The Observer, December 2003
EPA decision would allow most air pollution to continue at tanker terminal
As the Observer went to press, the citizens’ council was still awaiting final word from the Environmental Protection Agency on what it will do about dangerous air pollution from Alyeska’s Valdez tanker terminal.
After years of deliberation, EPA on Aug. 25 announced new regulations intended to control pollution from the terminal and other oil facilities across the nation. The regulations – called National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants/Organic Liquids Distribution – do cover some significant pollution sources at the terminal, such as oil storage tanks and leaking pumps, valves and other connections. But the regulations exempt one of the largest single sources of dangerous benzene vapors in the United States: the system that cleans crude oil remnants from the ballast water of arriving tankers before discharging it into Prince William Sound.
The Ballast Water Treatment Facility is estimated to release from 140 to 342 tons of hazardous air pollutants annually, including from 60 tons to more than 100 tons of benzene, a known human carcinogen. These levels of pollution mean terminal emissions are at least five times the 25-ton threshold at which EPA classifies a facility as a “major” source of hazardous air emissions and views it as a possible target for regulation.
EPA deemed the ballast water facility a wastewater system. Under the new rule, wastewater systems at Organic Liquid Distribution Facilities are unregulated with respect to air pollution, although such systems are regulated at refineries and chemical plants.
“This makes absolutely no sense,” said John Devens, executive director of the council. “It doesn’t matter what you call this facility. What’s important is that it releases more than a hundred tons of dangerous pollutants into the air around Valdez every year and will be allowed to do so indefinitely if the EPA decision stands.”
Most air pollution at the Ballast Water Treatment Facility comes from these tanks. The council has called for measurements of emissions from the facility. At left are the dissolved air flotation tanks at the Ballast Water Treatment Facility; at right, the facility's biological treatment tanks.
To become official, EPA’s new regulations have to be published in the Federal Register. Normally, this happens relatively quickly after an agency makes a decision. But the air pollution regulations have yet to be published in the Register, though exactly why they have not appeared is unknown.
EPA’s authority over the terminal and other facilities that handle oil and other organic liquids comes from the federal Clean Air Act, which requires the agency to issue rules to protect the public and the environment from continuous exposure to high levels of toxic air pollution.
According to a council review of EPA’s new regulations, the agency erred or was inconsistent in several ways when it decided not to require Alyeska to cut emissions from the ballast water facility:
• EPA failed to complete a thorough technical and economic evaluation of emissions and emission control requirements for the Valdez terminal, even though it is one of the largest oil terminals in the country.
• EPA decided to regulate much smaller sources of hazardous air pollution at oil terminals, such as the transfer racks used to load trucks. These sources may emit as little as 7 tons a year of pollution, a tiny fraction of emission levels from the Alyeska ballast water facility.
• EPA’s technical analysis incorrectly concluded that emissions from water treatment facilities were insignificant, and that few options existed for controlling them. In fact, air pollution control technology for wastewater facilities and ballast water facilities is well developed and readily available. The council cited numerous instances, including facilities at West Coast refineries owned by ConocoPhillips and BP – companies that are also major owners in the Alyeska terminal in Valdez. For example, vapor recovery and carbon adsorption control devices reduce benzene emissions by 98 percent at these refineries.
• EPA’s technical analysis also said the new rule would target facilities emitting 100 or more tons of pollutants per year, despite the fact that unregulated emissions from the Valdez terminal will greatly exceed that threshold.
The council’s comments did sway EPA on another important issue at stake in the rulemaking: the so-called “black oil” exemption.
This proposed exemption in the draft rule was an apparent attempt to exclude from regulation oils that don’t emit significant amounts of hazardous vapors. The council objected because the agency’s proposed definition of black oil was so loose it would have included virtually all crude oil produced in the United States. Thus, the numerous facilities handling these crudes – including the Valdez terminal – would have been exempt from the regulations.
After reviewing the council’s analysis and comments, EPA agreed that the black-oil exemption was unjustified and removed it from the final regulations. It was this change that will lead to the regulation of such pollution sources at the terminal as oil storage tanks and leaking connections.
“One commenter provided data on crude oils handled throughout the country, including the Alaskan oil pipeline and the Valdez Marine Terminal,” the agency wrote in explaining the change. “Based on the comments received and additional data . . . we have discovered that most crude oil being distributed (in the U.S.) would have been excluded from the final rule, even though our impacts analyses assumed most crude oil was subject to control.”
“We commend EPA for taking the right step on black oil,” Devens said. “We just hope we can bring about a similar outcome for the Valdez ballast water facility.”
If the final published version of the regulations is the same as the version announced in August, the council may ask EPA to revisit the issue in a process known as a Petition for Rulemaking.