Environmentalists in a new federal fight against BP Whiting's air permit say they come armed with a similar win already in hand.
The Natural Resources Defense Council is hoping to capitalize on a fresh success in challenging an air permit for ConocoPhillips in Roxana, Ill.
"We're heartened in the recent decision in the ConocoPhillips case," NRDC Senior Attorney Ann Alexander said. "We have high hopes."
But a BP spokesman called the cases against the two refineries too different to claim any early victory against BP.
The challenge filed Wednesday in Hammond federal court claims, among other things, that BP did not account for increased pollution from three new flares -- the large torch structures used to relieve pressure in the refinery -- planned as part of the refinery's $3.8 billion expansion.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency last month upheld the permit, which was approved by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. EPA spokesman Bill Omohudro said Friday the agency would not comment on the lawsuit against BP because the EPA had not completed a review of the case.
An EPA appeal board last month upheld an NRDC challenge to the ConocoPhillips refinery, based on the argument that the refinery had not properly controlled its flare emissions. The decision means that refinery will have to seek a new permit.
But a BP spokesman called the issues between the two refineries very different.
"There is a pretty straightforward regulatory difference between the two projects, but the bottom line is that the points raised in the NRDC suit are just not applicable to our permits," BP spokesman Tom Mueller said.
ConocoPhillips received a major modification permit, based on an expected significant hike in carbon monoxide, which requires an analysis of specific control technology, Mueller said.
"The Whiting expansion will not result in a significant increase in air emissions," Mueller said.
BP has acknowledged that the expansion would increase emissions of some pollutants by 2011, including sulfur dioxide, particulate matter and lead. But the company has said it will apply the use of credits earned through past pollutant-reducing investments to offset the spikes.
"I think the case is very strong on the law," Alexander said. "The law really is very clear. You have to count all of your emissions. You can't just stick your head in the sand and pretend they're not there."
The suit also requests that BP halt construction until a new permit is granted and pay a $32,500 daily penalty for alleged Clean Air Act violations.
Given that the NRDC's case against ConocoPhillips took two years, Alexander is not concerned about any construction BP undergoes as its legal case proceeds.
"I think BP is the one who should be worried, not us," Alexander said. "They know their permit could potentially be found invalid."
