Upset About Upset Emissions

A recent Houston Chronicle article mentions that though our state environmental agency issued 1,756 penalties last year against illegally polluting companies, the fines averaged just $8,300. Many of these companies produce billions of dollars in revenue, suggesting that what many have claimed for years is indeed true: It’s cheaper for companies to pay penalties than prevent pollution.

When public campaigns, official regulations, negligible fines and poor enforcement don’t work, clean air advocates resort to the courts for help. Filing lawsuits sometimes seems to be the only way to get the attention necessary for improving Texas air quality.

Likewise, you might have recently read about Sierra Club and Environment Texas seeking millions in penalties from a lawsuit they filed against the Exxon Baytown facility. Two similar suits, one against Shell and another against Chevron Phillips, settled in the past year or so yielding unprecedented emission reductions from facility “upset” violations, signifying that legal action can be an effective tool.

“Upset” emissions are industrial facility events – equipment malfunctions and breakdowns, unplanned or unscheduled maintenance, startup, or shutdown activities – that result in unauthorized emissions of air contaminants from one or more points. Literally thousands of upset events occur every year along the Houston Ship Channel and each event varies with regard to cause and amount of release.

After reviewing recent data submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency from Houston facilities emitting the largest amounts of the toxic chemicals benzene and 1,3-butadiene emissions, I found that it wasn’t unusual for upset emissions to account for the majority of those emissions released by the facility over the year.

Company Name
Fugitives as % of total benzene emissions (2009)
Equistar Chemicals
36%
Shell Chemical Co
46%
Exxonmobil Chemical Co Baytown Olefins Plant
34%
Equistar Chemicals Lp
47%
Nisseki Chemical Texas Inc Bayport Plant
55%
Targa Midstream Services LP – Galena Park Marine Terminal
81%
Exxonmobil Refining & Supply Baytown Refinery
21%
Shell Oil Co Deer Park Refining Lp
46%
Houston Refining Lp
67%
Lyondell Chemical Co
30%
Georgia Gulf Chemicals & Vinyl S Llc – Pasadena
47%
Exxonmobil Baytown Chemical Plant
62%
Pasadena Refining System, Inc
58%
Valero Refining – Texas L.P. Houston Refinery
24%
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Bayport Chemical Plant
99%
Ineos Nova Llc
41%
Company Name
Fugitives as % of total
butadiene emissions
(2009)
Equistar Chemicals
39%
Shell Chemical Co
19%
Texas Petrochemicals Lp
86%
Chevron Phillips Chemical Co – Pasadena Plastics
Complex
75%
Exxonmobil Chemical Co Baytown Olefins Plant48%
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co58%
Kaneka Texas Corp20%
Lcy Elastomers Lp76%
Nisseki Chemical Texas Inc Bayport Plant96%
Targa Midstream Services LP – Galena Park Marine Terminal53%
Dixie Chemical Co Inc.61%
Exxonmobil Refining & Supply Baytown Refinery1%
Exxonmobil Baytown Chemical Plant31%
Pasadena Refining System,Inc25%
Valero Refining – Texas L.P. Houston Refinery1%

This upset data should upset us all. And while the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is the state agency responsible for enforcing the law with respect to these upset emission events, it seems evident that the agency lacks the resources or ability to get the job done. Even in the most recent recommendations to the agency, the Sunset Committee established to review the agency this year has indicated such.

The meager penalties TCEQ have issued have not been enough to sway improvement in facility operations at some of these facilities, and as mentioned previously, lawsuits have become the final line of defense in protecting the public from the hazards of these toxic releases. [Note: Penalties received from these lawsuits are used to fund environmental, public health, and educational projects, not to line the pockets of rich attorneys or fill the coffers of environmental groups filing the suits.]

It’s hard to understand how Texas facilities likes those around the Houston Ship Channel can’t do better, especially when Shell and Chevron both eventually agreed to reduce their upset emissions by 80 and 85 percent respectively over the next three years. It begs the question, why hadn’t the facilities taken these steps before legal action to protect the health of those who live around the facility?

The time has come to be more diligent in our work and more thoughtful in our actions regarding the quality of the air we breathe – if not for ourselves, then for our children and future generations.

This entry was posted in TCEQ and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

2 Comments

  1. Posted October 22, 2011 at 9:21 PM | Permalink

    Hello there, You've done a fantastic job. I will definitely digg it and personally recommend to my friends. I am sure they'll be benefited from this website.

  2. Posted December 17, 2011 at 9:30 PM | Permalink

    Spot on with this write-up, I actually assume this website wants far more consideration. I'll probably be once more to learn rather more, thanks for that info.

One Trackback

  • Confluence of SJR, Old, and Middle rivers

    About This Blog

    Advocating for healthier air and cleaner energy in Texas through public education and policy influence.

  • Get blog posts by email

    Subscribe via RSS

  • From Twitter

  • Meet The Bloggers

    Ramon AlvarezRamon Alvarez
    Senior Scientist

    Elena Craft
    Health Scientist

    Jim Marston
    Vice President, US Climate and Energy Program, Director of the Texas regional office

    Marita Mirzatuny
    Project Manager

    Marcelo Norsworthy
    Transportation Research Analyst

    Kate Zerrenner
    Project Manager

  • Categories

  • Archives