Letter to Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5, Re: Object to BP Permit

Letter

Durbin, Emanuel, Bean, Schakowsky Urge EPA Region 5 to Object BP Permit

U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Representatives Rahm Emanuel, Melissa Bean, and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), urged the Region 5 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Acting Administrator, Bharat Mathur to object to a permit that will allow BP to increase the levels of carbon dioxide and other emissions above previous levels. The permit for the BP Whiting, Indiana refinery expansion was issued on May 1, 2008 by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) to BP.

"Increased carbon dioxide emissions at Whiting remain a major concern for us. Comments submitted by environmental organizations and others have raised this issue and ways in which it should be addressed in the permitting process," the Illinois members wrote. "In particular, we have concerns regarding the issues of flaring and the increase of carbon dioxide and other emissions above the previous permit levels. We strongly encourage you to revisit those issues and object to the permit until IDEM and BP have rectified these problems."

The Illinois members are primarily concerned with IDEM's position that unplanned flaring does not have to be taken into account when issuing permits under the Clean Air Act. The permit allows BP to operate three new flares and increase the use of some existing flares. Refinery flaring is an enormous source of carbon dioxide and other emissions and there is little doubt that flaring events will occur in emergency and other situations at the expanded refinery site in Whiting. Yet, the permit issued by IDEM earlier this month essentially assumes that the new flares will, for the most part, never be used.

Text of the letter appears below:

May 30, 2008

Mr. Bharat Mathur
Acting Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois 60604

Dear Mr. Mathur:

We are writing to express our concerns with the construction permit issued on May 1, 2008 to BP for its Whiting, Indiana refinery expansion. We have strong reservations regarding the permit issued by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) and remain concerned regarding the major legal shortcomings that have been identified by a large coalition of government agencies and environmental organizations. In particular, we have concerns regarding the issues of flaring and the increase of carbon dioxide and other emissions above the previous permit levels. We strongly encourage you to revisit those issues and object to the permit until IDEM and BP have rectified these problems.

As you know, the proposed oil refinery expansion project includes three new flares, as well as increased use of existing flares. Yet the permit essentially assumes that the new flares will, for the most part, never be used, and for PSD/NNSR netting purposes, the permit factors in only those emissions that occur when the flare is off (and, according to IDEM, a few additional emissions during a few planned startups and shutdowns).

Refinery flaring is an enormous source of emissions and has a wide range of causes, including malfunctions, unplanned startups and shutdowns, and lack of adequate compressor capacity. Flaring events, though not permitted for, will occur in emergency and other situations at the expanded refinery site in Whiting. In California's Bay Area, where the issue of refinery flaring has been carefully studied and effectively addressed, refineries without stringent flare prevention measures in place have been shown to emit thousands of tons of pollutants annually. Even where those measures are in place to greatly reduce flaring, it has not been completely eliminated. It is unreasonable for the permit to assume zero emissions from the new flares, even with recapture technology.

IDEM's view, expressed in its Technical Support Document Addendum at 106, is that unplanned flaring need not be accounted for in Clean Air Act netting analysis. That position is wrong and is contrary to the Act. The Clean Air Act does not allow a permitting agency to remove a large category of emissions from its calculations entirely. Neither does it allow an unsupported assumption that such emissions would be netted out based on narrative assurances that those emissions will be minimized. And the Clean Air Act does not allow a blanket exclusion of emissions from unplanned events. The applicable regulations expressly specify that all (not just planned) startup, shutdown, and malfunction emissions must be factored into netting calculations. Particularly in light of EPA Region 5's issuance of a Notice of Violation to BP's Whiting refinery for flaring violations, we believe that flaring at the expanded Whiting site must be accounted for in the permit.

In addition under the Clean Air Act, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas pollutants must be considered in the permit review process following the United States Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Increased carbon dioxide emissions at Whiting remain a major concern for us. Comments submitted by environmental organizations and others have raised this issue and ways in which it should be addressed in the permitting process.

As a related matter, we are concerned with the failure of the draft operating permit to include a schedule of compliance as required by the Clean Air Act addressing the violations set forth in Region 5's November 2007 Notice of Violation. We are informed that USEPA has recently taken the position that permitting and enforcement are separate matters, and that permit violations therefore need not be addressed in a Title V permit schedule of compliance. However, Section 503(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act expressly requires that Title V permit applicants "submit with the permit application a compliance plan describing how the source will comply with all applicable requirements under this chapter" (emphasis added).

We appreciate your immediate attention and response to this issue.

Sincerely,
Dick Durbin
U.S. Senator

Source