Skip to main content

1.   President Obama Gets Environmental Protection Done.

President Obama's Administration is proposing important changes affecting environmental and public health protection around the nation's petroleum refineries.  

And this EPA news release from today discusses an EPA report to Congress showing that the Administration's actions are working at reducing emissions and threats to public health around the nation's petroleum refineries and other industrial facilities.

This diary is to let Kossack-enviro-enforcers know about the notices out on public comment and to note some of the issues and players in the litigation and how important this particular kind of work is to progressive Democrats in carrying on the traditions of Senator Edmund Muskie and realizing the public trust, public health and environmental protection benefits of the Clean Air Act.  

2.   EPA Settles with Citizen/Enviromental Groups on Petroleum Refinery Hazardous Air Pollutant Control Litigation

In September, 2012, Plaintiffs Air Alliance Houston, California Communities Against Toxics, Coalition For A Safe Environment, Community In-Power and Development Association, Del Amo Action Committee, Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), Louisiana Bucket Brigade, and Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services filed litigation against the U.S. EPA.  

The litigation concerned, in part, EPA's failure to conduct a non-discretionary duty to review and/or revise two different Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) regulations binding on petroleum refineries and EPA's responsibility to address residual public health risks that remain after such MACT standards are actually applied.

The litigation was filed by Earthjustice Attorneys James Pew and Emma Cheuse & Environmental Integrity Project Attorneys Sparsh Khandeshi and Jennifer Peterson.  Attorney James Pew, as a senior EarthJustice Attorney, has been tracking and litigating on many of EPA's regulations covering technology-based emission standards for more than 15 years.

In August of 2013, EPA settled the litigation with the citizens groups.   The settlement put EPA on a schedule and time table to review EPA's Subpart CC and UUU petroleum refinery MACT standards for the control of hazardous air pollutants and to decide to either propose revised standards or to determine that revisions were not required.   Similarly, EPA was to publish residual risk standards for the refinery process equipment covered by the two MACT rules, or to publish a determination they were not necessary.  All of this would be completed by December, 2014, which was later modified and extended by the Court to April, 2015.

3.   Public Comment Now Open on Two EPA Actions Addressing Refineries Published In Response to the Earthjustice/Environmental Integrity Project litigation

If you are concerned about the health effects of refinery emissions and ensuring that  hazardous air pollutant emissions from petroleum refinery industry process equipment is regulated with state-of-the-art, Clean Air Act compliant rules, then consider filing comments in these two actions.

3.1  EPA's Proposed Fenceline Benzene Monitoring and Revised Petroleum Refinery Emission Control Rule

On May 15, 2014 EPA announced publication of a proposed rule which would require the following:

The agency’s proposal would, for the first time, require monitoring of air concentrations of benzene around the fenceline perimeter of refineries to assure that emissions are controlled and these results would be available to the public. The proposal would also require upgraded emission controls for storage tanks including controls for smaller tanks; performance requirements for flares to ensure that waste gases are properly destroyed; and emissions standards for delayed coking units which are currently a significant unregulated source of toxic air emissions at refineries.
EPA subsequently published the proposed rule in the Federal Register on June 30, 2014.

The EPA proposal for fenceline monitoring for benzene would detect ambient concentrations of benzene caused by multiple sources of benzene-emitting process equipment at petroleum refineries.

The EPA inhalation carcinogenicity risk assessment for benzene is that the one in a million cancer risk level is equivalent to an annual average benzene exposure of an air concentration in the range of 0.13 to 0.45 micrograms per cubic meter.  Because of the high risk produced per annual ambient human exposure for benzene, this makes benzene ambient monitoring an important tool for airborne toxicant evaluation and control.

Fence-line ambient air monitoring is also important because it will detect fugitive benzene releases from equipment whose fugitive emissions are not directed through a vent or stack so such emission units cannot be subjected to continuous emission monitoring and sampling requirements.

EPA's actions on flares, tanks and delayed coking units are also elements of emission control requirements that citizen environmental groups have been seeking for a considerable period of time.

EPA extended the public comment period on the proposed rules for refinery emissions to October, 28, 2014.

3.2   EPA's Clearinghouse on Inventories & Emissions Factors (CHIEF) Publishes Proposed Revised Emission Factors for Flares and Other Refinery Process Equipment

On August 19, 2014, EPA Clearinghouse on Inventories & Emission Factors (CHIEF) published the following statement:

EPA is proposing new and revised emissions factors for flares and new emissions factors for certain refinery process units. We are also proposing revisions to the refinery protocol document and proposing no changes to VOC emissions factors for tanks and wastewater treatment systems. We seek your comments on all aspects of these proposed actions regarding new and revised emissions factors for flares, proposed revisions to the refinery protocol document, as well as on the newly proposed emission factors for certain process units at refineries. We also seek your comments on our proposed determination that revisions to the VOC emission factors for tanks and wastewater treatment systems are not necessary.
AP-42 emission factors published by EPA's CHIEF operation are used to determine emission factors for reporting emission inventories from individual pieces of refinery process equipment.  AP-42 emission factors are sometimes used in air permit application evaluation and issuance as well.   Accurate health risk assessment of refinery emissions requires accurate and appropriate emission factors to make proper determinations.

The EPA website for these changes and the workproduct that supports the decision is here.

For flares, EPA proposes to add a 0.55 lbs of VOC per million BTU factor to the present factor for total hydrocarbon as methane 0.14 lbs per million BTU.

For nitrogen oxide emissions, EPA is proposing a big emission factor change that would indicate flares to have far higher nitrogen oxide emissions than previously identified, with a proposed NOX factor of 2.9 lbs NOX per million BTU (up by a factor of about 43 times over the previous factor of 0.068 lbs NOX/MMBTU).   This big increase in the emission factor means that EPA and States have been significantly underestimating nitrogen oxide emissions from flares across the country.

Sulfur recovery units are getting new, first-ever emission factors for carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and total hydrocarbon and the sulfur dioxide emission factor is proposed to be significantly reduced for the control level of sulfur recovery units.

Finally, EPA is proposing a new emission factors for hydrogen cyanide from fluidized catalytic cracking units, total hydrocarbon from catalytic reforming units and nitrogen oxides from hydrogen plants.

According to EPA:

We seek your comments on all aspects of these proposed actions regarding new and revised emission factors for flares, and the proposed revisions to the refinery protocol document, as well as on the newly proposed emission factors for certain process units at refineries. We also seek your comments on our proposed determination that revisions to the VOC emission factors for tanks and wastewater treatment systems are not necessary. Please submit your written comments on the above referenced documents and the proposed actions to AP-42 by October 19, 2014. Comments should be e-mailed to refineryfactor@epa.gov

4:12 PM PT: Here is more on that report released today....second integrated urban air toxics -- report to Congress.

http://www2.epa.gov/...


Originally posted to LakeSuperior on Thu Aug 21, 2014 at 01:39 PM PDT.

Also republished by DK GreenRoots and Climate Hawks.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  It has been about 4 years since Refineries on both (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KenBee, Creosote

    coasts have been shutting down,companies abandoning old plants and new refineries are been built in the Billions. It's a boom and boon for refineries, unless your refinery posed a big enough liability and was so old it was cheaper to close down mothball these sites, eliminate jobs that had been there for Decades for some and leave your contaminates, unless you can become considered a Fuel/Oil bunker storage facility.
    Now your plant isn't producing the airborne contaminates, they aren't producing anything, and no longer poisons the water aquifer and they keep the property, so they don't have to clean the place up, so it continues, a superfund site in your backyard, cleaned up at taxpayer expense; if cleaned up at all.
    Why aren't these the, "Broken Windows", signs and the refinery industry could be in charge of switching old refineries to less ambitious uses, but be required not 'to throw that brick' through our window and leaving, no; 'abandoning' a city or area to zero opportunities unless and without leaving it better than you found it, after all, it appears like you were only camping anyway.
    Always leave your campsite neater.

    "If you tell the truth, you won't have to remember anything", Mark Twain

    by Cruzankenny on Thu Aug 21, 2014 at 02:11:50 PM PDT

  •  oil transport article (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, Creosote

    by rail even over poorly maintained earthquake exposed rusty iron bridges.
    These routes go over all major watersheds, thru cities with millions and millions of innocents, past worse toxic industrial areas, thru neighborhoods rich, poor, insanely rich and insanely poor.

    Here is a recent hair raising story about the way the transport is seekritized, these mfkrs are systematically exposing us to massive danger and working the refs covering it up, while OTOH their persona software equipped blog robots  are claiming Obama the seekrit Muslin is covering up whatever scandal du jour they are paid to sqweek about.

    The industry spokesrobots:

    ''Oh, we have new safe tank cars to current standards (except where you live, we can't just not use the old ones, there is a big demand, you'll get these new cars just as soon as possible)... trust us'

    followed by your standard go to

    "DO YOU DRIVE???!!!..well then shut up. hippie."

    Public Data Reveal Secret Rail Movements of Crude Oil

    thanks for this heads up Lake.

    This machine kills Fascists.

    by KenBee on Thu Aug 21, 2014 at 03:32:40 PM PDT

    •  the consequences of rail transportation accidents (0+ / 0-)

      with crude oil are less of an explosion hazard than from accidents involving liquified petroleum gases like ethane, ethylene and propylene which are far worse since rail tanker accidents involving puncture of tankers carrying those substances will be a far, far higher explosion hazard than anything that could happen with any crude oil.

      Accidents with ethane, ethylene and propylene will mean BLEVE incidents -- Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosions.   These petroleum liquids have subzero boiling points and are shipped in pressurized tank cars that operate at a higher pressure than would be the case for a crude oil tanker.   A spill of such liquids at atmospheric pressure and typical ambient temperatures will mean a boiling liquid and rapid vaporatization of all hydrocarbons present.  In the vapor phase, the combustion reactivity is higher than in liquid phase, so rapid vaporatization means very rapid oxidation.

      •  the subject is not 'crude oil' in the generic (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LakeSuperior, Creosote

        sense but ND Bakken crude.. I believe the same oil that blew up the town in Quebec.

        I was not talking about gas shipments at all.

        These are new crude transport circuits shipping a type of crude that is actually explosive as compared to other types of crude hardly able to be set afire and certainly not explode.

        Shipping more dangerous cargo with the mindset, rules, practices, old equipment, tank cars, and now intentional secrecy is a very large public danger, not just a toxic spill cleanup problem.

        If it wasn't a problem there would be little public resistance and their blather about secretizing it 'because security' would also be pointless.

        This machine kills Fascists.

        by KenBee on Thu Aug 21, 2014 at 04:10:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  More on urban air toxicant report to congress (0+ / 0-)

    released today:

    http://www2.epa.gov/...

    The full report is available at that link, which was not available in the news release I linked to earlier in the diary.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site