Workshop W - MEC Seminars & Conferences

Workshop W 

Environmental Enforcement - 

Current Trends 

Tuesday, March 26, 2013 

3:30 p.m. to 4:45 p.m.

Biographical Information 

Jennifer J. Cave, Partner, Bingham, Greenebaum Doll LLP 

300 West Vine Street, Suite 1100, Lexington, KY 40507 

(859) 288-4611 Fax: (859) 367-3811 jcave@bgdlegal.com 

Jennifer is a partner in the Lexington, Kentucky office of Bingham Greenebaum 

Doll LLP where she concentrates her practice in the areas of environmental 

permitting, compliance, and litigation. Jennifer is the past Chair of the Kentucky 

Bar Association’s Environment, Energy & Resources Law section. Jennifer is a 

member of the Leadership Lexington Class of 2013 and serves on the board of 

directors of the Lexington Humane Society and the Fayette County Bar 

Association Young Lawyers’ Section. Jennifer is also the editor of Bingham’s 

Environmental Letter, which is published bi-monthly. 

Jennifer received her B.S., cum laude, from the University of Kentucky, and her 

J.D., magna cum laude, from the Seattle University School of Law. During law 

school, she served as a legal intern in the U.S. EPA’s Office of Regional Counsel 

in Seattle, Washington. Prior to attending law school, Jennifer worked as an 

environmental consultant in New England and the Pacific Northwest. 

Jennifer is admitted to practice in Washington State and Kentucky. 

Dale T. Vitale, Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section 

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine's Office 

30 East Broad Street, Columbus, OH 43215-3400 

614-466-5249 Fax: 614-644-1926 (fax) 

dale.vitale@ohioattorneygeneral.gov 

Dale T. Vitale is the Chief of the Environmental Enforcement Section of Attorney 

General’s Office. He received his B.A. from the University of Notre Dame, and 

his J.D. from University of Cincinnati College of Law. Following an initial tour of 

active duty as a Judge Advocate in the United States Army, Mr. Vitale has 

practiced environmental law for over 29 years. During this time, Mr. Vitale has 

been in private practice, a corporate in-house counsel, the Chief Legal Advisor 

for the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and an Assistant Attorney General 

in the Environmental Enforcement Section, where he has been the Chief since 

2003. He supervises a 58-person staff of attorneys, paralegals, investigators and 

support staff that represents the Ohio EPA, the Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources, the State Fire Marshal’s Bureau of Underground Storage Tank 

Regulations, the Ohio Department of Agriculture’s Livestock Environmental 

Permitting Program, the State Emergency Response Commission and the Ohio 

Power Siting Board in administrative, civil and criminal litigation in local, state and 

federal courts. Mr. Vitale is a frequent lecturer on various environmental topics 

and professionalism, and he has contributed to the Environmental Law Journal of 

Ohio, the OSBA’s Legal Basics for Small Businesses and other environmental 

publications. He is a member of the Ohio State Bar Association and the 

Guantanamo Bay Bar Association.

Biographical Information 

Jeffrey A. Cummins, Director, Division of Enforcement 

Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection 

300 Fair Oaks Lane, Frankfort, KY 40601 

502-564-2150 Fax: 5012-564-7725 Jeff.Cummins@ky.gov] 

Jeffrey Cummins graduated from Western Kentucky University in 1979 with a 

bachelor of science in Environmental Engineering Technology. He was 

employed by the Louisville Water Company from 1979 until 1982 as a field 

inspector in distribution water quality. Jeff then worked for the Kentucky Utilities 

Company from 1982 until 1987 as an engineering technician specializing in air 

quality, and with Neundorfer, Incorporated of Willoughby, Ohio as a consulting 

engineer and later Manager of Technical Field Services. 

Jeff joined the Department for Environmental Protection in 1991 as an 

Environmental Engineering Technologist assigned to the oversight of the 

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant remediation. Since that time he has served as 

Environmental Control Supervisor from 1993 until 2004, as Environmental 

Control Manager in the Division of Enforcement and Acting Division Director from 

2007 through 2009, and as Assistant Director and Acting Director from 

September 2009 through June, 2012. He was appointed Director of the Division 

of Enforcement effective June 16, 2012. In addition to the responsibilities 

detailed above, he was a member of the Environmental Response Team from 

September 1991 through July 2007, serving as on-scene incident coordinator at 

environmental incidents across Kentucky. 

Virginia M. King 

Senior Group Counsel of Environmental, Safety and Security 

Marathon Petroleum Company, 539 South Main Street, Findlay, OH 45840 

419.421.3370 Fax: 419.427.3538 vmking@marathonpetroleum.com 

Virginia M. King is Senior Group Counsel of Environmental, Safety and Security 

for Marathon Petroleum Company, located in Findlay, Ohio. Ms. King has a 

Chemical Engineering degree and Law degree from the University of Toledo. She 

is a patent attorney and has worked in the petroleum industry for over 20 years. 

Currently, she practices environmental law, specializing in air matters.

ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT – 

CURRENT TRENDS 

22 ND ANNUAL BUSINESS & INDUSTRY’S SUSTAINABILITY 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH & SAFETY SYMPOSIUM 

MARCH 26, 2013 

DUKE ENERGY CENTER 

CINCINNATI, OHIO

OUTLINE 

• EPA’s National 

Enforcement 

Initiatives 

• Federal Enforcement 

Trends 

• Expansion of Liability 

Image courtesy of: 

http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid= 

1152">Image: jscreationzs / FreeDigitalPhotos.net 

2

NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVES – 

RAW SEWAGE AND CONTAMINATED STORMWATER 

Reduce raw sewage overflows and storm water 

discharges from municipal sewer systems (CSOs, 

SSOs, and MS4s) posing a threat to water quality 

and public health. 

• EPA taking enforcement action at municipal 

sewer systems with CWA violations to reduce 

pollution and volume of stormwater runoff 

and to reduce unlawful discharges. 

Image courtesy of: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=2522">Image: sakhorn38 / FreeDigitalPhotos.net 

3



http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/planning/initiatives/2011sewagestormwater.html 

4



http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/planning/initiatives/2011sewagestormwater.html 

5



City of South Bend, Indiana 

• CSO 14,000 acres / 107,000 

people / 550 miles of pipe 

• Annual discharge of 2 billion 

gal. of untreated sewage to 

St. Joseph River during 80 rain 

events 

• Settlement 

– $500.5 million in improvements 

to CSO 

– $88,200 penalty 

– $75,000 SEPs 

6


WATER CONTAMINATION FROM ANIMAL WASTE 

Reduce pollution from livestock and 

poultry concentrated animal feeding 

operations (CAFOs) that impair 

waters, threaten drinking water 

sources, and adversely impact 

communities. 


http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=987">Image: 

graur razvan ionut / FreeDigitalPhotos.net 

7



http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/planning/initiatives/2011cafo.html 

8



http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/planning/initiatives/2011cafo.html 

9



Suffolk Downs –Boston, MA 

• 161‐acre CAFO – 1200 horse stalls, feed 

and manure storage, racetrack, 

grandstand, clubhouse, etc. 

• Violated CWA by discharging pollutants 

(manure, urine, and bedding) from a 

CAFO without NPDES permit. 


– $3 million in improvements 

– $1.25 million civil penalty 

– $742,000 SEPs –water quality 

monitoring/protection 

10

CUTTING HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 

Reduce emissions from leaks 

and flares and excess 

emissions from refineries, 

chemical plants and other 

industries emitting hazardous 

air pollutants (HAPs) 



dan / FreeDigitalPhotos.net 

11

NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVES ‐ 


http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/planning/initiatives/2011airtoxics.html 

12



http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/planning/initiatives/2011airtoxics.html 

13



Marathon Petroleum 

Company LP and 

Catlettsburg Refining LLC 

14


REDUCING AIR POLLUTION FROM THE LARGEST SOURCES 

Eliminate or minimize 

emissions by ensuring that 

there are no under‐controlled 

coal‐fired electric generating 

units, cement, acid, or glass 

plants. 


http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=24 

36">Image: John Kasawa / FreeDigitalPhotos.net 

15



http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/planning/initiatives/2011airpollution.html 

16



http://www.epa.gov/compliance 

/data/planning/initiatives/2011ai 

rpollution.html 

17



http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/planning/initiatives/2011airpollution.html 

18



Owens‐Brockway Glass 

Container Inc. 

• Largest glass container manufacturer in US 

• Constructed/modified furnaces resulting in 

increased NO x , SO 2 , and PM emissions 

without pre‐construction permits and 

installing required pollution control 

equipment 


– $37.5 million to install pollution control 

devices and CEMS. 

– $1.45 million civil penalty 

– $200,000 to mitigate excess emissions by 

retrofitting diesel school buses or fleet 

vehicles or assist with the purchase of new 

natural gas, propane, or hybrid vehicles. 

19


POLLUTION FROM MINERAL PROCESSING OPERATIONS 

Minimize or eliminate 

environmental risks at 

phosphoric acid and other high 

risk mining and mineral 

processing facilities. 



wandee007 / FreeDigitalPhotos.net 

20



http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/planning/initiatives/2011mineralsmining.html 

21



http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/planning/initiatives/2011mineralsmining.html 22



Triad Mining, Inc. 

• Operates Freelandville surface mine 

in Indiana 

• Excavated coal seams directly below 

stream beds resulting in excavation 

and filling of approx. 54,000 feet of 

streams. 

• Obtained SMCRA permits but never 

obtained a §404 permit from the 

Army Corps. 


—Obtain after‐the‐fact §404 permit; 

—Restore 34,906 feet of streams; 

— Enhance 4,330 feet of stream bed; 

— Create/maintain 66 acres of stream 

buffer; and 

— Create/maintain 9 acres of forested 

wetlands. 

23


ENERGY EXTRACTION COMPLIANCE 

Address incidences of 

noncompliance from natural gas 

extraction and production that may 

cause or contribute to significant 

harm to public health and/or the 

environment. 


http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=22 

94">Image: think4photop / FreeDigitalPhotos.net 

24



http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/planning/initiatives/2011energy.html 

25



http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/planning/initiatives/2011energy.html 

26

Enforcement Trends –FY 12 

• Agency’s stated 

enforcement goal: 

initiate fewer civil 

enforcement cases 

in order to focus on 

larger more complex 

cases. 

• Approx. 20% 

reduction in number 

of EPA enforcement 

cases since 2009. 

EPA Civil Enforcement Cases 

27


• EPA secured a record 

$208 million of civil 

penalties in FY 12. 

• 96% increase in secured 

civil penalties since 

2010. 

• Buoyed in 2012 by $57.3 

million penalty against 

Volvo Truck Corp. for 

violations of a consent 

decree. 

Civil Penalties Secured 

28


• Enforcement actions 

from FY 12 are expected 

to reduce air, water, and 

chemical pollution by 

2.2 billion pounds. 

• 46% increase in 

pollution reduction 

since 2010. 

Pollution Reduction 

29

EXPANSION OF LIABILITY 

• New applications of existing statutes 

• Limiting availability of certain defenses 

• Potential criminal liability 

• Increased penalties 

30


• New applications of existing statutes 

• Largely driven by environmental interest groups rather 

than government enforcement agencies, courts are 

dealing with cases in which existing statutes are being 

used to address new environmental issues 

• Example: North Carolina court has ruled that air emissions 

of chicken feathers at CAFO are potentially subject to 

regulation under the Clean Water Act 

• This expansion of Clean Water Act jurisdiction could have 

broad impacts on other industries 

31


• Limiting Available Defenses 

• Restriction on availability of startup, shutdown, 

malfunction (SSM) defense to unplanned air 

emission events 

• Environmentalists have petitioned EPA to reject 

numerous Clean Air Act state implementation plans, 

including Kentucky’s, claiming SSM provisions violate 

the Act 

• Court rulings have already limited use of SSM defense 

to some extent 

32


• Potential Criminal Liability 

• Criminal liability is not limited to “intentional” 

violations 

• Recent court decision emphasized that even 

“negligent” violations of Clean Water Act can 

result in criminal conviction 

33


• Increased Civil 

Penalties 

• Federal Debt Collection 

Improvement Act 

requires each federal 

agency to adjust civil 

penalties for inflation at 

least once every four 

years 

• EPA last adjusted civil 

penalties on December 

11, 2008 

• EPA expected to 

increase maximum and 

minimum penalties by 

April, 2013 

34

PREVENTING ENFORCEMENT 

• COMPLIANCE 

• Most effective way to deal with 

enforcement is to constantly focus on 

compliance 

35

Jennifer J. Cave 

Partner, Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP 

jcave@bgdlegal.com 

300 West Vine Street 

Suite 1100 

Lexington, KY 40507 

www.bgdlegal.com 

36

Environmental Enforcement Trends 

and Priorities 

Dale Vitale 

Chief, Environmental Enforcement 

30 W. Broad Street, 25 th Floor 

Columbus, Ohio 43215 

(614) 466-2766 

dale.vitale@ohioattorneygeneral.gov



Standard Procedures 

- Investigation/NOVs 

- Attempted Resolution 

- Escalated Enforcement 


- Referral 


- Litigation



Ohio EPA Administrative Enforcement 

Bilateral Compliance Agreement – written agreement with schedule for return to 

compliance signed by Ohio EPA Division Chief and facility representative. 

Consensual Final Findings and Orders – more formal document with 

factual details and specific tasks for return to compliance. Usually contain a 

civil penalty settlement. Ultimately signed by the person/corporate entity and 

the Director and formally issued as an Agency action. Appeal is waived. 

Unilateral Final Findings and Orders – generally identical to the above, 

but not usually negotiated. May or may not include a civil penalty depending 

upon the program involved. Issued as a final Agency action and is 

appealable.



ODNR Administrative Enforcement – Oil and Gas 

Informal Processes: 

-NOVs 

- Compliance Notices 

- Compliance Agreements 

- Administrative Orders 

- Notifications to other entities 

References: R.C. 1509.04(A), (B) and (F)



ODNR Administrative Enforcement – Oil and Gas 

Formal Processes: 

- Chief’s Order (for “material and substantial violation”) 

- Suspension Order (for activities that had resulted in the 

material and substantial violation or for other activity causing 

imminent danger or immediate substantial damage to natural 

resources) 

- Permit Revocation Order 

- Bond Forfeiture Order 

- Enforcement referral (civil or criminal) 

References: R.C. 1509.04(C)-(G)



Standard Litigation Procedures 

Civil Complaint 

Preliminary Injunctions/TROs 

Consent Orders 

- Injunctive Relief (with milestones) 

- Civil Penalties 

- Stipulated Penalties 

Personal Liability



Ohio EPA violations 

Civil Enforcement: 

Preliminary Injunctive relief (mandatory or 

prohibitive) for immediate concerns 

Permanent Injunctive relief (mandatory or 

prohibitive) with milestones 

Civil penalties (ranging from $10,000 to 

$25,000 per day per violation) 

Enforcement costs 

Supplemental Environmental Projects



Ohio EPA violations 

Criminal Enforcement: 

Incarceration 

Fine or restitution in lieu thereof 

Community Control 

Community Service 

Publication



ODNR Violations – Oil and Gas 

Civil Enforcement: 

Preliminary Injunctive relief (mandatory or 

prohibitive) 

Permanent Injunctive relief (mandatory or 

prohibitive) 

Civil Penalty (“Double jeopardy” protection for 

fines and civil penalties)




Civil Penalties (R.C. 1509.33): 

Most violations: Up to $4,000 

Brine disposal/hauling: From $2,500 to $20,000 

(plus costs to clean-up and remediate 

damage for knowing violations) 

Hiring an unlicensed brine hauler: Up to $10,000 

Failure to restore land: Up to $5,000 

Each day of violation is a separate violation




Criminal Enforcement (R.C. 1509.99): 

Most violations: 

First Offense - $100-$1,000 

Subsequent Offenses - $200-$2,000 

Drilling without a permit: Up to $5,000 

Brine hauling/disposal (knowing violation): 

First Offense – up to $10,000 and 6 months 

Second Offense – up to $20,000 and 2 years 

Brine injection: Up to $5,000 

Hiring unlicensed hauler: Up to $500 (first offense); Up to $1,000



Enforcement Trends – Ohio EPA 

Asbestos demolition and disposal 

Wetlands destruction 

Failing septic systems 

Fugitive air sources 

Municipal wastewater treatment 

Gasoline dispensing facilities 

Small public water systems



Enforcement Trends – Ohio DNR 

Brine hauling 

Brine disposal 

Reclamation (Coal and oil) 

Bond forfeiture



Enforcement Trends – Other 

Underground storage tank investigation and 

remediation 

Manure management plans 

Manure application 

Wildlife violations

THANK YOU

Environmental Enforcement—Current Trends 

Presentation to: 

22 nd Annual Sustainability & EHS Symposium 

March 26, 2013 

Jeffrey Cummins, Director 

Division of Enforcement

The Division of Enforcement (DENF) 

Who We Are: 

Established July 9, 2004 

Composed of staff from enforcement branches in 

DAQ, DOW, and DWM 

53


Mission Statement 

"To use a clear and consistent approach in 

bringing about and maintaining 

compliance with the cabinet’s regulatory 

programs by using appropriate and 

reasonable measures to resolve cases 

in a timely manner” 

54


Director’s Office 

Division Director 

Jeffrey Cummins 

Assistant Director 

Mark Cleland 

Civil Enforcement Branch (CEB) 

Environmental Control Manager 

Vacant 

Compliance & Operations Branch 

(COB) 

Environmental Control Manager 

Vacant 

Air & Water Section 

Environmental Control Supervisor 

Michael Kroeger 

Environmental Enforcement Specialists: 

Phil Broomall 

Jon Durbin 

Kari Haas 

Philip Kejzlar 

Vacant 

Vacant 

Waste Section 

Environmental Control Supervisor 

Justin Schul 

Environmental Enforcement Specialists: 

Beth Clemons 

Kris Fink 

Donald Hansel 

Grant White 

Administrative Specialist 

Dana Back 

Environmental Enforcement 

Specialists: 

Lori Conway 

Tim Harrod 

Don Polly 

Michelle Rice 

Dustin Wheeler 

Internal Policy Analysts 

Diana Carrier 

Crystal McDonald 

55

The Enforcement Process 

•Referral 

•Development of resolution 

•Negotiation with violator 

•Agreement in principle or referral to EPLD 

•Execution of Demand Letter or Agreed Order 

•Monitoring 

56

Active Cases by Program 

57

Active Cases by Program 

58

Referrals by Program 

59

Referrals by Program 

60

Referrals by Division 

61

Referrals by Division 

62

DEP Notifications 

63

DEP Notifications 

64

What Happened in 2010? 

Notices of intent to sue were filed against three Kentucky 

coal mining operations under the CWA 

Enforcement actions were initiated against the companies 

DENF initiated compliance reviews of all Kentucky 

mining operations 

To date, over 100,000 DMRs have been reviewed and 30 

companies have been referred for enforcement action 

65

Civil Penalties Collected 

DIVISION OF ENFORCEMENT 

CIVIL PENALTY COLLECTIONS DATA BY FISCAL YEAR 

July 1999 through February 2013 

$3,500,000.00 

$3,000,000.00 

CIVIL PENALTIES COLLECTED 

$2,500,000.00 

$2,000,000.00 

$1,500,000.00 

$1,000,000.00 

$500,000.00 

$0.00 

FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 YTD 

UST $71,032.34 $135,891.36 $38,025.00 $78,830.00 $72,500.00 $42,100.00 $32,290.00 $99,191.66 $144,980.30 $203,512.41 $134,821.28 $244,089.70 $200,765.63 $82,352.85 

WATER $212,659.00 $1,270,493.0 $486,975.00 $646,057.11 $574,306.57 $499,750.18 $1,364,079.6 $1,714,953.0 $2,441,883.3 $435,101.00 $445,532.33 $708,298.00 $1,005,317.1 $993,462.32 

WASTE $140,342.95 $349,312.56 $532,466.22 $419,944.74 $1,275,871.5 $442,102.16 $177,136.66 $230,058.58 $245,032.74 $109,226.23 $244,540.39 $204,574.37 $337,416.63 $312,873.77 

AIR $893,885.00 $661,185.00 $640,419.52 $770,700.00 $942,481.00 $360,540.00 $403,550.00 $369,161.03 $581,966.00 $341,403.98 $693,639.11 $1,014,009.0 $887,039.60 $282,262.25 

66

Allocation of Civil Penalties 

•Authorized under KRS 224.99 

•Allocated under KRS 224.10-250: 

•$150,000 to the Kentucky Environmental 

Education Council 

•Remainder to the Kentucky Heritage Land 

Conservation Fund 

67

Allocation of Civil Penalties 

•Kentucky Heritage Land Conservation Fund 

•Allocation of penalties under KRS 146.570: 

•10% to the Department of Parks 

•10% to Kentucky Fish & Wildlife 

•10% to Division of Forestry 

•10% for wild rivers corridors 

•10% to the Nature Preserves Commission 

•Remainder to state agencies, local governments and 

state colleges and universities 

68

The “Maggard Factors” 

•Based on NREPC v. Wendall Maggard, 1994 

•Seriousness of the violation 

•Economic benefit 

•Economic impact of penalty on the violator 

•Good faith actions to remedy violation 

•Culpability of the violator 

•History of other violations on the site by the 

violator 

•Other matters as disposition of a just penalty 

would require 

•Number of days of violation 

69

Challenges 

•Budget 

•Staffing 

70

Environmental Enforcement—Current Trends 

Presentation to: 

22 nd Annual Sustainability & EHS Symposium 

March 26, 2013 

Jeffrey Cummins, Director 

502.564.2150 

jeff.cummins@ky.gov

MPC’s Environmental Stewardship Case Study - Flares 

22 nd Annual Business & Industry’s Sustainability and Environmental, Health & 

Safety Symposium –Session W “Environmental Enforcement Current Trends 

Virginia M. King – Assistant General Counsel ES&S 

Cincinnati, Ohio / March 26, 2013 

72

Agenda 

• Marathon Petroleum Company –Who we are 

• EPA Enforcement Priorities –Flaring Initiative 

• MPC’s Flare Consent Decree –What we’ve learned 

• MPC’s Designated Environmental Incident Metric –How it works 

• Questions? 

73

Focused and Integrated Network 

Refineries 

Marketing 

Area 

Refineries 

Connecting 

Pipelines 

Light Product 

Terminals 

Asphalt 

Terminals 

Inland Water 

Terminals 

Coastal Water 

Terminals 

Terminals 

Coastal Water Terminals 

Pipelines 

Inland Water Terminals 

As of Feb. 1, 2013 

Tank Farms 

Butane Caverns 

Barge Dock 

Speedway 

Brand Marketing 

74

EPA’s 6 Enforcement Priorities 

78 FR 5799 (January 28, 2013) 

75

EPA Flare Enforcement Alert 

EPA 325-F-012-002 (August 2012) 

• Over steaming 

• Steam – induces air to the flame zone to promote combustion 

and minimize smoking as required by NSPS 60.18 and NESHAP 

63.11 

• Too much steam quenches flame temperature and lowers 

combustion efficiency. 

• What’s the Fix? 

• Ensure measurement and control of combustion zone net 

heating value at 300 BTU/SCF minimum. 

76

Flare Operating Spectrum 

Too little steam 

Smoke Formation 

Too much steam 

Lower Combustion Efficiency 

77

Flare Tests - Combustion Efficiency Curve 

78

Flare Gas NHV 

Combustion Zone Net Heating Value 

(~300 BTU/cubic foot) 

Steam to Vent Gas Ratio ~ < 3 lb/lb 

Pilot 

Gas 

Steam 

Process Gas 

Shift point of compliance 

79

MPC’s Flare Consent Decree 

DOJ/EPA Press Release (04/05/2012) 

“This agreement is a great victory for the environment and will result in cleaner and 

healthier air for the benefit of communities across the country in Illinois, Kentucky, 

Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio and Texas,” said Ignacia S. Moreno, Assistant Attorney 

General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of 

Justice. “By spurring corporate ingenuity, this settlement will dramatically reduce 

emissions from all 22 flares at Marathon’s six refineries.” 

“Today’s agreement will result in cleaner air for communities across the South and 

Midwest,” said Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “By working with EPA, Marathon helped 

advance new approaches that reduce air pollution and improve efficiency at its 

refineries and provide the U.S. with new knowledge to bring similar improvements 

in air quality to other communities across the nation.” 

“We commend Marathon for taking this action, which will reduce pollution in the 

areas around its refineries, including one in Detroit,” said Barbara McQuade, U.S. 

Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan. “While this agreement helps protect 

clean air for future generations, it also protects the public health right now for the 

people living near the refineries.” 

80

MPC Flare Consent Decree 

• On August 30, 2012, MPC’s Consent Decree with U.S. EPA was Entered. 

• 2:12‐cv‐11544‐DML‐MJH 

• Covers 22 Flares over 6 Refinery Network, only 1 of which has flare gas 

recovery. 

• 3 Marquee Issues addressed in CD: 

• Flare Combustion Efficiency Performance 

• Flare Waste Gas Minimization with acceptance of Flare Flow Limits 

• Incorporate NSPS Subpart Ja requirements to all flares 

• Benefits of CD: 

• Apply H2S flare limit via a 4‐year compliance schedule. 

• Time to study flare headers & identify cost‐effective reduction measures without 

mandated flare gas recovery 

• Incremental investment over what NSPS Subpart Ja requires 

81

Flare Monitoring & Controls 

• Monitoring & Control Commitments 

• Vent Gas 

– Gas Chromatographs 

– Flow Meters 

• Steam 

– Flow Meter(s) 

– Trim line to better control steam flow 

• Other 

– Supplemental Natural Gas Line & Meter 

• Control Logic 

– Automatically adjust steam and supplemental gas flow rates to 

ensure proper combustion zone gas net heating value (98+% CE) 

• Flare specific and refinery‐wide waste gas flow limits 

82

Incremental Costs above NSPS Ja 

Required by NSPS Subpart Ja 

75 – 80% of Capital Cost 

83

Radioactive Isotope Flare Mapping (i.e. Tracerco) 

84

MPC Refining – Flare Steam Usage 

140,000 

120,000 

Steam Reduction of ~80,000 lb/hr 

100,000 

Steam Usage (lb/hr) 

80,000 

60,000 

114,111 

108,402 

40,000 

76,330 

20,000 

61,391 59,515 

52,000 

35,000 

0 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 (YTD) Post CD 

Operating Year 

85

MPC Flare Emissions 

6,000 

VOC 

5,000 

Methane/Ethane 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

Emissions (tons per year) 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

5,609 

4,637 

Methane/Ethane reductions equate to carbon dioxide 

equivalent reduction of 121,000 tons per year 

4,000 

1,000 

0 

891 783 

663 

151 40 363 13 300 0 5 0 150 

Baseline (2007/2008) 2011 Post CD - Projected Flares Refinery-Wide 

MPC Reported Baseline Emissions 

86

MPC’s Designated Environmental Incident (DEI) 

• “What gets measured, gets managed “– How do you measure 

environmental impacts? 

• DEIs 

• Release to air/land/water 

• Permit Exceedances 

• NOVs 

• Tiering – 

• Magnitude of Release (RQ) 

• CEMs downtime (4%) 

• CEMS Excess Emissions (2%) 

• NOV ($) 

87

MPC Refining 

Designated Environmental Incidents (DEIs) 

300 

282 

MPC Employees can earn up to 2% bonus of their annual pay by maintaining DEIs below specified targets 

250 

Number of DEIs 

200 

150 

100 

193 

154 

139 

119 

102 

Designated Environmental Incident 

* Compliance Orders/NOVs 

*Other Permit Exceedances 

* Reportable Releases 

* Reportable Spills 

50 

57 59 

55 

50 

45 

27 

35 

19 

0 

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

(Nov) 

Operating Year 

88

Workshop W - MEC Seminars & Conferences

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?