Hyperion Refining sent out a press release late Wednesday boasting it would be the first  North American oil refinery to use thermal oxidizers to burn off what it called the “small amount of vapors” coming from storage tanks of liquids such as crude oil and gasoline, rather than let them ooze into the air and contribute to its planned refinery’s emissions.

To the company’s credit, it does note that that use of the thermal oxidizers were not in its initial preconstruction air quality permit application, but were added later as a condition of receiving that key permit from the state DENR’s Board of Minerals and the Environment, something it accomplished earlier this month after a final hearing before that board in Pierre.  (more…)

Several opponents of the proposed Hyperion Refinery seem to be mentioning frequently the fact that the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources allowed Hyperion to use air quality data for Sioux Falls when figuring the composite amount of pollution the refinery’s emissions would mean for the air in Southeastern South Dakota.

They argue that Sioux City is twice as close to the site just north of Elk Point, S.D., as is Sioux Falls. And, and since the atomoshpere doesn’t respect state lines, it is Sioux City’s (much dirtier) air quality that should be included in the formula. The total projected pollution would likely prohibit construction of the refinery here, they say, due to federal limits.

(more…)

 So here it is, the paragraph correcting my error in Sunday’s preview of what is anticipated to happen this week at the contested case hearing on Hyperion Refining’s preconstruction air quality air permit application. The hearing is set to re-convene Tuesday in Pierre before the DENR’s Board of Minerals and Environment. That’s the board that will grant, or not grant, the required permit for the proposed oil refinery/energy center:The South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources has not made changes to the air-quality permit being sought by Hyperion Refining since the start of a contested case hearing in May and did not meet with a Hyperion consultant earlier this month. The meeting took place June 14-15, 2008. A story headlned “Battle Over Hyperion Air Permit to Resume” on Page A1 of the Journal’s June 21 edition contained incorrect information. (more…)