|
Fact or fiction of BP chemical release
By T.J. Aulds
The Daily News
Published August 9, 2010
TEXAS CITY — Residents who think a call to BP’s Texas City refinery with complaints about health troubles will lead to a check need not look up the company’s number.
Thousands have signed up to join a $10 billion class action lawsuit against the company, which released more than 500,000 pounds of pollutants and other chemicals in April and May.
But despite rumors that the company has a claims hot line for residents to call and get a check, officials said they have no intention of paying any claims related to the emissions event.
“Based on our understanding of the facts and circumstances, BP does not believe there is any basis to pay claims in connection with this event,” company spokesman Michael Marr said. “BP is not taking or paying such claims.”
As the story about the hot line illustrates, rumors about the event, the company’s response and the lawsuit are spreading like wildfire. Some are true. Most can’t be confirmed. Others have a bit of truth to them but are not totally accurate.
Here is a sample:
• The company had an unannounced community meeting with residents who live near the refinery. False.
“If we believed there was a health impact associated with this event or any event, we would have notified the community,” Marr said. “But based on monitoring data at the time of the event and our current understanding, there was not.”
Marr said some people might have assumed BP set up a hot line or community meetings because of the ongoing oil spill crisis in the Gulf of Mexico. In reaction to that incident, BP established a claims program that has thus far shelled out more than $300 million.
The company set up a similar claims process after the 2005 blasts at its Texas City refinery that killed 15 contract workers, injured more than 200 other people and shook houses — and confidence — across the city.
• BP did not make the release known publicly. False, but ...
BP followed the law in its reporting procedures. When a subunit on the ultracracker went offline, forcing the refinery to send tons of material to a flare April 6, BP did inform the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality as required by law.
As the emissions continued and more chemicals were released, including large amounts of benzene, the company did not notify city officials or the state. It was not required to.
BP officials said air monitors on site and across the city did not measure any increase in dangerous chemicals in the air, so there was no need to provide updates of what was being released into the atmosphere. The city wasn’t informed until just before the company made a mandatory filing with the state environmental agency, but city officials said they believe BP followed the proper guidelines.
Still, the city is reviewing the incident and met with BP officials last week.
BP officials confirmed most of the details of the release when contacted by The Daily News just before it filed its report with the state.
• BP kept the ultracracker running even though it had a faulty subunit. True.
That’s what led to the “excessive emissions event,” according to the state environmental agency’s investigation, even though the ultracracker was operating at 55 percent capacity.
• Several BP workers were sent to the hospital because of the emissions. False.
There are no confirmed reports of workers being taken to the hospital or falling ill on the job site because of the event.
• The unit that released the emissions has had other problems within the last year. True.
According to the state environmental agency’s investigators, there have been five emission events on the ultracracker since May 8, 2009. That prompted state investigator Ryan Perna to summarize: “Based on a review of the incidents that occurred during the past year, there appears to be a pattern of poor operation and maintenance practices.”
• Most of what is claimed to have been released actually was burned by the flare. False.
BP officials said the estimated 536,000 pounds of emissions reported were post-flare, meaning that’s what the flare did not burn off.
• In April and May before the public knew what happened, local pharmacies reported a heavy sale volume of inhalers and other respiratory medications. True, but ...
Michael DeAngelis, a spokesman for CVS pharmacy, said its Texas City store did have a “noticeable rise” in prescriptions for respiratory complications, including prescriptions for inhalers. The store did not run out.
“So it is fair to say the incident contributed to a noticeable rise in these prescriptions,” he said.
A spokeswoman for Walgreens did not return calls.
At Super Value Drugs in the Mainland Medical Center medical office complex in Texas City, there were no significant increases in sales or demand for respiratory medications, owner Ernie Sanchez said.
He also said if there had been an increase, it was likely because of another trigger.
“This has been one of the biggest allergy seasons ever since September,” Sanchez said. “We haven’t had a run on anything like that, but we have been selling more allergy medicines since last (fall).”
• Hospitals and medical clinics were overrun with people with respiratory complications. False.
Kurt Koopman, a spokesman for the Galveston County Health District, said the county’s clinics did not have an increase in patients experiencing chemical exposure symptoms during the time of the emissions. However, there was a noted increase after The Daily News published the first report on the event in its June 5 edition.
Officials with Beeler-Manske Clinic in Texas City did not return calls.
Rob Heifner, CEO of Mainland Medical Center in Texas City, said emergency center reports show no significant increase in patients treated for respiratory difficulties.
The hospital saw three extra patients in April and nine in May. It had a 29 patient decrease in June when comparing figures to 2008. In 2009, the Mainland Medical emergency room was overloaded because the University of Texas Medical Branch’s emergency center still was offline after Hurricane Ike.
Officials with the medical branch said they were unable to gather the proper data to confirm whether there had been an increase or decrease at its hospital in Galveston.
• Contract workers have been told they will lose their jobs if they join the lawsuit. Unconfirmed.
BP denies it has put any pressure on its contract companies to fire or discipline employees who sign on or are seen talking to attorneys who are gathering clients for the class action lawsuit. Calls to Jacobs Engineer and Zachry, two of BP’s biggest contractors, were not returned.
Dozens of contract employees have told The Daily News that supervisors have warned them their jobs are at risk.
• State air monitors in Texas City did not register an increase in emissions. True.
Of the six air monitors maintained by the state, none showed an increase in dangerous emissions. Information from those monitoring stations is available online via the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s website.
• Hundreds of BP employees were sent to the hospital for benzene tests. False.
Heifner said his hospital did test seven BP employees for benzene exposure. He is restricted by federal law from revealing the results.
• Trial lawyers are signing up anyone who claims to have a cough. False.
At least that’s what the lead attorney, Tony Buzbee, said. He said potential clients have to live within a mile or two of the refinery and have medical documentation of exposure symptoms before he lets them sign up. He said his firm is screening all clients again before putting their names on the lawsuit.
• Texas City police were called to the Nessler Center because a riot broke out as people lined up to join the lawsuit. False.
Buzbee hired six off-duty Texas City police officers to manage crowd control. City policy requires that only Texas City officers be hired for security jobs at city-owned buildings, including the Nessler Center and Doyle Convention Center.
• The Daily News buried the story of the release on a back page. False.
Despite claims from a weekly publication in San Leon that have been repeated online, The Daily News was the first to report the emissions and did so on the front page of its June 5 issue. The Daily News also was the first to report that the investigation had been turned over to the attorney general’s office.
For More Information Contact:
Kurt Koopmann
Public Information Officer
Galveston County Health District
409-938-2211
kkoopman@gchd.org
|
