Flooded chemical plant near Houston now has "black plume of smoke."

[suffragette]

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/hurricane-harvey/harvey-danger-major-chemical-plant-near-houston-likely-explode-facility-n797581


One of the world's largest chemical companies warned Wednesday that its flooded plant near Houston will likely catch fire and explode in the next few days — and there's nothing the company can do about it.

Arkema Group's plant in Crosby, Texas — about 20 miles northeast of Houston — was inundated by more than 40 inches of rain by Hurricane Harvey and has been without electricity since Sunday, the French-based company said in a statement.

The firm said it made extensive preparations for Harvey, but "the plant has never experienced flooding of this magnitude before."

Julia Bagg, a reporter for Miami's NBC 6 who is on assignment in Texas, reported early Thursday that a "black plume of smoke" had been spotted over the factory. Firefighters subsequently moved journalists about two miles away from the facility.

[democratisphere]

1. Bad to worse.

[JustAnotherGen]

2. And after

When all is said and done . . . They will get away with it.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

5. Let 'em eat cake...

and acrid noxious smoke...the Repugs all say. Your unregulated free market ideology at work.

I can recall experiencing awful chemical odors in numerous plants I worked in around the country. When mentioned, your typical manager would in essence just say "that's the smell of money!".

[ProfessorGAC]

24. While I'm Pretty Big On Regulations. . .

. . .how would lax regulatory systems have avoided a complete loss of electricity, including existing back up systems due to a once in a hundred year storm.

What regulations would have to be in place to mitigate such an unprecedented event?

I'm thinking this is an act of nature, just as was the storm itself.

[drray23]

29. they could have avoided the hazard alltogether.

regulation says that in case of impeding disaster you have to neutralize your organic peroxydes with another chemical compound to remove the risk of explosion. Your storage system is supposed to be setup to allow that.

They did not do it because it would have destroyed their supply. Instead they relied on keeping said chemicals cold. Obviously after they lost power that made the situation explosive. I am not sure whether texas lifted that regulation or the company ignored it.

[JustAnotherGen]

35. +1000

[ProfessorGAC]

41. Then They Violated The Regulations, Right?

So, the lax regulatory environment didn't cause this because there were regs. They failed to follow them, and yes someone needs to be prosecuted.

But, my question was about how we could have regulated this more. And your answer is that it was regulated. So, actually we're agreeing?

[bettyellen]

53. They've been deregulating and it's not clear if this was required- according to the report I saw...

A weird thing is they're not even required to disclose what or how much of chemicals they have on site anymore! Experts outside the company can only guess how bad into is becasue the company has said t now has less of the more dangerous kinds, but they won't report becasue regs no longer require it. What the outside expert does know if that they are lying when they say they did "everything possible" yet do not talk about neutralizing the chemicals. Refs are great if there is oversight- I'm going to guess the company has been promised little oversight.

[ProfessorGAC]

57. R-T-K Still Requires Filings With The Fed, Bettyellen

The federal EPA doesn't care if Texas officials look the other way. They still have to file these inventories with both the EPA and DHS. Every chemical plant in the country does.

And, neutralizing an organic peroxide involves actually reacting them as in their normal process. The hurricane is the reason why there weren't already people there consuming those peroxy compounds.

Not meaning to toot my own horn, but i'm an advanced degreed organic chemist with over 40 years of experience in industry and academia. Just because someone was on TV doesn't make him more expert than me.

[bettyellen]

58. Well the people on site would have to neutralize the chemicals before abandoning the place- but they

Took a calculated risk not to, to preserve inventory in case there was no explosion. So yeah, there were things they could have done and they're lying about it.

[ProfessorGAC]

61. You Make It Sound So Easy

They have 2 weeks supply and then their is a magic reaction that can consume all of it in 3 days?

Chemistry doesn't work that way.

I never said they're not lying about at least pieces of this.

People on this thread keep acting like i'm defending the company. I'm not. I don't know what they did or didn't do.

But, now i'm seeing an awful lot of chemically uninformed points of view about how they "just could have" because some guy they never heard of before said so on TV.

There are things i know that they couldn't have done as easily as people here seem to think. Reacting something faster on purpose only ends up causing the same or worse things than what have already happened.

[bettyellen]

62. Well it's apparent they had no viable contingency plan, so perhaps shouldn't have built near schools

And homes of that was their method of operation. Otherwise they needed a back up plan to refrigerate and or neutralize the chemicals- that SHOULD BE the cost of doing business in a densely populated area. I know it isn't in Texas, but it should and could be better regulated. And they're obviously unwilling to cut into profits unless forced to.

[ProfessorGAC]

77. Wasn't Densely Populated

If you're going to argue with me against a point I never made, don't make up facts
For the last time, I'M NOT DEFENDING THE COMPANY!!!!!
I have no sympathy for managerial fuck ups!
I never said what they did was OK
So, you're arguing with me over something I never said
Happy?

[KY_EnviroGuy]

51. Regs.

I think my statement was more of a statement of disgust toward the lackadaisical and resentful attitude many companies and areas of our country have toward any rules and regulations to save a buck. Further, these facilities operate within the confines of security fences and guard gates out of the public eye. Typically, the only people allowed to enter and evaluate or inspect a facility are a.) company personnel, b.) fire/police/EMS personnel, c.) consultants paid to do so, or d.) insurance company inspectors. With regard to what you said (maybe I'm not getting your context), there obviously are no regulations that can prevent or control natural disasters.

Industrial plants and commercial properties of all sorts in the US must be built with consideration for protection of human life and mitigation of property loss in emergencies. Existing facilities may need to be modified to meet current standards. Further, facilities should be subjected to periodic review both to insure continued compliance, and to insure conditions have not changed.

The United States has a tremendous amount of proven safety rules and loss mitigation methodology for virtually every industry and occupation in existence. The implementation of these highly tested rules and methods then becomes the responsibility of Federal, state and local governments to codify into law (for example, state fire and building codes). After implementation, facilities must be periodically inspected for compliance by either local code enforcement officials, and in many cases - specialty insurance inspectors.

I don't know the details of what systems were in place at this facility. However, I can tell you that emergency electrical power supplies can be built that could have weathered this storm. Our military, many large hospitals and even some large data centers have those in place. Companies will rarely install such equipment unless there's a potential for massive loss of life and it's is obvious (eg, hospitals) or their insurance company or government(s) holds a gun to their head.

[JustAnotherGen]

30. Transport Hazmat

Falls under my umbrella at work. As does the handling of a very specific item that is extremely hazardous.

Because of that - I lock down twice a year the disaster plan for three major d.c.'s.

This company oughta be ashamed of themselves. Poor citizenship, stupid policies and mark my word - the long term effects of that class of peroxides blowing that who damn thing to smithereens is going to be huge.

ETA - I now feel like I need to implement an ocean transport method for those locations. I'm not joking. I think flooding is the new normal and we need a way to container and pack this specific item in warehouse in situations like this.

[Warren DeMontague]

3. Oy.

[leftynyc]

4. CNN reporting 2 explosions

and that black plume.

[malaise]

6. And the company still won't tell anyone what chemicals are housed there

No stinking regulations will take on new meaning here

[bluepen]

8. They make organic liquid peroxide. (Edited)

Edit: their websites detail what they do at the Crosby plant and safety information.

http://www.luperox.com/en/safety/

http://www.arkema-americas.com/en/social-responsibility/incident-page-2/

[malaise]

10. Look after West Texas, no law should have been passed allowing

companies to keep secret what chemicals are in their plants.

Nine security persons went to the hospital last night for headaches and dizziness.

[bluepen]

13. Is that a federal or state law you're referencing?

[malaise]

14. State n/t

[bluepen]

16. Which TX law?

[leftynyc]

23. This article explains it-Abbot was Attorney General at the time

https://www.texastribune.org/2014/07/01/abbott-ask-chemical-plants-whats-inside/

In a recently released decision by his office, Abbott, the Republican candidate for governor, said government entities can withhold the state records — in so-called Tier II reports — of dangerous chemical locations. The reports contain an inventory of hazardous chemicals.

Collected under the federal Community Right to Know Act, the information was made available upon request by the state for decades to homeowners, the media or anyone else who wanted to know where dangerous chemicals were stored. But, as WFAA-TV recently reported, the Texas Department of State Health Services will no longer release the information because of the attorney general’s ruling.

WFAA reported that the department turned down the station's request for information.

Abbott contends the state is required to withhold the data under state homeland security exemptions, because evildoers could use it to gain access to the chemicals and terrorize communities.

[bluepen]

31. Thanks. The good news, of course, is that law won't

allow them to withhold MSDS Sheets required under federal law. I appreciate the info. This thread contained some fear-mongering, much like the threads on Irma yesterday.

[JonLP24]

65. Fear mongering?

no. The poster that started this subthread based his comments obviously on the report on the Rachel Maddow Show last night. A reporter for the Houston Chronicle requested in a phone call from the CEO to release a list which after West, Texas they passed a state law which doesn't require companies to list what they have. They refused to hand it over. All that is true not fear mongering,

[bluepen]

66. If you think state law supersedes federal, okay.

[JonLP24]

68. Who said state law supersedes federal?

I'm just saying what the poster that started this subthread said is true.

[bluepen]

69. Not so.

http://birite.com/wp-content/uploads/msds/2014/850063.pdf

All the info is there, as required by federal law, regardless of Texas law.

[JonLP24]

70. That is from 2014 looks like before they changed the Texas state law

What I'm saying specifically is there was a Houston Chronicle reporter that made a phone call with the CEO asking him to release a list of chemicals that the facility is storing and he clearly refused because the phone call was recorded.

[bluepen]

71. TX state law means nothing

because there's a federal law requiring this info to be disclosed. And it is.

It doesn't matter what the CEO told a reporter, what a reporter told Maddow, and whether she thought to look into this at all.

I don't watch her show so I'm just going off what you said.

[JonLP24]

72. Texas state law was to keep the info from the public

I have no idea if Federal Law requires them to publicly disclose them before the West, Texas explosion they choose to keep this info from the Texas public. The CEO refused to disclose the information to the public. That was basically the point.

Whether they are required to disclose something to some agency is not what I'm arguing. It is the public side of things, refusing to disclose to the public. I don't know if this will clear up any misunderstandings but I was basically saying what the poster was claiming was based on the Rachel Maddow Show last night. I'm not here to make any other arguments so I'm just going to stay out of this thread.

[bettyellen]

73. State safety laws matter- and they lobbied GOP lawmakers to avoid them.

Texas Republicans Helped Chemical Plant That Exploded Lobby Against Safety Rules

[bluepen]

74. Federal law supersedes state law.

Just no way around that.

[Lee-Lee]

37. It's still all available to fire departments and emergency responders

So it will not affect the response one bit.

Citing this as causing a problem with the response is misleading.

[leftynyc]

47. Take it up with the poster

who made that connection. I merely provided a link and explanation of the law.

[dewsgirl]

12. Why won't they just say that? What are they hiding?

[bluepen]

15. I saw it in a story yesterday.

And during this discussion, I found a story from 2015 that talks about their production of peroxide.

I haven't heard that they're hiding it.

[dewsgirl]

19. I could have worded that a little better, I Rachel Maddow

Last night, their was a reporter that has asked for the reports on what kind of poisons would be released if there was an explosion and the spokesman for Arkema wouldn't answer the reporter. (The audio sounded like they were hiding something)

[bluepen]

33. I hear ya. See just above and below this, regarding

federal law and disclosure.

[bettyellen]

60. There different types of the chemicals and they claim they have less now of a dangerous kind---

But wouldn't confirm any details, so no one knows or is overseeing (if the Feds know and care) what sort of explosion is possible. Obviously the company may find downplaying the risk in their best interest.

[Lee-Lee]

9. Umm, that's all going to be on file in many places

Maybe they are not telling the media, but the people who need to know do and will.

[ProfessorGAC]

25. I'm With Lee On This

And despite the earlier post that Abbott said they didn't need to follow state R-T-K rules, wouldn't federal law overrule that anyway? Right to know was put in place for a reason.

[bluepen]

32. Yes, federal law requires disclosure of MSDS Sheets.

[ProfessorGAC]

43. Yes, I'm Aware Of That

So, who cares what Texas thinks if the feds say they have to be made available. It's well established law that once a federal statute is in place, it has superiority over state statutes except in cases where the federal government does not actively enforce, or the political fall out would be too great if they did. (MedMar in all those states and legal pot in the 5 or 6 states that have it. Try to enforce those laws and those politicians would be sending out resumes.)

So, TX relaxing their inventory manifest rule doesn't stop them from having to release them to the public under federal law. No matter what those politicians might think, they're americans first and texans second.

[bluepen]

46. Ok. Just answering the question you typed.

[onethatcares]

7. "the plant has never experienced

flooding like this before"

Well, no shit sherlock. Neither has the United States.

Do you think they'll rebuild it smartly or just cut the usual corners?

[Lee-Lee]

36. If they want to buy insurance again they will rebuild smartly

But if the entire plant is destroyed odds are they start over in a totally new location.

[malaise]

11. Explosions heard now

Ah well

[NightWatcher]

17. CNN says 10 sheriff deputies taken to hospitals after breathing the fumes.

No link, on my phone, just listening to CNN.

[Honeycombe8]

21. First responders are in extreme danger in the area. A policeman died trying to get to work. nt

[oasis]

18. "We must get rid of job killing regulations".

[ProfessorGAC]

26. I'll Ask You The Same Question As Above

While i support regulating industries tightly, what regulations could have been in place to prevent this, when they actually did have back up systems in place? It's not like they just figured they would never lose electricity and threw caution to the wind. They had back up generators. But, now those are under water and diesel generators don't work too well under water.

I'm just trying to figure out how a lax regulatory environment, which i agree Texas has, contributed to something that resulted from a once a century natural disaster.

[appleannie1943]

28. According to experts, there is something that could have been added that would have stopped the

progression of chemical reaction. Other state have regulations that state plants have to do so in the event of an accident. Texas does not. Adding the agent would make the product unusable. Apparently the company either did not have any on hand or chose not to add it gambling that they could keep the chemical cold enough to prevent an explosion.

[eleny]

48. Last night Rachel Maddow reported that they chose not to have this precaution available

They made that decision because they then couldn't sell their product. Like you pointed out, it would be unusable.

I got the impression from her report that they chose a different precaution that Harvey blew right through. It sounded like they didn't keep the better safety measure on hand because of it's effects on their bottom line.

[appleannie1943]

52. Well I guess they won't have to worry about their bottom line anymore.

And the people that 'chose' not to evacuate when asked to, probably won't have to worry about much of anything anymore. Hopefully, whatever the police officers inhaled won't end up killing them.

[ProfessorGAC]

59. Your Posting With An Expert

Organic Chemist (yes, advanced degrees) and statistician with 40+ years of experience.

So, just because someone on TV said it, doesn't make it a viable approach.

The easiest way to get rid of these peroxy compounds would be to react them with the materials they normally use to make them into finished product. They could do it faster even if that meant some quality rejection.

However, nobody could get there (and their operators are probably their best experts) so who was going to do it?

All that said, point me to where i defended the company's actions.

I said i didn't think a less lax regulatory environment was a contributing factor. I am not defending any decisions by the company. I just doubt that any regulators could have put in place rules that covered a contingency like a once a century storm hitting a major metro area, up to and including industrial size generators being completely underwater.

[JonLP24]

67. The person making those comments was an investigate reporter for years on Texas chemical plants

He said similar facilities have a failsafe that destroys the product to prevent an explosion which this plant didn't have.The problem with that though is you can't sell it. I trust he knows what he is taking about based on his years of experience reporting on chemical plants.

[ProfessorGAC]

76. Don't Care

I don't know his credentials and doubt that they match mine
And for the last time, I'm not defending fucking Arkema
Go back and read my first post
I'm saying a lax regulatory environment isn't the cause
If the company fucked up, they fucked up and someone should go to jail
But the bizarre notion that a regulatory assistant would have foreseen this and applied proper rules is fantasy

[JonLP24]

79. I was addressing the failsafe part

The reporter said similar facilities have a failsafe that destroys the product to prevent it from exploding which this plant didn't have which is something they could have done. He reports all over on Texas chemical plants so I'm certain he knows what he is talking about.

[Justice]

54. What could they have done differently you ask?

1 Not put diesel generators at ground level. Plenty of people have learned this the hard way and now they are placed higher up.

2. Disclosed what was on site so the first responders could protect themselves.

3. Had the failsafe materials on hand to use to neutralize chemicals.

4. Not be jerks. CEO keeps making comments that are very odd. "Toxicity is relative" - that seems like crap to me.

[ProfessorGAC]

56. That's Not What I Asked

And i think you know it.

I said what would regulations have done to make it different.

1. You really think that regulators were going to be able to anticipate a flood so bad that an industrial diesel generator would be completely submerged in water? Regulators and rules writers don't have crystal balls or time machines.

2. They did disclose to the authorities. A stupid twist in Texas law said they didn't have to disclose to the public but first responders would have access to the R-T-K filings required be federal law.

3. Not a chemist, are you?

4. I am not now, nor was i before, defending the company or the CEO.

I am asking how a lax regulatory environment contriubuted to this. California hardly is lax in this arena, (i've done work in chem plants there) and there is no way to provide a contingency for every possible event should a quake hit.

Could the company have done better? Probably. Did the relaxed standards under the Texas state government contribute significantly to this specific instance. I think no. When Texas City happened and those people got killed, then the lax regulatory structure was to blame.

Not this time.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

75. Professor....

No one here can answer your fundamental question. With your experience and expertise, I'm sure you know this case will require many months - if not years - of forensics and litigation with busloads of lawyers, engineers, regulators, incident specialists and chemists all over it on both sides.

We simply cannot say much of anything with any certainty without knowing all the on-site conditions, inventories and operator actions before flooding started. Additionally, all the federal/state/local rules and regulations that apply at the time will have to be determined, as well as company policy and procedures, and insurance company requirements. Even all the bubba agreements will come to light, LOL.

Clearly, they had time to prepare (as best they could) as Harvey did the two-step around Texas. And, we may not necessarily have the expertise to say much anyhow, so we're all speculating remotely as a matter of interest and curiosity.

How long did it take to resolve the Texas City refinery explosion, from time of incident 'till all claims were settled? (BTW, I've worked in that plant when it was Amoco)

[ProfessorGAC]

78. That Is What I Just Said

Geez, what's with you folks?
You're arguing with me about stuff I didn't say and arguing points I made that are the same fucking thing
Find anything I said where I hold the company blameless!

[oasis]

64. #2. I remember Rachel saying the mandatory disclosure requirement

was struck down by then, Texas Republican Atty. Gen. Abbott, ( he's Governor now ).

[Honeycombe8]

20. OMG. My heart is breaking for the whole area. nt

[OnDoutside]

22. How's all that Freedum, No Planning Laws and No Env. Laws working out for ya, Texas ?

[NurseJackie]

27. Cenk and TYT are delighted at this development, no doubt.

[UnFettered]

34. There isn't any regulations that would have prevented this.

There isn't a whole lot that could have been done to prevent the organic peroxide from going into thermal decomposition. The company had backup systems to deal with loss of primary cooling systems.
Some reports I have read said up to six feet of water in parts of the facility that's pretty unprecedented to prepare for. The only thing I see that could have been done is given the risk from the storm is to have tried removing some of the product offsite beforehand.

[FLPanhandle]

38. That's not true

First of all, having backup generators/cooling systems that could be submerged in only 6ft of water in an area known for getting hurricanes is ridiculous. Almost as stupid as putting the backup generators in the basement of the Fukushima Nuclear plant in an area known for Tsunamis.

A storm surge from a major hurricane can be 25-30ft high.

A simple regulation to make sure backup power and cooling systems are higher than that would have prevented this.

This is actually a prime example of why regulations are needed.

[B2G]

39. Look up Crosby on a map

No way that area is getting that kind of storm surge from a hurricane.

[FLPanhandle]

45. You are correct

Still, having an emergency backup system up high enough to handle hurricane rains and flooding isn't a stretch.

I live in a hurricane prone area and my home generator is over 6ft off the ground. If I and other homeowners in hurricane areas have figured that out, I would think a safety engineer could have too.

After Fukushima where they put the emergency backup generators in the freaking basement, I would have thought common sense for any industrial plant, where power is critical, would be to have the generators up on platforms. Afterall, they are preparing for disaster situations...

Just my rambling thoughts...

[UnFettered]

40. Everything's is easier in hindsight

There are always things that could have been done. I don't think anybody prepares for the situation as this unfolded. Industry standards are pretty much the same across the country. I just don't see this scenario being any different anyplace else. Nobody is prepared for flooding of this magnitude at an inland facility. It's just a very tricky situation, I work in environmental in the same industry and I just don't see many people being ready for this type of event. This type of situation is pretty unprecedented in an area not prone to flooding.

Only extreme coastal facility's have precautions for large storm surge for the most part. This is also a fairly unique situation as most chemicals are not as volatile as organic peroxide. You don't have to keep most things below 60 degrees to stay stable. Given the nature of the peroxide they should have tried removing it from sight in the face of a major hurricane barring down. That would have been the safest option that dosnt put people or the environment at risk.

[FLPanhandle]

42. I don't think having backup generators up high is "hindsight"

I live in a hurricane prone area and my personal home generator is over 6ft off the ground. It's not to keep things from exploding but just running the fridge and home power. Of course, I've been through a lot of hurricanes, but so has the Houston area.

If they have chemicals that have to have power for cooling, it's not much of a stretch to put the backup's high even enough to walk under. I defer to you on they followed the industry standard protocols, but that does seem to be an area that could be improved with new regulations. Especially, if lots of simple homeowners in hurricane prone areas have figured that much out on their own.

something like this...

[KatyMan]

44. But what would that do to the share price

If they paid the extra couple of grand to do that? These people have yacht upkeep, summers in resorts, 10000 square ft homes...you seem to be without empathy, FLP...

[eleny]

49. See my posting #48 in this thread

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9537542

[eleny]

50. oops - dupe removed

[HAB911]

55. Texas Republicans Helped Chemical Plant That Exploded Lobby Against Safety Rules

The French company whose Houston-area chemical plant exploded twice on Thursday successfully pressed federal regulators to delay new regulations designed to improve safety procedures at chemical plants, according to federal records reviewed by International Business Times. The rules, which were set to go into effect this year, were halted by the Trump administration after a furious lobbying campaign by plant owner Arkema and its affiliated trade association, the American Chemistry Council, which represents a chemical industry that has poured tens of millions of dollars into federal elections.

The effort to stop the chemical plant safety rules was backed by top Texas Republican lawmakers, who have received big campaign donations from chemical industry donors.

http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/texas-republicans-helped-chemical-plant-exploded-lobby-against-safety-rules

[Ilsa]

63. Waiting to see if KMCO, 2 miles away, has same problem

very soon. But who knows what their inventory us, since Abbott took that option away?