BP Texas City refinery biggest polluter in the country

WOOHOO!! I'm just so proud of my little home town. It's great to know that it doesn't take a catastrophic explosion for Texas City to make the news...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3845870.html

BP plant top U.S. polluter
Toxic emissions from Texas City refinery tripled in '04, company's data show

By DINA CAPPIELLO
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

BP's Texas City refinery, which already has been fined for safety violations that led to a deadly March 2005 explosion, is now investigating whether it has been accurately reporting pollution to the federal government.

The query stems from the latest emissions data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In 2004, BP reported releasing three times more toxic pollution than it released in 2003, primarily formaldehyde and ammonia, at its Texas City plant, a number that makes the facility far and away the most polluting refinery in the U.S.

The increase in emissions at BP was so large it distorted the data for refineries nationwide, according to the EPA. The Texas City plant accounted for the bulk of a 15 percent increase in emissions in 2004 that drove refinery pollution to its worst level since 2000, based on the agency's data.

But the company is unsure whether the estimate it submitted to EPA's Toxics Release Inventory, which tracks releases of nearly 650 toxic chemicals to air, water and land, is correct. BP reported 10.25 million pounds of pollution to the TRI in 2004, compared with 3.3 million pounds the year before. Company spokesman Neil Geary attributed the sharply higher figure to a change in the way BP calculated emissions from heaters at the plant.

"These were on-paper calculations — not based on real measurements through valves or stacks," Geary said. "We have initiated an enhanced (systemwide) review ... to improve the accuracy of our TRI reporting ... to ensure that the reports reflect actual operations and are as accurate as possible."

The outcome of the investigation, which will include actual measurements of emissions and a review of the calculations used to estimate them, could prompt the EPA to penalize the company if the numbers prove inaccurate. Fines can reach $32,500 per violation.


Cleanup ramifications
BP already is facing a record $21.3 million fine from the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration for 300 safety and health violations found at its Texas City plant after an explosion last year there killed 15 workers.

But the pollution review also could have ramifications for the Houston region's efforts to clean up smog, plans based, in part, on emission estimates provided by companies to the government. If BP's estimate to the EPA turns out to be correct, the additional and previously undocumented pollution could be enough to influence the state's plan to reduce the region's smog, experts said.

The eight-county Houston-Galveston area is in violation of the federal health standard for ground-level ozone and has until 2010 to comply. By June 2007, the state must submit a plan outlining the measures it will take to get there.

Formaldehyde is an important precursor of ground-level ozone, the main ingredient in smog. Ammonia, also a gas, can form soot. Both can irritate the eyes, nose and throat, depending on the degree of exposure.


Big differences in a year
According to the Toxics Release Inventory, BP estimated its Texas City plant emitted nearly 2 million pounds of formaldehyde in 2004. The company reported no formaldehyde emissions in 2003.

The company also estimated 4.1 million pounds of ammonia were released from its plant in 2004, more than twice the 1.6 million pounds it reported the previous year.

"In trying to figure out how we deal with smog, we need to understand what emissions are best to control, and that depends on us knowing what is going into the atmosphere in the first place," said David Allen, director for the Center for Energy and Environmental Resources at the University of Texas at Austin.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality said it was too early to speculate about the accuracy of the company's figures. And TRI numbers, which are assembled for use by the public, are not the basis for its regulatory decisions.

Instead, the state relies on its own emissions inventory, which also is based on estimates provided by companies. But the state data differ from the TRI, because the numbers focus solely on air pollution and cover additional pollutants. From 2003 to 2004, the state data show that pollution at BP declined.

The TCEQ is investigating the discrepancy and said the results of BP's probe could lead to revisions in the federal pollution numbers, the state's, or both.

"Their reporting to TRI was much, much higher than their reporting to the state for 2004," agency spokesman Terry Clawson said of BP's numbers. "It is our understanding that they are looking very hard at those differences and how they happened."

He added, "Basically, it means the TRI data was skewed by a huge increase in reported emissions, not actual emissions, from BP Texas City."

Environmental advocates, however, say it is too early to dismiss what BP reported as simply pollution on paper.

"It's real, it just never got reported before," said Eric Schaeffer, an ex-EPA staffer who now runs the Washington, D.C.-based Environmental Integrity Project. "You can argue it's not an increase, but the next sentence has to be 'we've always been bad.' "

Erroneous estimates of pollution from the industry are not new. In 2000, as part of the Texas Air Quality Study, researchers found that companies in the Houston area were underreporting emissions of certain chemicals by as much as three to 10 times. That finding prompted the state to rethink how it planned to address the region's smog problem, requiring deeper cuts of those underestimated compounds.

In 2004, a report from the EPA's inspector general concluded that the government was not ensuring that the nation's refineries were reducing emissions, despite a court order to do so. Part of the problem, according to the report, was that the agency was not monitoring pollution to double-check the industry's numbers.

Just last year, Shell's refinery in Deer Park reported to the TCEQ that it released six times more 1,3-butadiene, a chemical that has been linked to cancer, in 2004 than it did in 2003. The reason behind the increase was a small change — 1.5 percent — in how well the plant's flares burned off the chemical when emissions were calculated.


A different approach
In BP's case, a consultant recommended using new calculations to estimate emissions of ammonia and formaldehyde from combustion, an approach other refineries appear to have not used.

When all pollution is taken into account, BP says emissions from its Texas City plant have dropped by 40 percent since 2000.

"We went with it because we felt there was no better, more accurate way," said Geary, who added that the calculations were based on a formula "different from what other refineries, or even other BP refineries, appear to have used."


EPA methodology optional
The EPA said the use of its methodology, which was issued by the agency's Emissions Inventory Improvement Program, was not required.

"EPA recommends direct, continuous emissions monitoring of the pollutant of concern," spokeswoman Jessica Emond said.

The company already has recalculated its ammonia pollution and expects to shave 1.2 million pounds of ammonia off the 4.1 million pounds it reported for 2004 when it resubmits its corrections.

Whatever the outcome, some experts say, for the sake of clean air, the math needs to be closer to reality.

"It's incredible that they were that far off. That's a huge increase in formaldehyde," said Matt Fraser, an associate professor in civil and environmental engineering at Rice University. "It just shows you how little attention is being paid to getting emissions numbers right. And since all of our air-quality control strategies are based on that data, it makes you wonder."