In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 L. Control of Hydrocarbon Flaring Incidents ..............................81 M. CERCLA/EPCRA Reporting ........................................82 N. Benzene Waste NESHAP Program Enhancements .......................83 O. Leak Detection and Repair Program Enhancements .....................100 P. Other Compliance Program Requirements Applicable to the Billings and Joliet Refineries .................................................114 Q. Incorporation of Consent Decree Requirements into Federally Enforceable Permits ..............................................120 VI. EMISSION CREDIT GENERATION .....................................124 VII. MODIFICATIONS TO IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULES ...................126 VIII. ENVIRONMENTALLY BENEFICIAL PROJECTS ..........................131 IX. RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING ...................................138 -i- X. CIVIL PENALTY .....................................................139 XI. STIPULATED PENALTIES .............................................143 XII. INTEREST ...........................................................167 XIII. RIGHT OF ENTRY ....................................................167 XIV. FORCE MAJEURE ....................................................168 XV. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION / DISPUTE RESOLUTION .................171 XVI. EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT ............................................173 XVII. GENERAL PROVISIONS ..............................................187 XVIII. TERMINATION ......................................................198 XIX. SIGNATORIES .......................................................202 -ii- TABLE OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Combustion Unit Information Appendix B: PEMS Program Requirements Appendix C: NSPS Subpart J Compliance Schedule for Certain Heaters and Boilers Appendix D: NSPS Subpart J Compliance Schedule for Other Fuel Gas Combustion Devices Appendix E: “Alternative Monitoring Plan for NSPS Subpart J Refinery Fuel Gas” Appendix F: List of Existing Flaring Devices Operated by Covered Refineries Appendix G: NSPS Subpart J Compliance Schedule for NSPS Flaring Devices Operated by Covered Refineries Appendix H: Data Relevant to Billings FCCU Baseline Emissions, Trials, Demonstrations, and Final Limits Appendix I: Additional Claims Concerning the Billings Refinery Referenced in Consent Decree Subparagraph 252.b Appendix J: Table of Alleged CWA Violations at the Joliet Refinery Referenced in Consent Decree Subparagraph 252.c.(1) Appendix K: Table of Alleged CERCLA Section 103 and EPCRA Section 304 Reporting Violations at the Joliet Refinery Referenced in Consent Decree Subparagraph 252.c.(1) Appendix L: Additional Claims Concerning the Joliet Refinery Referenced in Consent Decree Subparagraph 252.c.(2) Appendix M: Additional Claims Concerning the Baton Rouge Refinery Referenced in Consent Decree Subparagraph 252.d Appendix N: Schedule for Use of CEMS at ExxonMobil’s FCCUs Appendix O: Summary of the Understanding Between LDEQ and the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Foundation Relating to ExxonMobil’s Payment for Beneficial Environmental Projects Under Consent Decree Paragraph 159 Appendix P: Joliet Wastewater Treatment Plant Area Program Appendix Q: Federal Diesel Emission Reduction SEPs Appendix R: Drawing of Real Estate Referenced in Consent Decree Subparagraph 156.d(1) Appendix S: Drawing of Billings Refinery Scrap Yard and Laydown Areas and Land Treatment Unit as Referenced in Consent Decree Paragraphs 137 and 138 Appendix T: Drawing of Joliet Material Staging Area Referenced in Consent Decree Subparagraph 135.a -iii- CONSENT DECREE WHEREAS, defendant Exxon Mobil Corporation currently owns and operates petroleum refineries located in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Baytown, Texas; and Billings, Montana. Defendant ExxonMobil Oil Corporation (formerly known as Mobil Oil Corporation) currently owns and operates petroleum refineries located in Beaumont, Texas; Joliet, Illinois; and Torrance, California. As specified by Section IV of this Consent Decree: (i) Exxon Mobil Corporation and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation are referred to herein as “ExxonMobil;” and (ii) the six petroleum refineries identified above are referred to herein as the “Covered Refineries.” WHEREAS, plaintiff the United States of America (“Plaintiff” or the “United States”), by the authority of the Attorney General of the United States and through its undersigned counsel, acting at the request and on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), alleges upon information and belief that defendant ExxonMobil has violated and/or continues to violate certain requirements of the Clean Air Act, and the regulations and permits promulgated thereunder at the Covered Refineries. WHEREAS, the United States specifically alleges that ExxonMobil has violated and/or continues to violate the following statutory and regulatory provisions: 1) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) requirements found at Part C of Subchapter I of the Clean Air Act (the “Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 7475, and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 40 C.F.R. § 52.21 (the “PSD Rules”); and “Plan Requirements for Non-Attainment Areas” at Part D of Subchapter I of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7502- 7503, and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 40 C.F.R. § 51.165(a) and (b), 40 C.F.R. Part 51, Appendix S, and 40 C.F.R. § 52.24 (“PSD/NSR Regulations”), for fuel 1 gas combustion devices and fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerators for NOx, SO2, CO and PM; 2) New Source Performance Standards (“NSPS”) found at 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subparts A and J (“Refinery NSPS Regulations”), promulgated under Section 111 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7411, for sulfur recovery plants, fuel gas combustion devices, and fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerators; 3) Leak Detection and Repair (“LDAR”) requirements promulgated pursuant to Sections 111 and 112 of the Act, and found at 40 C.F.R. Part 60 Subpart GGG; 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subparts J and V; and 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subparts F, H, and CC (“LDAR Regulations”); and 4) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (“NESHAP”) for Benzene Waste Operations promulgated pursuant to Section 112(e) of the Act, and found at 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart FF (“Benzene Waste NESHAP Regulations”). WHEREAS, the United States also alleges upon information and belief that ExxonMobil has violated and/or continues to violate certain other legal requirements applicable to the Covered Refineries, including requirements imposed by the following statutes and the regulations promulgated thereunder: (i) the Clean Water Act (the “CWA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.; (ii) the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.; and (iii) the release reporting requirements found at Section 103(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9603(a), and Section 304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (“EPCRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 11004. 2 WHEREAS, the United States also specifically alleges with respect to the Covered Refineries that, upon information and belief, ExxonMobil has been and/or continues to be in violation of the state implementation plans (“SIPs”) and other state rules adopted by the states and/or local air quality districts in which the Covered Refineries are located to the extent that such plan or rules implement, adopt or incorporate the above-described Federal requirements. WHEREAS, the State of Illinois (on behalf of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency), the State of Louisiana (on behalf of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality), and the State of Montana (on behalf of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality) (referred to herein as the “Co-Plaintiffs”) have joined in this matter to allege violations of their respective applicable SIP provisions and other state and local rules, regulations, and permits incorporating and/or implementing the foregoing federal requirements. WHEREAS,