This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2016, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

Environmentalists are taking on an air quality permit that Utah recently awarded a firm proposing a plant in Wellington that would produce liquid fuels from coal.

The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is giving Revolution Fuels too much latitude to release pollution from the plant that would process up to 750 tons of coal a day, according to a petition the Sierra Club filed recently asking DEQ Director Alan Matheson to revoke the permit and remand it to the Division of Air Quality for a more complete analysis.

"The precedent this sets ... to permit such a facility with so little scrutiny is not something we are comfortable with. It's not a good path for the 21st century or the desert. Utah is willing to let any and all dirty projects go forward," said Lindsay Beebe, the group's Utah coordinator.

The plant would use the century-old process Fischer-Tropsch — which Nazi Germany relied on to fuel its war machine — where pulverized coal is put under intense heat and pressure to become a gas from which synthetic liquid fuels can be derived. The multiphase process releases emissions in every step and consumes large amounts of water.

In the past decade, there has been renewed interest in coal-to-liquids, with many plants proposed for Utah and other coal-producing states. But almost none has been built, despite a period of prolonged high petroleum prices that came to an end two years ago. With liquid fuel prices at historic lows, observers are not sure how the Revolution Fuels project could pencil out.

Revolution has not divulged how it is financing the project and its principal, Troy Mckinley of Tooele, has not responded to inquiries.

"Of the 34 proposed coal-to-liquid or coal-to-gas plants in the United States since the coal rush began in 2005, at least 25 have been abandoned and the remaining have yet to move forward," said Sierra Club lawyer Andrea Issod.

But Carbon County officials, who were briefed on the project after signing a nondisclosure agreement, are enthusiastic about the plant's prospects to help revive the local coal industry, which has supported central Utah's economy for years. Markets for Utah's high-quality, low-sulfur coal are disappearing.

Officials expect the plant would initially provide 60 jobs and could ramp up to as many as 300 employees when it reaches full production.

But by then, it could contribute nearly 300,000 tons of carbon dioxide each year to the atmosphere already burdened with excessive amounts of climate-altering gases, critics say. Such a high level of a single pollutant qualifies the plant for a "major source" review, more rigorous than the one it received, environmentalists say.

"By getting a minor-source permit they didn't have to go through all the requirements they should have to go through," Issod said. "They should have Best Available Control Technology. They are getting away with not having to do any of that. How do you build a new plant without building carbon capture?"

The plant would produce up to 1,865 barrels of diesel fuel, jet fuel, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and naptha per day. The DEQ permit allows the plant to release 20.2 tons of large particulate per year, 20.2 tons of small particulate, 23 tons of nitrous oxides, 83.8 tons of carbon monoxide, 9.2 tons of volatile organic compounds, 1.9 tons of sulfur dioxide and 8.9 tons of hazardous air pollutants like mercury.

Sierra Club's main objection is that pollution released during system malfunctions won't count toward these caps. DEQ did agree to include emissions from four startups and four shutdowns into the plant's annual emissions caps, but that still leaves the door open for excessive pollution, Issod argued.

"The Revolution Approval Order has no overall emission caps and therefore the project could emit an unlimited amount of pollution from malfunction events and not be subject to any enforcement action," the petition states, which Issod wrote with Joro Walker of Western Resource Advocates.

The Sierra Club also insists Revolution's coal storage pile should be covered. But open coal piles are the norm in Carbon and Emery counties where they can be seen at mines, power plants and rail load-outs.

Brian Maffly covers public lands for The Salt Lake Tribune. Maffly can be reached at bmaffly@sltrib.com or 801-257-8713.

Twitter: @brianmaffly