Illegal Air Pollution in Texas€¦ · local, state and national debates over the quality of our environment and our lives. For more information about Environment Texas Research &

Air pollution from startups, shutdowns, malfunctions and maintenance at industrial facilities in Texas in 2018

Illegal Air Pollution in Texas

Written by:

Emma Pabst and Luke Metzger, Environment Texas

In collaboration with

Catherine Fraser, Environment Texas and Abigail Bradford, Frontier Group

Illegal Air PollutionAir pollution from startups, shutdowns,

malfunctions and maintenance at industrial facilities in Texas in 2018

December 2019

Environment Texas Research & Policy Center is a 501(c)(3) organization. We are dedicated to protecting our air, water and open spaces. We investigate problems, craft solutions, educate the public and decision-makers, and help the public make their voices heard in local, state and national debates over the quality of our environment and our lives. For more

information about Environment Texas Research & Policy Center or for additional copies of this report, please visit www.environmenttexascenter.org.

The authors wish to thank the Environmental Integrity Project for providing the data for which this analysis was done. We also thank Matthew Tresaugue of the Environmental Defense Fund for his review of drafts of this docu-ment, and for his valuable insights and suggestions. Thanks also to James Horrox and Abigail Bradford of Frontier Group for editorial support, as well as Dylan Jones, Tara Jackson, Gabriel Poveda, and Hannah Bernier of Environ-ment Texas for their contributions.

Environment Texas Research & Policy Center thanks Houston Endowment for making this report possible.

The authors bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendations are those of Environment Texas Research & Policy Center. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders or those who provided review.

2019 Environment Texas Research & Policy Center. Some Rights Reserved. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives 3.0 U.S. License. To view the terms of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us.

Acknowledgments

Frontier Group provides information and ideas to help citizens build a cleaner, healthier, and more democratic America. We address issues that will define our nation’s course in the 21st century – from fracking to solar energy, global warming to transportation, clean water to clean elections. Our experts and writers deliver timely research and analysis that is accessible to the public, applying insights gleaned from a variety of disciplines to arrive at new ideas for solving pressing problems. For more information about Frontier Group, please visit www.frontiergroup.org.

Layout: To The Point Collaborative, tothepointcollaborative.com

Cover: TPC Port Neches Plant Explosion. Photo: REUTERS/Erwin Seba

http://www.environmenttexascenter.org

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/

http://www.frontiergroup.org

tothepointpublications.com

Table of contents

Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Air pollution in Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Top polluters during reported unauthorized air pollution events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Benzene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Particulate matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Sulfur Dioxide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Hydrogen sulfide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Butadiene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Clean air permitting and enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Few violations result in penalties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Investigation, Enforcement, and the Affirmative Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Rethinking our enforcement strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Enforcement under attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Harris County and the Texas Attorney General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

The Intercontinental Terminals Company Fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Conclusions and recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Methodology and data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Appendix A: worst polluters by metro area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Appendix B: polluters with the longest unauthorized air pollution events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

4 Illegal Air Pollution in Texas in 2018

Executive summary

On May 19, 2018, an explosion and flash fire ignited at Kuraray America EVAL’s Pasadena plant, injuring 21 people and sending thou-

sands of pounds of unauthorized pollution into the air. Emergency response rushed injured workers to the hospital – some by ambulance, some by helicopter – and as the reports rolled in, officials counted a total of approximately 270 workers on-site that day.1

According to self-reported company data filed with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), the fire began when pressure in the facility’s reactor triggered a safety valve release, emitting over 2,000 pounds of highly flammable gas.2 News reports indicate that the gas then ignited upon contact with a contrac-tor’s welding equipment, triggering the explosion.3

“Emissions events” or “upsets” are the regulatory terms used to describe this event – just one of the thousands of times industrial facilities violate their Clean Air Act permits each year. These unauthorized air pollu-tion events, caused by equipment breakdowns, process malfunctions, operator errors, startups, shutdowns or maintenance work, are supposed to be accidental, unanticipated releases of air pollution. However, the data show that these events occur so frequently as to be almost routine at some facilities, and often involve large releases of health threatening pollution, such as benzene and particulate matter.4

Unauthorized emissions more than doubled between 2017 and 2018

• In 2018,5 267 companies reported 4,590 break-downs, maintenance incidents, and other unauthorized air pollution eventsi that resulted in the release of more than 135 million pounds of illegal air pollution — more than double the amount of unauthorized emissions released the year before.

• The sharp increase in unauthorized emissions between 2017 and 2018 can be attributed, in large-part, to a single emissions event at the Beaumont Gas to Gasoline Plant in Jefferson county -- a facil-ity that plans to become the largest methanol plant in the U.S.6 (as opposed to emitting conventional air pollutants such as benzene or nitrogen oxide). The event, which began during equipment startup at the plant on August 29, 2018, lasted for more than 5 days and emitted over 53 million pounds of carbon dioxide pollution7 – the equivalent of adding 369,000 passenger vehicles to the roads for that duration.8 While illegal emissions of green-house gasses are likely drastically underrepresented by STEERS reports, the increase in reported illegal conventional pollutant emissions such as benzene or nitrogen oxide is not as drastic as it appears. However, statewide emissions rose even without this emissions event.

i . In this report, we use the term "unauthorized air pollution events" to refer to both "emissions events," which are upsets or unplanned maintenance, startup and shutdown (MSS) events, as well as planned MSS events that resulted in unauthorized emissions .9

Executive summary 5

Figure 1: Increase in Unauthorized Air Pollution Events, 2011-201810

throughout the area.”14 Multiple facilities in Ector County ranked in the top 10 lists for dangerous pollutants in the state, including hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide.15

Oil and gas facilities top lists of biggest illegal polluters

• Two Houston-area facilities — Chevron Phillips Chemical Cedar Bayou Plant and Pasadena Refin-ing System — were the two largest emitters of benzene, a known carcinogen, in the state in 2018 via unauthorized air pollution events.16

• Newpark Drilling Fluids’ facility in Kenedy had the highest unauthorized emissions of particulate matter in 2018, via unauthorized air pollution events. Particulate matter is linked to a range of cardiovascular problems, including heart attacks, strokes, and congestive heart failure. Phillips 66’s oil refinery in Borger and 1776 Energy Opera-tors’ crude oil storage facility in Karnes County emitted the next highest amounts of particulate matter.17

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

2012 2014 2016 2018

Number of unauthorized air pollution events Trend line for number of unauthorized air pollution events

Illegal pollution raises concerns about threats to health and environment.

• A recent study found that emissions events in Texas lead to the premature deaths of at least 42 people and $241 million in health-related costs per year.11

• A resident of Midland County, Texas filed a complaint with TCEQ on June 6, 2018, stating that “fracking across the street creates oily frac dust to settle on everything! My dogs have to walk in the grass, they constantly lick their feet... We come in from outside and cough and sneeze.” They also noted that “trees in the back yard are dying.”12 TCEQ’s Midland region ranked second for total pounds of pollution released in 2018 via unauthor-ized air pollution events.13

• A resident of Ector County, Texas, filed a complaint with TCEQ on January 25, 2018, “reporting at least 10 birds, pigeons, are dead under… [a] bridge.” The resident continued, stating that they believe “the birds’ deaths … result… from oil and gas sites located


Enforcement actions continue to decline

• The number of TCEQ enforcement actions against unauthorized air pollution events declined from 2017 to 2018, even as the volume of emissions more than doubled. Looking back over the last eight years, the total number of emissions viola-tions resulting in penalties by TCEQ and the State of Texas is just 2 percent of the total number of unauthorized events recorded by the agency in that time.19

0

50

100

150

2012 2014 2016 2018

Trend line for unauthorized air pollution events receiving penaltiesUnauthorized air pollution events receiving penalties

Table 1: Facilities in TCEQ’s Beaumont region released the largest amount of pollution from unauthorized air pollution events, 201818

TCEQ region Total pollution (pounds)REGION 10 - BEAUMONT 63,940,765REGION 07 - MIDLAND 39,500,243REGION 12 - HOUSTON 7,458,544

REGION 14 - CORPUS CHRISTI 5,504,278REGION 06 - EL PASO 4,892,945

REGION 02 - LUBBOCK 3,668,930REGION 08 - SAN ANGELO 3,526,737REGION 13 - SAN ANTONIO 3,034,059

REGION 03 - ABILENE 1,551,044REGION 05 - TYLER 821,928

REGION 01 - AMARILLO 681,689REGION 09 - WACO 619,484

REGION 16 - LAREDO 564,283REGION 04 - DFW METROPLEX 87,023

REGION 15 - HARLINGEN 14,541REGION 11 - AUSTIN 2,933

Figure 2: Decline in enforcement actions for unauthorized air pollution events20

• In 2018, TCEQ and the State of Texas financially penalized companies for approximately 57 unauthor-ized air pollution events (that occurred before 2018), compared with 4,590 unauthorized air pollution events reported in 2018.21

Polluters continue to escape financial penalties via the affirmative defense loophole

• According to TCEQ data analyzed by EIP, compa-nies claimed the affirmative defense, a loophole which allows polluters to escape financial penalties if they meet certain criteria 97% of the time in 2018.22

Executive summary 7

• In previous years, the EPA has ruled against the legitimacy of the affirmative defense.23 However, the current EPA administration is attempting to revoke that position, arguing in favor of the affirmative defense.24

In the few cases when fines are issued at all, the fines are on average a fraction of what TCEQ is authorized to levy.

• In 2018, TCEQ and the State of Texas fined compa-nies approximately $1.8 million for unauthorized air pollution events.25 When compared to the total pounds of air pollutants released by unauthorized events in 2018, TCEQ and the State of Texas fined companies approximately $0.013 per pound of unauthorized emissions in 2018.

• Under state law,26 Texas could collect more than $297 million in penalties for violations in 2018.27

Local governments in Texas have been forced to file suit to enforce air pollution limits since the state government has failed to do so.

Harris County, home to some of the largest polluters in the state, continues to prosecute polluters under the Clean Air Act.

• This year, the Harris County Commissioners Court voted to significantly boost funding for pollution control,28 expanding the county’s ability to prosecute environmental crimes.29

• In 2019, the county has announced additional suits against companies, including ExxonMobil, Valero, and Intercontinental Terminals Company.

State lawsuits against polluters increase

• As citizen pressure for stronger regulations of pollut-ing industries has mounted,30 Texas’ Attorney General has also announced suits against several high-profile polluters including Exxon Mobil, Valero, and Intercon-tinental Terminals.

• Texas’ Attorney General announced 6 suits in 2019 — up from 1 in 2018, and 0 in 2017.31

In order to reduce illegal air pollution and hold violators accountable, the state should:

• Eliminate the “affirmative defense” from penalties that is offered to polluters, regardless of the EPA’s pending rollback to existing policy

• Adopt mandatory minimum penalties for unauthor-ized air pollution events including from upset events, as well as unscheduled MSS (Maintenance, Startup and Shutdown) activities or planned MSS activities such as equipment maintenance

• Issue escalating fines per pound of pollution, based on the number of emissions violations via unauthorized air pollution events previously committed by the company in question

• Develop a plan to reduce unauthorized air pollution events and increase compliance

• Revoke a facility’s permit after repeated violations until the facility implements plans to return to compliance

• Establish additional monitors, including SO2 monitors in the Permian basin, to accurately measure air quality impacts from unauthorized emissions from industrial sources

• Improve the TCEQ STEERS database reporting system and instructions so that facilities report uniformly, accurately and in a way that enables citizens to easily determine the amount and type of pollution released during unauthorized events.

• Promptly review STEERS reports for accuracy and update them with the status of TCEQ’s review regularly.

At the national level:

• EPA should maintain, and vigorously defend in court, its previous ruling on affirmative defense, requiring that states strengthen rules dealing with emissions from equipment startups, shutdowns, malfunctions, and maintenance.

• Congess should reject efforts to weaken or eliminate the ability of citizen groups to sue to enforce environmental laws when government agencies are not enforcing the law.

• Congress should maintain, and increase, funding for enforcement by the EPA.


Introduction

On March 17th of 2019, Houston residents looked on as massive clouds of black smoke billowed over their city, emerging from a

chemical fire at the Intercontinental Terminals Com-pany (ITC) in Deer Park. Smoke hung over the city and a strange smell lingered in the air. Schools shut their doors, health officials warned residents to stay indoors, and as the days drew on, Houston wondered when, if ever, the fire would end.

The fire burned for four days.32 It spewed more than 9 million pounds of dangerous pollutants into the air – nearly a million more pounds than the total unauthorized emissions released immediately before, during, and after Hurricane Harvey.33

According to records filed with the TCEQ, the fire began when a leak in the piping connection between two tanks at the facility ignited, resulting in a chemical fire within the pipes. The fire quickly spread to other tanks at the facility, eventually burning through a total of 14 adjacent tanks.34

This fire, known as the ITC fire, is one of thou-sands of unauthorized air pollution events that occur at industrial facilities each year in Texas. Each year, hundreds of industrial facilities in Texas violate their emissions permits, releasing millions of pounds of dangerous pollutants into our air.35 Texas charges the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) with regulating these facilities, claiming to bring polluters to justice where justice is due.

However, the numbers tell a different story. Accord-ing to company reports filed with the TCEQ in 2018, air pollution from unauthorized emissions is on the rise, and meanwhile, enforcement data from the TCEQ shows that the vast majority of polluters escape penalties.

Photo: Shutterstock

ITC Fire, Deer Park, Houston, 2019

Air pollution in Texas 9

Despite significant progress, air pollution levels in many parts of Texas still threaten public health.

• Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found in a 2013 study that more than

Air pollution in Texas

14,000 Texans lose their lives each year due to air pollution, including 3,583 Texans who die prematurely due to particulate matter released by authorized and unauthorized industrial emissions.36 A 2019 study published by the American Chemical Society found that

Photo: Adrian Shelley/Public Citizen

Valero’s Houston Refinery


• On January 19, 2018, a resident of Port Arthur filed a complaint with TCEQ following an unauthorized release of 11,207.38 pounds of sulfur dioxide alongside other pollutants from Valero’s Port Arthur Refinery,42 stating that “Valero Port Arthur has a long history of pollut-ing the air in the area of town where I live, which isn’t far from the fenceline. I, my family, and neighbors have been subjected to random fumes and odors when the wind comes from Valero’s direction, causing health, respiratory problems, headaches, frequent colds, and watery eyes.”43

• On August 27, 2018, following an unauthor-ized release of 1,935 pounds of benzene, 27,252 pounds of nitrogen oxide, and 69,441 pounds of carbon monoxide by the Chevron Phillips’ Chemical Cedar Bayou Plant,44 a Harris County resident filed a complaint with TCEQ, stating “I am worried about what is in the air I breathe and what is getting into the water, and what health impact it has on me and my neighbors.”45 Chevron Phillips’ Chemical Cedar Bayou Plant ranked number one in this report for total unauthorized benzene releases during 2018, releasing 11,783 pounds in Harris County.46

A resident of Martin County, Texas, filed a com-plaint with TCEQ on November 1, 2018, alleging that a “regulated entity’s flare stack[s] are seen spewing oily waste,” and “spilling [oily waste] onto the ground.” The resident reported a lack of adequate clean up, and stated that the issue was “occurring at a number of sites within a 5 mile radius.”47 Martin county polluters hold three of the top-10 spots for Nitrogen Oxides emissions in 2018 in this report – more than any other county in the rankings.48

unauthorized pollution from start-ups, shutdowns, and malfunctions results in the premature deaths of at least 42 people and $241 million in health costs in Texas on average per year.37

• According to the UT School of Public Health, children living within two miles of the heavily indus-trialized Houston Ship Channel face a 56 percent greater risk of contracting leukemia, which research-ers link to oil refineries and chemical plants.38

Reports filed with the TCEQ in 2018 demonstrate that many Texans are concerned about unauthorized air pollution events.

• Valero’s Houston Refinery reported an emissions event releasing over 1,600 pounds of pollution on March 22-23, 2018.39 A resident of Houston wrote to TCEQ that day, “JR Harris Elementary Students, Parents, and Educators were told to not go outside, close doors, and Windows when this release occurred at Valero.”40 The elementary school is located just across the highway from Valero’s refin-ery.

• A resident of Houston wrote to TCEQ on October 16, 2018, to, “Please investigate this release of pollu-tion. Our children and grandchildren deserve a healthy environment. Our children don’t deserve cancer now or later in life because of growing up in a chemically polluted environment. These events are becoming more frequent, so the TCEQ must impose severe monetary penalties against these polluters. It’s obvious that the current penalty for polluting is small enough to ignore, so these polluters just treat it as the cost of doing business. Also, if the penalties were severe these companies would replace faulty valves and other equipment before there’s a failure and a release of pollution into the air we breathe and the water we drink.”41

Top polluters during reported unauthorized air pollution events 11

Top polluters during reported unauthorized air pollution events

Under Texas law, both emission events, which are “upset events or unscheduled MSS (Maintenance, Startup and Shutdown)”49

events, and planned MSS activities that release unau-thorized pollution, constitute air pollution violations which companies must report to the TCEQ.50 This report analyzes unauthorized emissions from those types of events.51

According to a study by researchers at Indiana Uni-versity, air pollution from upset events or unsched-uled MSS activities result when “pollution abatement systems — such as scrubbers, baghouses, or flares that curtail emissions before they are released—fail to fully operate as the result of an unexpected malfunc-tion, startup or shutdown,”52 resulting in the release of illegal air pollution. These events may be a result of equipment breakdowns, process malfunctions or operator error or may occur during the startup and shutdown of equipment. In a 1982 memo, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for air wrote that while there are circumstances where startups and shutdowns might legitimately result in emissions, “startup and shutdown of process equipment are part of the nor-mal operation of a source and should be accounted for in the design and implementation of the operating procedure for the process and control equipment. Accordingly, it is reasonable to expect that careful planning will eliminate violations of emission limita-tions during such periods.”53

Unauthorized air pollution events are largely avoid-able. Rather than flaring54 excess gases at facilities, permittees can capture and recycle most gases with a gas recovery system. If flaring took place only during serious emergencies, there would be a significant reduc-tion in air emissions. Second, companies can increase staffing and preventive maintenance, and provide

better training to allow for further monitoring of leaks, equipment malfunctions, and other potential sources of emissions, and ensure faster responses when unau-thorized events do occur. Finally, companies should improve and expand upon backup systems, including backup power sources, to reduce the impact of events like electrical failures and major weather events that might otherwise require equipment shut-downs and start-ups.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality requires companies to publicly disclose upset events and unplanned MSS events that release a “reportable” quantity of pollutants, as well as planned MSS events that release unauthorized levels of pollution and excess opacity events. Companies file these reports via the State of Texas Environmental Electronic Reporting System (STEERS). These reports are available on the TCEQ’s Air Emission Event Report database at: http://www2.tceq.texas.gov/oce/eer/.

An initial report must be filed within 24 hours, and a final report within two weeks. Unauthorized air pol-

http://www2.tceq.texas.gov/oce/eer/

http://www2.tceq.texas.gov/oce/eer/


lution events below the reporting threshold, known as “recordable emission events,” are to be recorded and kept in documents held on-site at the facility.55

This analysis is drawn only from self-reported vio-lations that were submitted, via STEERS, to the TCEQ.56 The numbers do not include emissions from the unreported “recordable emissions events” or from excess emissions that occur during normal opera-tion and thus actually under-represent the amount of illegal air pollution released in Texas.

Different air contaminants harm people and the environment in different ways, and so this report pres-ents five separate snapshots, each one a “top 10” list based on different pollutants of concern. The rank-ings below show the state’s top ten industrial plants responsible for the highest levels of self-reported air pollution from malfunctions and maintenance for six pollutants of concern: benzene, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and 1,3-Butadiene.

BenzeneBenzene is a dangerous volatile organic compound released into the air from many industries that use, store, or produce petroleum products, including fuel, chemicals, plastics, and pesticides. Short-term exposure to benzene can lead to dizziness, rapid or irregular heartbeat, tremors, unconsciousness and, at high levels, even death. Longer term exposure to benzene can cause leukemia, birth defects, low birth weight, and bone mar-row damage.57 A 2010 study by the University of Texas School of Public Health and the Texas Department of State Health Services found that women living in neigh-borhoods with higher-than-average levels of benzene are more likely to give birth to babies with serious neurologi-cal defects.58 The World Health Organization warns that there is no safe level of benzene exposure.59

Two Houston-area facilities — Chevron Phillips Chemical Cedar Bayou Plant and Pasadena Refining System — took the top two spots statewide for unauthorized releases of benzene during unauthorized air pollution events in 2018.

Table 2: Top 10 benzene polluters during unauthorized air pollution events60

Rank Facility name Principal customer County Total benzene (pounds)

1 CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL CEDAR BAYOU PLANT Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP HARRIS 11,783

2 PASADENA REFINING SYSTEM Pasadena Refining System, Inc HARRIS 8,378

3 EQUISTAR CHEMICALS CHANNELVIEW COMPLEX Equistar Chemicals, LP HARRIS 6,823

4 GERMANIA BOOSTER STATION Navitas Midstream Midland Basin, LLC MIDLAND 6,244

5 DOW TEXAS OPERATIONS FREEPORT The Dow Chemical Company BRAZORIA 5,801

6 BASF TOTAL FINA NAFTA REGION OLEFINS COMPLEX BASF TOTAL Petrochemicals LLC JEFFERSON 4,476

7 EQUISTAR CORPUS CHRISTI PLANT Equistar Chemicals, LP NUECES 4,066

8 VALERO CORPUS CHRISTI REFINERY WEST PLANT Valero Refining-Texas, L.P. NUECES 3,003

9 MIDLAND BOOSTER STATION Navitas Midstream Midland Basin, LLC MIDLAND 2,672

10 EXXONMOBIL OIL BEAUMONT CHEMICAL PLANT ExxonMobil Oil Corporation JEFFERSON 2,538


Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)According to the National Institutes for Health,61 breath-ing nitrogen oxides can cause a range of health effects, including aggravation of asthma, nausea and headaches. Nitrogen oxides also combine with volatile organic com-

Refinery in Pasadena, TX

Photo: Shutterstock

pounds and sunlight to form ground-level ozone, com-monly known as smog. Smog causes a host of respiratory consequences, ranging from coughing, wheezing and throat irritation, to asthma, increased risk of infection, and permanent damage to lung tissue.62

Table 3: Top 10 nitrogen oxides polluters during unauthorized air pollution events64

Rank Facility Name Principal Customer County Total NOx (pounds)

1 ENTERPRISE MONT BELVIEU COMPLEX Enterprise Products Operating LLC CHAMBERS 364,639

2 CORPUS CHRISTI LIQUEFACTION Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC SAN PATRICIO 198,217

3 SALE RANCH GAS PLANT WTG Gas Processing, L .P . MARTIN 191,513

4 BENEDUM GAS PLANT Targa Pipeline Mid-Continent WestTex LLC UPTON 188,696

5 MIDKIFF GAS PLANT Targa Pipeline Mid-Continent WestTex LLC REAGAN 151,171

6 DRIVER GAS PLANT Targa Pipeline Mid-Continent WestTex LLC MIDLAND 122,643

7 MIMS TANK BATTERY XTO Energy Inc . MARTIN 118,880


9 HNC 320 F04C TANK BATTERY EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc . MARTIN 79,240

10 CALVERLY B-REED Hunt Oil Company GLASSCOCK 69,905


Chevron Phillips Chemical Cedar Bayou plant, located in the Houston Galveston nonattainment area for ozone,63 was also among the top polluters of nitrogen oxides via unauthorized air pollution events in 2018.

Table 4: Top 10 Particulate Matter Polluters During Unauthorized Air Pollution Events69

Flare at a facility near Midland, TX

Photo: Shutterstock

Particulate MatterParticulate matter (PM), commonly called soot, is one of the deadliest forms of air pollution. It can trigger a range of cardiovascular problems, including heart attacks, strokes, and congestive heart failure.65 These problems can result in increased hospital admissions or premature death.66 Particulate matter also contrib-utes to acid rain and haze in national parks.67 A 2015 study found that PM emissions from emissions events in Houston appear to be rising since 2009,68 possibly due to the rise in shale gas development.

Newpark Drilling Fluids’ facility in Kenedy had the highest unauthorized emissions of particulate mat-ter via unauthorized air pollution events, followed by Phillips 66’s Borger oil refinery in Hutchinson County and 1776 Energy Operators’ crude oil storage facility in Karnes County.

Rank Facility Name Principal Customer County Total PM (pounds)

1 NEWPARK DRILLING FLUIDS HR NDF KENEDY Newpark Drilling Fluids, LLC KARNES 293,059

2 BORGER REFINERY PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY HUTCHINSON 103,379

3 NIESTROY 1H & NIESTROY 2H 1776 Energy Operators, LLC KARNES 29,256

4 VALERO REFINING TEXAS CITY REFINERY Valero Refining-Texas, L.P. GALVESTON 16,151


6 SWEENY REFINERY PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY BRAZORIA 6,168


8 EXXONMOBIL BAYTOWN REFINERY Exxon Mobil Corporation HARRIS 3,325

9 PORT ARTHUR REFINERY Motiva Enterprises LLC JEFFERSON 2,125

10 OWENS CORNING INSULATING SYSTEMS WAXAHACHIE PLANT Owens Corning Insulating Systems, LLC ELLIS 1,897


Sulfur DioxideSulfur dioxide, which comes mainly from burning fossil fuels — including flaring at oil and gas manu-facturing facilities70 — causes acidification of soil and water, and causes an array of respiratory problems.

Fire at ExxonMobil Baytown Refinery, 2019

Studies show correlations between short term exposure to sulfur dioxide and increased visits to hospital emergency rooms;71 children, the elderly, asthmatics are most at risk.72

Table 5: Top 10 Sulfur Dioxide Polluters During Unauthorized Air Pollution Events73

Photo: Shutterstock

Rank Facility name Principal customer County Total SO2 (pounds)

1 SAND HILLS GAS PLANT Targa Midstream Services LLC CRANE 1,705,582

2 JT MCELROY 202 TB Chevron U .S .A . Inc . CRANE 1,612,950

3 WELCH CO2 GAS PROCESSING FACILITY OXY USA WTP LP DAWSON 1,118,872

4 SEMINOLE GAS PROCESSING PLANT OXY USA Inc . GAINES 1,088,939

5 GOLDSMITH GAS PLANT DCP Operating Company, LP ECTOR 925,121

6 MABEE RANCH C02 PLANT Chevron U .S .A . Inc . ANDREWS 798,107

7 CAMPO VIEJO GAS PROCESSING PLANT Stakeholder Gas Services, LLC YOAKUM 772,364

8 WAHA GAS PLANT ETC Field Services LLC PECOS 673,180

9 MCELROY SECTION 199 EMERGENCY FLARE Chevron U .S .A . Inc . CRANE 608,456

10 EMBAR B-1 BATTERY ConocoPhillips Company ANDREWS 447,586


Hydrogen SulfideHydrogen sulfide is most recognized as the “rotten egg” smell often associated with oil and gas produc-tion. According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, “exposure to low concentrations of hydrogen sulfide may cause headaches, poor memory, tiredness, and balance problems,” while brief exposures

to high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide can cause a loss of consciousness.74 Because the gas is heavier than air, it can pool in low-lying areas if the wind is not blow-ing. In February 1975, a hydrogen sulfide release killed nine people near an oil and gas production site in the small West Texas town of Denver City.75

Table 6: Top 10 Hydrogen Sulfide Polluters During Unauthorized Air Pollution Events76

Facilities near Houston Ship Channel

Photo: Shutterstock

Rank Facility name Principal customer County Total H2S (pounds)

1 MI VIDA TREATER PLANT ETC Field Services LLC WARD 64,132

2 SOUTH MOJO BOOSTER STATION OXY USA Inc . ECTOR 27,206

3 SEMINOLE GAS PROCESSING PLANT OXY USA Inc . GAINES 22,827

4 GLEN COVE COMP STATION WTG Jameson, LP COLEMAN 19,538

5 SAND HILLS GAS PLANT Targa Midstream Services LLC CRANE 18,518

6 DUKE ENERGY FIELD SERVICES PIPELINE ECTOR COUNTY DCP Operating Company, LP ECTOR 18,081

7 BLACKWATCH SAN ANDRES CB Sabinal Energy Operating, LLC GAINES 18,004

8 JT MCELROY 202 TB Chevron U .S .A . Inc . CRANE 17,882

9 WELCH CO2 GAS PROCESSING FACILITY OXY USA WTP LP DAWSON 12,130

10 YATES FIELD UNIT WELLS PRODUCTION STATIONS Kinder Morgan Production Company LLC PECOS 11,224


ButadieneButadiene is a volatile organic compound produced from the processing of petroleum and used in the manufacture of synthetic rubber and plastics.77 Acute exposure to butadiene can cause irritation of the eyes, mouth, throat, and lungs, and short term exposure to

very high amounts can cause damage to the central nervous system, headache, and nausea. Dermal exposure to butadiene can also cause a sensation of cold, followed by warm, resulting in frostbite. Over the long term, exposure can cause cancer.78

Table 7: Top 10 Butadiene Polluters During Unauthorized Air Pollution Events79

Rank Facility name Principal customer County Total 1,3-Butadiene

(pounds)

1 CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL CEDAR BAYOU PLANT

Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP HARRIS 30,872

2 TPC GROUP PORT NECHES OPERATIONS

TPC Group LLC JEFFERSON 14,881

3 BASF TOTAL FINA NAFTA REGION OLEFINS COMPLEX

BASF TOTAL Petrochemicals LLC JEFFERSON 8,731

4 FORMOSA POINT COMFORT PLANT Formosa Plastics Corporation, Texas CALHOUN 5,435

5 CHOCOLATE BAYOU PLANT INEOS USA LLC BRAZORIA 5,881


7 HOUSTON PLANT TPC Group LLC HARRIS 4,167

8 EXXONMOBIL OIL BEAUMONT CHEMICAL PLANT

ExxonMobil Oil Corporation JEFFERSON 3,525

9 EQUISTAR CHEMICALS CHANNELVIEW COMPLEX

Equistar Chemicals, LP HARRIS 3,435

10 SHELL OIL DEER PARK Shell Chemical LP HARRIS 3,223


Clean Air Permitting and Enforcement

Few violations result in penaltiesIn 2018, there were 4,590 reported unauthorized air pollution events across the state of Texas, which resulted in the release of hundreds of millions of pounds of dangerous pollutants.80 In 2018, TCEQ and the State of Texas financially penalized compa-

nies for approximately 57 unauthorized air pollution events. Looking back over the last seven years, the total number of enforcement orders filed by TCEQ is less than 3 percent of the total number of unau-thorized air pollution events recorded by the agency in that time.81

0

50

100

150

2012 2014 2016 2018

Trend line for unauthorized air pollution events receiving penaltiesUnauthorized air pollution events receiving penalties

Figure 2: Decline in enforcement actions for unauthorized air pollution events

Clean air permitting and enforcement 19

The trend since 2011 shows that enforcement actions against unauthorized air pollution events are declining.82

In the few cases when fines are issued at all, the fines are on average a fraction of what TCEQ is authorized to levy. Under state law, TCEQ is authorized to collect penalties as high as $25,000 per day per violation.83

• If TCEQ levied the maximum penalty84 against unauthorized air pollution events in 2018, using the agency’s practice of counting each 24-hour period of an event as a single violation regardless of how many individual pollutants were released, they could have collected over $297 million in fines.85

TCEQ has wide discretion in determining the amount of a penalty and rarely assesses the maximum. The agency’s penalty policy86 directs staff to calculate a pen-alty based on factors including the degree of harm and a facility’s past record of compliance. In 2018, a total of approximately $1.8 million was assessed in penalties for these 57 unauthorized air pollution events, amount-ing to $0.013 per pound of unauthorized emissions in 2018.87

The small amount TCEQ typically fines companies is often dwarfed by their huge income.

For example, in an administrative order last year, the TCEQ addressed three separate unauthorized air pol-lution events caused by the petrochemical company Chevron Phillips in August and November of 2016. These three events released a combined amount of 179,184 pounds of volatile organic compounds, 100,942 pounds of toxic carbon monoxide, and 19,720 pounds of dangerous nitrogen oxides. Despite releasing a combined total of nearly 300,000 pounds of hazardous pollutants, the company was assessed only a $36,000 administrative penalty by TCEQ for the release of these toxic com-pounds.88

To put that number into perspective, that meant that Chevron Phillips was fined about $0.12 per pound of illegal emissions. Furthermore, Chevron Phillips reported a total sales revenue of approximately $11 bil-lion in 2018.89 The penalty imposed on it by the TCEQ

accounted for approximately 0.0003% of its total sales revenue in 2018.

As this example demonstrates, even in the relatively rare instances when the TCEQ does take action against unauthorized air pollution events, the agency’s efforts remain lackluster and ineffective in punishing pollut-ers to a degree that would deter them from committing future infractions.

Moreover, this insufficient level of enforcement contrib-utes to continued unauthorized air pollution events. While the TCEQ did assess penalties for several infrac-tions by Chevron Phillips in 2016 and 2017, the penalty did not successfully deter the company from committing the violations mentioned above. Despite receiving a $9,038 administrative penalty in 2017 for unauthorized air pollution events that had occurred in May and June of 2016, facilities operated by Chevron Phillips still went on to illegally emit hundreds of thousands of pounds of pollutants that year.90 If anything, one could argue that the TCEQ’s spotty record of penalizing companies for unauthorized air pollution events has emboldened permittees to continue their violations with little fear of meaningful repercussions.

TCEQ has noted that “equitable treatment requires that violators not come out ahead economically to the disad-vantage of those entities that spend substantial resources to comply with the law,”91 but in some cases, penalties issued by TCEQ are less than the economic benefit the company gained as a result of the violation.

For example, in an Agreed Order adopted on January 16, 2019, the TCEQ found that the Formosa Plastics Corporation discharged plastic pellets into a nearby creek, thus failing “to prevent the discharge of solids in other than trace amounts into or adjacent to any water in the state.” TCEQ determined the company enjoyed an economic benefit of $156,092, yet TCEQ levied a fine of just $121,875.92

In the first three months of 2019, TCEQ issued a total of 110 enforcement orders relating to air and water qual-ity, municipal waste, and other environmental issues. In 17 of those cases companies enjoyed an economic benefit


from non-compliance which was greater than the pen-alty issued, according to TCEQ’s own records.93

In a 2003 review of TCEQ enforcement, the Office of the State Auditor found the agency “does not consis-tently ensure violators are held accountable” and that “violators often have economic benefits that exceed their penalties, which could reduce their incentive to comply.”94 In response, TCEQ launched a review of its enforcement program and penalty policy, but according to former TCEQ Commis-sioner Larry Soward, appointed by Governor Perry in 2003, “little came of that self review.”95

During Texas’ 2019 legislative session, State Repre-sentative Erin Zwiener from district 45 filed House Bill 3035 to ensure penalties assessed by TCEQ at least equal the economic benefit of non-compliance. The bill did not make it out of committee.96

A February 2018 analysis by the Texas Observer found that when the TCEQ does take enforcement action, it disproportionately targets small businesses, such as family-owned gas stations, while mostly turning a blind eye to major pollution events caused by large oil and gas corporations.97

Investigation, enforcement, and the affirmative defense TCEQ’s “Agency Philosophy”98 states that it will “ensure consistent, just, and timely enforcement when environmental laws are violated,” but also that it seeks to “promote and foster voluntary compli-ance with environmental laws and provide flexibility in achieving environmental goals.” The data would suggest TCEQ emphasizes the latter over the former goal.

The TCEQ is supposed to investigate each report-able unauthorized air pollution event but, according to the Environmental Integrity Project’s Ilan Levin, these “investigations” are almost always paperwork reviews and rarely involve on-site inspections.99 The number of TCEQ investigations into air reportable incidents100 in FY18 declined by 5 percent from the

previous fiscal year, even as the volume of emissions more than doubled and the number of reportable incidents increased at least 11 percent.101

Following the review of documents filed by a permit-tee, the TCEQ determines whether it will initiate enforcement. This determination is based, in part, on whether the event is deemed to be “excessive” and whether the permittee has qualified for an “affirmative defense” from penalties. The affirmative defense effectively exempts facilities which exceed permit limits during unauthorized air pollution events from financial penalties, although a facility may still be ordered to take steps to prevent future violations.

According to the Texas Administrative Code, “Upset events that are determined not to be excessive emis-sions events are subject to an affirmative defense to all claims and enforcement actions brought for these events other than claims for administrative techni-cal orders and actions for injunctive relief.”102 The owner or operator must prove it has met 11 different criteria in order to qualify for the defense — includ-ing that the unauthorized emissions could not have been prevented, that all possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the unauthorized emissions on ambient air quality, and that the emissions did not contribute to a condition of air pollution.

An ExxonMobil manager testified at trial in the Environment Texas v. ExxonMobil case that he checks the “yes” box for every emissions event with-out fail, despite not actually investigating or con-firming whether ExxonMobil has in fact met all 11 affirmative defense criteria.103

According to TCEQ data, companies claimed the affirmative defense for emission events 97% of the time in 2018.104

When permittees file a report of an emissions event to STEERS, they must select on the reporting form either “yes” or “no” to indicate whether the permittee believes it meets the affirmative defense standard.


Figure 3: Affirmative defense claims for unauthorized air pollution events, 2018105

Due in part to the above outlined difficulties, in previous years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has found that the affirmative defense serves as a barrier to effective oversight of polluting indus-tries. In 2015, the agency directed Texas and 35 other states to eliminate affirmative defense provisions from air quality enforcement plans.106 TCEQ ignored EPA’s directive and retained the affirmative defense criteria.

During Texas’ 2019 legislative session, Representative Blanco moved to eliminate this loophole, sponsoring House Bill 4087, which would remove the affirmative defense criteria from TCEQ’s toolbox.107 The bill stalled in committee, and just months later, the EPA proposed to withdraw their original ruling against affirmative defense, claiming that Texas’ current regulatory process adequately complies with the Clean Air Act.108

Even if a company claims an affirmative defense, TCEQ can still determine that an unauthorized air pollution event was “excessive,” based on a set of standards laid out in the agency’s Enforcement Initiation Criteria,

including the frequency, cause, quantity, impact, and duration of an event.109 In that case, TCEQ will not accept an affirmative defense. In FY18, TCEQ deter-mined that just 13 unauthorized air pollution events were excessive, down from 14 in FY17.110

If TCEQ determines that if a violation resulted from an unauthorized air pollution event and the affirma-tive defense criteria was not met, it may (but is not required to) issue a written Notice of Violation (NOV), requiring the permittee to return to compliance.111 If TCEQ is satisfied that all violations have been cor-rected within the time period the agency prescribed, no enforcement action is taken.112

If violations are not corrected in time, TCEQ may then issue the permittee a Notice of Enforcement (NOE) and an administrative enforcement order (without filing a lawsuit in court), seeking penalties up to the statutory cap of $25,000 per day.113 However, fines rarely, if ever, are that high.114 TCEQ may also refer cases to the Office of the State Attorney General, which may elect to pursue civil or criminal action through the courts.

Rethinking our enforcement strategy Following a permittee’s claim to the affirmative defense, TCEQ may conduct an on-site investigation to determine its validity. Although these site visits can better enable effective regulation of polluters, conduct-ing a thorough review requires investigators to have a high level of industry knowledge and expertise – some-thing many investigators may not possess.

On-site investigators must be able to adequately inspect the industrial equipment in question, and if necessary, challenge a company engineer’s explana-tion of why the equipment malfunction or upset not foreseeable or part of a recurring pattern. In order to perform these duties, an inspector would need either years of experience dealing with the mechanical opera-tions of oil refineries and petrochemical plants or an extensive work-training program – both costly staffing investments by the TCEQ.


In light of these barriers, on-site inspections often remain a secondary tactic for the TCEQ, leaving the enforcement process largely dependent on permittee accounts and interviews.115 This makes it difficult for the investigator to then prove that the permittee is not eligible for the affirmative defense.

Due to the barriers associated with case by case assess-ments, a more standardized process for enforcement could better ensure permit compliance. For instance, TCEQ could eliminate the affirmative defense and issue escalating fines per pound of pollution, based on the number of emissions violations previously committed by the company in question. First time offenders would receive smaller fines, encouraging them to institute bet-ter practices in order to avoid a second, more costly, pen-alty, and repeat offenders would pay costs which more clearly reflect the overall damage their facilities impart on Texas communities.

Enforcement under attackGiven the TCEQ’s failure to consistently hold polluters accountable, citizen groups and local governments, like Harris County,116 have stepped up to enforce state and federal clean air laws themselves. The Clean Air Act contains a “citizen suit” provision that allows private citi-zens affected by violations of the law (or the non-profit groups to which they belong) to bring an enforcement suit in federal court. Since 2008, environmental groups in Texas have successfully sued at least 4 facilities over illegal air pollution resulting from unauthorized air pol-lution events.117

In response, polluters have worked to change the law to shield themselves from these lawsuits.

For example, in 2019, Governor Abbott signed HB 2826 into law, requiring local governments to receive approval from the state Attorney General before suing polluters.118

As mentioned previously, in 2015 EPA directed 36 states, including Texas, to remove affirmative defense provi-sions from their State Implementation Plans (SIPs),119 which seek to “reduce air pollution in areas that do not meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards.”120 Indus-

try groups sued to block the EPA’s action121, but in April 2017 the new Trump Administration leadership at the EPA asked the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to delay oral arguments over the SIP call so it could “reconsider all or part” of the rule.122 In July 2017, EPA officials met to discuss, among other things, “initiat-ing” the rule’s withdrawal,123 and in 2019, the agency officially proposed its withdrawal.124

Harris County and the Texas Attorney General In the absence of enforcement actions by the TCEQ, local governments are stepping in. For example, Harris County, home to some of the largest polluters in the state, has prosecuted dozens of polluters under the Clean Air Act.125

In one such case, Harris County attorneys filed suit against Kuraray America Eval’s Pasadena refinery, where, in May of 2018, an explosion and flash fire ignited, sending thousands of pounds of unauthor-ized pollution into the air and injuring 21 people.126 According to self-reported company data filed with the TCEQ, the fire began when pressure in the facil-ity’s reactor triggered a safety valve release, emitting over 2,000 pounds of highly flammable gas.127 News reports indicate that the gas then ignited upon contact with a contractor’s welding equipment, triggering the explosion.128

Harris County Pollution Control later issued violation notices to the company for unauthorized emissions and late reporting of the emission event,129 and in Feb-ruary of 2019, the county filed suit, alleging that the company violated the Texas Clean Air Act.130 Accord-ing to the prosecuting attorney, Vince Ryan, the lawsuit seeks “to ensure that Kuraray’s operations are carried out safely for people and the environment.”131

Since 2013, the county has sued several large compa-nies including ExxonMobil, Valero, Intercontinental Terminals Company, and KMCO over pollution viola-tions like these,132 and thanks to a recent vote by the Harris County Commissioners Court, that number is set to rise in future years.


Following a slew of large industrial fires in 2019, the Harris County Commissioners Court voted to signifi-cantly boost funding for pollution control, approving the hire of four new assistant district attorneys to pros-ecute environmental crimes133 and investing a total of $7 million in the county’s Pollution Control and Public Health departments.134 According to county staff, these investments will support prosecution efforts against large industrial firms,135 equipping the county with the staff, monitoring equipment, and resources required to pursue complex legal battles.136

As citizen pressure for stronger regulations of pollut-ing industries has mounted,137 the State of Texas also announced suits against several polluters. The Texas Attorney General’s office announced a total of 6 cases against large polluters in 2019138 including, Valero,139 ExxonMobil,140 and Intercontinental Terminals Com-pany141 in Harris County – up from 1 in 2018, and 0 in 2017.142 If these cases hold up in court, this develop-ment could establish more effective, state-based, regula-tion of polluting industries.

However, even with an increase in court filings by the State of Texas, these cases still only represent a small fraction of the thousands of unauthorized air pollution events which occur each year. For instance, in 2018 judicial actions represented just 0.15% of the total unauthorized events and less than 1% of the total pol-lutants released in 2018.143

The cases have also sparked controversy about state versus local jurisdiction under the state and federal Clean Air Acts. For example, in May of this year, Envi-ronment Texas, the Sierra Club, and the Port Arthur Community Action Network announced intent to sue the Valero Energy Corporation and Premcor Refin-ing Group, Inc. in federal court for “emission events” which violated the federal Clean Air Act at their Port Arthur, Texas refinery.144 Later, in July, the Texas Attorney General preempted Environment Texas’ suit, announcing a state suit against the company.145

In order to ensure that polluters receive the maximum penalty under the law, Harris County has continued to pursue legal action even in cases where the State of

Texas has announced suits. For instance, this August, both Harris county and the State of Texas filed suit against ExxonMobil – one in Harris County State District Court, and the other in Travis County State District Court, respectively.146 As long as Attorney General Paxton’s case remains in a different jurisdiction, the county’s suit will stand independently. Otherwise, authority will transfer to the Attorney General Paxton, superseding the suit filed by Harris County.147 In refer-ence to a similar case against ITC and KMCO, Harris county’s chief environmental prosecutor, Rock Owens, said that if the state attempts to preempt Harris Coun-ty’s lawsuit, the Harris County Attorney’s office intends to challenge him.148

The Intercontinental Terminals Company FireOn March 17th of 2019, Houston residents looked on as black clouds of smoke billowed over the city, emerging from a fire at the Intercontinental Terminals Company (ITC) in Deer Park. The fire, which would burn for four days, spewed more than 9 million pounds of pollutants into the air – nearly a million pounds more than what was released during Hurricane Harvey.149

According to records filed with the TCEQ, the fire began when a leak in the piping connection between two tanks at the facility ignited, resulting in a chemical fire within the pipes. The fire quickly spread to other tanks at the facility, eventually burning through a total of 14 adjacent tanks.150

In the months after the fire, several Deer Park residents as well as county and state agencies announced lawsuits against ITC, including the Texas’ Attorney General’s office and the Harris County attorney’s office.151 ITC has violated its state permits at least nine times since 2005, resulting in about $70,000 in penalties.152

In one such case, a tank deformation triggered a series of malfunctions,153 ultimately prompting the release of over 1,500 pounds of benzene, a known carcinogen, into the air surrounding the facility.154 The leaked continued for over five days, during which time, the facility neglected to adhere to the 24-hour reporting requirement, failing to notify the TCEQ until three days after the initial event.155


Conclusions and recommendations

Air pollution spikes resulting from malfunctions and maintenance events – because they can release large amounts of pollutants in a short

amount of time – are especially harmful to people and the environment. Allowing industries to pollute the air with impunity erodes the public’s confidence in the agencies charged with protecting our health, while at the same time providing no incentive for polluters to clean up.

State and federal officials have the tools they need to protect our health and our environment from dangerous air pollution. They can do more to hold accountable the industrial plants that routinely release excessive air pollu-tion as a result of preventable malfunctions and mainte-nance activities. Consistent and robust enforcement of laws already on the books is the most direct and effective way to rein in rogue polluters.

Congress has also empowered citizens to take enforce-ment actions to clean up air pollution when the gov-ernment agencies charged with protecting the air we breathe fail to do their jobs. Until the TCEQ improves its enforcement, citizen groups should exercise this right and file citizen suits to force polluters and scofflaws to install modern pollution control equipment and pay meaningful penalties for air pollution violations.

Companies should not be allowed to use malfunctions and maintenance as a blanket excuse to spew unlimited amounts of dangerous pollutants into the air we Texans breathe without serious consequences or accountability. Strict and consistent enforcement of permit limits will

not only create a financial incentive for industries to better maintain their plants and invest in modern equip-ment, but also protect public health and the environ-ment.

In order to reduce illegal air pollution and hold violators accountable, the state should:

• Eliminate the “affirmative defense” from penalties that is offered to polluters, regardless of the EPA’s pending rollback to existing policy

• Adopt mandatory minimum penalties for unauthor-ized air pollution events including from emissions or upset events, as well as unscheduled MSS (Mainte-nance, Startup and Shutdown) activities or planned MSS activities such as equipment maintenance.

• Issue escalating fines per pound of pollution, based on the number of emissions violations via unauthor-ized air pollution events previously committed by the company in question

• Develop a plan to reduce unauthorized air pollution events and increase compliance

• Revoke a facility’s permit after repeated violations until the facility implements plans to return to compliance

• Establish additional monitors, including SO2 monitors in the Permian basin, to accurately measure air quality impacts from unauthorized emissions from industrial sources

Policy recommendations 25

• Improve the TCEQ STEERS database reporting system and instructions so that facilities report uniformly, accurately and in a way that enables citizens to easily determine the amount and type of pollution released during unauthorized events.

• Promptly review STEERS reports for accuracy and update them with the status of TCEQ’s review regularly.

At the national level:

• EPA should maintain, and vigorously defend in court, its previous ruling on affirmative defense, requiring that states strengthen rules dealing with unauthorized emissions from equipment startups, shutdowns, maintenance, and malfunctions.

• Congress should reject efforts to weaken or elimi-nate the ability of citizen groups to sue to enforce environmental laws when government agencies are not enforcing the law.

• Congress should maintain, and increase, funding for enforcement by the EPA.


Methodology and data

This report ranks the state’s worst air polluters based on companies’ self-reports of unauthor-ized air pollution events in 2018, reported to the

State of Texas Electronic Emissions Reporting System (STEERS). This data is publicly accessible (http://www2.tceq.texas.gov/oce/eer/) and allows members of the public to track unauthorized releases of air pollution by county, or from any facility of interest. This report’s analysis includes malfunctions; unplanned maintenance, startups and shutdowns (MSS); and planned MSS events that resulted in unauthorized emissions, and does not include routine emissions or excess opacity events. Opac-ity is a measure of how much light is blocked by a release of particulate matter.

The Environmental Integrity Project obtained this data from the Texas Commission on Environmental Qual-ity (TCEQ) via a Public Information Act request on May 8, 2019. EIP then reviewed the data and removed entries with duplicate incident unique identifiers (“incid.id”), standardized contaminant names (which are often entered in many different ways and with misspellings) and calculated emissions for a few excluded contami-nants when enough information was provided to do so. EIP then graciously provided the data to Environment Texas Research and Policy Center.

For this report, we analyzed data for 2018, the most recent full year for which information is available. We included events that began in 2018 and ended in 2019.

The data do not include any events that began in 2017 and ended in 2018.

Before conducting the analysis, we conducted extensive data-cleaning to remove duplicate events, double-counted pollutants, cancelled and postponed events, incidents that were likely not violations,and to check for large pol-lution events changed retroactively:

• We checked events that facilities claimed were dupli-cates and removed them if other information in the database supported that claim – all claimed dupli-cates but one were removed.

• We attempted to remove all events that did not occur or that were not violations – facilities sometimes report events that they are anticipating that end up being postponed or cancelled, or that do not end up being violations.

• We excluded all entries with “none” listed in the “contaminant” field – all of these entries also listed no amount of pollution released.

• To avoid double-counting, we excluded all specific nitrogen oxide entries (ex: nitrogen monoxide and nitrogen dioxide) when the same event and location the pollutant was emitted from (“fin.epn.no”) also had a general nitrogen oxides entry. For other contaminant groups included in the by-facility analysis (sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, hydrogen

http://www2.tceq.texas.gov/

http://www2.tceq.texas.gov/

http://incid.id

http://incid.id

http://fin.epn.no

http://fin.epn.no

Methodology 27

sulfide and benzene), we confirmed that no double counting occurred.

• The STEERS system allows companies two weeks to make any corrections to entries made in their initial reports. In some cases, changes are made well after the two-week deadline by facilities or STEERS. In September 2019, we checked data for certain large emissions against the online STEERS system to capture any late changes.

We also took steps to determine the number of pounds released for events. Facilities report emissions to STEERS in three units – pounds, pounds per hour and opacity. For emissions reported as pounds per hour, we multiplied this figure by the duration of the event in hours to calculate the total pounds. We excluded all excess opacity events. However, some events that released contaminants also included excess opacity releases. In some cases, incident notes enabled us to determine that units were incorrectly listed as opacity instead of pounds. These entries were fixed accordingly.

After performing data cleaning, data points contained in the above analysis were calculated as follows:

• To calculate the number of facilities that had unauthorized emission events we tallied the unique identifiers for facilities (“regulated.entity.no”).

• To calculate the total number of unauthorized emission events we tallied the unique identifiers for events (“incid.id”).

• The longest events were determined by the “duration.hours” field.

• To calculate the total unauthorized pollution released in Texas during 2018, we summed the pounds of pollution released during all events. To rank the 16 TCEQ regions, we summed the total pounds of pollution released in each during 2018. Unlike in the by-facility analyses, these broader analyses include pollutants that, in some cases, could be entered in a way that leads to double-count-ing (nitrogen oxide entries that could lead to double

counting were excluded as described above). The total pollution in Texas and each TCEQ region were still included because within these larger geographies that include many facilities, possible double-counting is more likely to be evened out by various problems of under-counting and under-reporting. For example, facilities sometimes list releases or equations to calculate them in notes fields, but not in the numeric field for releases that we tallied.

• To determine which facilities in the state released the most NOx, PM, SO2 , H2S, benzene, and butadiene, we tallied each facility’s releases of each of those separate contaminant categories.

• We tallied each facility’s emissions of NOx, PM, SO2, H2S and benzene to determine which facilities in each region released the most pollution from those combined groups.

• Some facilities have multiple principal customers. When this was the case, we listed the principal customer that more pollution was released on behalf of.

The emissions data analyzed from the TCEQ has various limitations that may impact the accuracy of our analysis. The details of each of the thousands of self-reported events have not yet been verified by state regulators, and companies’ self-reported data can con-tain reporting errors. For example, we found instances in which companies mentioned emissions in text notes that they did not enter in the designated field for reporting numeric emission quantities, which leads to under-counting. Previous research has also documented that facilities under-report emissions156 to the STEERS database, for example of particulate matter, and over-report to the STEERS database157 (by including routine emissions along with those from unauthorized air pollution events). As described above, we attempted to remove instances of over-reporting and double-count-ing, but total pollution tallies for Texas and each TCEQ region could contain certain contaminants that were reported in a way that would lead to double-counting.

http://regulated.entity.no

http://incid.id


To calculate TCEQ’s enforcement rates, we first reviewed the list of STEERS reports for 2018 provided to us by Environmental Integrity Project. We then used docket numbers contained in the annual administrative air enforcement tables attached to TCEQ’s FY18 Annual Enforcement Report158 to download each air enforce-ment order from the TCEQ’s Integrated Database: https://www14.tceq.texas.gov/epic/eCID/. This report only covered the Fiscal Year 2018. We submitted an open records request to TCEQ to obtain all the air enforcement orders issues from September through December of 2018.

Next, we tallied the total number of unauthorized air pollution events penalized by each enforcement order in 2018. We searched each individual enforcement order for an incident number connected to a specific STEERS emissions event or an MSS violation which, according to the enforcement order, “exceeded the permitted emis-sions rate.”ii hese numbers are typically found in either the “Findings of Fact” or “Allegations” sections of the enforcement order. Enforcement orders for emissions events not reported to STEERS (indicated by the phrase “not reported” in the “Findings of Fact” or “Allegations” sections of the enforcement order) were not included in administrative penalty calculations. TCEQ and the State of Texas filed four court orders that applied to air pollution violations in 2018. One of those, obtained

directly from TCEQ, applied to unauthorized air pol-lution events and is included in this analysis. We were unable to view the other three orders. It is possible that they applied to one or more unauthorized air pollution events. If so, those events and fines are not included in our analysis.

Using this information, we calculated the percentage of reported unauthorized air pollution events that were subject to enforcement for 2018. We took the total number of unauthorized air pollution events covered by air enforcement orders issued in 2018 and compared that to the total number of unauthorized air pollution events reported to STEERS that took place in 2018. Enforcement rates for prior years were calculated in the 2018 report Major Malfunction by Environment Texas.

To calculate maximum fines TCEQ could have issued in 2018, we first divided the “duration.hours” column by 24 to calculate the duration in days of each pollu-tion event. We then rounded the number of days up to the nearest whole day (ex. 25 hours equals 2 days) and summed the number of days for all events. Then we estimated maximum possible fines according to TCEQ’s method, which applies a $25,000 per day cap against each 24-hour period of an individual unauthor-ized air pollution event regardless of the number of pollutants released.

ii. “Exceeded the permitted emissions rate” is a specific phrase used in TCEQ enforcement orders to indicate an air emissions violation

https://www14.tceq.texas.gov/epic/eCID/

Appendices 29

Appendix A – Worst Polluters by Metro Area159

Rank Facility name Principal customer County Total pounds

1 BORGER REFINERY PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY HUTCHINSON 148,076

2 SNEED BOOSTER STATION DCP Operating Company, LP MOORE 37,361

3 VALERO MCKEE REFINERY Diamond Shamrock Refining Company, L .P .

MOORE 5,278

4 ROCK CREEK GAS PLANT DCP Operating Company, LP HUTCHINSON 578

5 CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL BORGER PLANT

Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP HUTCHINSON 537

6 BELVA BOOSTER STATION DCP Operating Company, LP MOORE 412

7 CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation PARMER 400

8 SID RICHARDSON CARBON BORGER PLANT

Tokai Carbon Cb Ltd . HUTCHINSON 336

9 HEMPHILL GAS PLANT ETC Field Services LLC HEMPHILL 136

10 DCP MIDSTREAM MOORE COUNTY PIPELINE

DCP Operating Company, LP MOORE 31

Table 8: Top 10 Emitters of Benzene, PM, NOx, H2S, and SO2 in Region 1 – Amarillo



1 CAMPO VIEJO GAS PROCESSING PLANT Stakeholder Gas Services, LLC YOAKUM 782,959

2 SLAUGHTER GASOLINE PLANT Occidental Permian Ltd . HOCKLEY 430,085

3 ROBERTS SATELLITE 37 Apache Corporation YOAKUM 419,044

4 WILLARD CO2 SEPARATION PLANT OXY USA WTP LP YOAKUM 291,581

5 CORNELL FIELD FLARE SITE XTO Energy Inc . YOAKUM 194,439

6 MALLET CO2 RECOVERY PLANT Occidental Permian Ltd . HOCKLEY 128,674

7 CORNELL-MAHONEY GAS PLANT XTO Energy Inc . YOAKUM 95,350

8 DUCRP COMPRESSION STATION 2 Occidental Permian Ltd . YOAKUM 35,885

9 ANTON CO2 RE-INJECTION FACILITY Occidental Permian Ltd . HALE 35,268

10 BENNETT RANCH UNIT RCF FACILITY Occidental Permian Ltd . YOAKUM 32,354


1 GLEN COVE COMP STATION WTG Jameson, LP COLEMAN 19,538

2 SALT CREEK GAS PLANT OXY USA WTP LP KENT 10,297

3 SACROC CARBON DIOXIDE TREATMENT PLANT

Kinder Morgan Production Company LLC SCURRY 6,419

4 SALT CREEK FIELD WIS 10 OXY USA WTP LP KENT 5,655

5 SNYDER GAS PLANT Kinder Morgan Production Company LLC SCURRY 1,143

6 COGDELL CANYON REEF UNIT BATTERY NO 3 TEMPORARY FLARE Occidental Permian Ltd . KENT 316

7 FORT CHADBOURNE SALES POINT Vanguard Operating, LLC TAYLOR 131

8 LOUIS DREYFUS PIPELINE NOLAN COUNTY Louis Dreyfus Pipeline L .P . NOLAN 82

9 KRIPPLE KREEK GAS PLANT Pecan Pipeline Company MONTAGUE 72

10 SAINT JO COMPRESSOR STATION Pecan Pipeline Company MONTAGUE 63

Table 10: Top 10 Emitters of Benzene, PM, NOx, H2S, and SO2 in Region 3 – Abilene

Table 9: Top 10 emitters of benzene, PM, NOx, H2S, and SO2 in Region 2 – Lubbock

Appendices 31


1 OWENS CORNING INSULATING SYSTEMS WAXAHACHIE PLANT Owens Corning Insulating Systems, LLC ELLIS 1,897

2 GARLAND MUNICIPAL POWER - RAY OLINGER PLANT City of Garland Power & Light COLLIN 959

3 TAMKO BUILDING PRODUCTS DALLAS TAMKO Building Products, Inc . DALLAS 194

4 CONECSUS TEJAS FACILITY Taggart Texas LPD KAUFMAN 125

5 BRIDGEPORT GAS PLANT EnLink Midstream Services, LLC WISE 76

6 CHICO GAS PLANT Targa Midstream Services LLC WISE 53

7 GODLEY PLANT ETC Texas Pipeline, Ltd . JOHNSON 13

8 SPRINGTOWN GAS PROCESSING PLANT Midcoast G & P (North Texas) L .P . PARKER 7

9 MILLERCOORS MillerCoors USA LLC TARRANT 5

10 SITZ COMPRESSOR STATION Targa Midstream Services LLC WISE 2


1 PITTSBURG GAS PLANT Midcoast G & P (East Texas) L .P . CAMP 199,939

2 ENBRIDGE PIPELINES NE TEXAS PIPELINE CAMP COUNTY Midcoast G & P (East Texas) L .P . CAMP 4,178

3 MARSHALL PLANT Cabot Norit Americas, Inc . HARRISON 2,953

4 ENABLE GAS TRANSMISSION PIPELINE HARRISON COUNTY Enable Gas Transmission, LLC HARRISON 1,305

5 EASTMAN CHEMICAL TEXAS OPERATIONS Eastman Chemical Company HARRISON 1,047

6 GRAPHIC PACKAGING INTERNATIONAL TEXARKANA MILL Graphic Packaging International, LLC CASS 611

7 TATUM COMPRESSOR STATION Enable Midstream Partners, LP RUSK 419

8 HENDERSON GAS PLANT Midcoast G & P (East Texas) L .P . RUSK 276

9 ENBRIDGE PIPELINES EAST TEXAS PIPELINE RUSK COUNTY Midcoast Pipelines (East Texas) L .P . RUSK 34

10 GLADYS DAVIS COMPRESSOR STATION Midcoast G & P (East Texas) L .P . HARRISON 19

Table 12: Top 10 Emitters of Benzene, PM, NOx, H2S, and SO2 in Region 5 – Tyler

Table 11: Top 10 Emitters of Benzene, PM, NOx, H2S, and SO2 in Region 4 – DFW Metroplex


Table 13: Top Emitters of Benzene, PM, NOx, H2S, and SO2in Region 6 – El Paso


1 MARATHON EL PASO REFINERY Western Refining Company, L.P. EL PASO 7,803

2 EL PASO NATURAL GAS CORNUDAS COMPRESSOR STATION El Paso Natural Gas Company, L .L .C . HUDSPETH 23

Table 14: Top 10 Emitters of Benzene, PM, NOx, H2S, and SO2 in Region 7 – Midland


1 SAND HILLS GAS PLANT Targa Midstream Services LLC CRANE 1,756,946

2 JT MCELROY 202 TB Chevron U .S .A . Inc . CRANE 1,636,874

3 WELCH CO2 GAS PROCESSING FACILITY OXY USA WTP LP DAWSON 1,141,373

4 SEMINOLE GAS PROCESSING PLANT OXY USA Inc . GAINES 1,120,506

5 GOLDSMITH GAS PLANT DCP Operating Company, LP ECTOR 985,917

6 MABEE RANCH C02 PLANT Chevron U .S .A . Inc . ANDREWS 813,385

7 WAHA GAS PLANT ETC Field Services LLC PECOS 682,196

8 MCELROY SECTION 199 EMERGENCY FLARE Chevron U .S .A . Inc . CRANE 619,375

9 EMBAR B-1 BATTERY ConocoPhillips Company ANDREWS 477,535

10 RUSSELL COMPRESSOR STATION XTO Energy Inc . GAINES 443,507

Table 15: Top Emitters of Benzene, PM, NOx, H2S , and SO2 in Region 8 – San Angelo


1 MIDKIFF GAS PLANT Targa Pipeline Mid-Continent WestTex LLC REAGAN 151,989

2 BIG LAKE TREATING FACILITY Davis Gas Processing, Inc . REAGAN 144,590

3 JAMESON GAS PLANT WTG Jameson, LP COKE 11,766

4 DUKE ENERGY FIELD SERVICES PIPELINE SUTTON COUNTY DCP Operating Company, LP SUTTON 10,472

5 MIDWAY LANE TREATING FACILITY Belvan Corp . CROCKETT 5,845

6 TEXON COMPRESSOR STATION Davis Gas Processing, Inc . REAGAN 1,649

7 SUGG A 141 H TB Laredo Petroleum, Inc . REAGAN 578

8 PERKINS GAS PLANT WTG Jameson, LP COKE 216

9 SOUTHWEST OZONA GAS PLANT DCP Operating Company, LP CROCKETT 122

10 HOBLIT JACOBS CENTRAL FACILITY Vanguard Operating, LLC TOM GREEN 105

Appendices 33

Table 16: Top Emitters of Benzene, PM, NOx, H2S, and SO2 in Region 9 – Waco


1 AKER PLANT Midcoast G & P (East Texas) L .P . FREESTONE 183,670

2 OWENS BROCKWAY GLASS CONTAINER Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc . MCLENNAN 7,633

3 TEAGUE GAS PLANT Trend Gathering & Treating, LLC FREESTONE 2,475

4 CARMINE PUMP STATION Seminole Pipeline Company LLC WASHINGTON 198

5 DUGGER-SMITH UNIT 1 Enervest Operating, L .L .C . BRAZOS 100

Table 17: Top 10 Emitters of Benzene, PM, NOx, H2S, and SO2 in Region 10 – Beaumont


1 PORT ARTHUR REFINERY Total Petrochemicals & Refining USA, Inc. JEFFERSON 268,723

2 EXXONMOBIL BEAUMONT REFINERY ExxonMobil Oil Corporation JEFFERSON 188,452

3 PORT ARTHUR REFINERY Motiva Enterprises LLC JEFFERSON 87,758

4 SABINE PLANT Entergy Texas, Inc . ORANGE 58,192

5 BEAUMONT GAS TO GASOLINE PLANT Natgasoline LLC JEFFERSON 30,244

6 BASF TOTAL FINA NAFTA REGION OLEFINS COMPLEX BASF TOTAL Petrochemicals LLC JEFFERSON 22,387

7 VALERO PORT ARTHUR REFINERY The Premcor Refining Group Inc. JEFFERSON 20,979

8 EXXONMOBIL OIL BEAUMONT CHEMICAL PLANT ExxonMobil Oil Corporation JEFFERSON 12,650

9 HUNTSMAN PORT NECHES Huntsman Petrochemical LLC JEFFERSON 8,732

10 ARKEMA BEAUMONT PLANT Arkema Inc . JEFFERSON 6,387

Table 18: Top Emitters of Benzene, PM, NOx, H2S, and SO2 in Region 11 – Austin

Rank Facility Name Principal Customer County Total Pounds

1 TEXAS LEHIGH CEMENT Texas Lehigh Cement Company LP HAYS 1



1 NEWPARK DRILLING FLUIDS HR NDF KENEDY Newpark Drilling Fluids, LLC KARNES 293,059

2 NIESTROY 1H & NIESTROY 2H 1776 Energy Operators, LLC KARNES 29,279

3 SAN MIGUEL ELECTRIC PLANT San Miguel Electric Cooperative, Inc . ATASCOSA 6,457

4 STIEREN COATES A 1H PRODUCTION FACILITY EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc . KARNES 5,127

5 PICKENS B 5 H PRODUCTION FACILITY Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation FRIO 1,507

6 JAY HARPOLE 3H 4H & 8H PRODUCTION FACILITY Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation FRIO 1,182

7 FASHING GAS TREATING PLANT ETC Field Services LLC ATASCOSA 843

8 PAISANO 1H AND 2H SABRE CLIP 1H AND 2H Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation ATASCOSA 251

9 HONS HOFFMANN PRODUCTION FACILITY EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc . KARNES 243

10 MARRS MCLEAN 6H 7H AND 8H PRODUCTION FACILITY Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation FRIO 204

Table 19: Top 10 Emitters of Benzene, PM, NOx, H2S, and SO2 in Region 12 – Houston


1 ENTERPRISE MONT BELVIEU COMPLEX Enterprise Products Operating LLC CHAMBERS 374,389


3 VALERO REFINING TEXAS CITY REFINERY Valero Refining-Texas, L.P. GALVESTON 85,225

4 EXXONMOBIL BAYTOWN REFINERY Exxon Mobil Corporation HARRIS 60,127

5 SWEENY REFINERY PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY BRAZORIA 57,631


7 HOUSTON REFINING Houston Refining LP HARRIS 24,600

8 CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL SWEENY OLD OCEAN FACILITIES Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP BRAZORIA 20,538

9 BLANCHARD REFINING GALVESTON BAY REFINERY Blanchard Refining Company LLC GALVESTON 19,652


Table 20: Top 10 Emitters of Benzene, PM, NOx, H2S, and SO2 in Region 13 – San Antonio

Appendices 35

Table 21: Top 10 Emitters of Benzene, PM, NOx, H2S, and SO2 in Region 14 – Corpus Christi


1 CORPUS CHRISTI LIQUEFACTION Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC SAN PATRICIO 198,969


3 EQUISTAR CORPUS CHRISTI PLANT Equistar Chemicals, LP NUECES 45,026

4 HOUSTON PIPE LINE PIPELINE KLEBERG COUNTY Houston Pipe Line Company LP KLEBERG 30,503

5 CITGO CORPUS CHRISTI REFINERY EAST PLANT

CITGO Refining and Chemicals Company L .P . NUECES 19,996

6 VALERO CORPUS CHRISTI REFINERY EAST PLANT Valero Refining-Texas, L.P. NUECES 19,617

7 CITGO CORPUS CHRISTI REFINERY WEST PLANT

CITGO Refining and Chemicals Company L .P . NUECES 18,518

8 FHR CORPUS CHRISTI WEST PLANT Flint Hills Resources Corpus Christi, LLC NUECES 13,990

9 FLINT HILLS RESOURCES EAST REFINERY Flint Hills Resources Corpus Christi, LLC NUECES 8,353

10 FORMOSA POINT COMFORT PLANT Formosa Plastics Corporation, Texas CALHOUN 6,760

Table 22: Top Emitters of Benzene, PM, NOx, H2S, and SO2 in Region 15 – Harlingen


1 DUKE ENERGY FIELD SERVICES PIPELINE BROOKS COUNTY DCP Operating Company, LP BROOKS 118

Table 23: Top 10 Emitters of Benzene, PM, NOx, H2S, and SO2 in Region 16 – Laredo


1 TILDEN GAS PLANT ETC Field Services LLC MCMULLEN 46,165

2 KM WEST CENTRAL FACILITY Paradigm Energy Partners, LLC ZAVALA 2,385

3 DCP SAND HILLS PIPELINE PIPELINE SEGMENTS IN KINNEY COUNTY DCP Sand Hills Pipeline, LLC KINNEY 428

4 DUKE ENERGY FIELD SERVICES PIPELINE MCMULLEN COUNTY DCP Operating Company, LP MCMULLEN 4

5 TEXSTAR FIELD SERVICES PIPELINE MCMULLEN COUNTY Regency FS LP MCMULLEN 0


As in years past, many significant unauthorized air pollution events in 2018 did not occur in short bursts and instead took place over

long periods of time. These events continued to emit

Rank Facility name Principal customer County Event start date

Event end date

Total hours

1 FHR CORPUS CHRISTI WEST PLANT

Flint Hills Resources Corpus Christi, LLC

NUECES 4/5/2018 1/8/2019 6,667

2 UCC SEADRIFT OPERATIONS

Union Carbide Corporation CALHOUN 3/13/2018 10/18/2018 5,256

3 ENTERPRISE MONT BELVIEU COMPLEX

Enterprise Products Operating LLC

CHAMBERS 1/5/2018 6/26/2018 4,120

4 CAMPO VIEJO GAS PROCESSING PLANT

Stakeholder Gas Services, LLC YOAKUM 12/9/2018 4/6/2019 2,833

5 EASTMAN CHEMICAL TEXAS OPERATIONS

Eastman Chemical Company HARRISON 1/8/2018 4/7/2018 2,137

6 ROBERTS SATELLITE 37 Apache Corporation YOAKUM 4/11/2018 7/6/2018 2,064

7 BORGER REFINERY PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY HUTCHINSON 2/11/2018 5/1/2018 1,897

8 PASADENA REFINING SYSTEM

Pasadena Refining System, Inc. HARRIS 9/22/2018 11/27/2018 1,586

9 CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation

PARMER 6/16/2018 8/18/2018 1,512

10 WELCH CO2 GAS PROCESSING FACILITY

OXY USA WTP LP DAWSON 9/20/2018 11/20/2018 1,470

Appendix B – Polluters with the Longest Unauthorized Air Pollution Events160

dangerous air pollutants for as long as nine consecu-tive months until companies took action to address malfunctions, equipment issues, or operator errors at their facilities.

Table 25: Longest Unauthorized Air Pollution Events

Notes 37

Notes

1. Blakinger and Blunt. “21 injured in fire, explosion at

Pasadena industrial plant.” Houston Chronicle, May 19, 2018.

Accessed November 21, 2019. https://www.chron.com/

neighborhood/pasadena/article/Fire-explosion-at-Pasadena-

chemical-plant-12927946.php.

2. TCEQ STEERS Database. “Air Emission Event Report

Database Incident 284085.” Accessed November 21, 2019.

https://www2.tceq.texas.gov/oce/eer/index.cfm?fuseaction=main.

getDetails&target=284085.

3. Yates, David. “HC Attorney Ryan sues Kuraray for

2018 explosion, alleges Clean Air Act violations.” Se Texas

Record. February 6, 2019. Accessed November 6, 2019. https://

setexasrecord.com/stories/511758709-hc-attorney-ryan-sues-kuraray-

for-2018-explosion-alleges-clean-air-act-violations.

4. According to an analysis from Environment Texas Research

and Policy Center.

5. According to reports filed by companies through the

State of Texas Electronic Emissions Reporting System (STEERS),

available at https://www2.tceq.texas.gov/oce/eer/. We looked

at calendar year 2018. TCEQ’s annual enforcement report does

their own annual tallies based on their fiscal year (9/1/2017 –

8/31/2018). See methodology for more information.

6. Chemicals Technology. “Natgasoline’s Methanol Plant,

Beaumont, Texas.” No Date. Accessed November 21, 2019. https://

www.chemicals-technology.com/projects/natgasolines-methanol-

plant-beaumont-texas/.


Database Incident 291259.” Accessed November 21, 2019. https://

www2.tceq.texas.gov/oce/eer/index.cfm?fuseaction=main.


8. Conversions drawn from the Environmental Protection

Agency’s “Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator,” https://

www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator.

9. See methodology for more information.

10. See methodology.

11. Zirogiannis, Nikolaos, Alex J. Hollingsworth, and David

M. Konisky. “The health consequences of weak regulation:

Evidence from excess emissions in Texas.” Pg. 26. May 9, 2019.

Accessed November 7, 2019. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.

cfm?abstract_id=3382541.

12. https://www2.tceq.texas.gov/oce/waci/index.

cfm?fuseaction=home.complaint&incid=285602.

13. See Table 1.



15. See “Table 7: Top 10 Butadiene Polluters During

Unauthorized Air Pollution Events” and “Table 6: Top 10

Hydrogen Sulfide Polluters During Unauthorized Air Pollution

Events.”

16. See “Table 3: Top 10 Benzene Polluters for 2018.”

17. See “Table 5: Top 10 Particulate Matter Polluters for 2018”.





https://www.chron.com/neighborhood/pasadena/article/Fire-explosion-at-Pasadena-chemical-plant-12927946.php



https://www2.tceq.texas.gov/oce/eer/index.cfm?fuseaction=main.getDetails&target=284085


https://setexasrecord.com/stories/511758709-hc-attorney-ryan-sues-kuraray-for-2018-explosion-alleges-clean-air-act-violations



https://www2.tceq.texas.gov/oce/eer/

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3382541


https://www2.tceq.texas.gov/oce/waci/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.complaint&incid=285602





22. Environmental Integrity Project et al. “Comments

of Environmental and Community Groups Coalition” on

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Proposed Rule:

TX212.01 Air Quality State Implementation Plans, EPA-R06-

OAR-2018-0770-0001. June 28, 2019. Accessed November 7, 2019.

https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=EPA-

R06-OAR-2018-0770-0035&attachmentNumber=1&contentType

=pdf.

23. Environmental Protection Agency, State Plans to Address

Emissions During Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction: Final

Action on Response to Petition for Rulemaking, Restatement

of Policy, Findings of Inadequacy and Call for Revisions, H.R.

Doc. (). Accessed December 7, 2018. https://www.epa.gov/sites/

production/files/2016-03/documents/20150522fs.pdf.



Action on Response to Petition for Rulemaking, Restatement

of Policy, Findings of Inadequacy and Call for Revisions, H.R.

Doc. (). Accessed December 7, 2018. https://www.epa.gov/sites/

production/files/2016-03/documents/20150522fs.pdf.


26. TCEQ. “Penalty Policy.” September 1, 2011. Accessed

November 27, 2019. https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/

comm_exec/pubs/rg/rg253/penaltypolicy2011.pdf, pg 1.


28. Despart, Zach. “Harris County OKs new environmental

prosecutors, names Pollution Control leader.” Houston Chronicle.

April 30, 2019. Accessed November 6, 2019. https://www.

houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/

Harris-County-OKs-new-environmental-prosecutors-13808633.php.

29. Despart, Zach. “Harris County boosts pollution efforts,

staff in response to spring chemical fires.” Houston Chronicle.

Sep. 10, 2019. Accessed November 6, 2019. https://www.


Harris-County-to-boost-pollution-efforts-staff-14428247.php.

30. Editorial Board, Houston Chronicle. “Houston shouldn’t

have so many bad air days [Editorial]”, April 29, 2019. Accessed

November 21, 2019. https://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/

article/Houston-shouldn-t-have-so-many-bad-air-days-13805092.php.

31. Number of 2019 suits obtained directly from the State

of Texas Attorney General’s Office via Public Information Act

request, number of 2017 and 2018 suits obtained directly from

TCEQ via Public Information Act request.

32. WQAD8. “A huge fire at a Texas chemical plant is out, 4

days after it started.” Moline, Illinois. March 20, 2019. Accessed

November 25, 2019. https://wqad.com/2019/03/20/a-huge-fire-at-a-

texas-chemical-plant-is-out-4-days-after-it-started/.

33. Sadasivam, Naveena. “Air pollution from Harvey was bad.

This Houston petrochemical fire is worse.” Grist. March 19, 2019.

Accessed November 7, 2019. https://grist.org/article/air-pollution-

from-harvey-was-bad-this-houston-petrochemical-fire-is-worse/.






36. Caiazzo, Fabio, Akshay Ashok, Ian A. Waitz, Steve H.L.

Yim, and Steven R.H. Barrett. Air pollution and early deaths in

the United States. Part I: Quantifying the impact of major sectors

in 2005. May 31, 2013. Accessed December 7, 2018. http://www.

coolgreenschools.com/wpcontent/uploads/2015/07/US-air-

pollution-paper.pdf, Table 5 + Table 7.

37. Zirogiannis, Nikolaos, Alex J. Hollingsworth, and David

M. Konisky. “The health consequences of weak regulation:

Evidence from excess emissions in Texas∗.” Pg. 26. May 9, 2019.

Accessed November 7, 2019. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.

cfm?abstract_id=3382541.

38. Horswell, Cindy, and Susan Carroll. “Study: Children

near Ship Channel Face More Risk.” Houston Chronicle. July 25,

2011. Accessed November 30, 2018. https://www.chron.com/

news/houston-texas/article/Study-Children-near-Ship-Channel-

face-morerisk-1583566.php.

39. TCEQ Air Emission Event Reports Search.” Texas

Commission on Environmental Quality. April 5, 2018. Accessed

November 11, 2019. https://www2.tceq.texas.gov/oce/eer/index.

cfm?fuseaction=main.getDetails&target=280895.

40. Complaint was submitted to TCEQ via

NeighborhoodWitness.org and cc’d to Environment Texas

Research and Policy Center.

https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=EPA-R06-OAR-2018-0770-0035&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf



https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/20150522fs.pdf




https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/comm_exec/pubs/rg/rg253/penaltypolicy2011.pdf


https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Harris-County-OKs-new-environmental-prosecutors-13808633.php



https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Harris-County-to-boost-pollution-efforts-staff-14428247.php



https://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/Houston-shouldn-t-have-so-many-bad-air-days-13805092.php


https://wqad.com/2019/03/20/a-huge-fire-at-a-texas-chemical-plant-is-out-4-days-after-it-started/

https://wqad.com/2019/03/20/a-huge-fire-at-a-texas-chemical-plant-is-out-4-days-after-it-started/

https://grist.org/article/air-pollution-from-harvey-was-bad-this-houston-petrochemical-fire-is-worse/





http://www.coolgreenschools.com/wpcontent/uploads/2015/07/US-air-pollution-paper.pdf





https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Study-Children-near-Ship-Channel-face-morerisk-1583566.php





http://NeighborhoodWitness.org

Notes 39




42. “TCEQ Air Emission Event Reports Search.” Texas

Commission on Environmental Quality. January 30, 2018.

Accessed November 11, 2019. https://www2.tceq.texas.gov/oce/

eer/index.cfm?fuseaction=main.getDetails&target=276746.




44. “TCEQ Air Emission Event Reports Search.” Texas

Commission on Environmental Quality. August 27, 2018. Accessed

November 11, 2019. https://www2.tceq.texas.gov/oce/eer/index.

cfm?fuseaction=main.getDetails&target=290219.




46. See “Table 3: Top 10 Benzene Polluters.”



48. See “Table 4: Top 10 Nitrogen Oxides Polluters.”

49. “Annual Enforcement Report Fiscal Year 2018.” TCEQ

Annual Enforcement Reports, November 2018. Accessed

December 5, 2018.

50. “Reportable Event/Activity Notification/Reporting

Form.” Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Accessed

December 5, 2019. https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/

compliance/field_ops/fod_forms/upset/eefguide.pdf.

51. Air emissions event reports, filed in the STEERS database

(https://www2.tceq.texas.gov/oce/eer/), include event reports for

five types of events: startup, shutdown, maintenance, emissions

events, and opacity. This report analyzes startup, shutdown,

maintenance, and emissions events. Our analysis does not include

opacity violations.

52. “Air Pollution From Industrial Shutdowns and Startups

a Grave Danger to Public Health.” EcoWatch. April 26, 2018.

Accessed December 05, 2018. https://www.ecowatch.com/air-

pollution-startupsshutdowns-2534981679.html.

53. Bennett, Kathleen M. “Policy on Excess Emissions during

Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions.” Office

of Air, Noise, and Radiation, February 15, 1983. February 25,

1998. Accessed December 5, 2018. https://www.epa.gov/sites/

production/files/documents/excess-start-rpt.pdf.

54. Flaring is used to burn off flammable gas released during

pressure buildups. Gases are piped to a remote, usually elevated,

flaring rig and burned in an open flame in the open air (Evans,

Leslie B., and William M. Vatavuk. “Section 3: VOC Controls.”

Environmental Protection Agency, September 2000. September

2000. Accessed December 5, 2018. https://www3.epa.gov/ttncatc1/

dir1/cs3-2ch1.pdf).

55. TCEQ. “Instructions for Form TCEQ -10360.” Pg. 2.

February 2014. Accessed November 25, 2019. https://www.tceq.

texas.gov/assets/public/compliance/field_ops/fod_forms/upset/

eefguide.pdf.

56. Further information regarding Texas’ reporting

and enforcement process for emissions events is available in

Environment Texas Research and Policy Center’s January 2019

report, “Major Malfunction: Air Pollution from Industrial

Malfunctions and Maintenance in Texas in 2017” https://

environmenttexas.org/sites/environment/files/reports/TX_

MajorMal_scrn.pdf.

57. World Health Organization Public Health and

Environment. Exposure to Benzene: A Major Public Health

Concern. 2019. Accessed November 7, 2019. https://apps.who.

int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/329481/WHO-CED-PHE-EPE-

19.4.2-eng.pdf?ua=1.

58. Tresaugue, Matthew. “Study links benzene exposure in

Texas neighborhoods with spina bifida.” The Dallas Morning News

(Dallas, TX), October 2010. Accessed December 7, 2018. https://

www.dallasnews.com/news/texas/2010/10/28/study-links-benzene-

exposure-in-texas-neighborhoods-with-spina-bifida/.

59. World Health Organization Public Health and

Environment. Exposure to Benzene: A Major Public Health

Concern. 2019. Accessed November 7, 2019. https://apps.who.

int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/329481/WHO-CED-PHE-EPE-

19.4.2-eng.pdf?ua=1.











https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/compliance/field_ops/fod_forms/upset/eefguide.pdf


https://www2.tceq.texas.gov/oce/eer/

https://www.ecowatch.com/air-pollution-startupsshutdowns-2534981679.html

https://www.ecowatch.com/air-pollution-startupsshutdowns-2534981679.html

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/excess-start-rpt.pdf

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/excess-start-rpt.pdf

https://www3.epa.gov/ttncatc1/dir1/cs3-2ch1.pdf

https://www3.epa.gov/ttncatc1/dir1/cs3-2ch1.pdf




https://environmenttexas.org/sites/environment/files/reports/TX_MajorMal_scrn.pdf



https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/329481/WHO-CED-PHE-EPE-19.4.2-eng.pdf?ua=1



https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas/2010/10/28/study-links-benzene-exposure-in-texas-neighborhoods-with-spina-bifida/







61. “Nitrogen Oxides: Your Environment, Your Health |

National Library of Medicine.” U.S. National Library of Medicine.

Accessed November 7, 2019. https://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/

chemicals-and-contaminants/nitrogen-oxides.

62. “Ozone.” U.S. National Library of Medicine. October

2019. Accessed November 7, 2019. https://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/

chemicals-and-contaminants/ozone.

63. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

“Houston-Galveston-Brazoria: Current Attainment Status.” Texas

Commission on Environmental Quality. Last modified November

9, 2018. Accessed December 7, 2018. https://www.tceq.texas.gov/

airquality/sip/hgb/hgb-status.


65. “State of the Air 2019.” American Lung Association. April

20, 2019. Accessed November 7, 2019. https://www.lung.org/

assets/documents/healthy-air/state-of-the-air/sota-2019-full.pdf.

66. “Health and Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter

(PM).” EPA. June 20, 2018. Accessed December 05, 2018. https://

www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/health-and-environmental-effects-

particulate-matter-pm.

67. ibid.

68. Luong, Cynthia A. “An Assessment of emissions events

trends within the Greater Houston area during 2003 – 2013.”

(2015). Texas Medical Center Dissertations. Accessed November

7, 2019. https://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/dissertations/

AAI1603944.


70. Environmental Protection Agency, Frequent, Routine

Flaring May Cause Excessive, Uncontrolled Sulfur Dioxide

Releases (Oct. 2000). Accessed December 7, 2018. https://www.

epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/flaring.pdf.

71. Chen, Renjie, Zhao Zhuohui, and Haidong Kan. “Heavy

Smog and Hospital Visits in Beijing, China.” November 1, 2013.

American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

Accessed November 8, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201304-

0678LE.

72. “Sulfur Dioxide.” U.S. National Library of Medicine.

October 2019. Accessed November 7, 2019. https://toxtown.nlm.

nih.gov/chemicals-and-contaminants/sulfur-dioxide.


74. Centers for Disease Control Agency for Toxic Substances

and Disease Registry. Public Health Statement for Hydrogen

Sulfide. January 21, 2015. Accessed December 7, 2018. https://

www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=387&tid=67.

75. Lubbock Avalanche-Journal (Lubbock, TX). “Denver

City Remembers H2S Tragedy.” September 15, 2010. Accessed

December 7, 2018. https://www.lubbockonline.com/

article/20100915/NEWS/309159883.


77. Centers for Disease Control Agency for Toxic Substances

and Disease Registry. “Public Health Statement for 1,3-Butadiene.”

January 21, 2015. Accessed December 2, 2019. https://www.atsdr.

cdc.gov/PHS/PHS.asp?id=457&tid=81.

78. “1,3-Butadiene.” EPA. March, 2009. Accessed December

2, 2019. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/

documents/13-butadiene.pdf.



81. See methodology for the 2018 numbers and the 2018

Environment Texas report Major Malfunction for the 2011-2017

numbers.

82. ibid.








86. Shaw, Bryan W., Ph.D., P.E., Toby Baker, Zak Covar,

and Richard A. Hyde, P.E. “Penalty Policy.” Penalty Policy, April

1, 2014. April 1, 2014. Accessed December 5, 2018, https://

www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/comm_exec/pubs/rg/rg253/

penaltypolicy2014.pdf.


https://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/chemicals-and-contaminants/nitrogen-oxides

https://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/chemicals-and-contaminants/nitrogen-oxides

https://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/chemicals-and-contaminants/ozone

https://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/chemicals-and-contaminants/ozone

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/hgb/hgb-status

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/hgb/hgb-status

https://www.lung.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/state-of-the-air/sota-2019-full.pdf

https://www.lung.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/state-of-the-air/sota-2019-full.pdf

https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/health-and-environmental-effects-particulate-matter-pm



https://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/dissertations/AAI1603944

https://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/dissertations/AAI1603944

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/flaring.pdf

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/flaring.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201304-0678LE

https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201304-0678LE

https://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/chemicals-and-contaminants/sulfur-dioxide

https://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/chemicals-and-contaminants/sulfur-dioxide

https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=387&tid=67

https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=387&tid=67

https://www.lubbockonline.com/article/20100915/NEWS/309159883

https://www.lubbockonline.com/article/20100915/NEWS/309159883

https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/PHS/PHS.asp?id=457&tid=81

https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/PHS/PHS.asp?id=457&tid=81

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/13-butadiene.pdf

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/13-butadiene.pdf








Notes 41

88. https://www14.tceq.texas.gov/epic/eCID/, docket number

2017-0855-AIR-E.

89. Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LLC. “Chevron

Phillips Chemical: Financial Information.” Accessed November

7, 2019. http://www.cpchem.com/en-us/company/financialinfo/

Pages/default.aspx.

90. See this section in the 2018 Environment Texas report

Major Malfunction.

91. “Annual Enforcement Report Fiscal Year 2018.” TCEQ

Annual Enforcement Reports, November 2018. Accessed

December 5, 2018.

92. “Penalty Calculation Worksheet.” Search TCEQ Data –

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality – www.tceq.texas.

gov. Accessed November 8, 2019. Docket no. 2017-0737-IWD-E.

Downloaded from TCEQ database under filings. Also available

at https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/comm_exec/agendas/

comm/backup/Agendas/2019/01-16-2019/0737IWD.pdf.

93. Archived TCEQ Commissioners’ Agendas availible at

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/agency/decisions/agendas/comm/

markcomm_agendas.html.

94. State Auditor’s Office, An Audit Report on The

Commission on Environmental Quality’s Enforcement and

Permitting Functions for Selected Programs, A. (Tex. Dec.

2003). Accessed December 7, 2018. http://www.sao.texas.gov/

SAOReports/ReportNumber?id=04-016, pgs iii and 1.

95. Barer, David. “Investigation: For environmental violators,

state often cuts deals.” KXAN (Austin, TX), August 9, 2016.

Accessed December 7, 2018. https://www.kxan.com/news/

investigations/state-ofenforcement/1156462741.

96. HB 3035. Texas Legislature Online. Accessed

November 7, 2019. https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.

aspx?LegSess=86R&Bill=HB3035.

97. Sadasivam, Naveena. “Too Big to Fine, Too Small to Fight

Back.” Texas Observer. July 25, 2018. Accessed December 05, 2018.

https://www.texasobserver.org/too-big-to-fine-too-small-to-fight-

back/.

98. “Mission Statement and Agency Philosophy.” TCEQ.

Accessed December 05, 2018. https://www.tceq.texas.gov/agency/

mission.html.

99. Sadasivam, Naveena. “Report: Lax Enforcement, Loopholes

Lead to Few Consequences for Polluters.” Texas Observer. April 27,

2016. Accessed November 27, 2019. https://www.texasobserver.org/

industrial-pollutants-tceq-report-loopholes/.

100. “Reportable incidents” includes scheduled maintenance,

scheduled startup, scheduled shutdown, emissions events, and

excess opacity violations. This report does not total emissions

from excess opacity events, however, these events represent a small

subset of reportable incidents. For example, excess opacity events

represented just 143 of 4068 reported incidents in 2017, and 145 of

4554 reported incidents in 2018.

101. TCEQ. “Annual Enforcement Report Fiscal Year 2018.”

Pg. 46, “Figure 5-5: Incident Investigations.” Accessed November

7, 2019. https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/compliance/

enforcement/enf_reports/AER/FY18/enfrptfy18.pdf.

102. “Environmental Quality.” Texas Administrative Code.

Accessed December 05, 2018. https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/

readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_

ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=30&pt=1&ch=101&rl=222.

103. From transcript of trial proceedings, Day 8, February 20,

2014, in Environment Texas Citizen Lobby, Inc and Sierra Club v.

Exxon Mobil Corporation et al.

104. Environmental Integrity Project et al. “Comments

of Environmental and Community Groups Coalition” on

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Proposed Rule:

TX212.01 Air Quality State Implementation Plans, EPA-R06-

OAR-2018-0770-0001. June 28, 2019. Accessed November 7, 2019.

https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=EPA-R06-

OAR-2018-0770-0035&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf.




Action on Response to Petition for Rulemaking, Restatement of

Policy, Findings of Inadequacy and Call for Revisions, H.R. Doc. ().

Accessed December 7, 2018. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/

files/2016-03/documents/20150522fs.pdf.

107. HB 4087. Texas Legislature Online. Accessed




http://www.cpchem.com/en-us/company/financialinfo/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.cpchem.com/en-us/company/financialinfo/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.tceq.texas.gov

http://www.tceq.texas.gov

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/comm_exec/agendas/comm/backup/Agendas/2019/01-16-2019/0737IWD.pdf

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/comm_exec/agendas/comm/backup/Agendas/2019/01-16-2019/0737IWD.pdf

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/agency/decisions/agendas/comm/markcomm_agendas.html

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/agency/decisions/agendas/comm/markcomm_agendas.html

http://www.sao.texas.gov/SAOReports/ReportNumber?id=04-016

http://www.sao.texas.gov/SAOReports/ReportNumber?id=04-016

https://www.kxan.com/news/investigations/state-ofenforcement/1156462741

https://www.kxan.com/news/investigations/state-ofenforcement/1156462741

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=86R&Bill=HB3035


https://www.texasobserver.org/too-big-to-fine-too-small-to-fight-back/

https://www.texasobserver.org/too-big-to-fine-too-small-to-fight-back/

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/agency/mission.html

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/agency/mission.html

https://www.texasobserver.org/industrial-pollutants-tceq-report-loopholes/


https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/compliance/enforcement/enf_reports/AER/FY18/enfrptfy18.pdf


https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=30&pt=1&ch=101&rl=222










108. Environmental Protection Agency. “Withdrawal of

Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan

and of Call for Texas State Implementation Plan Revision-

Affirmative Defense Provisions.” Federal Register. April 4, 2019.

Accessed November 7, 2019. https://www.federalregister.gov/

documents/2019/04/29/2019-08480/withdrawal-of-finding-of-

substantial-inadequacy-of-implementation-plan-and-of-call-for-texas-

state.

109. Environmental Protection Agency, Texas Chapter 101

– General Air Quality Rules, H.R. Doc. (Jan. 10, 2011). Accessed

December 7, 2018. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/

files/2017-07/documents/ch_101_sect_101.221-101.224.pdf.

110. “Annual Enforcement Report Fiscal Year 2018.”

TCEQ Annual Enforcement Reports, November 2018. Accessed


compliance/enforcement/enf_reports/AER/FY18/enfrptfy18.pdf.

111. “Enforcement Definitions.” Texas Commission on

Environmental Quality. June 28, 2018. Accessed December 05,

2018. https://www.tceq.texas.gov/compliance/enforcement/

definitions.html#noe.

112. In its FY18 Annual Enforcement Report, TCEQ

writes that, “in many cases it (an NOV) is enough to encourage

compliance, thereby halting possible damage to the environment.”

However, the data in this and similar reports over the last

several years show that TCEQ’s enforcement strategy is not in

fact leading to higher rates of compliance. As an example, the

second highest category of repeat offenders (at 15%) is petroleum

refineries. https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/compliance/

enforcement/enf_reports/AER/FY18/enfrptfy18.pdf.

113. Shaw, Bryan W., Ph.D., P.E., Toby Baker, Zak Covar,

and Richard A. Hyde, P.E. “Penalty Policy.” Penalty Policy, April

1, 2014. April 1, 2014. Accessed December 5, 2018, https://

www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/comm_exec/pubs/rg/rg253/

penaltypolicy2014.pdf. Note that under the federal Clean Air Act,

the maximum penalty is $93,750 per day per violation.


115. Sadasivam, Naveena. “Report: Lax Enforcement,

Loopholes Lead to Few Consequences for Polluters.” Texas

Observer. April 27, 2016. Accessed November 27, 2019. https://

www.texasobserver.org/industrial-pollutants-tceq-report-

loopholes/.

116. Bubenik, Travis. “Harris County Continues To Pressure

Industry Polluters.” Houston Public Media. June 27, 2019. Accessed

November 7, 2019. https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/

news/energy-environment/2019/06/27/337828/harris-county-

continues-to-pressure-polluters/.

117. According to analysis from Environment Texas Research

and Policy Center.

118. HB2826. Texas Legislature Online. Accessed



119. EPA. “State Plans to Address Emissions during Startup,

Shutdown and Malfunction: Supplemental Proposal to Address

Affirmative Defense Provisions.“ Accessed November 28, 2019.

https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/docs/SSM_

SIP_SNPR_Fact_Sheet.pdf.

120. “Basic Information about Air Quality SIPs.” EPA.

Accessed December 5, 2019. https://www.epa.gov/sips/basic-

information-air-quality-sips.

121. Mehta and Samuels. “The receding role of affirmative

defense provisions in Clean Air Act regulations.” American Bar

Association. January 1, 2015. Accessed November 28, 2019. https://

www.americanbar.org/groups/environment_energy_resources/

publications/trends/2014-2015/january-february-2015/the_

receding_role_affirmative_defense_provisions_clean_air_act_

regulations/, paragraph 9.

122. UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND

EXCHANGE COMMISSION. “FORM 10-Q.” Accessed

November 28, 2019. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/

data/1013871/000101387117000013/nrg2017033110q.htm, Note

16, Paragraph 3.

123. Reilly, Sean. “EPA Weighed Rollback of Obama Startup-

shutdown Rule.” E&E News PM. September 25, 2018. Accessed

December 05, 2018. https://www.irangi.org/fa/post/AIR-

POLLUTION-EPA-weighed-rollback-of-Obama-startup-shutdown-rule.

124. Environmental Protection Agency. “Withdrawal of Finding of

Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan and of Call for Texas

State Implementation Plan Revision-Affirmative Defense Provisions.”

Federal Register. April 29, 2019. Accessed November 06, 2019. https://

www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/04/29/2019-08480/

withdrawal-of-finding-of-substantial-inadequacy-of-implementation-plan-

and-of-call-for-texas-state.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/04/29/2019-08480/withdrawal-of-finding-of-substantial-inadequacy-of-implementation-plan-and-of-call-for-texas-state




https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-07/documents/ch_101_sect_101.221-101.224.pdf

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-07/documents/ch_101_sect_101.221-101.224.pdf



https://www.tceq.texas.gov/compliance/enforcement/definitions.html#noe

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/compliance/enforcement/definitions.html#noe









https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/energy-environment/2019/06/27/337828/harris-county-continues-to-pressure-polluters/





https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/docs/SSM_SIP_SNPR_Fact_Sheet.pdf

https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/docs/SSM_SIP_SNPR_Fact_Sheet.pdf

https://www.epa.gov/sips/basic-information-air-quality-sips

https://www.epa.gov/sips/basic-information-air-quality-sips

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/environment_energy_resources/publications/trends/2014-2015/january-february-2015/the_receding_role_affirmative_defense_provisions_clean_air_act_regulations/





https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1013871/000101387117000013/nrg2017033110q.htm

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1013871/000101387117000013/nrg2017033110q.htm

https://www.irangi.org/fa/post/AIR-POLLUTION-EPA-weighed-rollback-of-Obama-startup-shutdown-rule

https://www.irangi.org/fa/post/AIR-POLLUTION-EPA-weighed-rollback-of-Obama-startup-shutdown-rule





Notes 43

125. Bubenik, Travis. “Harris County Continues To Pressure

Industry Polluters.” Houston Public Media. June 27, 2019. Accessed

November 7, 2019. https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/

news/energy-environment/2019/06/27/337828/harris-county-

continues-to-pressure-polluters/.

126. Blakinger and Blunt. “21 injured in fire, explosion

at Pasadena industrial plant.” Houston Chronicle, May 19,

2018. Accessed November 21, 2019. https://www.chron.com/

neighborhood/pasadena/article/Fire-explosion-at-Pasadena-

chemical-plant-12927946.php.





128. Yates, David. “HC Attorney Ryan sues Kuraray for

2018 explosion, alleges Clean Air Act violations.” Se Texas

Record. February 6, 2019. Accessed November 6, 2019. https://

setexasrecord.com/stories/511758709-hc-attorney-ryan-sues-kuraray-

for-2018-explosion-alleges-clean-air-act-violations.

129. ibid.

130. ibid.

131. ibid.

132. Trevizo, Perla. “Harris County may turn to federal

courts to crack down on Valero’s air pollution violations.” Houston

Chronicle. June 24, 2019. Accessed November 28, 2019. https://

www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/

Harris-County-may-turn-to-federal-courts-to-crack-14039759.php.





















137. Editorial Board, Houston Chronicle. “Houston shouldn’t

have so many bad air days [Editorial]”, April 29, 2019. Accessed

November 21, 2019. https://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/

article/Houston-shouldn-t-have-so-many-bad-air-days-13805092.php.

138. Number of 2019 state suits obtained directly from the

State of Texas Attorney General’s Office via public information act

request.

139. Luck, Marissa. “Texas attorney general sues Valero over

Port Arthur refinery pollution.” Houston Chronicle. July 19, 2019.

Accessed November 28, 2019. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/

business/energy/article/Texas-attorney-general-sues-Valero-over-

Port-14109689.php.

140. KHOU Staff. “Texas AG Paxton files lawsuit against

ExxonMobil for violating Texas Clean Air Act.” KHOU 11

(Houston, Texas). August 5, 2019. Accessed November 28, 2019.

https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/texas/texas-ag-paxton-

files-lawsuit-against-exxonmobil-for-violating-texas-clean-air-act/285-

fbd7704c-cbae-42cd-9985-ba91ab9e1e0e.

141. Collier, Kiah. “Texas sues company behind Deer Park

terminal fire.” Texas Tribune. March 22, 2019. Accessed November

28, 2019. https://www.texastribune.org/2019/03/22/texas-sues-

company-deer-park-terminal-fire/.

142. Number of 2017 and 2018 state suits obtained from

previous reports by Environment Texas Research and Policy Center

and the Environmental Integrity Project. See Environment Texas’

2018 report “Major Malfunction,” and EIP and Environment

Texas’ 2017 report “Breakdowns in Enforcement.”














https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Harris-County-may-turn-to-federal-courts-to-crack-14039759.php

















https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Texas-attorney-general-sues-Valero-over-Port-14109689.php



https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/texas/texas-ag-paxton-files-lawsuit-against-exxonmobil-for-violating-texas-clean-air-act/285-fbd7704c-cbae-42cd-9985-ba91ab9e1e0e



https://www.texastribune.org/2019/03/22/texas-sues-company-deer-park-terminal-fire/

https://www.texastribune.org/2019/03/22/texas-sues-company-deer-park-terminal-fire/


144. Environment Texas. “Valero faces clean air lawsuit for

violations at Port Arthur, Texas refinery.” May 22, 2019. Accessed

November 28, 2019. https://environmenttexas.org/news/txe/

valero-faces-clean-air-lawsuit-violations-port-arthur-texas-refinery.

145. Corso, Jessica. “Texas AG files lawsuit against Valero.”

San Antonio Business Journal. July 23, 2019. Accessed November 8,

2019. https://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/news/2019/07/22/

texas-ag-files-lawsuit-against-valero.html.

146. Trevizo and Luck. “Texas sues Exxon Mobil over

environmental violations from Baytown fire.” Houston Chronicle.

August 6, 2019. Accessed November 28, 2019. https://www.

houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/State-

sues-ExxonMobile-over-environmental-14284024.php.

147. ibid.

148. Collier, Kiah. “Why has Texas suddenly decided to

immediately sue industrial polluters?.” April 5, 2019. Texas

Tribune. Accessed November 7, 2019. https://www.texastribune.

org/2019/04/05/texas-attorney-general-ken-paxton-quickly-sue-

industrial-polluters/.









151. Collier, Kiah. “Why has Texas suddenly decided to

immediately sue industrial polluters?.” April 5, 2019. Texas

Tribune. Accessed November 7, 2019. https://www.texastribune.

org/2019/04/05/texas-attorney-general-ken-paxton-quickly-sue-

industrial-polluters/.

152. Sadasivam, Naveena. “Air pollution from Harvey was

bad. This Houston petrochemical fire is worse.” Grist. March 19,

2019. Accessed November 7, 2019. https://grist.org/article/air-

pollution-from-harvey-was-bad-this-houston-petrochemical-fire-is-

worse/.

153. TCEQ. “Air Emission Event Report Database Incident

227707.” Accessed November 28, 2019. https://www2.tceq.texas.

gov/oce/eer/index.cfm?fuseaction=main.getDetails&target=227707.

154. Enforcement Order found via TCEQ Commissioner’s

Integrated Database at https://www14.tceq.texas.gov/epic/eCID/.

Order # 2017-0542-AIR-E.





156. Bozlaker, A. et al., Insights into PM10 sources in

Houston, Texas: Role of petroleum refineries in enriching

lanthanoid metals during episodic emission events, Atmospheric

Environment, 2013.

157. McCoy, B. et al., How big is big? How often is often?

Characterizing Texas petroleum refining upset air emissions,

Atmospheric Environment, July 2010.

158. “Annual Enforcement Report Fiscal Year 2018.”

TCEQ Annual Enforcement Reports, November 2018. Accessed


compliance/enforcement/enf_reports/AER/FY18/enfrptfy18.pdf.


160. See methodology

https://environmenttexas.org/news/txe/valero-faces-clean-air-lawsuit-violations-port-arthur-texas-refinery

https://environmenttexas.org/news/txe/valero-faces-clean-air-lawsuit-violations-port-arthur-texas-refinery

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/news/2019/07/22/texas-ag-files-lawsuit-against-valero.html

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/news/2019/07/22/texas-ag-files-lawsuit-against-valero.html

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/State-sues-ExxonMobile-over-environmental-14284024.php



https://www.texastribune.org/2019/04/05/texas-attorney-general-ken-paxton-quickly-sue-industrial-polluters/





















Documents

Illegal Air Pollution in Texas€¦ · local, state and national debates over the quality of our environment and our lives. For more information about Environment Texas Research &