Sign in with Facebook
  • Facebook Page: 128172154133
  • Twitter: EarthProtect1

Posted by on in Earth Violators
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 929
  • 0 Comments

EPA objects to state permit

 

 

Agency concerned about air quality around oil refinery in Commerce City

By Noelle Phillips

The Denver Post

The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday objected to the state’s proposed operating permit renewal for the Suncor oil refinery in Commerce City and expressed concerns about how pollution from the facility affects its low-income and mostly minority neighbors.

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, which submitted the 373-page permit for Suncor, has 90 days to respond to the EPA’s objections and resubmit. The operating permit regulates the level of various toxic pollutants the refinery can release into the air.

The EPA’s objections do not affect the Suncor refinery’s operations, and they do not mean the agency eventually will deny the permit renewal.

The refinery has been operating under a permit that was issued in 2006. Those air-quality permits are supposed to be renewed every five years, but Suncor and the state have not applied for renewal since then, meaning the plant has been operating on an expired permit for 16 years.

The EPA’s objections focused on three sites at the refinery where Suncor uses flares to burn off excess chemicals. The state’s Air Pollution Control Division, which falls under the health department, wanted to exempt those flaring sources from regular monitoring requirements, according to a letter to the agency from KC Becker, the EPA’s regional administrator. The EPA is asking the state to do more analysis and better explain why it believes the flare sites don’t need additional monitoring.

The EPA also expressed significant concern about the refinery’s environmental impact on people who live and work within a threemile radius of the plant, and the federal agency suggested steps the state can take to improve communication with the community when it comes to permitting for the plant and reporting on the pollution that comes from it, the letter said.

The location of the Suncor plant “raises significant environmental justice concerns, as illustrated by the severity of pollution and described health impacts facing the communities living in proximity to the Suncor site,” Becker’s letter said.

In response to the EPA’s decision, the Air Pollution Control Division issued a statement saying it would respond to the EPA’s recommendations, including conducting more analysis on the flare monitoring. The statement also explained how the agency is communicating with people who live and work around the refinery.

Suncor spokeswoman Loa Esquilin Garcia said in an email that the company is reviewing the EPA’s recommendations and will follow established permitting processes.

Lucy Molina, a community activist with 350 Colorado, said she was pleased that the EPA was at least asking questions and acknowledging the environmental injustices that have surrounded the plant for generations. And she criticized the state health department for allowing Suncor to operate on its 2006 permit long past its intended expiration date.

“Government is responsible at every level for the environmental racism that happens in our communities.” Molina said.

One recommendation the EPA made for the state is to consult the community even when Colorado issues minor permit modifications at the plant. Even though Suncor’s permit had not been renewed, the state health department has processed 40 permit modifications, including 29 that were considered minor, Becker’s letter said. While those minor modifications do not require a public comment period, the EPA recommends that the state start holding public meetings and accepting public feedback on them.

The federal agency also questioned whether Colorado health officials have allowed some Suncor projects to slide under the minor permitting rules even though they likely qualified as major projects, the letter said.

Issuing those minor permits, “including those authorizing physical changes to the facility that would increase emissions, without a process for public notice and comment raises significant concern,” the letter said.

Noelle Phillips: 303-954-1661, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or @Noelle_Phillips

 

Comments

81595f2dd9db45846609c618f993af1c

© Earth Protect