Environmentalists Want Everything Accounted for in Huge BP Expansion

Enviro's new burning question lights BP ire

June 1, 2008

By Gitte Laasby Post-Tribune staff writer

WHITING -- Flares stand at the heart of the appeal of BP's air permit. You can't miss them. They're those tall Roman-candle like structures that dot refineries and other industrial complexes.

Activists contest flare emissions

Environmentalists recently launched an appeal of BP’s air permit, which — if successful — could force the Indiana Department of Environmental Management back to the drawing board on BP Whiting’s air permit and require the company to use additional pollution control equipment.

Flares are the issue, tall stacks where extra gas is burnt off to reduce pressure. BP and IDEM only accounted for pilot lights, not startups, shutdowns or emergencies although the law requires those be counted, activists said.

California refineries smaller than BP have emitted up to 3,000 tons of sulfur oxides — a respiratory irritant — in a year through flares, environmentalists say.

BP spokesperson Scott Dean said environmentalists misunderstand what the flares are for. He said the flares will be equipped with a state-of-the-art flare gas recovery system and will only be used for emergencies, not as a loophole to emit.

But the purpose of flares is the opposite of fireworks. They exist to relieve pressure and gases from start-ups, shut-downs and any other blip in the refining system.

A pilot light on the flare burns off any chemicals dangerous to humans.

But the process also creates CO2 and other pollutants and emissions that environmental groups say BP and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management have not properly accounted for.

BP insists it's accounted for what it can account for.

And the whole process of building the largest capital improvement project in the history of Indiana rests on the disagreement over these flares.

How much?

Environmentalists say BP and IDEM left out emissions from existing flares and only counted emissions from purge gases and pilot lights, where a small amount of gas is continuously burned to keep the flare system functional. The no-flaring assumption seems to fly in the face of data showing that flares are a large source of oil refinery emissions, environmentalists said.

At refineries in California, emissions of sulfur oxides during startups, shutdowns or emergencies were as high as 70,000 pounds in a day and 3,000 tons in a year, according to a coalition of environmentalists. BP estimated flare emissions would be 0.4 tons per year -- one hundredth of what's allowed without installing best-available pollution control equipment or offsetting emissions.

"I flatly refuse to believe they're building these three new flares with the intention of never using them," said Ann Alexander, senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, which has taken the lead in the appeal on behalf of environmental groups.

"What we want the Office of Environmental Adjudication to do is tell IDEM you need to include all these emissions in your calculations. We think once you do that, they'd conclude this is a major source, not a minor source permit. It would require the facility to install best-available control technology or achieve lowest achievable emission rates, which would require new permit terms."

The coalition of environmental groups, which also includes Save the Dunes, the Hoosier Environmental Council, the Legal Environmental Aid Foundation of Indiana and two Highland residents, has appealed the permit to the Office of Environmental Adjudication, which reviews IDEM's decisions on the permit. A prehearing conference is set for June 16.

BP: Not a loophole

BP spokesman Scott Dean said the flares are not being used as a loophole to emit and would not be used during startups or shutdowns.

"The existing flares are used to safely burn hydrocarbons during emergencies or shutdowns of units at the refinery. We aim to use them as infrequently as possible," Dean said in an e-mail. "The new flares for the modernized BP Whiting Refinery will use a flare system equipped with best-available control technology known as flare gas recovery that will eliminate flaring during small process upsets, start-ups and shutdowns -- the sources of most flaring events. These flares are designed to be used only during emergencies."

Alexander disputed that. She said only two of the flares have a gas recovery system.

"What BP does not seem to have processed is that the law specifically requires they could be start-up, shutdown or malfunction events, which is really another way to say emergencies," Alexander said.

The environmental coalition wants BP to add more structural capacity and a backup compressor to contain the gases rather than releasing them. They also want them to analyze how flare events happen so they can be prevented after the $3.4 billion project is completed.

"We're not talking anything terribly expensive," Alexander said. "There's no reason to believe the project couldn't move forward if you did do it. It might take marginally more money and more time, but that's about it."

BP and IDEM have both said they're confident the permit will stand up to challenges.

In January, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency notified BP it violated the Clean Air Act by modifying its flares without permission, which caused the refinery to exceed sulfur dioxide emissions "on numerous occasions" over the past five years.

For photos and other resources, see: http://www.post-trib.com/news/981385,bpflare.article

At issue:

Sulfur dioxide
-- BP's estimates of emissions from new flares: 0.4 tons per year
-- Threshold for BP to be considered a major expansion: 40 tons per year
-- Flaring emissions* at comparable California refineries: Up to 3,000 tons per year
-- Sulfur dioxide can irritate the respiratory system and affect the eyes, nose and throat, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Sulphur oxides:
-- BP's estimates of emissions from new flares: 4.5 tons per year
-- Threshold for BP to be considered a major expansion: 40 tons per year
-- Flaring emissions at comparable California refineries: Up to 1,800 tons per year
-- Lake County is in non-attainment for VOCs
-- VOCs include a variety of chemicals, some of which may cause eye, nose and throat irritation; headaches; nausea; allergic reactions; fatigue; dizziness; and damage to liver, kidneys and the central nervous system, according to the EPA.

Source: Natural Resources Defense Council/BP permit application/EPA

Top Stories from the Indiana Chapter