EPA Upholds Challenge to Permit for Refinery Expansion
12 June 2008
The Environmental Appeals Board of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) upheld a challenge to an air permit required by ConocoPhillips for an expansion of its Wood River Refinery in Roxana, IL. The Illinois EPA (IEPA) had granted the permit; NRDC led the challenge representing American Bottom Conservancy, and Sierra Club was represented by the Environmental Integrity Project.
The permit authorized a Coker and Refinery Expansion Project (“CORE Project”) at the Wood River Refinery, designed to increase the total crude processing capacity as well as the percentage of heavier oil sands crude that the refinery processes. (Earlier post.)
The CORE Project centered on the construction of a new Delayed Coker Unit that will be supported by a new elevated flare (the Delayed Coker Flare). The Delayed Coker Flare is equipped with a flare gas recovery system that serves to recover certain normally occurring process gas streams for fuel use rather than disposal as waste gas by flaring. The Delayed Coker Flare and an additional new flare at a newly constructed hydrogen plant would result in an increase in annual CO emissions greater than 100 tpy. As such, the project is subject to the PSD (Prevention of Significant Deterioration) permitting program under the CAA (Clean Air Act).
The challengers argued that IEPA’s permit decision is deficient in five respects:
IEPA failed to make its response to comments document, or “Responsiveness Summary,” available to the public as required when IEPA did not include a copy of the Responsiveness Summary with its notice of the permit decision.
IEPA failed to adequately identify and explain in its Responsiveness Summary the changes made to permit provisions in the final permit decision.
IEPA’s BACT (Best Available Control Technology) analysis for CO emissions from flaring was inadequate.
The flare-related controls and monitoring requirements are not enforceable.
IEPA failed to conduct a BACT analysis and to impose corresponding emissions limitations for greenhouse gas emissions (namely, CO2 and methane).
The EAB held that the IEPA did contravene several sections of the CAA by not specifying provisions of the draft permit that had been changed and by failing to provide adequate rationale for its changes to the final permit. The EAB remanded the permit back to IEPA to identify and explain the changed provisions of the permit in a manner consistent with the applicable regulations and the opinion.
The Board denied review of the issue of whether IEPA improperly failed to include emissions limitations for greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide and methane, in particular) in the permit because, although this issue was reasonably ascertainable, it was not raised during the public comment period and therefore was not properly preserved for appeal.
Resources
EAB Appeal No. PSD 07-02
Sometimes I think that the best thing that could happen is to have these environmental organizations that have too much idle money, have their membership and dues cut by 50%.
Then these organizations would concentrate their efforts on truly disastrous undertakings, that should be opposed.
Instead they attack EVERY proposed project. This expansion was obviously not one of those, else it never would have achieved approval from one governmental eco-regulator. It hardly is necessary to believe, as some members of the "environmental" organizations do, that every proposal for a refinery or refinery expansion since 1976 in the US, needs to be opposed.
Posted by: s | 12 June 2008 at 09:44 AM
An important decision, in effect saying dirty industries dont really have as many rights as they make out.
Seems EAB can smell a rat no despite the dressing.
Phillips Conoco finds that there are laws and regulations to follow and we should all make sure that the opportunities for polluters are reduced and not be panicked into any future reduction of standards.
Posted by: arnold | 12 June 2008 at 07:02 PM
I have a bad feeling about this.
Notice it says “ .. IEPA’s (Illinois EPA) permit decision is deficient in five respects“ This decision is not against ConocoPhillips. I guess the NRDC, American Bottom Conservancy, and the Sierra Club believe they know more about what Illinois red tape is necessary than the Illinois EPA.
Of course the case was “BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS BOARD UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C.” In DC NOT in Illinois.
None of the five complaints appear to be significant, except to prevent refinery expansion.
1. IEPA (not ConocoPhillips) failed to include a copy of the Responsiveness Summary with its notice of the permit decision. [But did they even create a Responsiveness Summary? Yes, and the US EPA disallowed #1]
2. IEPA failed to adequately identify and explain in its Responsiveness Summary the changes made to permit provisions in the final permit decision. [Umm what? Explain what changes?]
3. IEPA’s BACT (Best Available Control Technology) analysis for CO emissions from flaring was inadequate. [I think ConocoPhillips wants to reclaim more of the gas previously burned in the flare, so what’s the IEPA to analyze?]
4. The flare-related controls and monitoring requirements are not enforceable. [See #3]
5. IEPA failed to conduct a BACT analysis and to impose corresponding emissions limitations for greenhouse gas emissions (namely, CO2 and methane). [The EAB disallowed #5]
The NRDC has been involved in some of the most important Supreme Court cases interpreting United States administrative law. Ironically, most of these decisions came out against the NRDC. I suspect that many in the NRDC, American Bottom Conservancy, and the Sierra Club would rather see the country collapse than allow any energy relief.
Who was asking why the oil companies don’t re-invest those profits?
Posted by: ToppaTom | 12 June 2008 at 10:46 PM
We most certainly need to clean up the atmosphere, but denying expansion of refineries before we have the technology, and infrastructure, for alternate fuels is a recipe for economic disaster. Mamma always said, "be careful what you wish for."
Posted by: shigley | 13 June 2008 at 06:07 PM
This project was announced 12/2/2005 and intended to operate sometime in 2009.
The refinery is not new and neither is the process - they already operate one coker at the site.
The proposed new coker would not be identical to the previous one. It is designed to be cleaner.
Now after about 900 days the federal bureaucrats are telling the Illinois bureaucrats that their wording was not adequate and/or processes were not well explained.
I suppose another 900 days will pass before the bureaus are satisfied. Most of that time will be under new political appointees. We can only speculate about what they will do.
Notice the emissions limitations under the CAA have not been ruled upon. The environmental groups will bring that to court after every other tactic fails.
Posted by: K | 14 June 2008 at 12:58 PM
We wished for it and now the new oil boom is on. Shigley's got it dead on. By insisting on peak oil, CO2, carbon tax, rate increase etc etc... we now have a politically charged green light to refine and drill every last pocket of petro in North America. Patience IS a virtue.
Posted by: sulleny | 14 June 2008 at 03:06 PM