Between 8am on January 13, and 6:54am the next day, Marathon Petroleum’s Blanchard Galveston Bay Refinery (formerly owned by BP) in Texas City dumped an estimated 216,000 lbs. of spent catalyst into the air during a major “upset event” when air pollution control equipment failed that was designed to capture catalyst dust from a “cracking” unit. The catalytic dust, a fine white powder somewhat like talcum but grittier, fell onto the community of Bayou Vista, and visibly accumulated on cars and homes in the area. More than two months later, residents are still asking questions, concerned for their health and the health of the bay, and still getting the cold shoulder from the Marathon and the TCEQ.
[Editor's Note: The opinions expressed in this article are the author's own.]
A Quick Primer on Upset Events, Catalyst Contents, and Initial Reactions
Every year, there are thousands of upset events in Texas. They are permitted emissions caused by malfunctioning equipment, unscheduled maintenance, or startup and shutdown activities. In each upset event, pollutants are released in much higher quantities than normal operations. Sometimes these events exceed pollution limits. Marathon is prohibited by state law from major upsets that exceed the permitted pollution limits on each piece of required control equipment, and the refinery likely went over its hourly pounds limit at this dust control equipment. Plants are also forbidden from air pollution that causes a nuisance.
The innocuous sounding dust was actually an insoluble mixture of amorphous silica, aluminum oxide, and a small proportion of heavy metals. Certain heavy metals, depending on their concentration, are concerning. Silica is a naturally forming molecule that is found in quartz, sand, and glass. Aluminum oxide is a very common, naturally occurring chemical compound and is not associated with any health risks. Despite the bulk of the material being “natural” and “common”, any emission of this magnitude could have unexpected consequences and unsurprisingly alarmed many residents.
Julie Burke, a resident of Bayou Vista, reacted strongly to this event. Since moving there in 2009, she has lost three dogs to cancer; in December 2012 she was also diagnosed with breast cancer. While acknowledging that it is often difficult to blame a single source for a case of cancer, she admits that she felt suspicious after her and her first two dogs’ diagnoses. It seemed odd to her that her dogs would all get cancer and at such young ages—4,5, and 6. Only a month after her third dog, Tilly, was diagnosed, the upset event occurred and set her into action.
The particular street Burke lives on did not accumulate as much catalyst as other streets did, so she did not actually know anything about the upset event until the next day, finding out through social media and the local news. She felt angry that the company did not alert the community during the 23-hour incident and has since been on a mission to draw attention to it and get answers.
Photo: “Marathon Dust” from La Marque, adjacent to Bayou Vista. (Cheryl Farrell)
Out of Sight, Not Out of Mind
Amidst much chatter amongst residents like Burke and some news coverage (here, here, and here), Marathon began its PR wash. This choice to inform the community about the incident and do damage control after inquiries from the public made Burke wonder what would have happened if the catalyst had not blown onto her community and into the bay instead. She wonders why they didn’t consider warning the community immediately because the catalyst is, regardless of toxicity, a known irritant and like any particulate matter that can put people with existing respiratory diseases at risk.
Texas law requires that major upset events be reported to TCEQ (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) within 24 hours of the incident. Marathon apparently complied with this requirement as their report has been in the TCEQ database since early January. Although it is a public document, it is not a substitute for alerting the community because the information is only available to those searching for it, and as one might expect, it went largely unnoticed by the community.
Image (screen shot): Note that the limits for catalyst and opacity were exceeded, and all amounts are estimates.
What one can learn from the report is that the spent catalyst was used in the Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU). These units are where all of the refining from crude oil to various gas, liquid, and solid fractions begins and are typically the largest source of air pollution from refineries. The report shows that all of the pollutant limits were violated by the upset event by wide margins. For example, the opacity during the event was 100.0% while the limit was 20.0%. This means that smoke and soot emissions were so high that they blocked all light.
Marathon washed houses and cars or offered $400 vouchers to people who opted to do the cleaning themselves. The company initially conducted its car washing on a children’s basketball court directly adjacent to a canal. The washing was relocated after complaints, but the new location was also right on the water.
As a community that is very closely connected with the water, residents knew that the insoluble dust was destined to settle and accumulate in the bay, canals, and marshes. Burke wonders and has repeatedly questioned the company about this oversight, referring to the company’s own material safety data sheet (MSDS), a chemical fact sheet companies must have on file for every chemical in their inventory. The MSDS provided by the company for the catalyst specifically cautions against its introduction into water systems.
The superficial cleaning effort served to underscore just how little effect the company thinks the material will have on the health of the environment and citizens of the community.
Photo: Catalyst dust from Marathon upset event. (Screen shot from ABC 13 coverage.)
TCEQ Weighs In
In the TCEQ report on the event, the agency disclosed and explained data from tests conducted by a third party lab (the Center for Toxicology and Environmental Health, LLC, or CTEH) tests. According to the report, samples tested included air, water from swimming pools and one puddle, soil, and wipe samples collected from surfaces outside of residences. Samples of the catalytic dust from the refinery were also tested for their heavy metal content and to know what to look for in field samples.
The metallic composition of the catalyst was found to be a mixture of aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, copper, magnesium, sodium, and vanadium. Aluminum, magnesium, and sodium were the most abundant. According to TCEQ, a “conservative comparison to the most appropriate screening levels” showed that the metals introduced by the catalytic dust pose no health risk.
The report emphasized that the metals from the catalyst are already present in measurable quantities in the environment – as if to say that there is little significance in introducing more. Rather than explore potential health risks, the report focused on just how common such chemicals are even going so far as to point out that sodium and vanadium are essential elements. The report states that silicon and oxygen, the atomic components of silica, are “two of the most abundant elements in the Earth’s crust” following with the claim that the substance is “essentially nontoxic.” Aside from the fact that this is a chemical non sequitur—carbon and nitrogen are two of the common elements found on Earth existing in all life forms, yet cyanide, a molecule consisting of one of each atom, is a well known toxin—this analysis fails to acknowledge silica’s potential to irritate and damage respiratory passages. Crystalline silica can even cause the serious respiratory disease silicosis. The catalyst contains amorphous silica, which is not linked to the disease, but it still seems strange that they would not even mention the substance’s risks.
Perhaps the most troubling thing about the report is that the measured chemical composition of the catalyst contradicts the chemical composition of the catalyst listed on the MSDS provided by Marathon. The MSDS Marathon gave out when people wanted to know more information was for the substance known as “spent catalyst” and listed only three components: amorphous silica, aluminum oxide, and nickel. CTEH provided an MSDS to Burke’s neighbor (who had been doing some digging of his own) for a chemical known as Raney nickel. Nickel was not even present in the catalyst CTEH tested from the refinery.
Marathon has not responded to requests for comment on the discrepancy.
Still Searching for Answers
According to Dr. Neil Carman, Clean Air Program Director with the Sierra Club’s Lone Star Chapter and former TCEQ inspector, “MSDS are public documents required by Federal OSHA rules, but it is up to Marathon whether they want to release their MSDS on the catalysts they use.” Marathon has been silent since its initial PR clean up, so concerned citizens like Burke fear there is not much of a chance they will share an updated MSDS with the public. The TCEQ report is likely the most reliable information about the chemical nature of the emission.
The consensus of CTEH and TCEQ was that the upset event poses no risk to human health beyond minor irritation caused by direct contact. They recommended avoiding the substance and the consumption of vegetables and fruit from local gardens because they will have an “unappetizing metallic taste.” CTEH claims that any health risks associated with the individual metals only apply in cases of prolonged exposure. With the sheer quantity of catalyst dumped onto the community, it seems incredible that the power washing could have completely removed the substance from all exposure pathways. CTEH did not collect any indoor samples even though people and their pets likely tracked catalyst into their homes where it could linger.
Photo: Dogs belonging to a Bayou Vista resident have experienced intestinal problems, diarrhea, and bad rashes on feet and underneath arms where he has been chewing and licking.
Burke was not happy with the report. She has heard of many people in her community reporting corneal abrasions, lung problems, and skin problems. She is also concerned for the community’s pets that had much closer contact with the dust than people. People reported that their animals suffered from diarrhea, vomiting, and irritation from the exposure. She found it troubling that CTEH was paid by Marathon to perform the testing. She also was uneasy about the fact that TCEQ did not collect any of their own samples or conduct their own testing. Instead, they analyzed CTEH data for their reports on the incident.
Not an Isolated Incident
An investigative piece published in The New York Times in 2010 about CTEH reinforced Burke’s suspicions. According to the article, CTEH has a history of minimizing the culpability of companies for health problems that they seem to be responsible for. The methods of the group are not very transparent, and in some cases, independent labs have produced conflicting numbers. Insiders from the CTEH and companies who have worked for them say that they design their tests to meet the needs of the client.
Possible Recourse
These unsettling accusations against CTEH and Marathon’s response to the incident—which to Burke seems like the company trying to sweep everything under the rug – have led Burke and others to campaign for awareness and answers. They have contacted numerous agencies, companies, and news organizations including Galveston County Health District, TCEQ, U.S. Coast Guard, and the Texas Parks and Wildlife, among others. Responses have been mixed. According to Burke, so far the most helpful organization has been the Galveston CHD. They have offered to file a nuisance claim against Marathon and are investigating health claims caused by the incident.
Under TCEQ’s rules, Galveston CHD officials can issue a nuisance 101.4 violation to Marathon because Bayou Vista citizens were adversely impacted from refinery dust on their properties and due to their health concerns. Marathon could also be cited for a permit violation if it exceeded its pounds per hour limit on the dust control equipment where the major upset occurred. There is no way that Marathon is permitted to release 9,000 lbs. per hour of catalyst dust even briefly let alone nearly 24 hours.
Why is a nuisance air pollution violation appropriate under TCEQ’s rules along with penalties of up to $10,000 per day per violation of Texas Clean Air laws?
TCEQ’s General Air Pollution Nuisance Rule 101.4 states:
“No person shall discharge from any source whatsoever one or more air contaminants or combinations thereof, in such concentrations and of such duration as are or may tend to be injurious to or to adversely affect human health or welfare, animal life, vegetation, or property, or as to interfere with the normal use and enjoyment of animal life, vegetation, or property.”
Section 382.003(a) of the Texas Health & Safety Code (THSC) defines air contaminant:
"Air contaminant" means "particulate matter, radioactive material, dust, fumes, gas, mist, smoke, vapor, or odor, or any combination thereof produced by processes other than natural."
Texas law in THSC section 382.003(2) defines "air pollution":
“As used in the Act, "air pollution" means the presence in the atmosphere of one or more air contaminants or combinations thereof, in such concentrations and of such duration, as are or may tend to be injurious to, or to adversely affect, human health or welfare, animal life, vegetation, or property, or to interfere with the normal use and enjoyment of animal life, vegetation or property.
TCEQ pushed back strongly against questions about the validity of the data they reviewed that was provided by CTEH. They are standing resolutely by their reports; they indicated that all laboratories involved are accredited by either the State of Texas or by the American Industrial Hygiene Association Laboratory Accreditation Programs, so results are reliable.
Marathon has simply stopped responding to any inquiries.
Not Backing Down
Although Marathon and TCEQ have been treating this case as resolved, Burke and others in Bayou Vista plan to keep applying pressure. She just wants to find out what they are doing to prevent this kind of incident from happening again. The upset event was ostensibly caused because of malfunctioning equipment. It is imperative that companies and regulatory agencies work together to ensure that equipment is closely monitored and maintained or taken out of production.
Still, as Carman points out, getting to the bottom of this incident raises bigger and hairier questions. “Why did this release last for nearly 24 hours? Did they shut the unit down?” He also points out that Marathon and other companies are legally permitted to release pollution in limited amounts, and that it ends up falling on communities like Bayou Vista for years.
Ultimately, Burke hopes there might be meaningful legislation that gives companies an incentive to do everything they can to avoid upset events. She now understands that with the current laws, companies can and do get away with a lot. She admits that legal action may be a waste of time because she sees that any fines they incur are just “speeding tickets” to such large corporations. They pay them and continue on with business as usual.
Residents have also been in touch with their legislators, and U.S. Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX) has scheduled a visit to Bayou Vista on April 1.
Crude Awakening
Burke considers herself a realist and a moderate. She never used to think negatively of the refineries and trusted that they operated ethically. This experience has caused her to reevaluate her opinion of the refineries and the overall industry. She cannot believe that this was just an isolated event. On the contrary, Burke wonders to what extent this event represents the status quo.
As a long-distance commuter, Burke is distinctly aware of our dependence on oil and gas. After her experience in Bayou Vista, she recognizes that this needs to change and hopes that more people are made aware of the negative side effects of our heavy reliance on fossil fuels.
Compelled to Act
In situations like these, ordinary citizens who admit that they did not have any activist tendencies are compelled to act, rising up to reclaim their health. To some, environmental activism can seem like a frivolous cause and those that are labeled environmentalists are seen as out of touch with more immediate needs. Julie Burke is not out of touch. She is responding to the actions of the refinery that she has to live next to. She wants to preserve her health.
Burke’s story is unfortunate, but it is also inspiring and didactic. It is necessary that we have Julies out there raising hell for the factories that want to admit little to no responsibility for public health problems and environmental damage. The perception that environmental issues are esoteric and irrelevant to the average person needs to change.