This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2015, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

Environmental groups are appealing the Utah Department of Environmental Quality's decision to authorize a major oil refinery expansion in Davis County.

Arguing the Salt Lake Valley should not be subjected to any increases in industrial air pollution, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, Friends of Great Salt Lake and Western Resource Advocates have asked the courts to intervene.

On Monday, the groups filed papers in the Utah Court of Appeals seeking a judicial review.

Environmental regulators' decision was upheld last month by administrative law judge Bert Randall, who concluded the proposed capacity increase at the HollyFrontier refinery complies with state and federal law.

But critics say DEQ scientists may have underestimated the refinery expansion's potential air quality impacts by relying on unproven emission factors. They also say the department's approval order envisions the refinery's flares would spew more than double the volume of sulfur dioxide allowed under Holly's permit.

"Permitting Holly to emit more pollution in our already highly polluted region is a death sentence for some individuals," said Utah Physicians' Tim Wagner. "Our state agencies must do a better job of reducing air pollution and protecting public health."

Holly Refining and Marketing Co. plans to increase capacity from 40,000 to 60,000 barrels of crude at its plant at 393 S. 800 West in West Bountiful.

Randall had rejected all 11 claims the environmentalists raised in their administrative review and denied their request for a stay that would have postponed Holly's project.

"While industrial changes are at times controversial, the established permitting processes ensure that air emissions are evaluated and that controls are in place to reasonably limit the emissions while allowing the companies to modernize and maintain the operations that provide goods, services and employment in the state," said Bryce Bird, executive director of DEQ's Division of Air Quality. "Beyond permitting, new strategies are under continual evaluation to identify options to reduce air pollutant emissions to improve air quality."

DEQ documents characterize the Holly project as a "modernization," which will include adding a fluid catalytic cracking unit, a poly gasoline unit, cooling towers and a unit for making lube oils. Compressor engines and other equipment will be converted to electrical power, state regulators say.

The new permit lowers caps on particulate matter, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. However, emissions of hazardous air pollutants would increase by 13 tons, carbon monoxide would go up by 147 tons and carbon dioxide pollution would increase by 280,000 tons.

Holly and the four other refineries clustered along the Salt Lake-Davis county lines are situated at the center of the state's urban core, which has long struggled with high levels of fine particulate matter in the winter.

Some of the plants' owners hope to increase refining capacity to handle a projected upsurge in Uinta Basin waxy crude, a product that tends to congeal soon after it leaves the ground, so it is difficult to transport long distances.

Advocates fear refinery expansions would keep Utah in violation of federal thresholds for particulate pollution.

"Utah's agencies should never allow more pollution when there are alternative paths for our economy and our health to improve," said Lynn de Freitas, executive director of Friends of Great Salt Lake.

The groups singled out the Holly permit's cap on sulfur dioxide, a particulate precursor, which is set at 110 tons a year. That represents a significant reduction in emissions, but the state permit predicts the refinery's flares would release up to 240 tons of the pollutant that apparently are not counted toward the cap.

"How can you issue a permit that makes no sense?" asked attorney Joro Walker with Western Resource Advocates, a nonprofit environmental law firm. "It says, 'We anticipate the limits will be exceeded.' You are not allowed to do that, because we have a rule that you are not allowed to exempt startups, shutdowns and malfunctions from permit limits.

"Otherwise, where is your incentive to make sure your plant operates the way it is supposed to?"

The state's administrative law judge, however, concluded the permit properly regulates flares, which release pollution straight into the atmosphere, under "the unavoidable breakdown rule."

"Upset emissions from flares are unpredictable and uncontrollable because the flare is the safety valve for excess refinery gases generated in a period of malfunction," Randall wrote. "The Holly [approval order] does not contain exceptions for emissions due to malfunctions at the refinery."