Refinery Reform Campaign

AIR DISTRICTS CONSIDER FLARE RULES AS ACTIVISTS PUSH NATIONAL STRATEGY

Date: July 28, 2005

Environmentalists are working on a nationwide strategy to push local air officials to develop rules to control air toxics emissions from refinery flaring in the absence of a federal mandate. Activists also argue that a new flaring rule in a California air district is not stringent enough even though it is the first such mandate in the country.

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District on July 20 adopted a rule to reduce the burning of excess gases at the district's five oil refineries. It builds on a June 2003 district rule which required refineries to monitor and report flare emission data to the air district. Relevant documents are available on InsideEPA.com.

Activists welcome the district's rule in the absence of a federal mandate, but say that it does not go far enough. The activists instead are supporting a more stringent proposed rule to be considered for adoption later this year by California's South Coast Air Quality Management District.

Activists say many refineries burn off excess gases on a routine basis, even though they are only meant to do so during startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) periods. Activists say flaring emits significant levels of toxic substances, including benzene and particulate matter, that increase air pollution and cause adverse health effects.

A source with the Refinery Reform Campaign says the group will now be working with other organizations like the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) to develop a model flare control rule. This rule is expected to suggest stringent controls that go beyond both the Bay Area rule and South Coast proposal and activists will eventually lobby to get local air districts to adopt it, the source says.

The source says that "real action" on flare controls comes at the local level, because it is easier for activists to highlight a major refinery's flaring in one district than try to push for EPA to develop a nationwide flaring rule. For that reason, activists will take their model rule across the country to air districts that host several refineries and are suffering from air quality problems.

Among the areas that are likely to be high priorities for activists are Philadelphia; Chalmette, LA, and parts of Texas that all are home torefineries that environmentalists claim are flaring on a routine, non- emergency basis outside of SSM periods, according to the source.

The Bay Area rule requires each refinery to prepare a flare minimization plan (FMP), including detailed information about equipment and operating practices to reduce flares, steps the refinery will take to minimize the frequency and duration of flares, and a schedule for implementing flare prevention measures.

The South Coast rule goes further by explicitly prohibiting flaring in some instances, rather than simply mandating action to reduce flares. For examples, the rule prohibits flaring of gases with hydrogen sulfide content greater than 160 parts per million, whereas the Bay Area rule contains no such provision. The Refinery Reform Campaign source says this is significant because otherwise, the Bay Area is letting flaring of hydrogen sulfide occur, adding to air pollution in the area.

The South Coast rule would also trigger a reporting requirement for flare emissions that spread over 100,000 cubic feet. The Bay Area rule limits the requirement to 500,000 cubic feet, meaning a flare could spread over a wider area before having to be reported, an activist says.

EIP sent a July 19 letter to the Bay Area district's board of directors listing the modifications it wants to see to the rule. They include adding the South Coast's pending language as well as requiring a public hearing process for determining whether or not all feasible prevention measures have been included in FMPs. A South Coast source says the rule will be considered for adoption in either October or November this year.

In the letter, EIP director Eric Schaeffer argues that flaring should be expressly prohibited if it is due to inadequate flare control equipment, a failure by a company to upgrade its flare equipment, or repeated emergencies with the same preventable cause.

Schaeffer writes, "Flares are outdated technologies and their use at petroleum refineries should be limited to the maximum extent possible in order to protect workers, local communities, and overall ambient air quality. EIP commends [the Bay Area] for taking first steps to control flare emissions. We hope you will . . . strengthen the final rules so that they may truly serve as a model for other areas of the country struggling with how to control flare emissions. Anything this important and ground-breaking is worth doing right."

The Refinery Reform Campaign also wrote a July 20 letter to the Bay Area board of directors urging similar modifications to the rule. The letter reiterates the call for public participation in reviewing FMPs before the air district staff makes a formal determination on whether the plan is complete.

A Bay Area source says air officials in the district will consider the activists' letters but has no timeframe in mind for any update to its flare control rule.

In addition, in a July 20 statement the district's executive officer Jack P. Broadbent said the rule "will provide better health protection for residents living close to the refineries and will reduce overall levels of air pollution both in the Bay Area and in downwind locations."

One refining company has already weighed in on the Bay Area rule. In a statement, the Valero Energy Corp. says, "We do not expect the rule to have a significant impact on Valero because we already have a strong flare minimization program in place. For instance, we have flare gas recovery systems that minimize routine flare emissions by recovering gases before they reach the flare and sending them back into our fuel system."

Refining industry sources did not return calls for comment about the rule, but these sources have said in the past that flaring differs from facility to facility, so a national regulation by EPA or a district-wide flare control rule is nearly impossible to draft and implement.

The Bay Area air district rule comes at the same time as the Louisiana Bucket Brigade and the St. Bernard Citizens for Environmental Quality are pushing forward with their suit against a refinery in Chalmette, LA. The facility is owned by Chalmette Refining, LLC, with ExxonMobil owning 50 percent of the company. That lawsuit includes claims of excess, routine flaring by the refinery that is increasing air pollution and harming the health of citizens living near the refinery.

One source involved in the lawsuit, St. Bernard Citizens for Environmental Quality and Louisiana Bucket Brigade v. Chalmette Refining LLC, says activists will persist with the suit at the same time as they push for strong local flaring controls.

EPA sources did not return calls for comment, but agency officials have previously said that EPA has no plans to develop a rule. They argue flaring is a site-specific practice that makes a national rule impracticable.

In addition, EPA recently proposed restricting public access to SSM plans, which set out basic, non-binding guidelines for facilities including refineries to reduce SSM emissions including flaring. Activists charge the move would make it harder to prove facilities were violating their air permits (Clean Air Report, Jul. 14, page 7).

A third activist says that the FMP provision in the Bay Area rule is promising because it will provide activists with detailed plans of how refineries intend to reduce flaring, and that FMPs could be used as evidence in court.
-- Anthony Lacey

Fair use notice