https://www.delcotimes.com/news/pa-environmental-board-slams-sunoco-air-qual...

Pa. environmental board slams Sunoco air-quality permit By Bill Rettew, Delaware County Times, January 10, 2019

PHILADELPHIA >> A state Environmental Hearing Board ruled the state Department of Environmental Protection unlawfully issued an air-quality permit for Sunoco at its Marcus Hook facility.

The Marcus Hook facility is the end point for Sunoco and Energy Transfer Partners Mariner East 2 pipeline project. The pipeline will deliver hundreds of thousands of barrels of liquid gases such as ethane, butane and propane to the facility every day. Once there, they will be stored and eventually shipped for the most part to overseas destinations.

On Wednesday, the environmental board ruled that DEP unlawfully issued an air-quality permit for natural gas liquids processing equipment at the Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. facility in Marcus Hook. The processing equipment is designed to handle liquids from the Mariner East pipelines, which run across Pennsylvania. The decision came in response to Clean Air Council’s appeal in April 2016, leading to a trial in May 2018.

Specifically, the board said that DEP was mistaken when it considered various portions of the plan as separate entities. Instead the board noted DEP should have reviewed the project as a whole.

Alex Bomstein, senior litigation attorney for Clean Air Council, hailed the ruling.

“The board’s ruling really shows that no one – not even Sunoco – is above the law,” Bomstein said. “The industry’s practice of dividing up big projects into smaller pieces that sneak under pollution thresholds, what we call segmentation, has gone on for too long. This decision is a major step towards restoring the protections that help ensure we have clean air to breathe.”

Sunoco/ETP spokeswoman Lisa Dillinger took a different view of the ruling Thursday.

“Today’s ruling has no impact on the construction and operation activities authorized under Plan Approval E while the PA DEP conducts an analysis of the permit, which we feel was permitted correctly,” Dillinger said. “We will work with the PA DEP to provide them with the appropriate information for their review, and we are pleased that the overriding outcome was the Environmental Hearing Board’s denial of the Clean Air Council’s request to revoke the permit.”

The board held that the project in question was really part of an overarching project to transform the former Marcus Hook refinery into a natural gas liquids processing facility. The larger project was unlawfully broken up into smaller projects for the sake of permitting. Where separate construction activities are really all part of the same project, the emissions from all of those projects must be aggregated to determine if more stringent requirements are triggered. Ultimately, the board sent the air permit back to DEP so that DEP can re-evaluate how the project should be permitted.

The board’s decision enhances existing law by providing detailed guidance on when multiple related projects should be considered one project in a review of an air permit application.

“The Environmental Hearing Board’s decision is not only a victory for Clean Air Council, it is a victory for public health and the neighboring communities,” said Joseph Otis Minott, executive director and chief counsel for Clean Air Council. “Too often, big industry players have avoided pollution controls by creating loopholes that jeopardize air quality protections. Sunoco/ETP has been one of the worst offenders in this regard, time and again circumventing the rules and putting the public at risk. The board decision has finally closed this loophole.”

Mariner East 2 is a multi-billion dollar project that will carry liquid gases from the state’s Marcellus Shale regions across the full 350-mile width of Pennsylvania, ending in Marcus Hook. Mariner East 2 is now online, utilizing a mix of different size pipes because of delays and shutdowns on the full, 20-inch pipeline.

The board’s opinion is available in full at: http://ehb.courtapps.com/efile/documentViewer.php?documentID=44482.