EPA v. GETTY REFINING

Case summary

NATURE OF THE CASE GETTY REFINING AND MARKETING COMPANY OWNS AND OPERATES A REFINERY IN EL DORADO, KANSAS. THIS REFINERY CONTAINS MANY SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTION AND OVER THE YEARS, DUE TO VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION AND MODIFICATION PROJECTS, MANY OF THESE SOURCES HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO THE NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT. THE TWO SOURCES THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF THIS REFERRAL ARE PROCESS HEATERS, DESIGNATED B-2101 AND B-2102. THESE TWO HEATERS WERE CON- STRUCTED AFTER JUNE 11, 1973, AND ARE FUEL GAS COMBUSTION DEVICES (AS DEFINED IN 40 C.F.R. SUBPART J, SECTION 60.101 (G)). THEREFORE THEY ARE SUBJECT TO 40 C.F.R. PART 60, SUB- PART J-- STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR PETROLEUM REFINERIES. CAUSE OF ACTION: CAUSE OF ACTION ON APRIL 30, 1980, MR. R. G. SOEHLKE, MANAGER OF THE EL DORADO REFINERY, WROTE A LETTER TO THE DIRECTOR OF AIR AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIVISION OF EPA, REGION VII, INFORMING EPA THAT GETTY PLANNED TO REPLACE TWO EXISTING PROCESS HEATERS. MR. SOEHLKE PROVIDED EPA WITH SOME INFORMATION GETTY OF ALL ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WHICH EPA WOULD NEED RE- GARDING THESE TWO NEW HEATERS. IN A LETTER DATED MAY 12, 1980, EPA REGION VII ADVISED GETTY THAT THE TWO NEW PROCESS HEATERS IT PLANNED TO CON- STRUCT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, 40 C.F.R. PART 60, SUBPARTS A AND J. GETTY WAS SPECIFICALLY REMINDED THAT IT MUST NOTIFY EPA , PURSUANT TO 40 C.F.R. SECTION 60.7, OF (1) THE DATE CONSTRUCTION COMMENCED ON EACH UNIT; (2) THE ANTICIPATED DATE OF INITIAL STARTUP OF EACH UNIT; (3) THE ACTUAL OF INI- INITIAL STARTUP OF EACH UNIT; (3) THE ACTUAL DATE OF INI- TIAL STARTUP; AND (4) THE PERFORMANCE TEST DATES AT LEAST THIRTY DAYS PRIOR TO THE TEST DATES. IN NOVEMBER, 1981, GETTY PROCEEDED TO CONSTRUCT THE TWO PROCESS HEATERS AS PLANNED, AND BOTH WERE STARTED UP ON MAY 24, 1982. THEY HAVE BEEN OPERATING FOR OVER A YEAR. HOWEVER, GETTY DID NOT PROVIDE EPA WITH THE NOTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY 40 C.F.R. 60.7. NEITHER HAS GETTY CONDUCTED THE PERFORMANCE TESTS REQUIRED BY 40 C.F.R. 60.8., WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED BY NOVEMBER 10, 1982. PROPOSED REMEDY THE COMPLAINT SHOULD SEEK AN INJUNCTION REQUIRING GETTY TO CONDUCT PERFORMANCE TESTS ON THESE TWO PROCESS HEATERS AND TO COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF 40 C.F.R. SUB- PARTS A AND J. THE COMPLAINT SHOULD ALSO ASK FOR CIVIL PENALTIES FOR GETTY'S FAILURE TO PROVIDE EPA WITH THE RE- QUIRED PRIOR NOTIFICATIONS AND GETTY'S FAILURE TO CONDUCT THE PERFORMANCE TESTS WITHIN 180 DAYS OF STARTUP, AS RE- QUIRED BY SECTION 60.8. NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT ISSUES ONE ISSUE WHICH THIS CASE RAISES THAT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED IN PRIOR CASES IS WHAT IS AN APPROPRIATE PENALTY FOR A SOURCE'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTIFICATION RE- QUIREMENTS OF 40 C.F.R. PART 60, SUBPART A.

Defendants (1)

• GETTY REFINING & MARKETING COMPANYNamed in complaintNamed in settlement

Facilities (2)

• FRONTIER EL DORADO REFINING COMPANY

  1401 SOUTH DOUGLAS ROAD, EL DORADO, KS, 67042

  Registry ID: 110000446134

• FRONTIER EL DORADO REFINING COMPANY

  1401 SOUTH DOUGLAS ROAD, EL DORADO, KS, 67042

  Registry ID: 110000446134

Statutes cited

• CAA 111 — New Source Performance Standards

Enforcement conclusions (1)

• GETTY REFINING & MARKETING CO.entered 1983-12-16

  Primary law: CAA

  Federal penalty: $5,000

Timeline (7 milestones)

• 1983-06-13Referred To Headquarters
• 1983-07-15Referred To Dept Of Justice
• 1983-12-16Final Order Lodged
• 1983-12-16Final Order Entered
• 1983-12-16Complaint Filed With Court
• 1983-12-16Concluded
• 1984-04-23Enforcement Action Closed