Refining Community Logo

EPA- Flint Hills Corpus Refinery Get Permits Amid State Flap

Home Forums Refining Community Refinery News EPA- Flint Hills Corpus Refinery Get Permits Amid State Flap

This topic contains 1 reply, has 1 voice, and was last updated by  Charles Randall 12 years ago.

  • Author
  • #2461

    basil parmesan

    EPA: Texas Refinery to Get Permits Amid State Flap
    Federal EPA working to approve 4 permits for Texas refinery amid battle with state regulators 
    By RAMIT PLUSHNICK-MASTI Associated Press Writer

    HOUSTON October 22, 2010 (AP)  The Associated Press 

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said Friday it is moving to approve new operating permits for a Texas refinery, a first amid an ongoing dispute between the federal agency and state environmental regulators.
    The EPA said it is helping Flint Hills Resources in Corpus Christi transition its permits from state versions banned by the federal agency for violating the Clean Air Act to ones that would meet federal guidelines.
    It’s the first company to embark on an EPA-approved path to get the new papers since the federal agency disapproved Texas’ flexible permit program in June – a move that had left more than 120 plants, including some of the nation’s largest refineries, in operating limbo.
    The debate over environmental issues quickly evolved into a heated battle over states’ rights. Gov. Rick Perry has cast the EPA’s move as an example of the Obama administration meddling in state affairs, mentioning it again as recently as a Thursday campaign stop.
    The EPA argues Texas’ flexible permits do not allow for accurate monitoring of air emissions. The EPA is concerned plants are releasing more pollution than allowed. The new federal permits will require companies to separately monitor emissions from the hundreds of units in a plant, rather than measure them under an umbrella, as the Texas program had allowed.
    Texas has challenged the EPA’s disapproval in court, and insists its 16-year-old flexible permitting program is legal and has even helped the state reduce air pollution.
    The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality said it was looking forward to reviewing Flint Hills’ new permits, but remained “concerned with EPA’s overreaching and unnecessary demands on Texas companies.”
    “We remain convinced the state’s current flex program is effective and legal,” the state regulatory body said in a statement. “EPA’s demands may cause companies to alter their expansion plans, hurting Texas jobs; will cost companies more money, which will be passed onto consumers in the form of increase prices; and above it all, will not result in cleaner air.”
    EPA regional director Al Armendariz said the agreement with Flint Hills culminated from months of negotiations and “puts and end to the argument that what the EPA’s requesting … hurts jobs or results in any kind of adverse economic impacts.”

    “Permit holders in Texas realize that they can comply with the law and operate profitably over the long term,” Armendariz said. “They’re doing so in other industrial states, they’re doing so in other countries.”
    Without federally approved air and operating permits, they risk hefty fines or even a shutdown. The EPA said it is working closely with Flint Hills, environmental groups and Texas regulators to help the company get the new permits.
    Brad Razook, Flint Hills’ president and chief executive officer, said the company is taking a “proactive and constructive approach to resolve the issue.”
    The permits need to go through several layers of bureaucracy before final approval, including a public comment period. The entire process is estimated to take a year.

  • #5399

    Charles Randall

    Here is update on battle between States (Texas) Rights vs. EPA Fed Rights …….. and this surrender by Flint Hills (Koch) Corpus Refinery moves line closer to EPA. Until now Koch has been standing up to Obama administration on several issues that threaten oil industry, who would think their Corpus plant would become the “Judas goat” for the EPA’s case.
    The EPA position is making leaping claim that Refineries/MFG plants must now have point source emissions instead of an umbrella emissions for the whole plant. Only bureaucrats and states without refineries (some 39 vs. 8 that do with few in middle) would even consider this. Most of emissions are below monitoring levels and are actually calculated and a complex refinery often includes large number of units that make the task a nightmare. It has been the Rosetta stone for anit-industry folks to impose because it is a path to closing the 60-100 year old facilities that have been prevented from building new plants for 3 decades now.
    It will also be as bad for ongoing emissions as the last over-reach by EPA when they claimed construction that replaced existing units with new ones must now be considered New Source and be approved / repermitted ….. which ended up costing refiners millions in extra cost and fines.
    When anyone address the loss of jobs, and the inability of US to meet foreign competition, someone needs to point out that having the EPA taking its guidance from rabid environmental groups that are anti-fossil industry needs to be at the top of that list. California has been the breeding ground for these groups and for useless and costly regulations that have been closing a number of their own refineries only to keep them from closing and force a sale in order to avoid supply crisis.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Refining Community