Although the program is controversial and opposed by many industry interests, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced that it plans to continue enforcement of clean air new source review (NSR) requirements against the petroleum refining industry. On December 20, 2001, EPA issued notices of violations (NOVs) against four refineries owned by Sunoco Corporation and ExxonMobil Corporation in Louisiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas.
The NOVs issued to Sunoco are for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration Rules, New Source Performance Standards, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for benzene waste, and other requirements of the Act related to the control of emissions at refineries in Marcus Hook and Philadelphia, Penn., and Toledo, Ohio. The NOVs issued to ExxonMobil are for alleged violations of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Rules at the company’s Beaumont, Texas, refinery and of New Source Performance Standards and Leak Detection and Repair Rules at the company’s Chalmette, La., refinery.
The Bush Administration continues to review the NSR rules as part of its comprehensive national energy strategy. Industry officials have complained that the NSR enforcement initiative places an unfair burden on energy companies. However, issuance of the four notices clearly indicates that EPA will not overlook violations of the Clean Air Act when they occur. On December 20, 2001, EPA and the Department of Justice also announced two new NSR-related settlements with petroleum refineries. One involved Navajo Refining Co. and Montana Refining Co., both subsidiaries of Holly Corporation, while the second involved Conoco, Inc. Also joining the settlements were the states of Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, and Oklahoma.
Industry Wonders About Superfund Reform and the Possible Return of Taxes
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has indicated that it is running out of money to pay for Superfund cleanups, a situation that might result in the reimposition of expired Superfund taxes. In a recent financial disclosure, EPA revealed that it has had to dip into the Agency’s general operating funds to pay for Superfund cleanups, including several recent (and very expensive) anthrax-related cleanups.
Rumors have been circulating that high-level EPA officials have expressed concern that the potential short-fall in Superfund funding may require a reimposition of the Superfund taxes on the oil and chemical industries, which expired in 1995. This sentiment echoes the findings of a July 2001 study conducted by the public advocacy and research firm Resources for the Future, which projected a huge shortfall in Superfund funding over the next ten years. The report noted that EPA will need over $13 billion for cleanups over the next decade, but that the Superfund Trust Fund has a balance of only $1.3 billion.
After the report was issued, EPA Deputy Administrator Linda Fischer noted that she and EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman would review the report carefully and seriously consider its results as part of an overall Agency strategy to address problems with the Superfund program.
Industry interests plan to oppose reimposition of the Superfund taxes, but environmentalists and consumer advocates have long argued that the polluters, not the taxpayers, should pay for the cleanups. Republicans in Congress have resisted reimposing the taxes unless there is comprehensive reform of the Superfund program, a goal which has been fleeting. Instead, Congress has chosen to boost Superfund allocations from the general treasury, but demand for funds continues to outstrip what is available. The Superfund Trust Fund is expected to run out of money within the next twelve to fifteen months.
