After 18 months, hurricane vulnerability documents arrive — but they're thin

“Thank you, we will continue to process your request,” the EPA wrote in an email in February 2016.

A month later, the agency called again with more news: They were ready to provide us with one facility’s vulnerability analysis, for Shell Oil’s refinery in Deer Park. All the other documents would have to go through the agency where public information requests go to die.

Still, getting Shell’s document was great news: The refinery is one of the largest in the country, with a crude oil capacity of 14 million gallons. Then the document arrived. It was two pages long and 13 years old — from 2003.

The main detail in those two pages: Oil that spills from the refinery could travel as much as fifteen miles away in the event of a spill, depending on weather conditions and the time of day.

When we asked the company for more details, a spokesman told us they updated their Facility Response Plan in 2012. We still don’t know why the EPA only produced the 2003 version.

The company also sent us some other portions of the plan — even though the EPA had insisted that any other portion could have sensitive information that could impact national security.

The additional documents noted that Shell had installed new firewalls around its tanks to protect them from damage. They added that an oil spill might affect the “heavy concentration of industrial companies” near the refinery, as well as “adjoining bayous, waterways, bays and wetlands that are environmentally sensitive areas.”

More than a year would pass before the EPA gave us any more vulnerability analyses. When they finally arrived on 23 May, they were equally underwhelming.

The Stolthaven Houston Terminal stores chemicals, petroleum products and vegetable oils in 188 tanks right by the ship channel. Its analysis is one page long, and is simply a list of “features” near the terminal that might be affected by an oil spill, including “water intakes, schools, medical facilities, residential areas,” and “businesses.”

The document continues: “Identified vulnerabilities are listed in SECTION 6.” A giant black box follows, where information had been redacted.

The Texas Tribune and ProPublica called a number listed on the company’s web site as “media relations” for its U.S. branch. A reporter was connected to someone from the human resources department, and after asking for more information related to the vulnerability analysis, was told, “the answer’s probably no.”

At first glance, the documents for a transfer facility operated by Chevron looked more promising: four pages long. However, each page looked like this:

6.6 Vulnerability Analysis (detailed), continued
Vulnerability Analysis (Detailed)
Recreational areas:
Transportation Routes (Air, Water, Land):
Utilities:
Other Applicable Areas:

(This is the exact copy of the information on a page from a document that Chevron submitted to the federal government. It’s supposed to detail how an oil spill at Chevron’s facility in Galena Park might impact the surrounding area).

A Chevron spokesman said that the company submitted a “complete” report. “The EPA may have redacted the report for security reasons, but any questions about this should be directed to the EPA,” he said. 

The documents from a Petrobras Refinery in Pasadena contained a few more details, but nothing that could not have been gleaned from searching for the facility on Google Maps. It notes that two elementary schools and one high school are less than a mile from the facility, and that residential populations “begin within a quarter mile … and continue outward.”

The document continues, “any evacuation efforts for these areas will be coordinated with the local emergency assistance agencies.” Those same words and phrases appear in many other vulnerability analyses that the EPA provided.

The EPA didn’t respond to requests for an interview, either. But officials there have made presentations about how to prepare these documents correctly, and some of the PowerPoints are online.

According to those presentations, using “generic verbiage” in these documents could be violating the law. So could leaving out the “analysis of potential effects” on schools and residential areas. Both of those issues appear in many of the documents The Texas Tribune and ProPublica received. 

In short, as hurricane season begins — and nearly two years after we first started trying to truly understand the risks of what could happen in Houston — we haven’t found out much. 

All we know is that, as we reported previously, thousands of cylindrical storage tanks carrying the world’s largest concentration of oil, gases and chemicals line the Houston Ship Channel. If a hurricane were to hit at the right angle, more than 25 feet of water could be sent up the channel. If even one of those tanks ruptured because of the rushing floodwaters, areas that are home to hundreds of thousands of people could be affected.

Any other details — what companies are prepared for, what the government is doing to monitor them, and specific things that residents can do to protect themselves and their property nearby — probably won’t be publicly available until it’s too late.

Neena Satija is an investigative reporter and radio producer for the Tribune and Reveal, a public radio program from the Center for Investigative Reporting.This story published courtesy of the Texas Tribune, a nonpartisan, nonprofit media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government, and statewide issues.