This page was last updated on January 30, 2017.
Shell repeatedly failed to be a ‘good neighbor’; Terrie Baumgardner; Beaver County Times; January 10, 2017.
Ms. Baumgardner (TB) used to be an “instructor in communications, arts and sciences at Penn State Beaver.”
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“Recently laid off from your job, you decide to make ends meet by renting out part of your home. You like the well-dressed prospect who turns up at your door, pronouncing your location ideal and even offering to make needed DIY repairs before moving in.
“But on the stranger’s application, you find a false name and, in background checks, a disturbing history of disruptions and damages. Would you rent to him?
“As early as Wednesday, three Potter Township (pop. 500) supervisors could -- while denying repeated requests for an independent review -- spearhead approval of a permit that will greenlight construction of the largest ethane cracker plant in this country.
“The proposed mammoth facility is intended to launch a petrochemical hub inspired by Louisiana’s ‘cancer alley,’ but far greater in scope. Yet Shell, in its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit application to the state Department of Environmental Protection, has disingenuously called the proposed cracker an ‘existing facility’ precisely to avoid post-2010 environmental regulations designed to protect us all.”
[RWC] As TB must know, “existing facility” has multiple definitions in the law. For example, a Shell permit application entitled “NPDES Application for Permit AMENDMENT” asks, “Is the facility considered a new facility as defined in 40 CFR § 125.81?” Shell checked the “no” box. On the next line, the application asks, “Is the facility considered an existing facility as defined in 40 CFR § 125.91?” Shell checked the “yes” box.
To the best of my recollection, Shell always said it wanted the Horsehead permits grandfathered. A couple of examples are below. Grandfathering permits is common and not “disingenuous.”
According to the Associated Press (AP), “Shell wants to discharge storm and wastewater into the Ohio River and a tributary under a permit issued to Horsehead Inc., which operated a zinc smelter on the site before closing it and selling the land to Shell. The DEP hearing also concerns an air pollution permit for the facility.”
According to the Ellwood City Ledger, “According to a legal notice, ‘the permit is a new discharge to an existing permit for a continuous discharge of process waters to the Ohio (River) and intermittent discharge of stormwater to the Ohio, Poorhouse Run and Rag Run.’ The permit would also allow for the discharge of industrial wastes ‘in a manner which meets DEP requirements.’”
Unless Horsehead’s permit had “no limits on its discharges of total dissolved solids into the Ohio River,” which would be hard to believe, grandfathering Horsehead’s permit should not result in TB’s claim of “no limits on its discharges of total dissolved solids …”
There’s more on this topic in the discussion thread at the end of this review.
If Shell’s trying to fool us on this point as TB claims, they’re doing a bad job.
“If the falsehood central to this application is ignored, Shell will have no limits on its discharges of total dissolved solids into the Ohio River -- the source of drinking water for 5 million people and already the most-polluted river basin in the country.
[RWC] TB just accused Shell of criminal activity. I could be wrong, but I think putting a “falsehood” on a permit is illegal.
“This is not -- as a Google search of ‘Shell Niger Delta’ or ‘Williams Olefins Explosion’ shows -- Shell’s first failure to live up to its ‘good neighbor’ claim. And it’s a far cry from justification for a $1.65 billion tax break.”
[RWC] I don’t like so-called tax breaks. The problem is everyone likes to tax businesses until the cows come home, then those same people wonder why new businesses don’t view PA favorably. Get rid of so-called “business taxes” and tax breaks go away.
I posted an abbreviated version of my review on the BCT website and below is the thread. I don’t know the names of those hiding behind the screen names “Progressive” and “tbm2.”
Progressive Jan 11, 2017 12:16am
“The proof is in the existing plants as to the pollution excesses. Dumping into the Gulf of Mexico vs the Ohio River is two different situations. Venting the flaring into the flat windy Texas landscape is much different than the Ohio River valley. Robin Cox has displayed he did no exploration of the reality of what is to come. 2,500,000 Tons of CO gas + all the other gasses will be dumped into the air. Some will land onto the machinery and ground and be discharged into the Ohio River. Without monitoring it, there will be no recording ( proof ), that the pollution was entering the river. The updated NPDES permit will cover that. Winners never cheat and cheaters never win.”
sdcox Jan 11, 2017 3:11pm (In case you’re wondering about “sdcox,” our household BCT subscription is my brother’s. I “sign” my comments so they’re not mistaken for my brother’s.)
“There’s a belief in some local circles that if you don’t want the Shell facility banned, you’re okay with uncontrolled pollution. That’s absurd. For example, if TB’s claim of ‘no limits on its discharges of total dissolved solids …’ were true, that would be wrong. The point of my first comment was to show TB was misleading her readers into thinking Shell was doing something illegal. ‘Progressive’ did the same with her/his ‘Winners never cheat …’ comment.
As for flaring, no plant manager wants to see an active flare for at least two reasons, safety and profitability. Except during the startup and shutdown of a unit, an active flare means one or more relief valves were triggered by a malfunctioning unit resulting in the escape of combustible material into the plant’s flare system. The flare tower(s) burn the escaped material so it can’t accumulate inside or outside the plant and cause an explosion. From an economics viewpoint, an active flare is like burning dollars.”
tbm2 Jan 12, 2017 6:05pm
“RE Robin Cox’s comment that ‘Unless Horsehead’s permit had ‘no limits on its discharges of total dissolved solids into the Ohio River,’ which would be hard to believe…’: Believe it. Horsehead’s permit did not contain any TDS limits, and DEP’s new draft permit for Horsehead, similarly, does not contain ANY TDS limits. DEP admitted it never limited TDS in a previous permit when it said it would base Shell’s TDS numbers on Horsehead’s 2006 application values (rather than values from a permit) because there were no permitted TDS limits. Here’s how the DEP put it: ‘The primary reference for load determinations would be existing TDS effluent limits in an existing permit. Horsehead was not subject to TDS effluent limits, so the secondary reference is application data.’ DEP, NPDES Permit Fact Sheet, at Attachment A, p. 1., http://files.dep.state.pa.us/RegionalResources/SWRO/SWROPortalFiles/Shell/DRAFT%20-%20Fact%20Sheet%20for%20PA0002208%20A-1.pdf
“RE Cox’s comment that grandfathering permits is common: Grandfathering’ typically applies so that existing facilities get exempted from certain legal requirements. But, as in the case of the ethane cracker, when an old facility has been demolished and new one, with a new owner, conducting a completely different type of industrial activity, with completely a completely different pollutant profile, is going to be built (and is actually not even built yet), no ‘grandfathering’ is applicable. As a new facility that is going to be built, Shell’s cracker must comply with all current requirements for new facilities.
What’s more, Cox’s comment that TB is misleading readers into thinking Shell is doing something illegal is itself misleading. All the letter questions – and that should be enough – is the ethics of skirting environmental regulations designed to protect the communities Shell claims it will be a ‘Good Neighbor’ to. DEP will be the judge of legality.”
sdcox Jan 17, 2017 7:06pm
“To start, I have no expertise in interpreting pollution permits.
“tbm2’s excerpt cut the paragraph short (page 49). The rest of the paragraph reads, ‘Note that TDS loads based on application data are considered to be authorized even though no TDS limits were imposed; the fact that DEP did not impose TDS effluent limits does not mean that the TDS concentrations/loads reported on an application were not implicitly approved by issuing a permit based on that application.’
“Another part of the document (page 32) says, ‘Based on DEP’s analysis of Horsehead’s TDS discharges (included in Attachment A of this Fact Sheet), the existing TDS discharge loading authorized prior to August 21, 2010 is 65,556 lb/day average and 73,184 lb/day maximum. Shell’s estimated TDS discharge loading for process wastewaters is 50,078 lb/day. Since the proposed TDS discharge loading is less than the existing authorized TDS loading, Shell’s process wastewater discharge will be exempt from § 95.10’s treatment requirements pursuant to the exemptions in §§ 95.10(a)(1) and (7).’
“Again, I have no expertise in this field, but the document tbm2 cited appears to contradict the claim Horsehead could dump as much TDS as it wanted.
“Regarding grandfathering, tbm2’s document reads, ‘The TDS guidance directs the timing of determinations on existing mass loadings to be made when there are proposed hydraulic expansions or changes in waste streams. While this generally refers to activities conducted as part of the same industrial operations under the same permit number (e.g., if Horsehead, the former owner of the site, were expanding or changing one of its waste streams), a complete change in the type of industrial activity (zinc smelting to ethane cracking), while not envisioned by the guidance, would reasonably warrant a determination of existing authorized mass loadings of TDS.’
“tbm2 wrote, ‘Cox’s comment that TB is misleading readers into thinking Shell is doing something illegal is itself misleading.’ TB said Shell put a ‘falsehood’ on a permit application. I could be wrong, but I think lying on a permit is illegal.”
© 2004-2017 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.