Galveston-Houston Association for Smog Prevention - Enforcement

Texas files suit against Houston-area polluters

Laurie H — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 15:29:47 -0800

In a December 20 press release, the Texas Attorney General's office announced that it has filed a lawsuit against four Houston-area companies for violations of air pollution laws.

According to documents filed in Travis County district court today, operations personnel at Lyondell Chemical Co., Equistar Chemicals, Millennium Petrochemicals Inc., and Millennium Petrochemicals GP repeatedly failed to prevent the release of harmful pollutants into the atmosphere. The Office of the Attorney General decided to seek civil penalties after its settlement negotiations with the four companies and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) reached an impasse earlier this year.

Federal prosecutors fail to pursue environmental crimes in Houston

Laurie H — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 09:30:50 -0700

An article in the Houston Chronicle on Sunday, Oct. 22 highlighted a drop in the number of prosecutions for environmental crimes in the Houston area by the U.S. Attorney General's Office.

Data from the Transactional Records Access Clearing House show, however, that the number of new environmental prosecutions by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Texas dwindled from 20 in fiscal 1998 to zero in 2005, the last year for which figures are available.

In fact, the last conviction that federal prosecutors secured for an environmental crime was in 2004. It involved two Fayette County farmers who illegally used a pesticide in an attempt toÂ kill feral hogs.Â

More hazardous waste burning in a metals recovery smelter

John Wilson — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 05:05:45 -0700

Houston correspondent Ralph Blumenthal of the New York Times reports that a copper plant illegally burned hazardous waste.

A bankrupt copper giant facing billions of dollars in pollution claims across the nation pretended for years to recycle metals while illegally burning hazardous waste in a notorious El Paso smelter, according to a newly released Environmental Protection Agency document.

The agency, in a 1998 internal memorandum, said the company, Asarco, and its Corpus Christi subsidiary, Encycle, had a permit to extract metals from hazardous waste products but used that as a cover to burn the waste until the late 1990â€™s, saving the high costs of proper disposal.

TCEQ's new policy on collecting fines

John Wilson — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 20:12:13 -0700

The Citizensâ€™ Environmental Coalition reports on a new collections policy for environmental fines.

After the stateâ€™s new fiscal year begins September 1, applicants for permits, registrations, certifications, or licenses from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality must pay any outstanding penalties or fines before the application can be processed. The new policy applies to all entities with the same customer number and applies across media; for example, a delinquent air fee would hold up the processing of a water permit. Operating without the required permit, license, or registration from the TCEQ is violation of the law and the business could be subject to more fines. Applicants that are on a TCEQ-approved payment plan or in bankruptcy proceedings are exempt from the new enforcement procedure.
According to the TCEQ, an estimated $5 million of the $135 million invoiced by the agency in fiscal year 05 is still outstanding.

GHASP comments on the TCEQ-Valero settlement

GHASP — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 21:00:00 -0700

Body

On June 5, 2006, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Staff proposed an agreed order for resolution of multiple violations by Valero Refining-Texas, L.P. On July 10, the Galveston-Houston Association for Smog Prevention (GHASP), Mothers for Clean Air, and Environmental Defense, filed joint comments expressing our concern over the truncated nature of the public proceedings on this matter. On July 12, the Commissioners remanded the matter, and a second notice was issued.

The July document requests that the TCEQ provide for the statutorily required 30-day comment period. The August document, filed August 21, 2006, is the comments we filed once TCEQ republished the notice, allowing for a proper comment period. In both documents we address other issues related to public access to information as well.

GHASP and MfCA talk with Kinky Friedman on air quality

Laurie H — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:40:32 -0700

On July 10, 2006, Texas gubernatorial candidate Kinky Friedman made Houston his first stop on an "environmental learning tour" around the state. His staffÂ asked GHASP and Mothers for Clean Air to take the lead on introducing Kinky to Houston's air quality concerns.

After a presentation at GHASP's offices,Â we took Kinky and company on a tour of the Houston Ship Channel area. We stopped at the Clinton Drive air quality monitor and discussedÂ howÂ industrial air pollution affects the local communities.Â Then we headed out to Baytown via 225, so Kinky could get a look at some of the large petrochemical facilities that are located in our region.

Houston toxics exposure update

John Wilson — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:39:54 -0700

Air pollution levels in Houston's east end are improving, as reported by the Houston Chronicle.

The air in one of Houston's most polluted neighborhoods is getting cleaner, but levels of hazardous air pollutants in other Ship Channel communities are rising, a preliminary analysis of the latest state air quality data shows.

Measurements taken at more than 40 monitors in and around Harris County in 2005 show that concentrations of 1,3-butadiene, a carcinogenic chemical used to make rubber, are at their lowest level in five years in Manchester, where, in 2004, a Houston Chronicle investigation first exposed the problem.

Emission events rules

John Wilson — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 10:04:50 -0700

Body

Chemical plants, refineries, power plants and other industrial facilities that hold air pollution permits are subject to state rules regarding emission events. Often referred to as upsets, emission events include air pollution released during malfunctions (accidents), maintenance activities, unit startups and unit shutdowns.

For several years, GHASP and several other environmental groups have challenged state rules regarding these activities. The federal clean air act makes it clear that (1) emissions specifically allowed in a permit or rule are authorized and (2) emissions not specifically allowed in a permit or rule are unauthorized. However, Texas regulations allowed for certain emissions events to be exempt from enforcement when a company claimed that certain conditions were met.

After extensive advocacy work, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality finally changed the rules to clearly state that unauthorized emissions are subject to enforcement. Under certain circumstances, companies may claim an affirmative defense. We support this concept, because it places the burden of proof on the company to show that its unauthorized emissions could not have been reasonably prevented.

Presently, the remaining issue in this area is the lack of clear standards for authorizing (permitting) emissions that occur during maintenance, startup and shutdown activities. The state has also proposed a novel concept of permitting certain irregularly-occuring emission events that it considers quantifiable. The initial rulemaking effort on this topic died in 2006 when the final proposal was opposed by GHASP, other environmental groups, local governments and industry groups.

Files attached to this document include a number of comment letters and background material related to the revisions of Chapter 101, the Emission Event Rules. Also attached are some comments related to the requirements for plants that handle hazardous air pollutants to have a plan for controlling startup, shutdown and maintenance emissions - these are part of what is known as the NESHAP rules.

Information on TCEQ website

Air emission event database: This is one area in which the TCEQ is leading the country by making this information readily available to the public. Use this database to find out who has caused a major emission event and what excuse they've given.
Chapter 101 Emission event rules: Here are the current rules.

Comments on Chapter 101 rules (attached)

Chapter 101 August 25, 2003: TCEQ Rule Log 2003-038-101-AI, filed by Public Citizen, Environmental Defense, Texas Public Interest Research Group, Texas Campaign for the Environment, Lowerre & Kelly, Texas Environmental Democrats, the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition, Galveston-Houston Association for Smog Prevention, Neighbors for Neighbors and Clean Water Action
Chapter 101 December 17, 2003: TCEQ Rule Log 2003-038-101-AI, oral comments by GHASP
Chapter 101 March 11, 2005: Rule Review Team, filed by Environmental Defense, Galveston-Houston Association for Smog Prevention, Public Citizen’s Texas office, Texas Public Interest Research Group, and Environmental Integrity Project
Chapter 101 March 11, 2005, TCEQ Rule Review Team, filed by Texas Industry Project (industry comments)
Maintenance Emissions Policy April 11, 2005, TCEQ Air Permits, letter from GHASP
Chapter 101 April 26, 2005, TCEQ Rule Log 2005-023-101-AI, filed by the Environmental Integrity Project, Texas Office of Environmental Defense, Lone Star Chapter Sierra Club, Public Citizen’s Texas office, and the Galveston-Houston Association for Smog Prevention
Chapter 101 June 8, 2005: EPA Docket R06-OAR-2005-TX-0022, filed by Environmental Integrity Project, Galveston-Houston Association for Smog Prevention, Sierra Club Lone Star Chapter, Blue Skies Alliance, Community In-Power Development Association, Downwinders at Risk, Public Citizen’s Texas office and Texas Public Interest Research Group
Chapter 101 August 8, 2005, TCEQ Rule Log 2005-024-101-CE, filed by Environmental Integrity Project, Galveston-Houston Association for Smog Prevention, Community In-Power and Development Association, Public Citizen’s Texas Office, Citizens for Environmental Justice, Texas Public Interest Research Group,Lone Star Chapter Sierra Club, Blue Skies Alliance
Chapter 101 August 5, 2005, TCEQ Rule Log 2005-024-101-CE, filed by Harris County
Chapter 101 August 8, 2005, TCEQ Rule Log 2005-024-101-CE, filed by Mothers for Clean Air
Chapter 101 August 8, 2005, TCEQ Rule Log 2005-024-101-CE, filed by Industry Professionals for Clean Air
Chapter 101 August 8, 2005, TCEQ Rule Log 2005-024-101-CE, filed by US Environmental Protection Agency

Comments on MSS Permitting rules (attached)

TCEQ, Permit by Rule Study Chart - The MSS Permitting issue was tied in with a proposed overhaul of how the TCEQ implemented its Permit by Rule
MSS Permit February 3, 2006, TCEQ Rule Log 2005-016-106-PR, filed by GHASP, Environmental Defense, Environmental Integrity Project and Mothers for Clean Air with attachment, Kelly Haragan, New Developments in Title V and Emission Events (Presented to the Seventeenth Annual Texas Environmental Superconference, August 4 and 5, 2005)
MSS Permit February 3, 2006, TCEQ Rule Log 2005-016-106-PR, filed by City of Houston
MSS Permit February 3, 2006, TCEQ Rule Log 2005-016-106-PR, filed by Harris County
MSS Permit February 3, 2006, TCEQ Rule Log 2005-016-106-PR, filed by US Environmental Protection Agency
MSS Permit February 3, 2006, TCEQ Rule Log 2005-016-106-PR, filed by Texas Industry Project (industry comments)
MSS Permit March 30, 2006 to EPA regarding TCEQ Rule Log 2005-016-106-PR, filed by GHASP and Environmental Defense

Comments on EPA's NESHAP rules (attached)

NESHAP September 12, 2005: Docket OAR-2004-0094, filed by the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) and Earthjustice, and accompanying sign-on letter expressing general support for the comments.

Environmental group cites 3 Baytown plants

John Wilson — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 11:04:31 -0700

The Baytown Sun wrote a thorough article discussing our report on violations of the new hourly limit on HRVOC emissions.Â

At least one Baytown area petrochemical plant â€“ and perhaps two others â€“ has violated a new emissions standard since it went into effect in April.

Whatâ€™s more, the Galveston Houston Association for Smog Prevention says in a recent report, local investigators of the state environmental protection agency did not have procedures in place to investigate violations of the rule before GHASP began making inquiries.

Exceeding the Limit

Laurie H — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:00:00 -0700

Body

Industry Violations of New Rule Almost Slid Under State's Radar

Houston-area industrial facilities have regularly violated a key air pollution regulation during the first two months it has been in effect. Their failure to comply with the new rule – which sets an hourly limit on specific emissions – places the region’s strategy for reducing ozone smog at risk. Yet the state’s environmental agency has only recently begun investigating the incidents.

From April 1 to May 31, 2006, chemical plants and refineries self-reported at least four violations of the limit (see Table 1). Furthermore, an additional 14 violations of the rule may have occurred, but the self-reported data are not descriptive enough to demonstrate whether or not a violation existed.

The new pollution limit, which was established by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) in 2004, plays a major role in the state’s plan to clean Houston’s air. Its goal is to prevent rapid formation of ozone by capping emissions of certain pollutants, known as highly reactive volatile organic compounds (HRVOCs), at 1,200 pounds per hour. The rule came into effect for Harris County in April 20061.

However, the TCEQ didn’t implement adequate procedures for investigating and enforcing violations of the rule. According to TCEQ investigation staff, all air emission events are investigated to determine if they warrant enforcement for unauthorized emissions. In response to GHASP’s inquiries in June 2006, the TCEQ has added review of this rule to its emission event investigation practices.

To prevent rapid formation of ozone smog and to reduce public exposure to toxic air pollution, we are calling on the TCEQ to develop an enforcement plan for the hourly limit that includes:

Investigations of all 18 actual and potential violations; and
Revisions of its air emission event reporting database to routinely collect the data needed to identify potential violations of the limit.

We are also submitting this report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for its use in evaluating the potential effectiveness of the hourly limit in controlling ozone smog. While the emissions events listed in Table 1 are evidently unauthorized exceedances of the short-term cap, in other cases further information is needed to determine if a violation of the hourly limit occurred. In 14 cases, we determined that the emissions event report had sufficient information to suggest that a violation of the hourly limit may have occurred (see Table 2).

According to TCEQ investigation staff, there are no current procedures to collect the type of information that would be needed to determine compliance in these 14 cases. Such emission events could be investigated during future compliance reviews, but due to resource limitations, not all companies are reviewed for compliance on an annual basis. Furthermore, the procedures for compliance reviews have not been revised to include a specific focus on the new emissions limit.

When the rule was enacted, the TCEQ stated that, “An exceedance of [the hourly] limit is, by rule, unauthorized emissions” (see sidebar). We found that most online reports of unauthorized emissions lack sufficient information to determine if the company may have a valid affirmative defense against enforcement action.

Self-reported incident data alone may not be sufficient to determine if a violation occurred, because:

The reports list total emissions over the complete duration of the incident, including any emissions associated with startup after a repair is completed. The report does not list the peak hourly emissions rate. For example, if 5,000 pounds of pollution are released over a 5-hour period, the peak hourly emissions rate likely exceeded 1,000 pounds per hour, but it is not certain that the 1,200 pound per hour limit was violated.
The reports list only emissions associated with the incident, and do not include other routine emissions at the facility. Since the hourly limit applies to the entire facility, a violation could be triggered even if the emissions caused by the incident are less than 1,200 pounds per hour. For example, if an incident results in 1,000 pounds of pollution in an hour, and typical emissions across the rest of the plant are 300 pounds per hour, then it is likely that a violation occurred.
The reports are typically based on calculated emissions, rather than measured emissions, and often omit evidence to demonstrate that the calculations meet TCEQ requirements. For example, TCEQ rules allow companies to assume 98 percent or 99 percent of chemicals sent to a flare are effectively destroyed, as long as flare operations comply with certain guidelines. If operations are not in compliance, then the companies may only assume 93 percent of the chemicals are destroyed. Some companies are assuming 98 percent or 99 percent destruction without stating that their flares were in compliance with the requisite guidelines (see sidebar). For example, suppose a company sends 20,000 pounds of butadiene to its flare in one hour. Using the 98 percent efficiency, the company would report 400 pounds of butadiene emissions for the hour. However, if the flare wasn’t operated in accordance with guidelines, the company would have to report a 93 percent efficiency, which would equal 1,400 pounds for that hour.

Until these issues are addressed through follow-up investigations and revisions to the self-reporting requirements, the TCEQ will not be able to effectively enforce the hourly limit.