Harris County sues Arkema for chemical disaster during Harvey

Harris County filed suit Thursday against Arkema over chemical fires at its Crosby plant in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, saying the company violated a long list of environmental, safety and building regulations and put first responders at risk.

The lawsuit, filed in state district court, seeks up to $1 million in penalties and asks that Arkema be ordered to upgrade its emergency response plans, build stronger storage areas and set up a notification system for alerting nearby residents of future incidents.

About 300 homes were evacuated and more than 30 people hospitalized — including law enforcement — when a volatile chemical erupted into flames after the plant lost power and generators in Harvey floodwaters.

"This was a very dangerous situation," County Attorney Vince Ryan said in a statement Thursday. "Arkema must take responsibility for its inability to ensure the safety of the people of the Crosby community and those who protect them."

COMPLETE COVERAGE: Get the latest Hurricane Harvey recovery news

An investigation by the Houston Chronicle found that the company underestimated the potential for storm damage from Harvey and failed to keep essential back-up power protected from the rising waters.

The company remains under investigation by multiple agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the U.S. Chemical Safety Board, and the Harris County District Attorney's office announced in September the company was under criminal investigation.

Earlier this week, the chemical board urged other chemical plants to update their emergency plans in light of the ongoing investigation into the Arkema explosions.

Arkema attorney Rusty Hardin vowed to fight the lawsuit, saying the company has been cooperating with Harris County and other authorities.

"Suing a victim is never the right solution to a natural disaster," Hardin said in a statement Thursday. "We are disappointed that this lawsuit was filed when we were in discussions with the county to cooperatively resolve the issues. As they and we all know, this was an extraordinary flooding event. Arkema and its employees, like other businesses and individuals in Harris County, were victims of this storm."

"He said the Arkema plant has not resumed production since the storm.

"Our employees are still not back to work," Hardin said. "Filing lawsuits is not the solution here. Arkema plans to continue cooperating with authorities, but we will strenuously defend against any and all unfounded claims."

Harris County's lawsuit is the third filed against Arkema over the incident. A group of first responders and Crosby residents sued in September. A separate group of Crosby residents sued weeks later.

'Tip of the iceberg'

Arkema, a French multinational company that manufactures chemicals used to create plastic products, lost control of its Crosby facility after six feet of floodwaters cut the power and wiped out its back-up generators. The power failure knocked out a cooling system crucial for the storage of volatile organic peroxides, which can begin to explode when the temperature rises.

The chemicals were moved to refrigerated trailers but they, too, began to fail.

On Aug. 29, four days after Harvey came ashore near Rockport in South Texas, officials ordered the evacuation of everyone within 1.5 miles of the Arkema plant. The first fire started in the early morning hours of Aug. 31, sending plumes of black smoke high into the air. Law enforcement officers and medical staff reported doubling over from the fumes, which left them vomiting and gasping for air, according to one of the lawsuits filed against the company.

Two additional trailers caught fire on Sept. 1. Then, on Sept. 3, the Houston Police Department's bomb squad entered the area and detonated the remaining six trailers to burn out the remaining chemicals.

The lawsuits quickly followed.

The Chronicle investigation found that poor planning and a series of equipment failures led to the fires, and that the company failed to prepare for more than three feet of water.

"It is vindicating," said Misty Hataway-Cone, an attorney representing the first responders who sued Arkema in early September. "We're at the tip of the iceberg. The revelations that have come out from their failure to plan appropriately for Harvey and their failure to properly secure these chemicals are just further indications of the complete lack of preparation and overall care at this plant."

Hataway-Cone pointed to the possibility of other litigants coming forward, saying some Liberty County workers may have been in the area.

"We don't yet know where the plumes dispersed to, and we're only getting a trickle of information from Arkema," Hataway-Cone said.

An unprecedented event

The company self-reported multiple emissions from the plant to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality TCEQ during the disaster. Before the company lost control of its organic peroxides, floodwaters overwhelmed its wastewater treatment plant, resulting in industrial wastewater leaking into county waterways. Each separate fire resulted in air emissions from the facility.

Multiple new details were revealed in the county's lawsuit. The county's suit claims that Harris County Pollution Control Department detected air pollution outside of the mandated evacuation zone during the crisis.

It also says parts of the Arkema facility is located below base flood elevation, requiring permits the company did not have.

Arkema has repeatedly insisted that the flooding was an unprecedented event.

"Arkema's Crosby plant had never experienced the type of flooding brought on by Harvey," said company spokesperson Janet Smith.

The county attorney is also asking the company to pay for the county's costs for responding to the incident. Harris County Fire Marshal's Office spent more than $40,000 responding to the Arkema site.

Despite the lawsuits, the plant remains an ongoing cause for concern for some Crosby residents.

"I would hope that they would have apologized and explained," said Adam Harris, whose home is close enough to the plant that he caught images of a plume of smoke rising after the final controlled burn. Now, he worries about the possible effects on property values.

"But it is what it is, I guess," he said. "I just have no idea what I'm living right next to. I just wish it wasn't there at this point."