExxonMobil Baton Rouge Refinery Isobutane Release and Fire SUMMARY OF KEY LESSONS: Incident Date: November 22, 2016 Companies should: 4 Workers Injured • Evaluate human factors associated with No. 2016-02-I-LA equipment design and apply the hierarchy of controls to mitigate identified hazards. • Establish detailed and accurate written procedures and provide training to ensure workers can perform all anticipated job tasks safely. CSB • Safety Bulletin • ExxonMobil • Baton Rouge, Louisiana The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) is an independent Federal agency whose mission is to drive chemical safety change through independent investigations to protect people and the environment. The CSB is a scientific investigative organization; it is not an enforcement or regulatory body. Established by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the CSB is responsible for determining accident causes, issuing safety recommendations, studying chemical safety issues, and evaluating the effectiveness of other government agencies involved in chemical safety. More information about the CSB is available at www.csb.gov. The CSB makes public its actions and decisions through investigative publications, all of which may include safety recommendations when appropriate. Examples of the types of publications include: CSB Investigation Reports: formal, detailed reports on significant chemical accidents and include key findings, root causes, and safety recommendations. CSB Investigation Digests: plain-language summaries of Investigation Reports. CSB Case Studies: examines fewer issues than a full investigative report, case studies present investigative information from specific accidents and include a discussion of relevant prevention practices. CSB Safety Bulletins: short, general-interest publications that provide new or timely information intended to facilitate the prevention of chemical accidents.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to the American Petroleum Institute Photograph and Film Collection, 1860S-1980S
    Guide to the American Petroleum Institute Photograph and Film Collection, 1860s-1980s NMAH.AC.0711 Bob Ageton (volunteer) and Kelly Gaberlavage (intern), August 2004 and May 2006; supervised by Alison L. Oswald, archivist. August 2004 and May 2006 Archives Center, National Museum of American History P.O. Box 37012 Suite 1100, MRC 601 Washington, D.C. 20013-7012 [email protected] http://americanhistory.si.edu/archives Table of Contents Collection Overview ........................................................................................................ 1 Administrative Information .............................................................................................. 1 Arrangement..................................................................................................................... 3 Biographical / Historical.................................................................................................... 2 Scope and Contents........................................................................................................ 2 Names and Subjects ...................................................................................................... 4 Container Listing ............................................................................................................. 6 Series 1: Historical Photographs, 1850s-1950s....................................................... 6 Series 2: Modern Photographs, 1960s-1980s........................................................ 75 Series 3: Miscellaneous
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) STATE OF LOUISIANA, and the ) STATE OF MONTANA ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION and ) No. EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION ) ) Defendants. ) ) CONSENT DECREE TABLE OF CONTENTS I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ............................................6 II. APPLICABILITY AND BINDING EFFECT ..................................7 III. OBJECTIVES ..........................................................9 IV. DEFINITIONS ..........................................................9 V. AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF ................................................17 A. Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units ......................................17 B. NOx Emissions Reductions from the FCCUs ...........................18 C. SO2 Emissions Reductions from the FCCUs ............................28 D. Particulate Matter Emissions Reductions from the FCCUs .................39 E. Carbon Monoxide Emissions Reductions from the FCCUs ................41 F. NSPS Applicability to the FCCU Catalyst Regenerators ..................44 G. NOx Emissions Reductions from Combustion Units .....................49 H. SO2 Emissions Reductions from and NSPS Applicability of Heaters, Boilers and Other Fuel Gas Combustion Devices ..............................56 I. Sulfur Recovery Plant Operations ....................................58 J. Flaring Devices ..................................................67 K. Control of Acid Gas Flaring and Tail Gas Incidents ......................71
    [Show full text]
  • How Did They Finish? CAN ONE MEGASITE HAVE EVERYTHING YOU NEED?
    The Best of Aerospace in the American South WWW.RAND LER E P O R T . C OM WWW. SB- D . COM WWW. S O UTHE R N A UTO C O RRI D O R . COM Economic Development in the World’s Third Largest Economy SPRING 2018 2018 SB D100 5 Permit No. 21 No. Permit & A V , g Lynchbur PAID ge Posta .S. U D PRSRT ST PRSRT How did they finish? CAN ONE MEGASITE HAVE EVERYTHING YOU NEED? In the Golden Triangle, we’ve got it all—and we give it all. Yes is what we always say here—for whatever you need to succeed. Abundant electricity and water? Yes! Highways, rail, waterway, airport? Yes, yes, yes, and yes! Quality workforce and training? Hell, yes! Our 1,144-acre Infinity Megasite is just one of our feature-filled, ready-to-roll locations. But what’ll really blow you away is our can-do, will-do, do-it-up attitude. Talk to us. Tell us what you need. And expect the answer that makes this region—and your future—golden: YES. www.gtrSaysYes.com or call 662.328.8369 Joe Max Higgins, Jr., CEO GOLDEN TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT LINK All of These Companies Have Two Things in Common ... 2.5 million square feet 2 million square feet 2.1 million square feet 2 million square feet 1 million square feet 500,000 square feet Alliance Consulting Engineers, Inc., Nationally Recognized, Recognized as the Locally Focused. Leading Economic Development Engineering Firm in South Carolina by They Chose South Carolina. They Chose Alliance Consulting Engineers, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • The Shell Oil Strike of 1962-1963
    LABOR’S LAST STAND IN THE REFINERY: THE SHELL OIL STRIKE OF 1962-1963 BY TYLER PRIEST Unless otherwise indicated, all photos from USW Local 4-1, Pasadena, TX. Pasadena, 4-1, Local USW from photos all indicated, otherwise Unless Striking OCAW Local 4-367 employees outside the gate of the Shell Oil Deer Park ❒ Individual: ❒ $15 – 1 yr refinery in 1962. “The true majesty of the oil industry is best seen in a modern along soaring platforms, catwalks, and ladders, the ❒ $30 – 2 yrs refinery,” wrote oil journalist Harvey O’Connor in 1955. catalytic cracking unit affords one of the magic ❒ Student (please include copy Few monuments of industrial architecture could compare to sights of twentieth century technology.”1 of student id): ❒ $10 – 1 yr a refinery’s giant crude oil tanks, topping plants, distilling Today, when driving over the Sam Houston Tollway ❒ Institution: ❒ $25 – 1 yr columns, fractionating towers, platformers, extraction plants, Ship Channel Bridge, even long-time residents of Houston lubricating oils units, and de-waxing units. The centerpiece cannot help gawking at a spectacle that includes not merely Donation: $ of the modern refinery, however, was that “sublime industrial one refinery, but dozens stretching along the Houston cathedral known as a ‘cat-cracker’,” where petroleum Ship Channel and around Galveston Bay. Conspicuous molecules were from this vantage point is Shell Oil’s Deer Park complex. Tyler Priest is Clinical Professor Return to: broken down and Built in 1929 and expanded with a giant cat cracker after Center for Public History and Director of Global Studies rearranged to form at the C.T.
    [Show full text]
  • Marathon Petroleum Corporation [email protected]
    February 6, 2017 Molly R. Benson Marathon Petroleum Corporation [email protected] Re: Marathon Petroleum Corporation Incoming letter dated December 23, 2016 Dear Ms. Benson: This is in response to your letter dated December 23, 2016 concerning the shareholder proposal submitted to MPC by the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union. We also received a letter from the proponent on January 18, 2017. Copies of all of the correspondence on which this response is based will be made available on our website at http://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/cf-noaction/14a-8.shtml. For your reference, a brief discussion of the Division’s informal procedures regarding shareholder proposals is also available at the same website address. Sincerely, Matt S. McNair Senior Special Counsel Enclosure cc: Shawn Gilchrist USW [email protected] February 6, 2017 Response of the Office of Chief Counsel Division of Corporation Finance Re: Marathon Petroleum Corporation Incoming letter dated December 23, 2016 The proposal urges the board to report on the steps the company has taken to reduce the risk of accidents. The proposal further specifies that the report should describe the board’s oversight of process safety management, staffing levels, inspection and maintenance of facilities and other equipment. We are unable to concur in your view that MPC may exclude the proposal under rule 14a-8(i)(10). Based on the information you have presented, it does not appear that MPC’s public disclosures compare favorably with the guidelines of the proposal. Accordingly, we do not believe that MPC may omit the proposal from its proxy materials in reliance on rule 14a-8(i)(10).
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Magellan Crude Oil Pipeline Project* Permian and Eagle Ford
    Magellan Crude Oil Pipeline Project* Permian and Eagle Ford Basins to Corpus Christi and Houston, Texas Background Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. (together with its affiliates, “Magellan”), either through an existing affiliate or a newly formed entity, which new entity may include one or more unaffiliated members (in either case, “Carrier”) intends to develop a new pipeline system to transport crude oil and condensate from the Permian and Eagle Ford Basins to destinations in the Corpus Christi and Houston, Texas area, with an initial planned design capacity of at least 350,000 barrels per day (“bpd”) with the ability to expand up to 600,000 bpd to each destination (the “Pipeline System”). Carrier may elect to adjust the initial design capacity of the Pipeline System based on shipper demand in the open season. Carrier is seeking long-term revenue or revenue/acreage dedication commitments for the Pipeline System (in the form of Transportation Services Agreements or “TSAs”) through a binding open season (the “Open Season”), in exchange for which committed shippers would secure contract capacity rights at incentive tariff rates. Subject to obtaining sufficient commitments from shippers and the receipt of all necessary permits and approvals, the Pipeline System could be operational within 24 months of Carrier’s determination to proceed with the project. Pipeline System *1/31/2018 Version 1 Pipeline System Carrier would develop a new Pipeline System for transporting crude oil and condensate from the Permian and Eagle Ford Basins to the Corpus Christi and Houston Gulf Coast areas. Specifically, the Pipeline System would include the following assets, which could be newly constructed, existing or leased assets, or a combination of such, in each case, as supported by sufficient shipper interest: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Refinery Events June 8, 2012
    Refinery Events June 8, 2012– June 14, 2012 The following events were obtained from the Department of Energy (DOE) website: Update: Motiva Continues to Address Corrosion Issue in Fuel Gas System at Its 600,000 b/d Port Arthur, Texas Refinery Motiva Enterprises on Friday provided an update on its progress addressing previously announced corrosion issues on some piping in the plant’s fuel gas system in a filing with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. To remedy the corrosion issue and perform necessary repairs, operators were planning to temporarily place into service three compressors at the West Side Gas Plant (WSGP). The use of the WSGP compressors will help maintain fuel gas system reliability and reduce the potential for a fuel gas flaring event during the maintenance work, the filing said. Motiva submitted a similar notification for the compressors on April 23, 2012, and the follow-up filing today was submitted because the maintenance work identified in the prior notice has not been completed. http://www11.tceq.state.tx.us/oce/eer/index.cfm?fuseaction=main.getDetails&target=169426 Posted to DOE website 6-8-12. Citgo Reduces Rates Due to SRU Upset at Its 163,000 b/d Corpus Christi, Texas Refinery June 7 Citgo reported a sulfur recovery unit (SRU) upset at its West Plant Thursday morning, according to a filing with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Operators reduced West Plant unit rates to reduce the production of sour gas as they worked to stabilize the amine system and SRU unit. http://www11.tceq.state.tx.us/oce/eer/index.cfm?fuseaction=main.getDetails&target=169414 Posted to DOE website 6-8-12.
    [Show full text]