Fire follows LyondellBasell’s 10-year permit

I mentioned a few posts ago that the TCEQ had granted a 10-year permit to LyondellBasell Industries, the largest refinery in the Houston area, after denying the City of Houston, Mayor Annise Parker, and Houston’s residents a public hearing to contest the permit.

Today (Monday May 17, 2010), the Houston Chronicle reported a fire at the LyondellBasell plant near the Houston Ship Channel. According to the Chronicle, no injuries or deaths have been reported, and reporters did not attribute a reason for the fire in the article.

However, it will be interesting to keep up with this story, because I wonder if the fire was caused by something that could have been avoided by the TCEQ after inspecting the refinery. As we have seen, the TCEQ’s inspections are not the most thorough.

I’ll keep you posted.

Trying to tame a terrifying trend

The discrepancy between what is revealed and reported on from the TCEQ and then from the TexAQS II is a serious issue, and legislation must change to protect the health of Houstonians and the general well-being of all the people and places affected by air pollution.

I’ve addressed the Houston Press article, “A Quiet Hell,” a number of times, but the author, Chris Vogel, does a great job of explaining the politics behind the TCEQ and big-name refineries–in the end, the TCEQ works for and supports BP and LyondellBasell and Shell and… you get the point. It makes sense, and it’s good (albeit immoral) business: the TCEQ made 72 percent of its revenue in 2008 from its permits and licensing fees, versus just 2.7 percent from state funds (taxes, etc.). And they have a way to keep making that money.

Vogel’s after-thought article, “A Quiet Hell: Game Time,” explains more about the permit-granting process. The TCEQ hands out ten-year permits to refineries, and rarely do they deny the refinery’s request. In fact, state law mandates that a permit cannot be denied as long as the factory agrees that its emissions will not increase.

Houstonians saw this law in action earlier this year when the TCEQ renewed LyondellBasell’s permit. Requests from the City of Houston and Mayor Annise Parker for a hearing concerning the renewal were ignored simply because LyondellBasell claimed their emissions would not increase. The TCEQ did no further investigation, and on Feb. 24, 2010, LyondellBasell’s wish was granted.

LyondellBasell is set for another 10 years of polluting Houston’s air, and if this trend continues, the only negative repercussion might be a few small slap-on-the-wrist fines to allow the TCEQ to save face. An article in the Chronicle was written before Vogel’s Press piece and addresses what little action can be done: a state senator attempted to introduce a bill last spring that would have required that all fines would be equal to or more than the amount the company saved by not installing nonpolluting equipment and procedures. Obviously, the bill didn’t go over so well, but the senator had the right idea.

Since 1995, the TCEQ has issued (and still issues) what are called ‘flex permits’ to over 140 operations across Texas. Vogel explains how these work:

[Flex permits] allow facilities to have a single permit limit for an entire plant. A flexible permit acts as an umbrella, and generally does not impose specific limits for individual emissions sources. As long as the entire facility stays under an overall cap, it remains in compliance.

Flex permits were the TCEQ’s way of facing its problems and avoiding the costs involved with safe and environmentally friendly improvements to refineries stuck in their old, dirty and costly ways. Larry Soward, a former commissioner, thinks this will have to change, and he says that the TCEQ has only itself to blame:

[Flex permits] are a real dilemma for everyone. If you say that they are not consistent with federal law, however, then that means that the facilities will have to be re-permitted and face different standards and major expenditures to upgrade or change operations to reduce emissions to acceptable standards. There’s not going to be a simple, cheap resolution. But industry kind of brought this upon themselves by insisting on the flexible permit concept, and now they may have to pay the piper.

The law must change and adapt to our environmental and health concerns. The fact that the TCEQ is called a governmental agency is ridiculous, because it is fueling the industry and doesn’t plan to stop until it absolutely has to–which may be soon.

Starting last month, the TCEQ is under the scrutiny of the Sunset Review, a legislative check-and-balance organization that has the ability to abolish government agencies and commissions. Their conclusions on the TCEQ will be published at the end of their investigation (Jan. 2011), but the Sunset process encourages public participation and testimony, and this will hopefully prove to be the best way to stop the TCEQ’s trend and start focusing on breathing clean air.

TexAQS II contradicts TCEQ’s claim

A few posts ago, I looked into the findings from the “Texas Air Quality Study” of 2000 (TexAQS), which incorporated ground-breaking methods (by air) of measuring the air quality of Houston and its surrounding areas. The second “Texas Air Quality Study” (TexAQS II) took place in 2005 and 2006, in conjunction with the “Gulf of Mexico Atmospheric Composition and Climate Study” (GoMACCS).

More of Texas was examined the second time around–measurement sites were posted throughout east Texas and into the Gulf of Mexico. According to NOAA’s Web site, researchers continued using four NOAA planes to sample the air, but they also utilized ground points, weather balloons, a research ship, and satellite technology.

The Lockheed WP-3D Orion, a four engine turbo-prop aircraft originally used as a weather plane, flew out of Ellington Field in Houston to sample air at different altitudes and in different atmospheric conditions. According to NOAA, the choice to convert a weather plane into a research base was logical and innovative:

From the perspective of climate research, an aircraft can undertake a systematic study of the formation and evolution of the chemical and optical properties of aerosols from urban and industrial sources. The aim of such research is to address one of the more important open questions in climate research: how the various types of emissions and the subsequent atmospheric chemistry determine the optical properties of aerosols, and hence, the impact of these aerosols on radiative forcing in the atmosphere.

This NOAA aircraft was converted from a weather plane to a chemical research facility in 1994. c. noaa.gov.

Scientists learned from the TexAQS 2000 that Houston’s pollution problem affected more than just Houstonians, so the TexAQS II sought to further investigate this by placing sites farther from Houston’s ship channel. The following maps show the difference in the amount of area covered by each study:

The TexAQS 2000 focused on measuring air quality in and around Houston. c. utexas.edu.

The TexAQS II sampled air all over Texas, including spots in the Gulf. c. noaa.org.

Researchers found from the TexAQS II that Houston air quality had only slightly improved since the TexAQS 2000, and most emissions were still well above the reported inventory estimates. An article about the study was published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, and the abstract explains the two most important finds:

• “First, despite decreases in actual emissions of highly reactive volatile organic compounds (HRVOC) and some improvements in inventory estimates since the TexAQS 2000 study, the current Houston area emission inventories still underestimate HRVOC emissions by approximately 1 order of magnitude.”

• “Second, the background ozone in eastern Texas, which represents the minimum ozone concentration that is likely achievable through only local controls, can approach or exceed the current National Ambient Air Quality Standard of 75 ppbv for an 8-h average. These findings have broad implications for air quality control strategies in eastern Texas.”

Another article from the Journal of Geophysical Research discovered that levels of NO2 emissions from the Houston Ship Channel area were 70 percent [2542 kg h(-1)] and 43 percent [452 kg h(-1)] above the reported inventory values. SO2 emissions were found to be 34 percent above the reported inventory values, as well.

The TexAQS II was necessary to track changes in air quality over a 5-6 year period, and it offered additional insight into the way pollution travels. The findings from both studies contradict the TCEQ’s claim of significantly improving the air quality in Texas, and it proves that the TCEQ needs to hold itself responsible for honest estimates. The TexAQS II used actual calculations and samples to prove that emission estimations are not accurate, and the researchers did this by spearheading a more precise method of gathering information.

Polluted parks and diminishing views

Air pollution in Houston may be the worst in the US, but the haze of smog isn’t just limited to Houston’s skyline. This video shows how air pollution is affecting the Southwest states and particularly, our national parks. The video addresses an issue I’ve been talking about–air pollution travels and isn’t contained to only a specific area. It’s disturbing to see a layer of smog lingering above such naturally beautiful landscapes, even if Houstonians have grown accustomed to the aesthetic effects of air pollution.

What’s all the hype about?

Houston has the worst air quality in the nation– this is a fact.

But what is being reported about Houston’s air quality? What do Houstonians think about it?

Let’s look at what the Houston Area Survey found:

• In 2007, 44% gave the lowest possible rating (“poor”) to the efforts to control air and
  water pollution in the Houston area. In 2009, 29% thought those efforts were “poor.”
• Only 39% in this year’s survey believed that air pollution in the Houston area has generally
  “gotten worse” over the past 3 years, down from 43% in 2007 and 45% in 2005.
• In the 2009 survey, 44% said they were “very concerned” about the effects of air pollution
  on their family’s health. This was true of 49% in 2007 and of 52% in 2005.

According to the HAS, Houston’s citizens feel that air pollution has improved in Houston over the past five years. This is surprising to me, but I also wonder how Houstonians are judging their answers: are they looking at data and factual reporting, or did they happen to complete the survey during a particularly pretty week?

The Texas Commission on Environmental Equality would agree with the consensus among Houstonians, as stated on their website. This page, called “Texas Air Quality Successes,” claims that Texas has improved in the following ways:

• Texas has some of the most stringent emission standards in the United States.
• Texas uses the latest technology to investigate, evaluate, and improve air quality.
• Texas pursues mobile reductions in air quality through its grant incentive and vehicle replacement programs.
• The TCEQ uses sound scientific research to guide ozone regulations and, as a result, has achieved improvements in ozone concentrations statewide.

This is what TCEQ claims is happening to air quality in Texas, but a Houston Press article from November 2009 reports things differently, specifically for Houston and its surrounding areas. I’ve already blogged about their article, “A Quiet Hell,” but compare what the Press found and what TCEQ is telling people:

• More than 20 million pounds of pollutants, 450,000 of which are known carcinogens, were emitted due to equipment breakdowns or unscheduled maintenance, startup or shutdown events;
• TCEQ rarely took ­enforcement action, and when the agency did, the fines were nominal and in most cases later significantly reduced;
• The plants with the most violations paid the lowest percentage of their fines;
• TCEQ is so understaffed that it can take years to finalize penalties, and some critics say it avoids assessing time-consuming violations altogether.
• And, as a matter of policy, TCEQ strayed from federal law by combining multiple federal permit violations into a single state violation, thereby giving industry a break by assessing fewer and less costly penalties.

There’s an obvious discrepency between what the government is telling its citizens and what is investigated by non-governmental reporters. TCEQ’s claim that Texas has “some of the most stringent emission standards in the United States” is contradicted by all of the Press’ findings.

There’s something missing, and I’m not sure what it is. Perhaps it’s just the way people are skewing the facts, but everything doesn’t add up.

The Texas Air Quality Study of 2000: Houston, we have an ozone problem

In August and September of 2000, a team of more than 250 researchers and experts conducted a ground-breaking and revealing study of air quality in southeast Texas — primarily that of Houston, an area deemed by the EPA as a “supersite” for particulate matter. Air samples were taken from 20 points on the ground, and additional information was gathered via a new and different method: airplanes, which used laser-based equipment to detect ozone levels at different altitudes.

The goal of the Texas Air Quality Study, according to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, is “to research ground-level ozone and fine particle air pollution in the Houston region and the eastern half of Texas. This scientific data will be used to develop better assessment tools and more efficient and cost-effective strategies to manage air quality.”

The Texas Air Quality Study of 2000 (TexAQS) was conducted just after Houston surpassed Los Angeles as having the worst air quality in the US, and 16 months of data analysis supported this claim. Researchers also discovered the importance of looking beyond Houston and realizing that air pollution doesn’t just stay in one area — it affects other parts of the country, as well.

Chemical engineer David Allen, director of the University of Texas’ Center for Energy and Environmental Resources, was a part of the research team and explained how these findings could, and should, change regulatory action in Texas:

In 2000, we demonstrated that sound scientific information can be like a compass, guiding state regulatory decisions and what we want to do is make sure that a scientifically based approach continues to be used to inform decisions. We’re shooting to inform as many air pollution regulatory decisions for different cities as we can.

An example of the data collected by a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) airplane is shown in the table below. This particular graph reflects the ozone findings of a 12-minute sampling of air at different altitudes around the Houston Ship Channel.

c. UT Austin. A sample of the data collected by plane.

The TexAQS discovered the following major issues, according to an article in the Journal of Geophysical Research:

• High ozone concentrations in Houston depend strongly upon the interaction of synoptic-scale winds and local coastal/sea breeze oscillations
• High concentrations of light alkenes such as propene, ethene, 1, 3-butadiene and butenes have been observed in the Houston metropolitan area. These compounds collectively labeled as highly reactive volatile organic compounds (HRVOC), and they play a major role in forming the highest concentrations of ozone observed in the Houston area
• Field study results from 2000 indicate that industrial emissions of HRVOC have been under reported in Houston
• High concentrations of HRVOC are capable of creating high concentrations of ozone. In Houston, ozone forms rapidly and efficiently in plumes of HRVOC and NO_x co-emitted from industrial sources. The highest ozone observed in Houston is almost exclusively associated with industrial emission plumes

It seems that the major find of the TexAQS in 2000 was the prevalence of ozone in the atmosphere surrounding Houston, and the importance of lowering these emissions because they effect not only Houstonians, but other parts of the country as well. I’ll also be looking at the results from an air quality study conducted in 2006, and what changed between 2000 and 2006. Has air quality in Houston improved since the initial study in 2000?

How did we get into this mess anyway?

In order to understand the current state of the air quality in Houston, we need to examine the regulatory history of laws in the US, and we must look at the reasons as to why Houston is more prone to lower air quality and higher pollution.

In an article entitled “Air Toxics Regulatory Issues Facing Urban Settings”, Kenneth Olden and Janet Guthrie spell out the history of emission control. This article is from 1996 and out-dated, but it offers a comprehensive glance at the regulatory history of air quality until the mid ’90s.

Air pollution was first examined as a cause for concern in the 1940s after an increase in automobile use, and therefore, pollutant emission. California was the first state to pass a law concerning air pollution — the Air Pollution Control Act of 1947.

Olden and Guthrie present an interesting dilemma: during the first half of the century, air quality was usually thought of as a local problem, rather than a federal one. However:

Air pollution moves, so an area can suffer from air pollution problems not of its own creation… For [this] reason, resolving air pollution problems is more amenable to group or regulatory action than to individual action.

The first federal air quality law was the Air Pollution Control Act of 1955. This was designed to inform the public and support research, rather than to actually regulate emissions. “Regulation of air quality as we know it” began in 1970. The government established the Environmental Protection Agency and the 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments. This regulation demanded an increased role by the government in the regulation of air pollutants.

The 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments specifically addressed the regulation of three air toxics: mercury, beryllium, and asbestos. These toxics were added to the list of toxics already under watch: ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and lead.

However, standards were not met in the regulation of the bulk of air toxics, and the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments listed a whopping 189 substances which were labeled as “air toxic”. These amendments also stated that “industry should use the maximum achievable control technology,” although the “best available technology” may have residual effects on the population.

This brings us back to Houston. Why is the air quality in Houston so bad?

“Comparative Assessment of Air Pollution- Related Health Risks in Houston” is an article published in 2007 by four experts at the University of Texas. This article addresses a few reasons why Houston is at a particular risk:

• “Houstonians drive an average of >140,000,000 miles/day [and] emissions from cars, trucks, and buses are a major source of airborne pollutants.”
• “Houston is home to >400 chemical manufacturing facilities, including two of the biggest refineries in the US. The petrochemical complex along the Houston ship channel is the largest in the country, and the Port of Houston is the largest in the US in terms of foreign tonnage and the second largest in total tonnage.”
• “Aggregate airborne emissions from many small sources spread across Greater Houston, such as dry cleaners, gas stations, surface coating processes, and gasoline-fueled lawn maintenance equipment, add to the complex mixture of ambient air pollutants typically present in Houston’s air.”
• And lastly, “meteorologic conditions and patterns also contribute… between April and October there are usually a high number of warm sunny days with quiescent breezes, causing ground-level buildup of air pollutant concentrations. Most air pollution episodes in Houston occur as the wind direction rotates continuously over a 24-hr period, trapping a mass of unmoving air over the city. Elevated ambient levels of air pollution often occur along with high temperatures and humidity, creating hazy, malodorous, and oppressive conditions in the city.”

Basically, a mix of development and weather in Houston has allowed us to achieve the poor standard of air quality that we have. And, as seen in the progression of federal regulation and the laws that accompany that regulation, the government has only done so much to ensure that its citizens are breathing clean and safe air.