Shell Deer Park Consent Decree
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Case 4:13-cv-02009 Document 2-1 Filed in TXSD on 07/10/13 Page 1 of 121 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS __________________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:13-cv-2009 ) SHELL OIL COMPANY, DEER PARK ) REFINING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, and ) SHELL CHEMICAL LP, ) ) Defendants. ) ) _________________________________________ ) Case 4:13-cv-02009 Document 2-1 Filed in TXSD on 07/10/13 Page 2 of 121 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ...............................................................................................5 II. APPLICABILITY .....................................................................................................................6 III. DEFINITIONS .........................................................................................................................8 IV. CIVIL PENALTY .................................................................................................................24 V. COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................................25 A. Instrumentation and Monitoring Systems ..........................................................................25 B. Determining Whether a Covered Flare that has a Water Seal Is not Receiving Potentially Recoverable Gas Flow ..........................................................30 C. Waste Gas Minimization ....................................................................................................31 D. Flare Gas Recovery Systems at the SDP Refinery ............................................................38 E. Flaring Limitations at the Refinery ....................................................................................41 F. Flare Gas Recovery System at the Olefins Flares of the SDP Chemical Plant ..................46 G. Limitations on Flaring at the A&S and HIPA Flares of the SDP Chemical Plant .............51 H. Flare Combustion Efficiency .............................................................................................52 I. NSPS Subpart A, J, and Ja Applicability............................................................................64 J. Eliminating Fuel Gas Flow from the SDP Refinery to the SDP Chemical Plant Covered Flares ....................................................................................................................64 K. Incorporation of Consent Decree Requirements into Federally Enforceable Permits ...........................................................................................................65 VI. EMISSION CREDIT GENERATION ..................................................................................66 VII. MITIGATION PROJECTS ..................................................................................................68 VIII. SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS ......................................................69 IX. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS .........................................................................................73 ii Case 4:13-cv-02009 Document 2-1 Filed in TXSD on 07/10/13 Page 3 of 121 X. STIPULATED PENALTIES ..................................................................................................77 XI. FORCE MAJEURE ...............................................................................................................87 XII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION ...................................................................................................90 A. For All Disputes Except those Arising Under Subparagraphs 43.c and 46.c ...................90 B. For Disputes Arising Under Subparagraphs 43.c and 46.c ...............................................92 XIII. INFORMATION COLLECTION AND RETENTION .....................................................92 XIV. EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT/RESERVATION OF RIGHTS ...........................................94 XV. COSTS ...............................................................................................................................102 XVI. NOTICES..........................................................................................................................102 XVII. EFFECTIVE DATE ........................................................................................................104 XVIII. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION ...............................................................................105 XIX. MODIFICATION .............................................................................................................105 XX. TERMINATION ................................................................................................................105 XXI. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .............................................................................................107 XXII. SIGNATORIES/SERVICE .............................................................................................108 XXIII. INTEGRATION .............................................................................................................108 XXIV. FINAL JUDGMENT .....................................................................................................109 iii Case 4:13-cv-02009 Document 2-1 Filed in TXSD on 07/10/13 Page 4 of 121 TABLES OF APPENDICES TABLE 1 NUMBER ABBREVIATION DESCRIPTION Drawings Illustrating Lower, Center, and Upper Steam 1.1 S-Drwgs Injection in Various Types of Flare Tips 1.2 Gen-Eq General Equations 1.3 LFL Calculating NHVcz-limit and NHVcz for Steam-Assisted Flares EPA’s Policy on Excess Emissions during Malfunctions, 1.4 Malf-Pol Startup, and Shutdown 1.5 MFR-Eq Calculating Momentum Flux Ratio Calculating the Unobstructed Cross Sectional Area of Various 1.6 Tip-Area-Eq Types of Flare Tips 1.7 G-Drwg Depiction of Gases Associated with Steam-Assisted Flares Outline of Requirements for the Flare Data and Initial 1.8 Flr-Data-Rpt Monitoring Systems Report List of Compounds a Gas Chromatograph must be Capable of 1.9 GC-Cmpnds Speciating Equipment and Instrumentation Technical Specifications and 1.10 Tech-Specs Quality Assurance/Quality Control Requirements Waste Gas Mapping: Level of Detail Needed to Show Main 1.11 WG-Map Headers and Process Unit Headers 1.12 DWDF-Drwgs Representations of Discontinuous Wake Dominated Flow Calculating the Amount of Stipulated Penalties Due for 1.13 Stips-Calc Violating Limitations on Flaring when the Stipulated Penalties are Based on Excess VOC and SO2 Emitted Equations and Methodology to Calculate Refinery-Specific 1.14 Nlsn-Cmplxty Complexity and Industry-Average Complexity using Nelson Complexity Index iv Case 4:13-cv-02009 Document 2-1 Filed in TXSD on 07/10/13 Page 5 of 121 TABLE 2 NUMBER ABBREVIATION DESCRIPTION Covered Flares and Applicability Dates for Certain Consent 2.1 SDP-Cmplnc-Sch Decree Requirements Intentionally left 2.2 Intentionally left blank blank Methodology for Calculating Refinery Flaring Limitation 2.3 FLR-Limit-Calc (including SDP’s Form EIA-820 for Report Year 2012) 2.4 FGRS-%-Rcvy Calculation of Olefins FGRS Estimated Percent Recovery Methodology for Calculating the 365-day Rolling Sum 2.5 HIPA-Emssns Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds from the HIPA Flare 2.6 Mitig-NET Mitigation Project at the North Effluent Treater 2.7 Mitig-Tank Mitigation Project at Certain Tanks 2.8 Mitig-ACU/BEU Mitigation Project at the ACU and BEU 2.9 SEP-Mntring Fence Line Monitoring Supplemental Environmental Project 2.10 SEP-Diesel Diesel Retrofit Supplemental Environmental Project v Case 4:13-cv-02009 Document 2-1 Filed in TXSD on 07/10/13 Page 6 of 121 CONSENT DECREE WHEREAS Plaintiff the United States of America (“United States”), on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), has filed a complaint against Defendants Shell Oil Company (“Shell Oil”), Deer Park Refining Limited Partnership (“Deer Park Refining”), and Shell Chemical LP (“Shell Chemical”) (collectively “SDP”), concurrently with the lodging of this Consent Decree, for alleged environmental violations at Shell Oil’s and Deer Park Refining’s petroleum refinery (“SDP Refinery”) and at Shell Chemical’s chemical plant (“SDP Chemical Plant”) (collectively “Covered Facilities”), both located in Deer Park, Texas; WHEREAS, on information and belief, the United States alleges that SDP has violated and/or continues to violate, at the Covered Facilities, one or more of the following statutory and regulatory provisions: a. The Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) requirements found in 42 U.S.C. § 7475 and 40 C.F.R. §§ 52.21(a)(2)(iii) and 52.21(j)– 52.21(r)(5); b. The Non-Attainment New Source Review (“NNSR”) requirements found in 42 U.S.C. §§ 7502(c)(5), 7503(a)–(c) and 40 C.F.R. Part 51, Appendix S, Part IV, Conditions 1–4; c. The federally enforceable Minor New Source Review (“Minor NSR”) requirements adopted and implemented by the Relevant States in their State Implementation Plans (“SIPs”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(C) and 40 C.F.R. §§ 51.160–51.164; d. The New Source Performance Standards (“NSPS”) promulgated at 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subparts A, J, VV, VVa, GGG, and GGGa, pursuant to Section 111 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7411; e. The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (“NESHAPs”) promulgated at 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subparts A and FF and 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subparts A, G, CC, FF, and UUU, pursuant to Section 112 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412; Case 4:13-cv-02009 Document 2-1 Filed in TXSD on 07/10/13 Page 7 of 121 f. The requirements of Title