Four environmental advocacy groups, gas company settle Clean Air Act lawsuit

Written by

Odessa American
Original article here

A flare burns on May 24, 2018, atop a drill pad on land near Carlsbad. The oil-rich Permian Basin straddles West Texas and southeastern New Mexico. (Courtesy Photo)

The Environmental Integrity Project, Sierra Club, Environment Texas, and Texas Campaign for the Environment reached an agreement with gas plant owner, DCP Operating Company, after the company agreed to make improvements that reduce gas flaring.

The company also agreed to pay $500,000 to help improve local air quality and public health in the Odessa area. In addition, the company agreed to pay automatic penalties in the future – up to $14,500 per ton of hydrogen sulfide – if emissions exceed certain limits.

The settlement, announced in a consent decree filed Friday in federal court for the Western District of Texas, resolves a March 2021 lawsuit. The environmental groups, represented by Environmental Integrity Project, filed suit under the Clean Air Act’s “citizen suit” law based on concerns around flaring at the company’s gas processing plant in Goldsmith, near Odessa.

Colin Cox, Attorney with Environmental Integrity Project, said: “When it comes to both climate change and environmental justice, the Biden Administration has been talking the talk for almost two years. But federal enforcement of environmental laws has fallen by over 50% in the past three years. Time is short for the Biden EPA to walk the walk. Today’s settlement is one example of what EPA should be leading to reduce greenhouses gases and toxic pollution in the oil and gas fields.”

Tens of thousands of oil and gas drilling sites in the Permian Basin extract gas, much of which must be stripped of dangerous hydrogen sulfide before it can be piped to Gulf Coast ports and petrochemical plants. The Goldsmith gas processing plant, located about 15 miles northwest of Odessa in Ector County, and other similar plants in the region remove that hydrogen sulfide and other impurities, compress the gas, and send it via pipelines to markets, mainly on the Gulf Coast. This lawsuit focused on the flaring of sour gas, resulting in the emission of sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide into the air. Prior to this action, the Goldsmith Gas Plant was among the largest emitters of flared acid gas in the state.

Corey Troiani, Senior Campaign Strategy Director, Texas Campaign for the Environment, said: “Today’s settlement goes to show that oil and gas companies can reduce air pollution and flaring when they are motivated to do so. Our state environmental agencies have dropped the ball on pollution enforcement, which is why we need to call on the Biden Administration EPA to ramp up and strengthen basic enforcement of all our nation’s anti-pollution laws. These are EPA’s best tools to drive down not just toxic and asthma-causing pollution but also greenhouse gases.”

Luke Metzger, Executive Director, Environment Texas, said: “Our state agency, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, has turned a blind eye to flaring in the Permian Basin, leaving it up to citizens to enforce environmental laws. We are grateful to see this matter resolved with real benefits to Ector County.”

The proposed consent decree will be reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Justice before it is formally approved by U.S. District Judge David Counts.

This lawsuit is the second case brought by environmental groups against a large gas plant in Ector County in the past five years. The first suit against James Lake Gas Plant was also resolved in a settlement that reduced sour gas flaring at the plant as well as funded the purchase of replacement air filters for every classroom and office in Ector County Independent School District.

‘Significant interest’ leads TCEQ to schedule public meeting on Max Midstream’s air permit application

Written by

Victoria Advocate
By Kali Venable
Original article here

This computer-generated image depicts oil storage tanks at the Port of Calhoun where Max Midstream acquired the Seahawk pipeline and terminal. Contributed by Max Midstream Texas

Nearly 90 people asked the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to hold a public meeting and contested case hearing to address concerns with an air permit Max Midstream Texas is seeking for expansion of its Seahawk terminal at the Calhoun Port Authority.

If granted, the permit will allow Max Midstream to increase emissions of greenhouse gases measured in carbon dioxide equivalent by more than 100,000 tons per year, and increase emissions of other pollutants by more than 300 tons per year. Other contaminants include carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, nitrogen oxides, organic compounds, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter with diameters of 10 microns or less and 2.5 microns or less, according to TCEQ.

On Monday, TCEQ spokesman Brian McGovern said the agency had determined that a public meeting will be held in response to significant public interest in the application.

“Staff is currently working to begin the scheduling process for the public meeting,” McGovern said in an email.

A total of 87 requests for contested case hearings and 88 requests for public meetings had been submitted to TCEQ as of Monday. The public comment period for the application will remain open until the meeting is held, McGovern said. After the public comment period closes, TCEQ’s executive director will formally respond to all comments received. Once those responses are filed, all timely contested case hearing requests and any requests for reconsideration will be considered by TCEQ commissioners at a public meeting, McGovern said. Contested case hearings are legal proceedings similar to a civil trial in a state district court and are only granted based on disputed issues of fact that are relevant to the Commission’s decision on an application, according to TCEQ.

Max Midstream CEO Todd Edwards did not respond to requests for comment Monday.

Expansion of the terminal, as well as the Matagorda Ship Channel, are part of Max Midstream’s plans to eventually export up to 20 million barrels of oil through the terminal each month. After purchasing the terminal from Northstar Midstream, Max Midstream announced in October 2020 that it planned to partner with the Calhoun Port Authority and build an oil exportation hub at the port.

As part of the partnership, the company is pumping $225 million into widening and deepening the Matagorda Ship Channel — a project that is well underway despite scrutiny from local residents, nonprofits and several state and national environmental advocacy groups who worry it will have detrimental environmental impacts.

Expansion of the terminal includes eight new storage tanks for crude and crude condensates, seven new loading docks, 16 new vapor combustion units, three firewater pumps and other equipment, according to the permit application.

Environmental activist Diane Wilson, who recently ended a 36-day hunger strike in protest of the widening and deepening project and oil exports, filed requests for a public meeting and contested case hearing on Max Midstream’s air permit application. She said she encouraged people who have been supporting her protests of the widening and deepening project to do the same.

Nearly all other requests were submitted by Texas residents who live outside of Calhoun County, including the director of the Texas Campaign for the Environment Fund, the Turtle Island Restoration Network and an atmospheric sciences professor at Texas A&M University. The vast majority of requests were uniform in language, saying that “Max Midstream has claimed in its permit application it doesn’t need to follow the best available pollution control technology, even though this would be a major industrial facility with the capacity to emit large quantities of air pollutants. To allow this permit to proceed without the most stringent pollution controls and monitoring would be a monumental error on the part of TCEQ.”

Sources of air pollution are classified as major if they have actual or potential emissions at or above the national ambient air quality threshold for any air pollutant, and are required obtain a Title V permit from the Environmental Protection Agency to operate. Because the proposed increases in emissions for the terminal expansion are below the applicable major source thresholds, Max Midstream contends that the project is a minor source modification in its application. Compared to major sources, minor sources trigger less stringent federal pollution control and impact modeling requirements.

Requests jointly filed by Wilson, the Environmental Integrity Project and Texas RioGrande Legal Aid question that classification and allege that the expansion project’s impacts to air quality are not accurately represented. The proposed limits listed for carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide and volatile organic compounds in Max Midstream’s application are a particular source of concern because they are “very close” to the 100 tons per year threshold that would trigger major source classification, the requests said.

“While Max Midstream claims that its expansion project is ‘minor,’ it has failed to show that it will be able to comply with synthetic limits claimed to avoid more stringent pollution control and impacts evaluation requirements that apply to ‘major’ projects,” the request reads. “Members of the public should have an opportunity to voice their concerns about this project and to put questions to Max Midstream and TCEQ representatives directly.”

The requests were filed after the Environmental Integrity Project asked TCEQ to release emissions calculations that Max Midstream marked as confidential in its permit application. TCEQ referred the request to the Office of the Attorney General, which ruled that the information was subject to public disclosure and ordered TCEQ to release it.