Nov 25: U.S. EPA issued a Federal Register announcement [74 FR 61678-61679] announcing that the Administrator has responded to a petition submitted by the Environmental Law and Policy Center, Hoosier Environmental Council, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Save the Dunes, Sierra Club, Susan Eleuterio, and Tom Tsourlis (petitioners) asking EPA to object to an operating permit issued by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management to the BP Products North America, Inc., Whiting Business Unit (Whiting) [See WIMS 10/20/09]. According to the announcement, the Administrator granted the petition in part and denied it in part. Pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the Act, a petitioner may seek in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit judicial review of those portions of a petition which EPA denied. Any petition for review shall be filed within 60 days from the date the Federal Register notice, pursuant to section 307 of the Act.
Specifically, the Petitioners allege that: (1) The permit application lacks emission information and calculations critical for determining applicable requirements and setting appropriate limits and conditions; (2) the minor source permit fails to comply with New Source Review requirements because the project is a major modification when all project emissions are properly included; (3) the permit does not include applicable Best Available Control Technology and Lowest Achievable Emission Rate limits for flares and other sources; (4) BP and IDEM failed to conduct the proper greenhouse gas Best Achievable Control Technology analysis; and (5) the permit omits compliance schedules that Title V requires to ensure compliance with all applicable requirements, as supported by the Notice of Violation issued by EPA to BP for its Whiting refinery.
In part, the Administrator rules, "I find that the Petitioners have not demonstrated that the title V operating permit does not comply with the Act. Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the BP Whiting facility is out of compliance with the requirements addressed in the NOV [Notice of Violation], and that the permit must include a compliance plan and schedule with regard to such requirements. I therefore deny the petition with respect to this issue."
Access the FR announcement (click here). Access the 8/19/08 petition (click here). Access the Administrator's response (click here).
Showing posts with label BP Whiting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BP Whiting. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
EPA Accepts Some Petition Claims On BP's Whiting Air Permit
Oct 19: In response to a citizen petition on Indiana's air permit modification for BP's Whiting Refinery [See multiple WIMS], U.S. EPA announced that it has accepted some issues while denying others. In August 2008, the Environmental Law & Policy Center, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Hoosier Environmental Council, Save the Dunes and Sierra Club petitioned EPA to formally object to the State's modification of BP’s operating permit for an expansion project to refine high-sulfur Canadian crude oil.
EPA had reviewed the State's permit before it was issued and worked with Indiana to address several areas of concern. The permit modification was subject to public comment, but the Clean Air Act also provides an additional opportunity for the public to request that EPA review specific matters. Upon this further review, EPA agrees that IDEM did not adequately respond to public comment and that information on some of BP's emissions may have been omitted. Specifically, questions must be answered about emissions from flares, residual emissions from vessel depressurization, increased emissions from coking and coke drum depressurization, fugitive emissions from reduced sulfur compounds and emission factors to account for higher-sulfur crude.
EPA indicated that it did not conclude that the net emissions increase from the project trigger the major modification threshold. However, IDEM must fully respond to the specific questions raised by the petitioners and re-evaluate the emissions calculations for this project. If IDEM concludes that the threshold is triggered, any new requirements developed by IDEM to meet Clean Air Act requirements must be incorporated into the BP operating permit.
EPA denied the petitioners' claims regarding the venting of uncontrolled pressure relief valves, best available control technology for greenhouse gas emissions, and the need for a compliance schedule based on EPA's allegations. IDEM now has 90 days to reconsider, revise as appropriate and submit a proposed permit to EPA.
Access a release from EPA (click here). Access the EPA responding Order (click here). Access information from IDEM on the BP Whiting Air Permits (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here).
EPA had reviewed the State's permit before it was issued and worked with Indiana to address several areas of concern. The permit modification was subject to public comment, but the Clean Air Act also provides an additional opportunity for the public to request that EPA review specific matters. Upon this further review, EPA agrees that IDEM did not adequately respond to public comment and that information on some of BP's emissions may have been omitted. Specifically, questions must be answered about emissions from flares, residual emissions from vessel depressurization, increased emissions from coking and coke drum depressurization, fugitive emissions from reduced sulfur compounds and emission factors to account for higher-sulfur crude.
EPA indicated that it did not conclude that the net emissions increase from the project trigger the major modification threshold. However, IDEM must fully respond to the specific questions raised by the petitioners and re-evaluate the emissions calculations for this project. If IDEM concludes that the threshold is triggered, any new requirements developed by IDEM to meet Clean Air Act requirements must be incorporated into the BP operating permit.
EPA denied the petitioners' claims regarding the venting of uncontrolled pressure relief valves, best available control technology for greenhouse gas emissions, and the need for a compliance schedule based on EPA's allegations. IDEM now has 90 days to reconsider, revise as appropriate and submit a proposed permit to EPA.
Access a release from EPA (click here). Access the EPA responding Order (click here). Access information from IDEM on the BP Whiting Air Permits (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here).
Monday, June 8, 2009
BP Products Cited For CAA Violations
Jun 2: U.S. EPA Region 5 cited BP Products North America Inc. for alleged Clean Air Act (CAA) violations at the company's petroleum refinery at 2815 Indianapolis Blvd., Whiting, IN. According to a release, EPA alleges that for calendar years 2003 through 2008 BP failed to manage and treat benzene waste from the facility as required by the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants. The facility's 2008 report showed that benzene waste was almost 16 times the amount allowed.
EPA said these are preliminary findings of violations. To resolve them, EPA may issue a compliance order, assess an administrative penalty or bring suit against the company in Federal court. BP has 30 days from receipt of the notice to meet with EPA to discuss resolving the allegations. EPA indicated that benzene is known to cause cancer in humans. Acute health effects from benzene exposure can include dizziness and lightheadedness; eye, nose and throat irritation; upset stomach and vomiting; irregular heartbeat; convulsions and death. Ecological effects include death in exposed animal, bird and fish populations and death or reduced growth rate in plant life.
Access a release from EPA and link to additional information as it becomes available (click here).
EPA said these are preliminary findings of violations. To resolve them, EPA may issue a compliance order, assess an administrative penalty or bring suit against the company in Federal court. BP has 30 days from receipt of the notice to meet with EPA to discuss resolving the allegations. EPA indicated that benzene is known to cause cancer in humans. Acute health effects from benzene exposure can include dizziness and lightheadedness; eye, nose and throat irritation; upset stomach and vomiting; irregular heartbeat; convulsions and death. Ecological effects include death in exposed animal, bird and fish populations and death or reduced growth rate in plant life.
Access a release from EPA and link to additional information as it becomes available (click here).
Friday, October 3, 2008
EPA Amends BP Whiting CAA Violation Notice
Oct 2: U.S. EPA Region 5 has issued an amended notice and finding of violation to the BP Products North America for alleged Clean Air Act (CAA) violations at the company's petroleum refinery at 2815 Indianapolis Blvd., Whiting, IN. The action amends a notice and finding of violation issued to the BP Whiting refinery in November 2007 alleging BP violated the Clean Air Act by failing to get a permit when it modified one of its cracking units in 2005 [See WIMS 11/30/07].
EPA said it now has information suggesting that BP may have begun a project to process Canadian crude oil at the refinery in 2005 without the proper permit. BP received its construction permit for the project from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management on May 1, 2008 [See WIMS 6/2/08]. EPA notes that these are preliminary findings of violation. BP has 30 days to request a meeting with EPA to discuss resolving the allegations.
On July 9, 2008, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a federal challenge to air permits given by the State of Indiana to the BP Whiting refinery. The case argues that BP and IDEM have not properly accounted for increases in dangerous pollution that will result from the refinery expansion [See WIMS 7/14/08]. NRDC is challenging the facility’s construction permits in the Hammond Division of the Northern District of Indiana Federal court.
Access a release from EPA (click here). Access information from IDEM on the Air Permits (click here).
EPA said it now has information suggesting that BP may have begun a project to process Canadian crude oil at the refinery in 2005 without the proper permit. BP received its construction permit for the project from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management on May 1, 2008 [See WIMS 6/2/08]. EPA notes that these are preliminary findings of violation. BP has 30 days to request a meeting with EPA to discuss resolving the allegations.
On July 9, 2008, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a federal challenge to air permits given by the State of Indiana to the BP Whiting refinery. The case argues that BP and IDEM have not properly accounted for increases in dangerous pollution that will result from the refinery expansion [See WIMS 7/14/08]. NRDC is challenging the facility’s construction permits in the Hammond Division of the Northern District of Indiana Federal court.
Access a release from EPA (click here). Access information from IDEM on the Air Permits (click here).
Monday, July 14, 2008
NRDC Fights BP Air Permits in Federal Court
Jul 9: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a federal challenge to air permits given by the State of Indiana to BP’s controversial refinery in Whiting, IN [See WIMS 6/2/08]. The permits were recently awarded by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) despite significant concern from the public, environmental experts and elected officials. Ann Alexander, a senior attorney at NRDC said, “IDEM and BP did not learn their lesson after the public outcry over water pollution permits last summer. They had an opportunity to do things right this time, and they didn’t take it. The permits simply do not protect the public and do not live up to the law. The failure of Indiana and BP to take the public interest and the law seriously has forced the issue and required that this case be brought before the federal courts. . . In the ConocoPhillips case, the environmental review board at US EPA sent a message to oil refineries around the nation that it is time they clean up. We believe that the federal courts will support that precedent.”
The case argues that BP and IDEM have not properly accounted for increases in dangerous pollution that will result from the refinery expansion. The increased pollution requires that the refinery control its pollution more effectively, and operate under a more stringent, “major source” permit. NRDC is assisting as legal counsel in a similar case being brought by Indiana environmental groups in a state administrative forum. NRDC is challenging the facility’s construction permits in the Hammond Division of the Northern District of Indiana Federal court.
Access a release from NRDC (click here).
The case argues that BP and IDEM have not properly accounted for increases in dangerous pollution that will result from the refinery expansion. The increased pollution requires that the refinery control its pollution more effectively, and operate under a more stringent, “major source” permit. NRDC is assisting as legal counsel in a similar case being brought by Indiana environmental groups in a state administrative forum. NRDC is challenging the facility’s construction permits in the Hammond Division of the Northern District of Indiana Federal court.
Access a release from NRDC (click here).
Monday, June 2, 2008
Illinois Dems Object To Indiana BP Whiting Permit
May 30: U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Representatives Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), Melissa Bean (D-IL), and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), urged the Region 5 U.S. EPA Acting Administrator, Bharat Mathur to object to a permit for BP for its Whiting, Indiana refinery expansion that would allow to increase the levels of carbon dioxide and other emissions above previous levels. The permit refinery expansion was issued on May 1, 2008 by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) to BP. On November 29, 2007, EPA Region 5 notified BP Products North America Inc. of alleged violations of multiple Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements at its Whiting, Indiana refinery [See WIMS 11/30/07].
The Illinois Democrats wrote to Mathur saying, “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. 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.
In their letter the Members say, "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.”
Access a release from the Members and the complete letter (click here). Access a detailed EPA Enforcement & Compliance history report on this facility (click here). Access extensive detailed information on the BP Whiting air permit from Indiana DEM (click here). Access the BP Whiting website for additional information (click here).
The Illinois Democrats wrote to Mathur saying, “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. 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.
In their letter the Members say, "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.”
Access a release from the Members and the complete letter (click here). Access a detailed EPA Enforcement & Compliance history report on this facility (click here). Access extensive detailed information on the BP Whiting air permit from Indiana DEM (click here). Access the BP Whiting website for additional information (click here).
Friday, November 30, 2007
EPA Notifies BP Whiting Refinery Of Major Clean Air Violations
Nov 29: U.S. EPA Region 5 notified BP Products North America Inc. of alleged violations of multiple Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements at its Whiting, Indiana refinery.
EPA alleged that the BP Whiting refinery, located at 2815 Indianapolis Boulevard: (1) Failed to obtain a permit when it made major modifications to its fluidized catalytic cracking unit. The unpermitted modification caused significant increases of nitrogen oxide (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM10), and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. (2) Violated New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) by modifying flares without complying with requirements, exceeding SO2 emission limits, and failing to monitor emissions from several sources. The NSPS are national emission standards for new and modified industrial facilities that contribute significantly to air pollution. (3) Failed to conduct timely performance tests of hydrogen chloride emissions from its catalytic reforming units. BP has 10 days to request a conference to discuss the violations.
In late summer, following an intense public controversy with Congressional and EPA intervention regarding increased wastewater discharges to Lake Michigan, BP America announced that the same Whiting refinery would meet the lower discharge limits contained in the refinery's previous wastewater treatment permit [See WIMS 9/04/07]. BP had obtained regulatory approval to increase average daily discharge limits for ammonia from 1,030 to 1,584 pounds per day and for total suspended solids (TSS) from 3646 to 4925 pounds per day to modernize the Whiting refinery and greatly increase the amount of Canadian heavy crude it can process.
At that time, BP America Chairman and President Bob Malone issued a release saying, "We have participated in an open and transparent permitting process with the State of Indiana and obtained a valid permit that meets all regulatory standards and is protective of water quality and human health. Even so, ongoing regional opposition to any increase in discharge permit limits for Lake Michigan creates an unacceptable level of business risk for this $3.8 billion investment."
Access a release on EPA's CAA allegations (click here). Access a detailed Enforcement & Compliance history report on this facility (click here).
EPA alleged that the BP Whiting refinery, located at 2815 Indianapolis Boulevard: (1) Failed to obtain a permit when it made major modifications to its fluidized catalytic cracking unit. The unpermitted modification caused significant increases of nitrogen oxide (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM10), and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. (2) Violated New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) by modifying flares without complying with requirements, exceeding SO2 emission limits, and failing to monitor emissions from several sources. The NSPS are national emission standards for new and modified industrial facilities that contribute significantly to air pollution. (3) Failed to conduct timely performance tests of hydrogen chloride emissions from its catalytic reforming units. BP has 10 days to request a conference to discuss the violations.
In late summer, following an intense public controversy with Congressional and EPA intervention regarding increased wastewater discharges to Lake Michigan, BP America announced that the same Whiting refinery would meet the lower discharge limits contained in the refinery's previous wastewater treatment permit [See WIMS 9/04/07]. BP had obtained regulatory approval to increase average daily discharge limits for ammonia from 1,030 to 1,584 pounds per day and for total suspended solids (TSS) from 3646 to 4925 pounds per day to modernize the Whiting refinery and greatly increase the amount of Canadian heavy crude it can process.
At that time, BP America Chairman and President Bob Malone issued a release saying, "We have participated in an open and transparent permitting process with the State of Indiana and obtained a valid permit that meets all regulatory standards and is protective of water quality and human health. Even so, ongoing regional opposition to any increase in discharge permit limits for Lake Michigan creates an unacceptable level of business risk for this $3.8 billion investment."
Access a release on EPA's CAA allegations (click here). Access a detailed Enforcement & Compliance history report on this facility (click here).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
