Category Archives: Air Pollutants

Lessons Learned From West

By Elena Craft, PhD | Bio | Published: May 16, 2013

Source: KVUE

At 4:00 p.m. today, the State Fire Marshal's Office and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives plan to announce the results of their investigation of the West, Texas fertilizer explosion that killed 14 people and injured over 200.

Information leaked to The Dallas Morning News indicated that investigators have three possible explanations for the explosion fueled by ammonium nitrate: ignition from a faulty golf cart, ignition from the fertilizer and seed building’s electrical system or an intentional act.

No matter what the conclusion, we’ve learned some very important lessons from this tragedy:

There is not enough coordination among state agencies covering the oversight of facilities like West;
Current penalties and fines don’t seem to be a deterrent to the those who violate safety and environmental laws;
There is a need for more thoughtful consideration as to appropriate locations of schools, hospitals and nursing facilities; and
There is a critical need for local emergency responders to have the best possible information regarding hazardous materials and potential health and safety risks in their communities.

As we begin to wrap up the legislative session in Texas, we are hopeful that our elected officials will do the right thing and strengthen environmental and safety protections instead of weaken them. Over 400 people a year lose their lives in Texas from occupational injuries. We can and should do better.

On a personal note, I’d like to give a shout out to my favorite Texan, Willie Nelson, 80 years young, who hosted a birthday concert benefitting the community of West and raised over $120,000. Thank you Willie!

Voluntary Clean Truck Programs Reduce Emissions At Ports, But Fall Short Of Clean Air Goals

By Marcelo Norsworthy | Bio | Published: May 15, 2013

Voluntary truck replacement programs at ports are a common means of improving local air quality without imposing strict restrictions. However, new research shows that these voluntary programs, while a critical component of a comprehensive clean air plan for ports, are limited in their overall effectiveness, especially when considered in the context of mandatory programs. A new peer-reviewed study by Environmental Defense Fund, “Emissions reduction analysis of voluntary clean truck programs at U.S. ports”, will be published in the July issue of Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. The study, authored by Elena Craft, PhD and me, demonstrates that voluntary programs only reduce emissions by one to four percent compared to a baseline of truck emissions before program implementation. Furthermore, the potential emission reductions are limited to 15 percent for particulate matter (PM) and 35 percent for nitrous oxides (NOx), two pollutants linked to serious health risks. This means that, under current program guidelines, only a fraction of total truck emissions could be reduced through voluntary replacements. These findings are striking given the accomplishments noted at ports that have implemented more rigorous programs, such as the Port of Los Angeles Clean Truck Program, which set a progressive ban on older, more polluting trucks, ultimately requiring the use of clean trucks that meet the 2007 emissions standards.

This is a critical environmental and public health issue. Short-haul drayage trucks have been found to contribute substantially to port area air pollution, and there is broad consensus from communities, cargo owners, transportation providers, and ports that older trucks need to be retrofitted or retired in order to reduce the public health risk from emissions associated with freight transportation.

In 2009, EDF announced a partnership with the Houston-Galveston Area Council and the Port of Houston to replace older, polluting trucks with new, cleaner models. The outcome of this partnership resulted in the best incentive program in the country for owner-operator truck drivers. The Drayage Loan Program combined federal and state grants to provide drivers with low-interest loans and high value grants to trade in their truck. While voluntary programs, such as the one at the Port of Houston, have helped build stakeholder support and drive progress toward cleaner air, the limited capability of voluntary programs, as demonstrated by this study, highlights the need for stronger actions on behalf of all partners. This is especially true for Houston, as emissions from trucks operating at the port are estimated to amount to approximately half of all emissions within the port’s 2015 projected emissions inventory. Read More »

Also posted in Drayage, Houston, Transportation | Tagged Voluntary Truck Replacement | 2 Responses

Premature To Remove Texas City From The Air Pollution Watch List

By Elena Craft, PhD | Bio | Published: May 13, 2013

Estimated Distribution of Benzene Annual Concentration, Based on Retrieved Primary Source Location and Wind Direction Frequency

Last week, EDF, along with Air Alliance Houston (AAH), submitted comments to the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality (TCEQ) reflecting why we believe the proposed removal of Texas City for the pollutants benzene and hydrogen sulfide from the state’s Air Pollution Watch List (APWL) is premature.

The APWL is a list of areas in Texas where concentrations of harmful pollutants exceed the state’s own health-based screening level guidelines. While inclusion on the list indicates that additional scrutiny is given to permits issued to facilities in the area, some of the APWL areas have been listed for over a decade. This is significant because exposure to these toxics may impact human health and may lead to serious health outcomes, such as birth defects or cancer.

EDF has been actively engaged with TCEQ to improve management of the APWL program and to renew efforts to improve air quality in hotspot areas. TCEQ first added Texas City to the Air Pollutant Watch List in 2001 because of elevated concentrations of propionaldehyde. The organization added benzene in 2003 because the annual average concentration at the Ball Park Monitor exceeded the long-term health-based Air Monitoring Comparison Value (AMCV) of 1.0 ppb.[1] Hydrogen sulfide was then added in 2004 based on mobile and stationary monitoring data showing exceedances of the 0.08 parts per million (ppm) threshold.

TCEQ’s proposal claims that recent air monitoring information justifies the removal of Texas City from the APWL. However, new analyses completed by EDF and AAH, indicate that data from the current monitoring network are not adequate in justifying the removal of Texas City from the APWL. Here are a few reasons why:

Air monitoring information has not been correlated with wind direction, meaning that the existing monitoring network does not capture the predominant downwind concentrations of pollutants in neighborhoods closest to the largest sources. As illustrated in the insert, the largest concentration of benzene is expected in between the existing monitors.
BP Texas City: The largest emitter in the area is also the worst environmental performer. BP Texas City is ranked as the largest benzene emitter in the region, not just the state. On March 23, 2005, an explosion killed 15 employees and injured 170 as a result of workers re-starting a unit at the BP refinery that had been closed for repairs. The problem started when workers filled a tank with 138 feet of flammable liquid, when it should have been filled with only 6.5 feet of liquid. Upon further investigation, it was discovered that BP had cut costs, resulting in risky working conditions, which were likely the cause of the catastrophic event. An investigation by the Chemical Safety Board found numerous problems, including out-of-date equipment, corroded pipes, and faulty safety alarms. This explosion has been characterized as one of the worst workplace incident in the U.S. between 1989 and 2005.
BP Texas City II: More recently in November 2011, there were reports of gas leaks at the BP Texas City refinery. A concerned citizen initially reported a sulfur dioxide leak to the National Response Center. BP confirmed an ongoing leak of methyl mercaptan; the odor was so toxic that 30 workers from a neighboring plant downwind were taken to the hospital.

Also posted in Air Pollution, Benzene, TCEQ | Leave a comment

Explosion At Texas Plant Renews Concerns About State Environmental Agency

By Elena Craft, PhD | Bio | Published: April 18, 2013

Source: kxan.com

Unfortunately, last night’s explosion at West Fertilizer, a plant just north of Waco, Texas is just one more tragedy in a long list of facility disasters in the state of Texas. (See previous TXCAM posts here and here).

The same questions always arise – how could this accident have been prevented? Who is responsible? What are the long term health implications to those who have survived this catastrophe?

The Texas Commission of Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is the lead state agency in charge of permitting facilities such as the West plant. We know that the agency investigated the facility in 2006, only after a concerned citizen called to report a strong smell of ammonia. One of the troubling items regarding this complaint is that the agency knew that the smell was ammonia and that it was coming from a fertilizer facility (a deadly omen) and still took 11 days to investigate the complaint. Once the agency did get to the facility, they recognized that the plant was storing large quantities of anhydrous ammonia without a permit.

It turns out that the facility, originally built in 1962, had been grandfathered into the permitting program – the facility was not required to have a permit until September 1, 2004, the date marking the end of the grandfathered permitting period. This means that two years went by where the facility was operating in violation of a permit and completely unnoticed by the state environmental agency.

Another troubling bit of information is that the agency gave the facility an “unclassifiable” rating for their compliance history. Compliance history, as described by the agency, entails both positive and negative factors related to the facility's environmental performance at a site over the past five years—for example, whether at this site this customer has:

received an enforcement order, court order, or criminal conviction; related to environmental violations in another state;
received a citation for a chronic excessive emissions event;
received a notice of violation from the TCEQ;
received one or more inspections from the TCEQ (and, if so, the results of those inspections)

Given that the facility had been operating without a permit for two years, one might expect that the facility would have been given an unsatisfactory rating for compliance. An unsatisfactory rating would have triggered additional scrutiny or strengthened permit requirements for the facility. But of course we know that’s not what happened.

While no one questions that accidents happen, even at facilities that do abide by the law, it does seem that Texas gets more than its fair share of tragedies. In fact, Texas leads the nation in total fatal occupational injuries, with over 400 deaths in 2011. And when these tragedies happen at industrial facilities that handle large quantities of toxic and explosive materials, people die. Lives are forever changed.

The deaths in West, as well as all deaths from these kinds of tragedies, are senseless and preventable. In the name of all citizens in the state of Texas whose lives have ended in this tragic way, we implore the TCEQ to:

be more diligent with regard to monitoring of facilities – how many more facilities like West exist across the state?
hire more investigators since it is obvious that the current rate of facility inspections is woefully inadequate.
spend more time protecting the public than fighting against EPA and public health protections, using the saved funds instead for hiring more investigators.

Disclaimer: This video, filmed by a local citizen with his daughter, shows the plant as it explodes into a larger fire. Not intended for sensitive audiences.

Also posted in Air Pollution, Environment, Environmental Protection Agency, TCEQ | Leave a comment

Texas Plays At Collecting Fees From Ozone Polluters

By EDF Staff | Published: December 3, 2012

Source: www.kidsstuffworld.com

This blog post written by Adrian Shelley originally appears on the Air Alliance Houston blog.

Earlier this year, we wrote about the consequences of Houston’s failure to meet a thirty year old one-hour ozone pollution standard. The federal Clean Air Act imposes a penalty fee on major sources of ozone-producing pollutants in areas, like Houston, that have failed to attain this standard. In 2009, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) proposed a rule to begin collecting these fees, which are called section 185 fees after the section in the Clean Air Act that imposes them. It was estimated that Texas would collect between $73 and $125 million in section 185 fees per year for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) area.

For reasons related to shifting Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) policy and Texas’ status under another, more recent ozone standard, TCEQ’s 2009 rule was never finalized. In our last writing on the issue, we expressed our hope that the fees would eventually be collected and the money used to improve air quality in the Houston area.

Now, three years after TCEQ proposed its original section 185 fee rule, the Commission has proposed a new rule. Unfortunately, the new rule makes it apparent that TCEQ has no intention of ever collecting any fees. It is possible, though unlikely, that EPA could review Texas’ rule and conclude that it doesn’t satisfy the requirements of federal law. If this happened, EPA would be required to collect the money itself. Although this is a remote possibility, it highlights the fact that Texas should have a robust section 185 rule that ensures that this money stays in the Houston area where it belongs.

A section 185 fee program that complied with the unambiguous requirements of the Clean Air Act would collect a fee per ton of emissions of certain ozone precursors – volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) – emitted in excess of 80% of an established baseline amount. The fee, adjusted for inflation, amounts to $8,630 per ton in 2008, the first year it should have been collected in Houston. The fees, which could approach $100 million each year, would be collected from major sources of emissions in Houston and, ideally, be used to reduce air pollution in the Houston area. They would also serve as a powerful economic incentive for industry to cut emissions.

TCEQ’s proposed section 185 fee rule does not follow this model. It seems to have been designed to ensure that polluters won’t ever pay a dime. To begin with, the TCEQ proposes to let industry offset its fee obligation against money that is already being collected from Houston area residents for other pollution reduction programs: the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan (TERP) and the Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (VIM) program. TERP and VIM collect money from drivers upon inspection and registration renewal and then are supposed to use those funds for various air quality improvement programs. But, as Texas’ budget woes have increased in recent years, the state has begun holding on to this money as a way of artificially balancing the state budget. In the last biennial budget, Texas sat on $130 million in TERP money. This money should have been used to replace or upgrade heavy-duty diesel-powered trucks, machinery, train engines and construction vehicles.

Under the newly proposed section 185 fee rule, Texas would offset the penalty fees owed by major sources in the Houston area using unspent TERP and VIM money. If Texas doesn’t spend that money during the next year, it could credit it against its fee obligation again. In other words, Texas now has another incentive not to spend money it collects from Houston area drivers for pollution reduction programs: using money that you and I have paid to excuse big polluters from paying fees they owe under federal law.

TCEQ doesn’t even hide the fact that it intends to forgive polluters the entire amount they owe. After some back-of-the-envelope calculations in the rule package proposing the section 185 fee rule, TCEQ declares that “this [TERP and VIM] revenue could be used to fully offset the area's fee obligation and no fee would be assessed on major stationary sources for a particular calendar year.”

What’s more, this is only one way that Texas is thumbing its nose at federal law. The Clean Air Act requires that section 185 fee collection apply retroactively. Polluters owe fees back to 2008 – the year after the HGB area failed to attain the ozone standard. Texas gives another huge break to polluters by ignoring this federal mandate and declaring that it won’t collect fees until the year preceding the adoption date of its section 185 fee rules. That’s 2012 at the earliest, which means Texas is forgiving nearly half a billion dollars in fees that could be used for pollution reduction programs in our area while also holding on to over $100 million plus dollars that we have already paid and should also be used for programs that make our air cleaner.

And let’s not forget that if EPA rejects the Texas program, the federal government is then required to collect any fees that Texas fails to collect. With interest.

That’s money that could leave Texas forever and enrich the federal government – a prospect that should frighten even the most hardened federalists.

The proposed rule abounds with such bizarre and unnecessary measures. Federal law requires that section 185 fees are collected until the EPA finds that the HGB area has attained the one-hour ozone standard. TCEQ’s rule puts the fee program on hold as soon as it has air quality data that suggests that the area will attain. TCEQ has also defined baseline emissions in a way that is contrary to Clean Air Act requirements and allows sources to inflate their baselines by using outdated historical allowable emissions and including unauthorized maintenance/startup/shutdown emissions. This means that it is unlikely that very many sources will exceed 80% of their baselines and face significant fee obligations anyway.

Remember the TERP and VIM money that Texas is going to use to forgive section 185 fees? Money that Texas should already be spending on pollution reduction programs, but isn’t? TCEQ has decided that even though it won’t collect section 185 fees retroactively, it will go ahead and reach back to 2008 to credit TERP and VIM money against the 185 fee obligation.

Got that? Texas explicitly contradicts federal law to forgive polluters several years of retroactive penalty fees, but it uses the concept of retroactivity from that same law to conjure up a huge pile of money that it pretends already satisfies the penalty fee obligation.

Never mind that TERP and VIM money has already been collected for years. Or that the only reason we have so much of it on-hand is that we refuse to spend it on the very projects it was designed to fund. Or that there is nothing in federal law that allows us to credit anything against our section 185 fee obligation. TCEQ has created from whole cloth a bizarre method to forgive penalties that should be assessed against the major polluters who carry equal responsibility for the poor air quality that led to the imposition of those penalties in the first place by not spending money that residents of our region have been paying in order to clean up our air. We should all, in short, be completely outraged by this slight of hand.

If there were any doubt that TCEQ doesn’t intend to collect any fees under the section 185 program, we need only look at one final provision of the proposed rule. The rule says that polluters must pay fees within 30 days of receiving an invoice. What it doesn’t say, is when—or if—the invoices will be sent.

That’s right: there is nothing in TCEQ’s proposed rule that requires the Commission to send section 185 fee invoices.

You can learn more about TCEQ’s proposed section 185 fee rule here.

Thank you to Gabriel Clark-Leach of Environmental Integrity Project for contributing research to this report.

Also posted in Air Pollution, Houston, Ozone, TCEQ | Leave a comment

Court Upholds Sulfur Dioxide Standards

By Elena Craft, PhD | Bio | Published: July 25, 2012

Thanks to last week’s federal appeals court decision, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) health-based air quality standards for sulfur dioxide (SO2) will stand firm.

These National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for SO2 will improve health protections, especially for children, the elderly and individuals with asthma.

EDF Attorney Peter Zalzal praised the decision saying it “strongly affirms that EPA’s clean air protections addressing dangerous sulfur dioxide are firmly grounded in science and the law.”

EDF, along with the American Lung Association and attorneys at Earthjustice, intervened in a lawsuit to defend the standard against attacks from large industrial sources and several states. In rejecting the petitioners’ claims that this new SO2 standard is too stringent, the court noted “[t]he quotations [relied on by petitioners] only support petitioners’ arguments when taken out of their original context.”

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) expressed support of EPA’s new standards for SO2 emissions via comments released in February 2010. Though TCEQ recommended that results of “human data” should be weighted more than that of epidemiological studies and also noted concern for resources needed to follow the ruling, they stood firm with the EPA’s SO2 regulations.

Despite the TCEQ backing of EPA’s new SO2 standards, the State of Texas challenged the rule, citing concerns for how epidemiological and other health-related data was chosen and weighed, along with the necessity of computer modeling that would be needed for implementation.

The unanimous three-judge panel rejected that EPA "arbitrarily" chose epidemiological studies to warrant a tougher SO2 standard, as suggested by the petitioners. Texas, in particular, has sued the federal government 17 times and the EPA at least six times in the last two years, not including this most recent challenge of the SO2 rule.

The Court also declined to hear other arguments on the grounds that they did not represent the agency’s final decision concerning implementation of the SO2 standards.

The power plant industry releases the largest emissions of SO2, a highly reactive, toxic gas considered a precursor to particulate pollution and a huge public health concern.

Friday’s victory ensures that these public health measures will remain in place, providing American families with protections against harmful, short-term SO2 exposures.

Also posted in Air Pollution, Environmental Protection Agency, sulfur dioxide, TCEQ | 2 Responses

TCEQ’s 2011 Air Pollutant Watch List Shows Small Steps Toward Cleaner Air

By Elena Craft, PhD | Bio | Published: March 7, 2012

The Texas Commission on Environmental Equality (TCEQ) recently released the 2012 Air Pollutant Watch List (APWL) Report.

The APWL is a list of areas in the state where concentrations of harmful pollutants exceed the state’s own health-based screening level guidelines. Some of the APWL areas have been listed for over a decade – this is important as exposure to these toxics may impact human health and may lead to serious health outcomes such as birth defects or cancer. Recognizing the need to reduce air toxics, TCEQ has adopted a formal protocol for remediating these areas.

Figure 1: Active APWL Area Locations, Source: TCEQ

The 2012 report outlines 11 active areas where air toxics were measured consistently at concentrations indicating a level of potential health concern. The report also discusses what the agency is doing to address those areas, which involves focusing investigations on specific facilities, and working with local stakeholders to reduce emissions. As the number of APWL areas has decreased since the first report issued in 2010, it appears that the agency is making some progress in remediating APWL areas. TCEQ proposed delisting Bastrop from the AWPL for hydrogen sulfide, for example, and also reported that benzene levels in Galena Park and Port Arthur have decreased.

We applaud the progress that the agency has made in addressing these hotspot areas, though we recognize that there is much more work to be done. We look forward to working with TCEQ to remediate these areas. We also believe that there may be other areas around the state not currently classified as hotspots (such as Corpus Christi and Midlothian) that are in need of environmental remediation. Let’s make sure that Texas is a healthy place to live!

Also posted in TCEQ | Leave a comment

Matagorda County: The Debate over the Non-Attainment Designation for Ozone

By Elena Craft, PhD | Bio | Published: February 6, 2012

(Source: http://flagspot.net/flags/us-tx-mg.html)

In December of last year, EPA issued a federal register notice recommending a non-attainment status for a number of counties around the country that do not meet the federal standard for ozone, a harmful air pollutant. These areas represent counties where concentrations of ozone exceed the health-based standard for ozone set by EPA or where emissions from the county have been shown to contribute to non-attainment in a nearby county.

The issue has become a hot topic in the Houston area because of EPA’s recent proposal to include Matagorda County as a non-attainment county.

Arguments used by the EPA to include Matagorda contend that emissions from the county are contributing to Houston’s non-attainment status include:

Emissions inventory from Matagorda County
Air modeling data indicates that air over the Matagorda County region does end up in Houston some portion of the time

Arguments used by state and local officials that Matagorda County should not be listed as a non-attainment area include:

The emissions inventory information used by EPA does not match the inventory collected by the TCEQ
Air modeling data indicates that air over the Matagorda County region ends up in Houston only a small portion of the time

A recent radio interview on KTRH featured Dr. Matthew Tejada, Executive Director of Air Alliance Houston and Matagorda County Judge Nate MacDonald provided insight into the opposing views of this contentious issue.

The broadcast suggested that the non-attainment issue is another example of over-reach by the federal government and that the EPA designation of Matagorda County as non-attainment would simply be used as a back-stop to prevent the proposed White Stallion Coal Plant from being built in Matagorda County.

While much time was dedicated to debating conspiracy theories during the broadcast, it was unfortunate that the heart of the issue was not discussed nor any thought-leadership provided on the critical issue. Ozone is an air pollutant that is regulated by the EPA because of its negative impact on human health. The EPA is mandated to set standards for pollutants, like ozone, as part of the Clean Air Act. The state of Texas spends over $700 million dollars a year to treat asthma, just one of the tragic diseases known to be exacerbated by ozone.

Ultimately, EPA is the final authority on the issue of non-attainment. Instead of playing into conspiracy theories and political shenanigans promoted by broadcasters, I think time would be better spent discussing how we can clean the region’s air from toxic pollution, not fighting about who is or is not responsible.

While TCEQ hasn’t officially announced a comment period, you can send your input to the agency regarding the Matagorda non-attainment issue; TCEQ will provide its final comments to the Governor at the end of February.

Also posted in Air Pollution, Environmental Protection Agency, Ozone | Leave a comment

What’s The Story Behind Section 185 Clean Air Fees?

By Elena Craft, PhD | Bio | Published: February 1, 2012

(Source: www.nwf.org)

For those of us who live in the air quality world, the issue of Section 185 fees in Houston has been a seemingly endless story of passing liability in meeting the 1-hr ozone standard.

Here’s a brief recap of the multi-year history on the issue:

EPA established the first ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in 1979; this was a 1-hr ozone standard set at 120 parts per billion (ppb). Regions around the country that exceeded the 1-hr standard were required to attain the standard by specific dates or they would be subject to fees as outlined in Section 185 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

On June 15, 2005, EPA revoked the 1 hour ozone standard, replacing it with an 8 hour standard deemed to be more health-protective. Though revoked, the DC Circuit ruled in 2007 that the 1-hr ozone standards were still subject to an “anti-backsliding clause”, which means that the region couldn’t roll-back on previously established clean air protections. Additionally, the DC court ruled that EPA must reinstate the applicability of the CAA 185 fees, the penalty program for Section 185.

The deadline for Houston to attain the 1-hr ozone standard was November 15, 2007. Since the area failed to meet the standard, TCEQ staff developed a proposed failure to attain rule under Section 185 of the Clean Air Act and issued a memorandum related to Houston’s failure to attain rule on October 30, 2009. TCEQ calculated that the revenue generated from the fee collection program would be between $73 million and $124 million in the first year alone.

In 2009, during the 81st session of the Texas legislature, the legislature passed and the Governor signed a bill that would have required all funds collected pursuant to Section 185 to be spent on programs designed to help the state meet federal air quality standards. All Section 185 fees collected would go toward pollution controls.

Texas was ready and TCEQ had put together a plan to collect the fees. Then EPA stepped in and tried unsuccessfully to circumvent the law.

EPA Region VI provided national guidance on the Section 185 fee program on January 25, 2010, explaining that the fee requirements would no longer be necessary if Texas could show that it attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard based on “permanent and enforceable” reductions. This meant that Texas would be off the hook for clean air fees if the state could demonstrate that the region consistently met the 8-hr standard. EPA issued this guidance without proper notice and comment rulemaking and contained language that violated the Clean Air Act language.

As a result of EPA’s misguidance, TCEQ submitted a request to be exempt from the fee rule by showing attainment in 2009 of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in 2010 and alleging “permanent and enforceable” attainment. However, the region fell back out of attainment in 2010 with the 1997 8-hr ozone standard, calling into question the allegation of “permanent and enforceable” progress.

NRDC sued EPA over the Section 185 guidance, and in July of 2011, the DC Circuit court vacated EPA’s guidance, saying that:

On the merits, we conclude that the Guidance qualifies as a legislative rule that EPA was required to issue through notice and comment rulemaking and that one of its features—the so-called attainment alternative—violates the Clean Air Act’s plain language. We therefore grant the petition for review and vacate the Guidance.

This brings us to date. Today, EPA issued notice that the Houston/Galveston/Brazoria area did not attain the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) by its applicable attainment date, November 15, 2007 and that TCEQ’s fee collection program for the Section 185 fees will have to be resurrected.

I encourage you to contact TCEQ and request that they move forward expeditiously with the Section 185 fees program. This program is an opportunity for major sources in Houston to bring cleaner air to the region and will help the area meet federal health-based standards that protect public health.

Also posted in Air Pollution, Environmental Protection Agency, Ozone, TCEQ | Leave a comment

Let’s Resolve to Pollute Less in 2012- Part 2

By Elena Craft, PhD | Bio | Published: January 25, 2012

This blog post is part one of a two part series. See part one.

(Source: US Coast Guards)

Deepwater Horizon Gulf Oil Spill- 2010

By far, the most horrific pollution incident over the last decade is the explosion at the Deepwater Horizon Oil Rig, where a fire burned for 36 hours before the oil rig sank. Caused by a gas leak, this explosion resulted in hydrocarbons leaking into the Gulf of Mexico for 87 days until they were finally sealed off.

Eleven people died and 17 were injured from the explosion. The spill caused extensive damage to marine and wildlife habitats and to the Gulf’s fishing and tourism industries. Scientists reported an 80 mile “kill zone” surrounding the well. Over 400 wildlife species hurt/threatened by the biggest oil spill in U.S. history and the second largest environmental disaster in U.S. history. Almost five million barrels of oil leaked into the ocean before the well was capped on July 15, 2010. The well is dead, but it has left industries and livelihoods on life support in its wake.

Citgo Petroleum Corporation- 2007

At the Citgo East Plant refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas, state inspectors found during an unannounced visit that the organization was operating open top tanks as oil water separators without first installing emission controls for benzene required by federal and state regulations. The inspectors found 4.5 million gallons of oil in two 12 million-gallon tanks; these tanks accounted for more than 57 metric tons of benzene in the waste streams, which are exposed to the air. Federal regulations limit refineries to operate with 6 or less metric tons of benzene in their exposed waste streams.

As a result, Citgo was indicted for the lack of emissions controls and for failing to identify all of the points in the refinery wastewater system where benzene was generated in a report to the TCEQ. This case is still ongoing; however, if Citgo is found guilty, the company could face up to $500,000 fines for each of the 10 counts of environmental violations at the refinery. Residents near the plant are paying careful attention to the outcome of the case; many of them believe the dangerous benzene emissions are responsible for their health problems. The Houston Chronicle spoke with Kimberly Curiel, a resident in the area. "Cancer, cancer, cancer," she said, pointing to a string of houses on her old street where neighbors have fallen ill. "That just doesn't happen very often."

Air Products and Chemical Plant- 2010

On February 16, 2010, the Air Products and Chemical Plant shut down due to a pipe leak after a unit tripped offline. This leak emitted an orange cloud of nitric acid, a toxic irritant, over Highway 225, an area with heavy traffic. The City of Pasadena officials initially claimed “there was no danger to the public”. However, several individuals who came in contact with the nitric acid cloud were sent to the hospital after they had trouble breathing.

Nitric acid is a dangerous colorless, highly corrosive liquid which can cause severe burns and irritation to the eyes. The city shut down Highway 225 for several hours and issued a shelter in place until the leak could be contained and the plant was secured.

BP Refinery in Texas City- 2011

In November 2011, there were reports of gas leaks at a BP refinery in Texas City, the third largest refinery in the U.S. A caller initially reported a sulfur dioxide leak to the National Response Center. There is some confusion on the extent of the sulfur dioxide leak, since BP claims the report was not made by a company employee. However, BP did confirm an ongoing leak of methyl mercaptan, a smelly gas added to natural gas as a safety measure; the odor was bad enough that 30 workers from a neighboring plant downwind were taken to the hospital. Texas City Emergency Manager and Homeland Security Director Bruce Clawson said of the gas leaking from the plant, “It smells ugly and makes you sick. It’s not a small matter.”

Magnablend Chemical Plant Fire- 2011

As we told you late last year, a fire broke out at Magnablend, Inc. on October 3, 2011 in Waxahachie, Texas that was caused by blending of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluid. This led to the evacuation for an apartment complex, an elementary school, a junior college and nearly 1,000 residents who live close to the chemical plant.

Upon further investigation, officials discovered that neither EPA officials nor the Waxahachie Fire Rescue team were aware of what Magnablend produced at the plant and that a risk management plan had not been filed for the facility. The TCEQ issued an air pollution watch level orange for that day.

We Need Better Solutions and to Increase Prevention Efforts

Within Region VI of EPA, which includes Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Arkansas, there is an average of one shelter in place a week due to upset events at different facilities. One a week! While a rare disaster may be unavoidable, most of these terrible pollution events are completely preventable. These disasters are unfortunate and cause severe damage to our health and our environment. My hopes for this year are that we will resolve to lower the number of pollution events through strict air quality standards, strong rules in place for construction and operation of chemical facilities, and harsh penalties to encourage companies to keep our air and water clean and safe.

I am thrilled to see the recent passage of new Mercury and Air Toxics Standards by the EPA. Let’s keep up this great momentum throughout the next decade and prevent disasters like these from destroying our environment and contributing to increased public health risks.