The Environmental Protection Agency has demanded Colorado rewrite another air pollution permit for an oil and gas operator in Weld County, with the environmental group that brought the objection saying it’s another sign that “flaring” is ineffective in removing pollutants.
The EPA returned part of a permit for the Platteville Natural Gas Processing Plant to state officials for a rewrite, saying regulators must show there’s enough monitoring in place to guarantee the plant’s enclosed combustion device for volatile organic compound emissions is actually removing 95% of pollutants. Volatile organic compounds and other emissions from the gas processing plant contribute to toxic ozone formation in the nine-county northern Front Range nonattainment area for EPA ozone standards.
The Center for Biological Diversity, which brought the objection, won a similar EPA block on different flaring permits in January. The center says it is taking on individual permits while many environmental groups are frustrated at the pace of broader policy efforts to reduce ozone and greenhouse gas emissions from Colorado’s thriving oil and gas industry.
☀️ READ MORE
“It may seem like a small issue, but everything about the effectiveness of the state’s rules and permits rests on the effectiveness of flares to control emissions,” said Jeremy Nichols, senior advocate for the Center for Biological Diversity. The group also asked the EPA this week to object to another gas processing permit in Weld County.
“If flares aren’t working, then the regulatory framework is a sham,” Nichols said.
“Colorado still allows tens of thousands of oil and gas facilities to ‘guesstimate’ how much toxic air pollution they’re putting into the air we breathe,” said Ryan Maher, a staff attorney for the center. “Blocking this permit is a positive step forward toward the kind of transparency and accountability the oil and gas industry has fought hard to avoid. Colorado’s weak permitting has routinely enabled them to do so.”
The Platteville processor is owned by DCP Operating Company, acquired by Phillips 66. A company spokesperson said they would “respectfully decline” to comment.
“We are evaluating EPA’s order and working to respond,” said Leah Schleifer, a Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment spokesperson. “We carefully develop legally strong Title V permits that comply with the federal Clean Air Act and Colorado Air Quality Control Commission regulations, and followed its robust process for the DCP Title V permit.”
Worries about excess emissions are not merely hypothetical, environmental attorneys say. The same DCP processing facility was in 2022 part of a $3.25 million fine and settlement with federal and Colorado air pollution officials, after allegations the company failed to detect and repair leaks that contributed to worsening ozone problems on the northern Front Range.
DCP Operating Company LP and five related subsidiaries were assessed the fines and had to make repairs, in a consent decree announced by the regional EPA office in Denver after allegations of leaks and failure to repair at gas processing locations in Greeley, Platteville and other Weld County locations.
The decree said DCP did not admit to liability for the allegations, but had to pay the fine and also invest millions of dollars in equipment and systems to prevent new leaks. The decree was negotiated with the EPA, U.S. Department of Justice, and the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division, which is part of the state health department.
In the latest EPA order, federal regulators did not approve all of the environmental group’s objections to the Platteville permit.
For the objections the EPA did agree to after the Center for Biological Diversity petition, the environmental group said Colorado officials have 90 days to respond to the EPA and issue a revised permit.
The series of actions by center attorneys are meant to force state regulators to prove their permit measures eliminate pollution, rather than settle for projected gains from certain kinds of required equipment or procedures, Maher and Nichols said. Actual emissions from flaring and combustion devices should be monitored and reported in real time.
“Failure to test is a failure to ensure that permits are enforceable, as a practical matter,” Nichols said. Combined with the EPA’s January objections on other permits, “the EPA’s decision here shows that Colorado still hasn’t justified its anything-but-actual-data approach. EPA, agreeing with us, continues to hold Colorado’s feet to the fire to make sure flares, and permits, actually work,” he said.