Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Air Quality’ Category

Help us Protect Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains

Posted in Air Quality, tagged , , , , on February 16, 2012 |

Big Bend. The Guadalupe Mountains. Everything about them is iconic…everything but the air pollution that obscures the scenic viewscapes. Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains National Park are increasingly under attack from air pollution known as haze from coal plants and refineries. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to reduce and eliminate this haze. Under EPA’s proposed rule, however, Texas’s oldest and dirtiest power plants would be exempted from installing readily available, modern pollution controls. As a result, air pollution and impaired visibility at our National Parks could persist.

Don’t let big polluters off the hook — if they pollute our parks, they should pay to clean up. EPA has the authority to require the major sources of haze in our National Parks to clean up – let’s demand improved safeguards. EPA needs to hear from you before February 28th.

To submit a comment and see a sample letter, click here.

 

Read Full Post »

Even a few days of air pollution may trigger a heart attack or stroke

Posted in Air Quality, tagged , , on February 14, 2012 |

According to an MSNBC article, even short-term exposure to air pollution — just a day or a week in some cases — may kick off a heart attack or stroke according to two new studies.  The studies reveal that the risk of heart attack or stroke can jump after high-pollution days, especially for people who already have predisposing health problems.

In a new analysis published in the latest issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, up to a week of exposure to most major types of air pollution may be enough to trigger a heart attack.

  • Heart attack risk went up by almost 5 percent with high carbon monoxide levels over as little as seven days
  • Heart attack risk increased almost 3 percent with higher levels of air particles for up to seven days.

The risk of stroke jumped 34 percent after 24 hours of exposure to moderate air pollution, according to a study published in the latest issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine.

No one knows exactly how much pollution will trigger a heart attack or stroke, but experts suggest that vulnerable people protect themselves by minimizing time spent breathing air contaminated with a heavy dose of fine particles.  As exposure increases, both in terms of time and intensity, so does the risk of a heart attack and stroke.

The best recourse for those with cardiovascular disease may be to keep a close eye on local pollution levels, experts say. And government agencies are making that easier and easier. The Environmental Protection Agency, for example, has a downloadable app that provides information on local air quality. You can download the air quality app from the AIRNow app from the EPA’s website. The app works on both Apple and Android phones and allows users to get pollutant and ozone levels for more than 400 cities across the nation.

The culprit in both studies is particulate matter, tiny bits of material and droplets, known as PM2.5s. The particles come from a variety of sources, including power plants, factories, trucks and cars.

If you live in an area that is in non-attainment for federal air quality standards such as DFW or Houston, this should cause you some concern as the Texas leadership does everything they can to block the EPA’s efforts to enforce the Clean Air Act.  While they express concern about EPA regulations on the financial health of the energy industry, touting the imaginary loss of jobs, they rarely express concerns about the actual health of Texans who would be protected by the increased regulation.

Read Full Post »

RR Commission instituting “real” penalties for repeat offenders?

Posted in Air Quality, Sunset, tagged , , , on January 24, 2012 |

Chronic violators of Texas Railroad Commission safety rules may be looking at steeper fines if they don’t clean up their acts.

In response to the agency’s Sunset review last session, the commissioners who regulate the state’s booming oil and gas industry are expected to approve penalty hikes in six major categories, taking special aim at repeat offenders. The proposed penalty hikes – the first since 2004– will then undergo a 30-day public comment period before new rules are finalized. Repeat offenders will see their penalties enhanced.

If approved, penalties will increase for an array of safety violations in six major divisions: 1) oil and gas 2) pipeline safety 3) propane safety 4) compressed natural gas 5) liquid natural gas and 6) underground pipeline damage prevention (rules requiring such things as calling before digging).

No estimate has been made available on how much extra revenue the tougher penalties will raise, but all proceeds will be funneled into the state budget’s General Revenue Fund.

While details are not yet available on exact increases across the board, according to the Texas Energy Report, a few examples make clear that the commission means business. Take the current $2,000 penalty for failing to plug a well in a timely fashion. Once the new fees kick in, violators will pay that amount plus $1 per foot of the well’s depth. So a driller of a 6,000-foot well who fails to plug the well will pay four times as much – $8,000.

Violators of safety rules for waste pits at oil and gas sites will see their fines increasing more than double under the proposed rules. If they use the pit for the wrong type of fluid, fail to get a permit for the pit or run amok of other rules, fines are set to more than double – from $1,000 now to $2,500.

Until now, penalties at the commission have always been in the form of staff guidelines, but the new penalty guidelines will be plaed into rules. State law caps all penalties at a maximum of $10,000 per day, and commissioners will retain their power to adjust fines.

While the Railroad Commission is going above and beyond the recommendations of the Sunset Commission, environmental groups believe penalties should be above the economic benefit to the company to be effective in detering repeat offenders.

Read Full Post »

DFW Air Quality Standards – EPA Public Comments Sought

Posted in Air Quality, tagged , , , , on January 10, 2012 |

The EPA has published a federal register notice to solicit public comments on their ozone designation recommendations to the states.  This comment period closes on January 19th and we have included the notice for information on where and how to submit your comments.

Public Citizen and Sierra Club believe the inclusion of Freestone, Limestone, McClennan, Navarro and Wise Counties in the designation of the new Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) ozone nonattaiment area for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) will be essential to this area being able to effectively develop an implementation plan that will move the area out of nonattainment for federal air quality standards.  We would encourage those in these counties and in the DFW area to submit comments to this effect.

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD – SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the EPA has posted its responses to state and tribal designation recommendations for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on the Agency’s Internet Web site. The EPA invites public comments on its responses during the comment period specified in the DATES section. The EPA sent responses directly to the states and tribes on or about December 9, 2011, and intends to make final designation determinations for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS in spring 2012.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 19, 2012. Please refer to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional information on the comment period.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-OAR- HQ-2008-0476, by one of the following methods:     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments:

  • Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0476.
  • Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR- 2008-0476.
  • Mail: Air Docket, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008- 0476, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
  • Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC.
    (Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR- 2008-0476. The EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be confidential business information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be confidential business information or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA is unable to read your comment and cannot contact you for clarification due to technical difficulties, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section II of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.     Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions concerning this action, please contact Carla Oldham, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Planning Division, C539-04, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-3347, email at oldham.carla@epa.gov. For questions about areas in the EPA Region 1, please contact Richard Burkhart, U.S. EPA, telephone (617) 918-1664, email at burkhart.richard@epa.gov. For questions about areas in the EPA Region 2, please contact Bob Kelly, U.S. EPA, telephone (212) 637-3709, email at kelly.bob@email.gov. For questions about areas in the EPA Region 3, please contact Maria Pino, U.S. EPA, telephone (215) 814- 2181, email at pino.maria@epa.gov. For questions about areas in the EPA Region 4, please contact Jane Spann, U.S. EPA, telephone (404) 562- 9029, email at spann.jane@epa.gov. For questions about areas in the EPA Region 5, please contact Edward Doty, U.S. EPA, telephone (312) 886- 6057, email at doty.edward@epa.gov. For questions about areas in the EPA Region 6, please contact Guy Donaldson, U.S. EPA, telephone (214) 665-7242, email at donaldson.guy@epa.gov. For questions about areas in the EPA Region 7, please contact Lachala Kemp, U.S. EPA, telephone (913) 551-7214, email at kemp.lachala@epa.gov. For questions about areas in the EPA Region 8, please contact Scott Jackson, U.S. EPA, telephone (303) 312-6107, email at jackson.scott@epa.gov. For questions about areas in the EPA Region 9, please contact John J. Kelly, U.S. EPA, telephone (415) 947-4151, email at kelly.johnj@epa.gov. For questions about areas in EPA Region 10, please contact Claudia Vaupel, U.S. EPA, telephone (206) 553-6121, email at vaupel.claudia@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background and Purpose
On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised the NAAQS for ozone to provide increased protection of public health and welfare from ozone pollution (73 FR 16436; March 27, 2008). The process for designating areas following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS is contained in Clean Air Act (CAA) section 107(d) (42 U.S.C. 7407). Following the promulgation of a new or revised standard, each governor or tribal leader has an opportunity to recommend air quality designations, including the appropriate boundaries for nonattainment areas, to the EPA. The EPA considers these recommendations as part of its duty to promulgate the formal area designations and boundaries for the new or revised standards. By no later than 120 days prior to promulgating designations, the EPA is required to notify states and tribes of any intended modification to an area designation or boundary recommendation that the EPA deems necessary. On or around December 9, 2011, the EPA notified states and tribes of its intended area designations for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. States and tribes now have an opportunity to demonstrate why they believe an intended modification by the EPA may be inappropriate. The EPA encouraged states and tribes to provide comments and additional information for consideration by the EPA in finalizing designations. The EPA plans to make final designation decisions for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS in spring 2012.     The purpose of this notice is to solicit public comments from interested parties other than states and tribes on the EPA’s recent responses to the state and tribal designation recommendations for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. These responses can be found on the EPA’s Internet Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations and also in the public docket for ozone designations at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0476. The CAA section 107(d) provides a process for designations that involves recommendations by states and tribes to the EPA and responses from the EPA to those parties, prior to the EPA promulgating final designations and boundaries. The EPA is not required under the CAA section 107(d) to seek public comment during the designation process, but is electing to do so for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS in order to gather additional information for the EPA to consider before making final designations. The EPA invites public comment on its responses to states and tribes during the 30-day comment period provided by this notice. Due to the statutory timeframe for promulgating designations set out in the CAA section 107(d), the EPA will not be able to consider any public comments submitted after January 19, 2012. This notice and opportunity for public comment does not affect any rights or obligations of any state, tribe or the EPA which might otherwise exist pursuant to the CAA section 107(d).     Please refer to the ADDRESSES section above in this document for specific instructions on submitting comments and locating relevant public documents.     In establishing nonattainment area boundaries, the EPA is required to identify the area that does not meet the 2008 Ozone NAAQS and any nearby area that is contributing to the area that does not meet that standard. We are particularly interested in receiving comments, supported by relevant information, if you believe that a specific geographic area that the EPA is proposing to identify as a nonattainment area should not be categorized by the CAA section 107(d) criteria as nonattainment, or if you believe that a specific area not proposed by the EPA to be identified as a nonattainment area should in fact be categorized as nonattainment using the CAA section 107(d) criteria. Please be as specific as possible in supporting your views.     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.     Explain your views as clearly as possible.     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified in the DATES section above.

II. Instructions for Submitting Public Comments
What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
1. Submitting Confidential Business Information. Do not submit this information to the EPA through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be confidential business information. For confidential business information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as confidential business information and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as confidential business information. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as confidential business information, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as confidential business information must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information identified as confidential business information only to the following address: Roberto Morales, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Mail Code C404-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-0880, email at morales.roberto@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0476.     2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).     Follow directions–The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
III. Internet Web Site for Rulemaking Information
The EPA has also established a Web site for this rulemaking at www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations. The Web site includes the state and tribal designation recommendations, information supporting the EPA’s preliminary designation decisions, as well as the rulemaking actions and other related information that the public may find useful.

Read Full Post »

ERCOT says Luminant can shut two Monticello power units

Posted in Air Quality, Energy, tagged , , , on December 20, 2011 |

Planning for Texas’ energy future must include drought proofing our energy supply with energy efficiency and renewable energy, not propping up old dirty fossil fuel plants.  To that end, we applaud the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT – the Texas electric grid operator) for calling Luminant’s bluff to shut down the aging Monticello coal fired plant in North Texas, and finding that we don’t need to pay a premium to run one of Texas dirtiest coal plants to keep the air conditioners running.

In October of this year, the EPA announced new regulations (called the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule or CSAPR) to reduce air pollution from industrial facilities like coal-fired power plants on downwind communities. Prior to the release of this new rule, TXU/Luminant, the largest power generating company in Texas, blamed the impending EPA regulations for job losses and subsequently announced it would be shutting down two of its coal units at Monticello.

Three Texas Luminant plants (Monticello, Martin Lake, and Big Brown) are some of the dirtiest coal plants in the country, and would be impacted by any new air pollution rules the federal government might impose.  But compared to other coal plants, these three plants alone are:

  • 46.8% of all Texas coal plant      emissions (19 existing coal plants)
  • 41.5% of all Texas coal plant SO2      emissions
  • 36.0% of all Texas coal plant PM-10      emissions
  • 30.6% of all Texas coal plant NOx      emissions
  • 71.7% of all Texas coal plant CO2      emissions

and by all
rights should clean up their act or shut down.  However, a report from TR Rose Associates shows in detail how Luminant’s shuttering of these coal plants is most likely due to poor financial management rather than regulation of their air quality emissions.

Right now in Texas, the drought and the expected heat wave next summer is far more of a problem than U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules for water intensive plants like coal and nuclear electric generation plants.  If we are to keep the lights on next summer, the Governor, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the Public Utility Commission of Texas should develop a plan to use energy more wisely and efficiently during the summer and not worry about the shuttering of dirty old coal plants.

After receiving notice that Luminant, had filed a Notification of Suspension of Operations for Monticello Units 1 and 2, ERCOT – the grid operator – had to make a determination about whether it was okay for Luminant to retire the units rather than idle them so that ERCOT could call on them to run in a grid emergency.  This is what ERCOT calls a “Reliability Must Run” (RMR) status determination.  An RMR status for the old Monticello units would have meant that Luminant might have been getting paid a premium to run these units at full capacity next summer, with almost no limits placed upon the type or amount of emissions during that activity, the implications for Dallas/Ft Worth’s air quality would probably have been significant.

According to a release by ERCOT, “As required by Protocol Section 3.14.1(1), ERCOT has completed its analysis and determined that Monticello Units 1 and 2 are not needed to support ERCOT transmission System reliability (i.e., voltage support, stability or management of localized transmission constraints under first contingency criteria). ERCOT, in coordination with Oncor, has identified Pre-Contingency Action Plans (PCAPs) and Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) which will be used to ensure transmission security without the need for RMR Agreements associated with these Resources. . . Based upon this final determination, the Resources may cease or suspend operations according to the schedule in their Notice of Suspension of Operations.”

So to recap:

  • Luminant threatens to shut down its two old units at Monticello coal-fired generating plant and blames the new EPA Cross State Air Pollution Rules.
  • A report from TR Rose Associates shows Luminant’s shuttering of these coal plants is most likely due to poor financial management rather than regulation of their air quality emissions.
  • ERCOT determines that these Monticello units are NOT needed to maintain grid stability.

Luminant 0 : State of Texas 2

Read Full Post »

Rerouting Keystone XL: From Poisoned Aquifers to Polluted Land

Posted in Air Quality, Water, tagged , , , on December 7, 2011 |

This is a guest blog by departing Public Citizen intern Chantelle B.

In recent months, Nebraska’s government has taken a strong stand against the Keystone XL Pipeline’s route, which currently passes through the ecologically fragile Sandhills region and North America’s largest aquifer – the Ogallala – which, if polluted, could have disastrous effects. The majority of this aquifer lies under Nebraska, and provides the state with 70% of its freshwater.  But the Ogallala aquifer’s importance goes beyond Kansas.  It is one of the most important sources of water in the Plains Region, used for residential and industrial purposes as well as agriculture, the base of the economy in the area. Texas is one of the leading states irrigating from the aquifer, accounting for about 40% of Texas’ water use.  Officials in the Nebraskan State government, such as Governor David Heinman, have signed a bill to ensure that TransCanada will not be able to build their behemoth of a Pipeline through the precious Sandhills region.

On November 10th, President Obama delayed the date for granting TransCanada a permit to construct the Pipeline across the U.S.-Canada border until after the 2012 Presidential elections. One component of the President’s decision to postpone the Pipeline’s construction was to ensure a Department of State-approved rerouting that satisfies Nebraska’s demands. Unfortunately for the environment, Nebraskans are showing a proclivity to support the Pipeline generally, and only stress the environmental importance of the delicate Ogallala and Sandhills region. TransCanada is set to collaborate with the Nebraska department of environmental quality and the DoS, which will audit its alternate route to ensure it avoids the regions in question, making it only marginally more environmentally sound. However, TransCanada’s President for Energy and Oil Pipelines, Alex Pourbaix, still affirms his belief that the Pipeline would have been equally safe even if the original route were implemented.

Although a new route will protect the most ecologically sensitive locations in Nebraska, there remains the problem that a daughter project already in play, the Keystone 1 Pipeline in the northern Great Plains, has already exceeded its projected spill figures. Despite TransCanada’s prediction that this smaller pipeline would spill around 11 times throughout its lifetime of approximately 50 years, it has already had more than it’s lifetime number of spills within its first year of operation. So while the Sandhills region and Ogallala may be spared from catastrophe the land traversed in the new route will still be subject to as devastating a fate, like the 6 story geyser of diluted bitumen seen in the worst Keystone 1 spill.

Everyone in the way of this pipeline should become aware of the history of ecological damage these types of pipelines have already experienced.  And those of us near the terminous – where heavy crude oil refineries may be gearing up to refine this most polluting of all crudes, spilling more toxins into the air around Houston, Beaumont and Port Arthur, TX or the ports will load large ships with the diluted bitumen and send them out into the Gulf of Mexico – well, we have other pollution worries to consider.

Read Full Post »

Polluters complain to Congress about new EPA rules, but tell SEC their bottom line will be fine.

Posted in Air Quality, tagged , , on November 28, 2011 |

According to the Associated Press, across the land, large and small polluters have regaled Republican-led congressional committees with dire predictions of plant closings and layoffs if the EPA succeeds with plans to further curb air and water pollution.

But their message to financial regulators and investors conveys less gloom and uncertainty.

The Associated Press compared the companies’ congressional testimony to company reports submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The reports to the SEC consistently said the impact of environmental proposals is unknown or would not cause serious financial harm to a firm’s finances.

Companies argue that their less gloomy SEC filings are correct, since most of the tougher anti-pollution proposals have not been finalized. And their officials’ testimony before congressional committees was sometimes on behalf of — and written by — trade associations, a perspective that can differ from an individual company’s view.

The disparity in the messages shows that in a politically divided environment, business has no misgivings about describing potential economic horror stories to lawmakers.

California Rep. Henry Waxman, the senior Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the SEC filings “show that the anti-regulation rhetoric in Washington is political hot air with little or no connection to reality.”

The lesson here, is – every time a company threatens gloom and doom consequences from regulation, we should also take a look at what they are saying to the SEC and their stockholders.

Read Full Post »

Pipelines of Poison Sidestep Stalled State Department Signoff

Posted in Air Quality, Global Warming, Tarsands, tagged , , , , on November 21, 2011 |

Foreign Pipeline Owners Find a Way to Get Around Federal Permit Process

TransCanada is attempting to outsmart the State Department and bypass federal blocks by using two existing pipelines of poison after the State Department and President Obama delayed approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline permit amidst concerns about bias, conflicts of interest, and environmental issues,  If implemented the pipeline of poison will pose serious threats to Texas water resources that supply 12 million in East Texas and the Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston metropolises, and our climate.  The groups are urging Texans to contact their local and state officials and ask them to stop the pipelines of poison.

“TransCanada is attempting to mislead the public and circumvent the regulatory mandates of Presidential approval, environmental review and public participation,” said Tom “Smitty” Smith, director of the Texas office of Public Citizen.  “They are now proposing to connect their Gulf Coast Segment (from Cushing, OK to Port Arthur and Houston, TX) into the end of their existing Keystone 1 pipeline.  Make that foreign tar sands corporations – 1: the United States – 0.”

“We also believe that Enbridge also plans to do the same by connecting their proposed Wrangler pipeline that runs from Cushing, OK to Houston TX to their existing Spearhead pipeline system that runs from Canada to Cushing, OK. It would be a serious mistake to allow these pipelines to carry toxic tar sands across Texas land,” continued Smith.

Threats to Texas Water Sources

These two pipelines of poison – TransCanada’s Gulf Coast Segment and Enbridge’s Wrangler – would pose serious threats to Texas water resources, including aquifers, drinking and agricultural water resources for up to 12 million Texans in Dallas, Houston and East Texas.

Tar Sands Pipeline Affected Texas WaterwaysTransCanada’s pipeline would cross the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer, the Trinity Aquifer and the Gulf Coast Aquifer.  It would traverse 16 large rivers several of which are listed as sensitive and protected, and cross over more than 130 designated floodplain areas in Texas.  These rivers and drainages feed 21 lakes and municipal reservoirs, including Pat Mayse Lake, Lake Tyler and Lake Cypress Springs.

“TransCanada’s Keystone 1 pipeline has already leaked 14 times in its first year,” said Chris Wilson, a chemical engineering consultant for opponents of the pipeline.  “How can we trust them to build it better and not endanger the waterways in Texas?”

In 2011, one of Enbridge’s pipelines leaked over 1 million gallons of tar sands into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan.  Clean-up efforts have cost over $700 million, it’s still not cleaned-up and people and animals are sick and communities are poisoned.

“Sadly, this is what happens when there are no federal pipeline safety regulations and effective cleanup procedure for toxic tar sands spills,” continued Ms. Wilson.  “Tar sands are not like crude oil which floats on water, they are heavier and they sink, making cleanup much more difficult if not impossible.  Congress should protect the public and put an immediate halt on all tar sands pipelines until studies are completed, safety regulations are enacted and effective spill remediation procedures are put in place.”

Other Threats to Texas

“Despite the fact that TransCanada and Enbridge imply that they might not have to undergo environmental review our analysis has identified several major environmental hazards and key red flags to the project that are cause for concern and require addressing,” said Karen Hadden, Executive Director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition.  “These include:

  • Toxic spills that would threaten drinking and agricultural water resources for up to 12 million Texans in Dallas, Houston and East Texas;
  • Exposure to benzene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons(PAH’S) and heavy metals;
  • Increases in toxic refinery emissions, greenhouse gases, climate change and associated Environmental Justice issues in the end of market refinery communities in Texas;
  • Increases in refinery wastewater toxicity, toxic solid waste volume and spent catalyst toxicity ;
  • Lack of federal safety pipeline standards and spill remediation standards for tar sands pipelines;
  • Drought and wildfire in Texas;
  • Lack of Emergency Response Plans for volunteer fire departments to address pipeline fires; and
  • Eminent domain abuses, threats and bullying of TX landowners.”

Threats to the Health of Texans

The crude oil that would flow through the pipeline is known as diluted bitumen, or dilbit.  Federal safety officials don’t know precisely which chemicals TransCanada mixes with bitumen to create dilbit, including the levels of benzene used in the diluents. And even industry groups can’t say exactly how corrosive dilbit is.

“The U.S. EPA raised serious health risks over benzene in the diluents in a June 2011 letter to the U.S. State Department based on ambient air data at the Kalamazoo river spill”, stated Dr. Neil Carman, Clean Air Program Director of the Sierra Club Lone Star Chapter.  “In a tar sands pipeline spill Benzene easily volatilizes into the air at ambient temperatures allowing inhalation exposure to occur, its toxicity results in immediate health effects in the low parts per billion range.  Benzene also poses a water contamination risk at low concentrations.”

“These characteristics make benzene the most dangerous chemical to human health in a tar sands pipeline spill because it is a known human carcinogenic agent,” Carman emphasized.  “Short-term benzene exposures may cause a variety of health effects, including nausea, vomiting, dizziness, narcosis, reduction in blood pressure, and central nervous system depression as reported in Michigan from the Kalamazoo tar sands spill in July 2010 where high levels (15,000 parts per billion) were measured in the air.”

Finally, Carman noted that, “Tar sands bitumen contains 11X more sulfur and nickel, 5X more lead, and higher levels of other toxic substances (arsenic, chromium, vanadium, boron, and zinc) compared to conventional crude oil.”  Carman concluded, “The higher toxicity of tar sands bitumen will result in increased toxic emissions in refinery communities already overburdened with too much air pollution where environmental justice issues have been ignored by the state and the oil firms.”

Threats to Air Quality and Climate Change

NASA’s James Hansen, a leading climate scientist who rang the first alarm bells nearly 30 years ago, has called the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline “game over” for the climate.

According to a recent US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assessment, tar sands emissions are approximately twice those of conventional oil, making tar sands well-to-tank emissions approximately 82% higher than conventional oil.

“Tar sands oil is far dirtier than conventional crude oil,” said Tom “Smitty” Smith, director of Public Citizen’s Texas office.  “This will significantly increase emissions from Houston and Beaumont refineries, which will further put the region beyond the ability to meet federal air quality standards.”

“The DFW area won’t fare much better as pumps are situated at 20- to 100-mile-intervals along the length of the pipeline to “push” the tar sands crude,” continued Smith. “Pipeline pumps may be powered by burning diesel or natural gas, or by using electricity (which may come from burning natural gas or coal at power plants that feed the area).  This will add to the emissions blowing into the DFW area.”

What Can Be Done If Foreign Corporations Circumvent U.S. Regulatory Process

Texans should contact their elected officials regarding their concerns about TransCanada’s Gulf Coast and Enbridge’s Wrangler proposed tar sands pipelines and they should ask their elected officials to join together to protect Texans from the dangers of toxic tar sands pipeline spills and impacts to end-of-market refinery communities.  The Texas Legislature needs to study tar sands, hold interim hearing about tar sands and work together with their constituents to assure that Texans water, air, land and health are not harmed by toxic tar sands.

Cites:

Read Full Post »

What is the state of your air? Check out the American Lung Association’s “State of the Air 2011” Report

Posted in Air Quality, tagged , , , on November 17, 2011 |

The American Lung Association State of the Air 2011 report ranks the metropolitan areas based on ozone and particle pollution during 2007, 2008 and 2009. For particle pollution, they rank the areas separately with high year-round (annual average) levels and high short-term levels (24-hour) found in monitoring sites across the United States. They compile data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to get the rankings.

Most Polluted Cities
The cities are ranked by the air quality in the most polluted county in the metropolitan area. Click on the city name to open links to a chart of the trends for ozone and year-round particle levels, as well as more information about air pollution and the local Lung Association.  Note that some cities rank high on one list and don’t show up on other lists because of the differences in their pollution problems. Each city includes all the counties that form the economic and transportation network that makes up the metropolitan area as defined by the federal government.

Cleanest Cities
The cities on the cleanest cities lists for ozone and for short-term levels of particle pollution had no days with unhealthy levels of ozone or particle pollution. These lists are not ranked because all the cities earned the same scores. The cities on the list of the cleanest for year-round particle pollution levels are ranked by their average levels of particles, as calculated by the EPA. Note that some cities are clean for one category, but not for others.

County rankings and cleanest county lists are also available in the full report.

Read Full Post »

EPA issues first Texas Greenhouse Gas Permit

Posted in Air Quality, Climate Change, Global Warming, tagged , , , , on November 15, 2011 |

According to the Texas Energy Report, the EPA has issued its first greenhouse gas permit in Texas with the TCEQ refusing to issue permits to LCRA or others

The Lower Colorado River Authority received the first Texas Greenhouse Gas permit as it upgrades a 37-year-old generating unit in Llano County to a more efficient natural gas-powered unit, federal environmental regulators announced Thursday.

LCRA, which is making improvements to its Thomas C. Ferguson Power Plant, is the first company in Texas to complete a greenhouse gas permit application and obtain the final permit, a process that took about eight months, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

“The LCRA plant will use improved environmental controls and install modern high efficiency equipment,” said EPA Regional Administrator Al Armendariz. “LCRA is leading the way by providing Texans an efficient and reliable source of clean power.”

EPA granted the first Texas greenhouse gas permit and is reviewing 10 others for Texas companies. Under EPA’s final national regulations, projects beginning on Jan. 2, 2011 that “increase greenhouse gas emissions substantially” require the air permits.

While the EPA said it thinks states are “best equipped” to oversee the permitting process, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has refused to do so.

In an Aug. 2, 2010 letter to the EPA, the Texas Attorney General and TCEQ explained, “The State of Texas does not believe that EPA’s suggested approach comports with the rule of law” and that would “preclude TCEQ from declaring itself ready to require permits for greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources as you request.”

Under the LCRA permit, the electric cooperative plans to replace an old 440-megawatt electric generating boiler with a new, 590-megwatt combined cycle gas-fired plant.

“We appreciate EPA’s work on our project,” said LCRA General Manager Becky Motal. “The region will benefit from the latest environmental controls and our customers will benefit from our ability to better manage costs with a plant that will use about 35 to 40 percent less fuel than traditional gas-fired plants.”

The TCEQ released a statement saying it is pleased LCRA’s project is morning forward, but “we see no need for – or any environmental benefit from – EPA’s greenhouse gas permit. The TCEQ authorized the project on Sept. 1, 2011 after careful review that determined the permit was protective of the environment and fully compliant with all state environmental regulations.”

TCEQ’s greenhouse gas letter to the EPA is here.

EPA’s letter to permit holders and the public is here.

Read Full Post »

Effort to kill the CSAPR in the US Senate fails

Posted in Air Quality, tagged , , , on November 14, 2011 |

The U.S. Senate killed Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-Kentucky) effort last week to strike down the EPA’s Cross State Air Pollution Rule regulating emissions that blow across state lines, thanks in part to your calls and emails.

The measure died on a 41-56 vote with Texas Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison voting for the failed measure. The air pollution rule requires certain states, including Texas, to cut harmful emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide.

President Obama had promised to veto the bill if it arrived at his desk. Still, that didn’t stop attacks from foes of the controversial rule, which has prompted lawsuits against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by the State of Texas and the state’s largest power generator (Dallas-based Luminant, which relies heavily on coal-fired generation).  Both declaring that the rule would harm the reliability of Texas’ electric grid and kill jobs.

Senators from small eastern states, however, said they had done all they could to clean up their own air already but were now contending with 95 percent of pollution that arrives from other states.

Backers of the rule say cleaning up the air is job friendly because it creates green jobs and reduces employee sick days and absenteeism in public schools. Opponents of the rule said installing expensive emissions-cutting retrofits would hurt jobs at a time when creating jobs should be the top priority. They also said it would hurt senior citizens and the poor who would see their power bills increase.

Again, to those of you who made calls and sent in emails, thank you.

Read Full Post »

NPR reports on how energy and environmental issues affect you

Posted in Air Quality, Coal, Energy, Global Warming, natural gas, Nuclear, Texas Legislature, Water, tagged , , , on November 9, 2011 |

StateImpact is a collaboration among NPR and local public radio stations in eight pilot states to examine issues of local importance. The project seeks to inform and engage communities with broadcast and online news about how state government decisions affect people’s lives.

In Texas, a collaboration between local public radio stations KUT Austin, KUHF Houston and NPR with reporters Mose Buchele, Terrence Henry and Dave Fehling traveling the state, the focus will be on reporting on how energy and environmental issues affect you.  Click here to read their reports or listen to them on NPR member stations.  Below are links to just a few of the stories StateImpact – Texas has reported on recently.

Read Full Post »

North Texas beats Houston for worst air quality in the State

Posted in Air Quality, tagged , , , , , , on November 8, 2011 |

In the 2011 ozone season, North Texas pushed ahead of Houston in the battle for the worst air quality in the state. Both metro areas have significant pollution problems, and both continue to exceed federal ozone limits.

Dallas-Fort Worth now has the distinction of beating the Bayou City as the former longtime state champ, and one that has been contending for years for the worst smog problem in the country.

The release of the 2011 ozone season stats has been met with little concern by those in positions of power.

The Texas leadership keeps telling Texans that the feds are out to get us with their onerous and unnecessary environmental rules and regulations. But as the ozone readings reveal, the state isn’t troubling itself with meeting even basic standards.

North Texas and Houston are still exceeding the now-outdated ozone limit of 85 parts per billion and are nowhere near complying with the new standard of 75 ppb.  We all pay for failing to meet this bar with public health consequences — more respiratory illnesses, hospital visits, lost work days and premature deaths.

Texas is under federal mandate to reduce ozone levels. The state is required to submit and to abide by plans to improve air quality — but too many deadlines have been missed, and too many plans have been little more than Band-Aids.

The story the numbers tell is, not enough has been done to bring North Texas into compliance. The metropolitan area needs a more aggressive clean-air plan, but it also needs state environmental officials to lead the way to reduce pollution from sources outside the cities’ purview – like coal-fired power plants – that blow into these urban areas making it even more difficult to meet air quality standards.

Read Full Post »

Public Citizen, Sierra Club and SEED Coalition Fear Luminant Will Simply Run Units Next Summer Without Cleaning Up the Air Emissions

Posted in Air Quality, Coal, tagged , , , , on October 6, 2011 |

Public Citizen, Sierra Club and SEED Coalition are calling on Luminant to come clean and retire, rather than idle, the old dirty coal plant, Monticello 1 and 2.

After receiving notice that Luminant Generation Company, LLC, has filed a Notification of Suspension of Operations for Monticello Units 1 and 2 with the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), these environmental groups called on Luminant to retire the units rather than idle them and be more forthcoming with long-term plans that will affect workers.  While Luminant and Texas have been in the headlines repeatedly for their opposition to the Cross State Air Pollution Rule, the rule would effectively help Dallas/Fort Worth meet the minimum public health air quality standards for the first time in years. Yet, if Luminant only idles the plants, then chooses to run them at full capacity next summer, the implications for Dallas/Ft Worth’s air quality remain unclear.

“Luminant has been frightening Texans with claims that power will become scarce if the company is not allowed to continue polluting unabated.  But other Texas utilities are cleaning up their act without difficulty, and this summer’s successful growth of coastal wind demonstrates there are multiple ways to meet Texas’ electricity needs.” said Jen Powis, representative of Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign.   “Indeed, the Public Utilities Commission and ERCOT both have multiple tools in their arsenal that can be used to ensure grid reliability as Texas moves beyond coal.”

Luminant states that the rule unfairly targets their existing generation, yet a review of the 2009 self-reported emissions inventory maintained by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality demonstrates that the three Luminant coal plants (Big Brown, Monticello, and Martin Lake) are the top 3 industrial polluters in Texas among nearly 2,000 industrial plants. They are exceptionally dirty plants:

  • Combined they emit 25.5% of state industrial air pollution
  • Combined they emit 33.8% of state industrial SO2 air pollution
  • Combined they emit 11.4% of state industrial PM10 air pollution
  • Combined they emit 10% of state industrial NOx air pollution
  • Combined they emit 37.6% of state industrial CO air pollution

Comparing Luminant’s three coal plants only to other coal plants, however, shows an even more problematic tale.  Luminant’s Big Brown, Monticello, and Martin Lake are:

  •  46.8% of all Texas coal plant emissions (19 existing coal plants)
  • 41.5% of all Texas coal plant SO2 emissions
  • 36.0% of all Texas coal plant PM10 emissions
  • 30.6% of all Texas coal plant NOx emissions
  • 71.7% of all Texas coal plant CO emissions

“We call on Luminant to move beyond posturing and sit down at the negotiating table with EPA in good faith to discuss responsible retirement plans for these plants, like CPS Energy in San Antonio is doing. This approach would be good for consumers, our health and the environment,” said Tom “Smitty” Smith of Public Citizen’s Texas office.

“In order to protect the health of Texans, Luminant must plan now to retire these old coal plants. Monticello has often been the worst emitter of toxic mercury pollution in the nation,” said Karen Hadden, Executive Director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition. “We don’t believe Luminant’s plans to retrofit these plants are economically feasible given the company’s poor financial health. Their plans rely on multiple expensive changes, any of which could simply fail to materialize. Luminant should commit to retire Monticello Units 1 and 2, and work with ERCOT, EPA, and public interest groups to prioritize clean energy generation.”

Public Citizen, Sierra Club and SEED Coalition call on Luminant to cease the use of scare tactics, and commit to a plan to retire its Monticello Units 1 and 2, paving the way for clean energy in North Texas. All three groups also call on ERCOT and the PUC to move forward by implementing new rules for energy storage, distributed renewable energy like onsite solar, energy efficiency, demand response, and a restructuring of the Emergency Interruptible Load System to assure there are maximum options available next summer.

“The Legislature has already granted broad authority to ERCOT and PUC to expand our use of these tools,” noted Cyrus Reed, with Sierra Club. “Now it’s time for them to step up to the plate, begin implementing these measures, and using their time to create solutions rather than fight clean air protections.”

Read Full Post »

Tar Sands Cronyism

Posted in Air Quality, Tarsands, tagged , , , on October 4, 2011 |

In a New York Times op-ed by Bill McKibbens, he talks about the cronyism of the TransCanada tar sands play.  He makes reference to e-mails, made available by the environmental group Friends of the Earth, that show the State Department working with lobbyists to advance the interests of TransCanada, the company trying to build the Keystone XL pipeline from the tar sands of Canada through the heartland of the United States to the refineries of Texas capable of refining this highly polluting form of crude oil.

McKibbens goes on about other evidence that show, even as the State Department was supposedly carrying out a neutral evaluation of the pipeline’s environmental impact, key players were undermining the process. And when the State Department picked a consulting firm to help carry out the environmental impact statement on the Keystone pipeline, it chose a company called Cardno Entrix that listed among its chief clients …TransCanada.   It is no wonder that the final report that came out in late August, stated the pipeline would have “no significant impact” on the nearby land and water resources.

At local hearings along the pipeline route, Cardno Entrix again appeared front and center as the “facilitators” of those “public hearings.”   Click here to read our earlier blog about the Austin hearing.

Click here to read the entire New York Times Op-ed by Bill McKibben.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »