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.
