Shell To Pay $2.6M for "Alleged" Air Pollution From Deer Park Refinery
Houston is a city known for many good things, but one of the bad things this town is known for is the air - there's a lot of air pollution around here, and we've got the Ozone watch days to prove it.
So you wouldn't think a little extra air pollution would get noticed by the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Justice Department, but it turns out you'd be wrong. Officials with the EPA and the Justice Department found out that a Deer Park chemical plant and refinery, owned by Royal Dutch Shell Plc., was "allegedly" flaring waste chemicals, including volatile organic compounds into the air without actually burning all the stuff that was coming out of the flare, according to a release issued Wednesday.
The EPA told the folks over at the company, which is headquartered in Houston, that the Deer Park facility was in violation of the Clean Air Act and needed to get on it and stop the emissions. Then the Justice Department got in on the act and filed a complaint against the company on behalf of the EPA. Then, as these things tend to work, the EPA worked out a deal with Shell where the company would spend "at least $115 million" to update the plant and refinery and stop flaring waste gases, like sulfur dioxide and benzene, a chemical known to cause cancer.
The EPA even said this agreement was all due to Shell's "alleged" violations in the release. This seems like a hilarious bit of terminology, since it's a fair bet that the company might be doing these updates, but most assuredly would not be paying a $2.6 million fine if the Deer Park facility wasn't actually doing some impressive polluting. But by keeping the air pollution "alleged," there is no determination of whether Shell is liable for the pollution. (Draw your own conclusions over why a company wouldn't want to admit being legally liable for this type of pollution.)
More at http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2013/07/shell_to_pay_up_for_alleged_ai.php .
= new reply since forum marked as read
However, I would NOT expect the TCEQ to notice. And notice, too, how they aren't mentioned in that article? 
