Regulators find string of violations at KMCO

The company that owns a Crosby chemical plant where one worker was killed and two others critically injured during an April explosion and fire was hit this week with nearly $80,000 in fines for a pattern of past violations of environmental laws at the facility.

State environmental regulators on Wednesday approved the fine for KMCO for a string of violations going back to 2012. They cited the Crosby plant for failing to follow the Clean Air Act’s permitting and reporting procedures over five years, including problems with unpermitted flares, exceeding emissions and failing to conduct regular inspections, state documents show.

The fines don’t cover the April 2incident, when a transfer line carrying isobutylene, a flammable gas, ignited, killing James Earl “Bubba” Mangum. While investigations into the incident are ongoing, KMCO said in May that a burst pipe was at fault.

The Crosby plant produces coolant and brake fluid for the automotive industry and chemicals for the oil field industry.

While this is the largest amount that KMCO has been fined for air-pollution violations in the past decade, it is not a significant penalty, said Gabriel Clark-Leach, senior attorney with the Environmental Integrity Project in Texas.

“It does not send a message that the (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) takes these kinds of violations seriously,” he said.

The penalty was part of $373,086 in fines approved this week by the state against 52 entities —including another Harris County company, INEOS USA, which was fined $24,000 for air-quality violations.

Texas has hit KMCO with fines ranging from $3,500 to $21,128 for similar violations in four different orders issued over the last 10 years, records show.

The most recent fine amount, originally set at $95,437, was reduced by $19,087 after KMCO corrected the issues identified by the state.

In a written statement, KMCO said the new fine was not related to the recent fire and that it closed out a legacy matter from before the current owner’s acquisition of the site in 2012.

But the notice of enforcement lists several instances of noncompliance, including failures to conduct certain required inspections, as late as September 2016.

The company also emphasized there was no finding of any violation, referencing a paragraph in the order that says the violations are in dispute and that the order is not an admission of fault.

“We appreciate the work of TCEQ and the opportunity it has given us to reinforce our shared commitment to safe and compliant operations at KMCO and across the industry,” the company said.

The penalty stems from a November 2016 investigation and a notice of enforcement issued in 2017.

According to the notice:

•From March 2012 through September 2015, KMCO failed to revise a federal permit to add a new plant flare and did not report it on what are called deviation reports filed twice a year;

• The Crosby plant also didn’t comply with requirements to conduct quarterly visible emissions observations. Instead, it did them annually from October 2014 through September 2016;

•From September 2013 through July 2015, KMCO didn’t perform monthly monitoring on 978 valves and 28 pumps, initial monitoring on 210 connectors and quarterly monitoring on 22 pressure relief valves.

• It also exceeded its maximum allowable emissions rate for volatile organic compounds in one tank for a one-year period ending in December 2014.

The facility northeast of Houston has more than 180 employees and sits on about 2000 acres, with eight distillation columns, 23 reactor systems, 600 tanks and capacity for 250 rail storage cars, according to the company.

To Clark-Leach, the 2017 order paints a picture of KMCO doing a poor job monitoring its plant for compliance, meeting its limits and checking for leaks.

“These are serious problems, because the state doesn’t have the resources to regularly inspect every source of pollution,” he said. “Instead, Texas relies on companies to monitor their emissions, to make sure that equipment is maintained (not leaking) and to self-report violations when they occur.”

“If companies don’t conduct required monitoring and report violations, the system we have to regulate air pollution doesn’t work,” he added.

Since 2014, KMCO has taken several corrective actions to address the issues identified by state officials, including revising its noncompliance reports to include the unpermitted flare, conducting the required monitoring and retraining plant personnel, which helped reduce the company’s fine.

Company officials have said that KMCO has significantly upgraded its facilities since 2013, winning multiple industry awards.

Kelly Nidini, the plant’s safety manager in 2016, told the Houston Chronicle at the time: “We have no higher priority than ensuring safe and compliant operations.”

Last year, KMCO said it had been recertified in a chemical environmental safety-performance program from the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates. The group also recognized KMCO in 2017 and 2018 for its performance, including improvements in environmental and workplace safety.

Harris County and the state of Texas have sued the company over air, water and stormwater pollution stemming from incidents in 2013, 2016 and 2017.

That’s in addition to a 2008 fine by Harris County against KMCO for spills and fumes that gave neighbors headaches. The lawsuit ended in 2009, with a permanent injunction requiring KMCO to pay $100,000 in civil penalties and to give investigators easy access to the facility and prompt notification releases.

There are also numerous pending lawsuits, including by the county and state, stemming from April’s incident.

Since 2009, KMCO has paid out more than $4 million in fines or criminal penalties to local and federal regulators, the Houston Chronicle has reported. This includes $3.5 million that the Environmental Protection Agency ordered it to pay in 2017 in connection with an explosion at its Port Arthur facility and air emissions at the Crosby plant.

“TCEQ should sternly punish polluters that repeatedly fail to report violations, check for leaks or conduct required monitoring,” Clark-Leach said. “Failure to perform monitoring and to report violations (in deviation reports) may be indicative of company malfeasance or poor source maintenance.” perla.trevizo@chron.com twitter.com/perla_trevizo