NRDC Filed Against Unlawful Oil Refinery Permit

NRDC Filed Against Unlawful Oil Refinery Permit



Aug. 2007  - Groups concerned about the 
health threats posed by a major expansion at the ConocoPhillips oil 
refinery in the Greater St. Louis area are asking the federal government 
to overturn a permit they say was issued unlawfully by state officials in 
Illinois. 
The Natural Resources Defense Council, NRDC, representing the American 
Bottom Conservancy, filed a petition Tuesday with an appeals board at the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. American Bottom Conservancy is a 
nonprofit organization based in the Metro East St. Louis area. 
NRDC attorneys argued that stronger air pollution safety measures are 
required under the federal Clean Air Act before ConocoPhillips can expand 
operations at its facility in Roxana, Illinois. 
The refinery is being expanded to process crude oil extracted from 
Canadian tar sands, an energy source that the environmentalists point out 
generates three times more greenhouse gases than gasoline made from 
conventional oils. 
At issue are the burning columns of waste gas known as flares that can be 
seen for miles, and which emit dangerous pollutants. NRDC attorneys 
contend that refineries elsewhere have reduced flaring through better 
design and improved management practices. 
They claim that state officials have hindered local community input on the 
ConocoPhillips Roxana project and ignored "readily available, proven 
safeguards used widely at similar facilities nationwide." 
Sierra Club, represented by the Environmental Integrity Project, has 
joined in the challenge. 
"ConocoPhillips, the third-largest oil producer in the country that had 
its most profitable year on record last year, should be setting the 
standard for clean operation, rather than seeking to do less than other 
refineries to control their pollution," said Ann Alexander, a senior 
attorney with NRDC’s Chicago Office. "The greater St. Louis region already 
suffers from chronic dirty air. ConocoPhillips ought to be part of the 
solution, not the problem." 
The petition seeks to show that the Illinois Environmental Protection 
Agency, IEPA, ignored a law requiring the agency to provide interested 
citizens with a list of changes made to the draft permit and the reason 
for the changes. 
Without that information, it is difficult for citizens to figure out on 
their own what IEPA changed and whether those changes are appropriate, the 
petition claims. 
"Illinois EPA ignored the simple rules required by law," said Kathy 
Andria, president of American Bottom Conservancy and a member of the 
Illinois Sierra Club Clean Air Campaign. "Citizens should not have to file 
legal appeals to see that the Clean Air Act is enforced or that a state 
agency does the job it is supposed to do to protect their communities." 
The challenge addresses a provision in federal law giving older facilities 
a temporary reprieve from modern pollution control standards required 
under the Clean Air Act. 
When new updates or expansions take place that would increase their 
emissions, such facilities are legally required to install the best 
available current emissions controls. But the petitioners claim that the 
IEPA never looked at best practices used by other refiners before giving a 
green light to ConocoPhillips. 
"ConocoPhillips has had record profits. A special Internal Revenue Code 
tax provision allows a refinery to write off half the entire cost of an 
expansion project the very first year it is in operation. Why wouldn't 
they install best available control technology?" asked Andria. "Why 
wouldn't they protect our health?" 
"I was a refinery worker for many years, and I had hoped that 
ConocoPhillips would treat our community with respect and upgrade to a 
first-class refinery," said Gayle Borman, a Sierra Club member living in 
Wood River near the refinery. "I expected more from them and from Illinois 
EPA." 

---