Filed under: Air Pollution, Corporate Responsibility, Major Source Sunday, Texas City
Major Source Sunday is back! This weekend, we profile the Marathon Refinery in Texas City.
According to Marathon, the site was originally owned by the Republic Oil Refinery, which Marathon acquired in 1962. The Republic Oil Refinery was an important part of Texas City’s history; according to the Handbook of Texas, it was one of the first big operations in town, opening in 1931. The fire-fighting team from Republic was an important part of the crew (which also included the volunteer Fire Department) that accidentally touched off the Grandcamp powderkeg that led, by chain reaction, to the infamous 1947 Texas City Disaster. The explosion killed all firefighters present as well as about 500 others. Marathon refinery workers were also part of the mutual aid crew after the 2005 BPAmoco explosion next door.
Today, the Marathon refinery processes about 72,000 bpd of low-sulfur crude. The refinery employees about 260 people; according to the Annual Report, many of these employees are unionized. Houston-based Marathon is the fifth largest oil company in the world, and owns seven refineries in the United States. The Texas City refinery is ranked as the 79th largest refinery in the United States by capacity; it has about one-sixth the capacity of its big neighbor, BP Texas City.
The company’s “Living Our Values” report notes that four of Marathon’s refineries – including Texas City – have received EPA Energy Star awards, although Marathon’s downstream GHG emissions (which the company self-reports) have not decreased appreciably in recent years.
Marathon has received a number of awards for its environmental, health and safety operations, including recent awards from both the Galveston Bay Foundation and the Chemical Council of Texas. Its Web site describes two important ongoing environmental projects:
Marathon has committed to reduce the company-wide Energy Intensity Index (EII), a measure of energy efficiency, by 10 percent by 2012 over a 2002 baseline. The Texas City refinery alone will reduce EII 15 percent from the 2002 baseline by the year 2008.
The division will also reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOx) by more than 600 tons per year from 2002 to 2009, through a series of projects that are part of the Houston-Galveston area’s State Implementation Plan for NOx reduction.
The STARS emission inventory for 2005 reports the following for Marathon:
- PM10: 111.4833 tons per year(tpy)
- PM 2.5: 85.225 tpy
- VOCs: 445.3572 tpy
- NOX: 827.0944 tpy
- SO2: 372.5309 tpy
- CO: 287.1926 tpy
The “Living Our Values” report notes “[t]he Texas City refinery installed new
equipment and technology in late 2006 that is expected to reduce NOx emissions
by more than 280 tons per year,” so the above-quoted figures may no longer be a fair representation of Marathon’s emission profile.
The EPA’s 2006 Toxic Release Inventory reports 137,589 pounds of toxic chemicals were released annually by Marathon Refinery.
TCEQ’s compliance history score is 5.96, or “Average.” This is somewhat better than BP and comparable to Valero (which will be covered next week).
While I was celebrating passing the bar, it seems that Rick Perry appointed another Aggie to statewide office, this time, Dr. Bryan Shaw to the TCEQ, according to this report and Scott Deatherage’s blog.
Altogether, Dr. Shaw seems imminently qualified, and so far has drawn no criticism. He is replacing the imminently criticize-able Kathleen White. My alma mater, the Daily Texan, reported on White back in July:
Environmental groups in Texas asked Gov. Rick Perry to replace Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Chair Kathleen White Tuesday morning.
A letter was sent to Gov. Perry on Tuesday asking for a new commissioner who is more responsive to the public, respectful to state and federal law and better able to meet tough challenges with the environmental issues in Texas.
“We need enforcement, like penalties from emission. White has done nothing to do this,” said Karen Hadden of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition. “Cities and universities have come up with data to reduce toxic gases, and no significant progress has come out. The governor needs to appoint a leader who will do something, instead of ‘close is good enough.’”
The groups said White wrote a letter in April stating her opposition to lowering the ozone layer standard, which could lead to increases in smog and mercury.
“As a chairman, she has clearly been told about the proceedings and was aware it was a decision that was pending,” said a spokesperson in response to White’s letter. “She sent a letter that science was not found, and we do not want this.”
White, whose term ends on Aug. 31, has not yet sought reappointment, Smith said. Those opposed to White are concerned she will be in office for much longer if Perry lags in finding a replacement.
“The previous commissioner remained in office 18 months after the term was over because the governor didn’t appoint someone else,” said Ken Kramer of the Sierra Club.
By contrast, Perry says this about Dr. Shaw:
“Bryan Shaw is a nationally respected scientist with the experience and expertise to oversee our state’s environmental policies . . .Under his leadership Texas will continue developing policies and making decisions based on solid science that protect our natural resources while helping to meet the challenges of a rapidly growing state.”
Considering the source, I will take a wait-and-see attitude. Still, I’m sure the people of Texas can breath a little easier today.
This interests me. I do not know enough about State law in this area:
If a developer in Texas wants to put a shopping center or a restaurant on a polluted site, he might not have to clean it up first, thanks to a four-year-old state law that’s gaining traction.
The state is supposed to make landowners get rid of polluted materials that could threaten water supplies. But more and more, developers – including one in Denton – are applying for a special designation that allows them to avoid the most stringent state cleanup standards and leave more pollutants in the ground.
State legislators approved the municipal setting designation in 2003 to offer a cheaper and quicker way to turn polluted land into developable real estate. The law is aimed at properties where water below the soil is contaminated but not needed for drinking, cooking, bathing or crop irrigation.
Critics say the system rewards polluters, ignores potential health risks and lacks checks and balances. It also relies almost entirely on applicants to report the nature and extent of pollution at a site, with little or no independent testing by cities or the state.
This is TCEQ’s brochure on MSDs. The MSD statute is THSC § 361.801-08. I’m still trying to understand the exact interplay between this statue and the federal laws (CERCLA and RCRA — as a law student, class discussions about “absolute strict liability” tended to scare the living daylights out of me), but my understanding at the moment is that MSDs are a liability limiting device rather than a liability elimination device. This article is a pretty good explainer; my guess is that this works hand-in-glove with claiming an Innocent Owner exemption under CERCLA?
Scott Deatherage noted that Houston has sanctioned MSDs by passing a pro-MSD ordinance.
Apologies folks for the gap in posting. I’ve been busy with work. I also found out Thursday that I passed the July bar exam!
The Chronicle reports that GHASP and other groups are interviewing Ship Channel area residents about their health:
Standing in the middle of the street, Eugene Barragan looked west on Avenue Q toward dust floating up and away from a massive car-shredding operation.
He looked in the other direction, and nicely framed above the trees lining the street was a smokestack rising over a Valero refinery. Smoke spewed from it, high above.
“I recently got out of Ben Taub Hospital because I was having trouble breathing,” said Barragan, a 45-year-old electrician who grew up on a nearby street. “(The doctors) were wondering if all the pollution over here was making me sick.”
Air pollution-watchdog groups on Saturday interviewed Barragan and other residents of Manchester, a Houston Ship Channel neighborhood, trying to learn whether pollution from nearby industries makes those living there more prone to illness and cancer.
The watchdog groups and some of the neighbors will be urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to tighten emissions regulations in the areas nearest refineries.
Current EPA regulations require refineries to install equipment that would lower the risk of getting cancer from emissions to 1 in every million people exposed to the pollutants over a lifetime.
But regulation also lowers the standard for residents living near refineries to 1 case of cancer for every 10,000 people living near a refinery, said Matthew Tejada, director of the Galveston-Houston Association for Smog Prevention.
“These neighborhoods deserve the same health standards as everybody else,” he said. “The standard gets looser as you get closer to the pollution. It’s ridiculous, and it’s environmentally unjust.”
The EPA is reviewing its refinery emissions standards and has scheduled a public hearing for later this month.
A Houston Chronicle probe in 2004 found that air in Manchester had some of the highest levels of cancer-causing chemicals benzene and 1,3-butadiene in the region.
The DMN carries this wire story about air pollution in the Golden Triangle:
PORT ARTHUR, Texas – There is a quiet battle for the future of this industrial town, one of America’s most polluted places.
On one side is ex-Mayor Oscar Ortiz, who in the waning days of his administration worried about one thing – losing petrochemical plants – not the toxic chemicals spewing from petrochemical plants, the town’s richest landowners.
“The only money here in the city of Port Arthur that amounts to anything comes from industry, from petrochemical companies,” Mr. Ortiz says.
“If industry goes away, people might as well go away, too, because there’ll be no money. That’s the continued salvation of this city.”
Hilton Kelley, like Mr. Ortiz born and raised in Port Arthur, is the opposition.
Mr. Kelley does worry about the toxic chemicals. As the city’s most visible environmental activist, he has campaigned for more restrictions on industrial construction and stricter monitoring of plant emissions.
“I grew up smelling the SO2 [sulfur dioxide] smell, the chemicals,” Mr. Kelley says. “We’re not trying to shut doors of industry. We’re just trying to push these guys to do what’s right.”
The DMN’s headline reminds me of the infamous “weighing scales” graphic used by Al Gore in both Earth in the Balance and in An Inconvenient Truth.
Filed under: Corporate Responsibility, Criminal Litigation, Major Source Sunday, Texas City
I profiled BP’s Texas City refinery in last week’s installment of Major Source Sunday. Today, the Houston Chronicle brings the news that criminal charges against BP will be settled:
BP has agreed to a plea deal with the U.S. Justice Department to settle criminal allegations stemming from the March 2005 explosion at its Texas City refinery that killed 15 people and injured many more, a source with knowledge of the deal said late Tuesday.
The revelation came after other sources said the London-based oil giant expects to pay more than $300 million to settle unrelated charges that it manipulated the price of propane three years ago.
Of the case involving the plant explosion, the agreement — barring last-minute changes — is slated to be made public this week and will conclude the government’s criminal probe into the company’s actions surrounding and leading up to the 2005 disaster, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity,
BP declined comment Tuesday.
The person familiar with the refinery blast accord said the company had agreed to plead guilty to a crime and pay a fine. Further details were unavailable.
The reports of the two settlements came as the London-based oil giant announced a 29 percent drop in third-quarter profits, and analysts said the company is trying to get past safety and operational problems that have plagued its environmentally friendly image and damaged its competitive edge compared to its Big Oil peers.
The price manipulation settlement, also expected to be announced later this week, likely will spare the company criminal charges related to allegations its Houston-based traders attempted to fix prices of fuel that flowed through a pipeline running from Mont Belvieu, in Chambers County, to markets in Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York.
Criminal charges still may be filed against the individual traders later this week in Chicago, according to the sources familiar with that case.
More analysis will be laid out here when the settlement terms become public.
Update: $50 Million.
Filed under: TCEQ
Although I have not had the time to prepare a run down, I would like to note that (as always) the Texas Register included proposed agreed orders, and that the agenda for this week’s Commision meeting is up on the TCEQ Web site.
Filed under: Civil Litigation, Corporate Responsibility, Major Source Sunday, Texas City
In the last installment of Major Source Sunday, we began looking the Texas City Industrial Complex with a profile of Union Carbide’s Texas City plant. We continue with the second Major Source Sunday by heading east along 5th Avenue, to the BP Texas City Refinery, which is at 2401 5th Avenue.
The refinery was originally owned by Amoco (The Standard Oil Company of Indiana) before BP, plc and Amoco merged in 1999. According to BP and Wikipedia, the Texas City BP refinery is BP’s largest refinery, the third largest in the United States, and the second largest in the state of Texas. BP reports the refinery currently has a capacity of 460,000 barrels per day, and produces about 2.5 percent of the gasoline consumed in the United States.
The BP site also notes that:
About 80 percent of the refinery’s fuels is shipped out of Texas City via pipeline. Another 20 percent is delivered to markets around the country via marine transport.
Texas City also can produce about 100,000 barrels a day of diesel fuel destined for customers in the Southeast, East Coast and the Midwest, with some 40,000 barrels of jet fuel shipped daily from the refinery.
The refinery also produces the industrial chemicals paraxylene and metaxylene, both of which are used to produce plastics.
As for the refinery’s economic impact, BP’s Web site states:
The Texas City refinery employs about 1,800 full and part-time workers. Annual payroll for direct employees exceeds $120 million. The facility also uses many contract employees, ranging from 1,000 to 5,000 per day during peak turnaround maintenance periods.
For 2005, BP will pay more than $38 million in property taxes – a $10 million increase over 2004 rates. The site and its people are an integral part and active members of the local communities and county in which they operate and work.
TCEQ’s current compliance history rating for BP’s Texas City refinery is 9.65, or “average.“ Although, as with many large refineries, BP Texas City often has upsets, including one with its ultracracker unit last week.
The refinery is the largest point source, by far, of VOCs and NOx in Galveston County, according to the 2005 STARS inventory, which reports annual emissions of:
- 404.498 tons per year of PM10 (333.772 tpy of PM2.5);
- 3122.1796 tpy of VOCs;
- 1961.0443 tpy of NOx;
- 4099.907 tpy of SO2; and
- 921.0643 tpy of CO.
The EPA’s 2005 Toxic Release Inventory for the site reports considerable emissions of dozens of toxic pollutants, including over 823,000 pounds of ammonia, 266,000 pounds of n-hexane, 220,000 pounds of sulfuric acid, and 137,000 pounds of benzene.
The plant has been called the nation’s worst polluter in recent years. BP paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines for pollution at the plant last year.
BP Texas City made headlines on March 23, 2005 when an explosion at the refinery killed 15 people, and injured hundreds more. The explosion’s causes were documented in the company’s own report, the report of the Baker Panel, and by the U.S. Chemical Safety Board. According to the Boston Globe, more than 4,000 lawsuits were filed against BP as a result of the explosion, about half of which have been settled. Only one has proceded to trial so far; it settled before a verdict could be returned. Total liability could ultimately be close to $1 billion. BP was also fined $21.3 million by OSHA, according to CNN.
BP’s Web site notes the company is taking steps to improving safety at the site. Moreover, 2005 toxics emissions are down; although this is partly a result of reduced production after the March 23, 2005 explosion.
In law school, I wrote a journal article about the clean-up of asbestos-tainted vermiculite ore in Libby, Montana.
This week, GAO slammed EPA for letting hundreds of vermiculite processing sites slip through the cracks, potentially allowing many Americans outside of Northwestern Montana to be exposed to harmful asbestos.
Another sad chapter in this terrible saga…
Filed under: About, Civil Litigation, EPA, Major Source Sunday, Scalps, Texas City
Major Source Sunday did not have an edition this weekend. As you may have guessed, the BP refinery in Texas City is at-bat and profiling this facility will take hours, possibly days to do justice. This weekend the weather was beautiful, and I focused on:
- Buying a bed.
- Buying and riding a bicycle.
- Making gumbo.
Unauthorized dredging and filling in the waters of the United Statesbuilding sand castles and hand-digging canals and moats down at the beach.
As it turns out, the EPA also has priorities. BNA’s Daily Environment Report (which I am trying out for three weeks) called this to my attention:
Enforcing air and water regulations and increasing environmental compliance rates in the mineral and mining sectors are among the Environmental Protection Agency’s enforcement priorities for 2008, 2009, and 2010, the agency announced Oct. 12 (72 Fed. Reg. 58,084).
EPA said enforcement priorities also include ensuring that people who handle hazardous waste have adequate funds to close facilities and helping Native American tribes meet all environmental regulations.
The Federal Register notice is here. Of significance to our area:
The FY 2005–2007 Petroleum Refining priority will not continue into FY 2008–2010 as a national priority. The priority has met its primary goal of addressing 80% of the national refining capacity and was returned to the core program at the end of FY 2006. It is important to note that discontinuation as a national priority does not mean that the Agency will no longer focus on this area, but rather the work will continue as part of the Agency’s core program activities.
The EPA has a Web site and a fact sheet listing its enforcement successes with the Petroleum Refinery priority.
