Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Obama’s Rejection of Keystone A Sensible Decision

January 18, 2012 by Citizen Carol

In a statement this afternoon, Obama said that he received a recommendation from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton earlier today recommending that the Keystone XL tar sands Presidential permit application be denied.

TransCanada’s first tar sands pipeline leaked 12 times in its first year of operation, although the company estimated it would leak just once in 14 years. The proposed Keystone XL pipeline route would cross Texas’s third-largest aquifer, as well as numerous rivers and lakes that provide water to some of the most populated areas of the Lone Star State, making TransCanada’s leaky history a pretty compelling reason for reviewing Keystone XL thoroughly. But when congressional Republicans forced a 60-day decision on the Keystone XL’s presidential permit, they took the option of a thorough review away from President Obama and the U.S. State Department.

Trevor Lovell with the Texas office of Public Citizen said, “Today’s rejection of the permit application was the only sensible decision the Obama administration could make.”

Posted in Global Warming | Tagged , , , , |

Bill would give Oklahomans the right to vote on sale of water to Texas

January 18, 2012 by Citizen Carol

As Texas struggles to determine how they will meet their water needs in the face of what could be an extended 5 to 10 year period of drought, Oklahomans are looking to protect their water rights as their neighbors to the south look on lustfully.

An Associated Press story says proposed legislation by two Oklahoma state lawmakers would require a statewide vote of the people before any out-of-state sale of Oklahoma water. Sen. Jerry Ellis of Valliant and Rep. Eric Proctor of Tulsa said the legislation, dubbed “The People’s Water Act”, would give Oklahomans the final say in deals with other states.

The Tarrant Regional Water District has waged a multi-year legal battle to obtain water from Oklahoma that has so far been unsuccessful. Ellis, who is based in water-rich Southeastern Oklahoma has been one of the most vocal opponents of water sales to Texas and said the future of Oklahoma water should not be decided in private meetings between politicians and Texans.

In the 1870s to 1881 recurrent friction and eventual violent conflict over water rights in the vicinity of Tularosa, New Mexico, involving villagers, ranchers, and farmers were well documented.  As the region deals with this extended drought, which some say could be the region’s new norm, could we be looking at more conflicts over water, not only along groundwater sources inside the state, between industrials, urban areas and agriculutural regions, but between Texas and its neighbors?

Read more here: http://blogs.star-telegram.com/politex/2012/01/bill-would-give-oklahomans-the-right-to-vote-on-any-texas-water-sale.html#storylink=cpy

Posted in Coal Plants, Water | Tagged , , |

What is Environmental Justice and Why did the EPA sing, “Free At Last”

January 17, 2012 by Citizen Carol

Reprinted with permission from Christopher Searles blog – http://chrissearles.blogspot.com/

In January of 2011 U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder addressed the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Civil Rights Affirmative Employment and Diversity at an event honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., “I am old to enough to have witnessed and experienced the remarkable progress that’s been made since the 1960s when Dr. King, in addition to his many other achievements, helped to plant the seeds for what would become our nation’s now-thriving environmental justice movement.”
Holder, “I want you to know that – at every level of the Justice Department, just like here at the EPA, (Environmental Justice) is a top priority — and, for me, it is also a personal calling.”
‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
According to the EPA, Environmental Justice will be achieved when “everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work.” The movement against Environmental Racism began in the 1980s and was formally established as the Environmental Justice movement in 1991 when the First National People of Color delegation drafted and adopted “Principles of Environmental Justice” in Washington, D.C.  Read Principles here.
In recent years the movement has expanded its definition beyond color lines. “We are just as much concerned with inequities in Appalachia, for example, where the whites are basically dumped on because of lack of economic and political clout,” says Dr. Robert Bullard, movement ‘grandfather.’ Likewise, the movement has grown beyond radical environmentalism to include Christian, Jewish and other communities of faith and the academic sector. In the religious domain, Environmental Justice is often referred to as “Social Justice.”
Attorney Gen. Holder, “Dr. King did not have the chance to witness the impact of the movement that he began. But he left with us the creed that continues to guide our work. His enduring words, which he penned from a Birmingham jail cell, still remind us that, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
Attorney General Eric Holder, “Environmental Justice is a Civil Rights issue.”
At the EPA’s 2011 event Holder cited a 2005 report showing that African Americans were nearly 80 percent more likely than white Americans to live near hazardous industrial pollution sites at that time. Holder said these issues persist, “In 2011, the burden of environmental degradation still falls disproportionately on low-income communities and communities of color, and most often on their youngest residents: our children, my children.”
“This is unacceptable.  And it is unconscionable.  But through the aggressive enforcement of federal environmental laws in every community, I believe that we can – and I know that we must – change the status quo.”
After Holder’s speech the event’s program closed with the EPA’s general counsel and EPA’s associate director of the Water Protection performing “Free at Last” for the audience at the Ronald Reagan Building.

Read more via CNSnews.com.
Learn about the EPA’s Environmental Justice Achievement Awards.
Other sources: EcoHearth, The National Council of Churches, TaintedGreen, Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History.

Hope everyone had a thoughtful MLK Day yesterday.

Posted in Global Warming | Tagged , , , , , , , |

DFW Air Quality Standards – EPA Public Comments Sought

January 10, 2012 by Citizen Carol

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.

Posted in Air Quality | Tagged , , , , |

Austin Energy drought proofs its energy with new Webberville Solar Project

January 6, 2012 by Citizen Carol

On a blustery and brilliantly sunny Texas winter day a couple hundred Central Texas citizens, that included officials and solar enthusiasts, gathered on what had been an empty 380 acre field only three years ago to usher in a new era of “drought-proof” energy for the City of Austin.

Former Austin Mayor Will Wynn, PUC Commissioner Rolando Pablos, Austin Councilmember Bill Spelman, Travis County Commissioner Ron Davis, Webberville Mayor Hector Gonzales, Austin Energy General Manager Larry Weis, Austin Councilmember Chris Riley, Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell and Mark Mendenhall of SunEdison.

On Friday, January 6, 2012, Austin Energy held a grand opening ceremony for their new Webberville Solar Project, the largest facility in Texas and among the largest in the nation with 127,728 ground mounted solar panels that rotate with the sun and will generate 30 megawatts (MW) of electricity – enough to power 5,000 homes annually.

A number of years ago, the City of Austin purchased this land planning to install a new coal-fired power plant.  When those plans fell through, a landfill was proposed for the site that now boasts 280 acres of solar panels with a view of downtown Austin along its horizon.

Public Citizen says kudos to the City of Austin and Austin Energy for their vision and efforts in completing this project.  Given that the State Climatologist is warning us that Texas can expect up to 5 more years of the current drought cycle, this project came just in time to help provide our community with drought–proof electricity during the peak use times – that will come in handy next summer.

Posted in Global Warming, Renewables, solar | Tagged , , , , |

Texas 2011 Drought, $93 Billion in Tree Losses?

January 6, 2012 by Citizen Carol

Reprinted with permission from Chris Searles‘ blogspot

“Nobody knows the true economic value of trees.” That’s the first thing that popped into my head last week when I read the Texas Forest Service recently estimated up to a half billion Texas trees measuring at least five inches in diameter were lost due to the unrelenting drought of 2011.
Map of Texas' Eco Regions

Map of Texas' Eco Regions

I already knew the state had lost close to four million acres of open lands to record wildfires, suffered over five billion dollars in agricultural and livestock damages, considered shutting down parts of its electric grid to prevent rolling blackouts due to water shortages, and that the list goes on. I also knew the long-term effects of Texas’s drought looked equally dismal and that all its damage didn’t just hurt Texans, but seriously? Hundreds of million of trees “killed?” That sounds expensive.

The economic value of trees. I did a little digging. It doesn’t take much time on Google to figure out the average value of an urban tree is about $1,000.00 per tree. The range of valuations, however, is huge. I have a friend who recently paid $7,500 to have three trees “installed” in his yard. The Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers says, “A mature tree can have an appraised value of between $1,000 and $10,000.” A US Court once valued a single, mature tree at over $160,000.00. But let’s go with the City of Arlington, TX’s 2009 study (pdf), which appraises their urban trees at about $932.50 per tree. Since the Arlington study omits many of the intrinsic services associated with both wild and urban trees in their valuation and since Arlington’s number is the lowest I could find, let’s assume this is a fair and conservative tree value and use it.  Multiple the number of trees lost times the Arlington valuation, and you get:
-$93,250,320,404.72. -$93.2 Billion (in 2009 dollars). That’s Arlington’s $932.50 per tree x 100 Million tree losses. But wait, that’s the low number. Texas Forest Service estimates “between 100 million and 500 million” trees died last year. Their high end count of nearly half a billion trees nets out a total impact of over -$466 Billion ($466,251,602,023.61 to be exact). Impressive, right? People seem to have a hard time thinking of the environment as having any economic value, perhaps that’s because the environment’s value dwarfs our little human-made economy. I’ve always suspected the “dollar” value of ecosystem services to be many orders of magnitude greater than the entire industrialized economy. How couldn’t it be? How could Texas suffer around $100 Billion in ecosystem losses during a recession year and not be severely impaired? And what is the industrial economy is catching up? Perhaps events like this massive tree die off are whittling down our natural systems and there are only a few orders magnitude of greatness left in our nature. Texas Forest Service estimates from 2% to 10% of the state’s 4.9 billion trees were just killed.* How many consecutive years can Texas sustain around $100 Billion in forest destruction? 49 years? 9 years? The drought is expected to continue for at least five years. If that comes to pass, its effects will likely have significantly changed much of Texas as early as 2017. Climate aficionados like me believe Austin will become more like Tucson over the next 90 years as desertification moves north. But what if that transition has already begun? What if Austin’s desertification will be securely in place sometime in the next 10 years? What’s Austin without trees? What happens to Austin’s water cycle and summertime temperatures? Plenty of climate scientists believe Texas is indeed on a super rapid change trajectory, way ahead of schedule.
How Texas compares to the rest of the country

67.3% of the state in "extreme" drought conditions

But nobody knows the economic value of trees. Or ecology. Or nature itself. And that’s the point. Our environment should probably contain exponentially more economic value than our industrial economy. Perhaps we should start counting. And start changing. If you believe, as I tend to, that we humans are playing Russian roulette with the planet’s future, changing the way society measures economic success is paramount, as is eliminating the emissions believed to be driving things like radical drought, as is preserving our trees and ecosystems.
Resources

  • Tree Services. Trees perform so many services.The Texas Trees Foundation lists the popularly accepted ones, such as: energy efficiency, human health benefits, pollution control, and property value enhancement. Trees Are Good, big fans of trees, list several more. The Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington has an even longer list including intangibles, such as psycho-social dimensions and positive effects on consumers in shopping malls. iTree is an industry-embraced software, being used around the world, to appraise trees according to a number of different criteria.
  • Lake Levels are another indication of total precipitation in the system. Texas lakes are generally speaking at all time lows. Check out the USGS and LCRA measurements. 
  • Fruit Trees. Texas has (had?) an abundant food production economy, particularly in the southern regions of the state, thanks to grapefruit, lime, etc. Learn more here.
  • Tree Calculator. Calculate the value of your own trees here.
  • Photo Gallery. View one local drought photo gallery here.

*Total value of 4.9 Billion Texas trees, at $932.50 per tree in 2009 dollars is 4,589,250,000,000 ($4.5 Trillion).

Posted in Global Warming | Tagged , |

Fracking – Shake, Rattle and Roll

January 5, 2012 by Citizen Carol

Are small earthquakes associated with hydraulic fracturing for gas?  Recent quakes in Ohio and Arkansas have taken many people by surprise, including a 2.7-magnitude earthquake that rocked Ohio on Christmas Eve, followed by a  4.0-magnitude quake on New Year’s Eve bringing the total to nine last year.  All of the quakes were recorded within a 5-mile radius of a hydrolic fracturing wastewater injection well.

Fracking and EarthquakeGas industry executives say there’s no hard evidence that their activities are causing these quakes. But some scientists say it’s certainly possible and have found that pumping water away from underground mines (to keep them from flooding) changes the dynamics of stress in rock formations enough to trigger a quake.

Some rock is saturated with water — the water occupies pores between rock particles. This creates what’s called “pore pressure” and keeps the formation in a sort of equilibrium. If you suck the water out, particles tend to collapse in on themselves: the rock compresses. Add water, and you push particles apart. So moving water around underground can affect the stresses on those formations.

Hydraulic fracturing pumps a lot of water underground, where it’s used to crack the rock and liberate gas. This may cause tiny quakes, but fracking goes on for a day or two, and the quakes are small.  But the recent quakes reported in Ohio and Arkansas are associated with the waste-water wells used to dispose of the fracking water, not the fracking wells. The water first used in fracturing rock is retrieved and pumped into these waste wells under high pressure and as much as 9,000 feet deep. It’s this pressure that can actually create earthquakes.

A few geologists are familiar with these induced or triggered quakes. They’re rare and usually small, but now fracking is creating thousands of waste-water wells, often in heavily populated areas that historically have not been seismically active. That means even small quakes get noticed.

We could avoid creating earthquakes by recycling the fracking waste-water rather than injecting into waste wells, however when the state of Pennsylvania tried it they found that waste-water treatment plants couldn’t get all the toxic material out of fracking water, and the “cleaned up” water returned to rivers wasn’t clean enough. So now they ship it to to Ohio, where there is a more relaxed regulatory environment.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is working on ways to head off quakes from waste-water wells by performing seismic surveys before drilling the wells or limiting the amount of water going into wells.  USGS geologists have learned that the more water injected, the bigger an ensuing quake.

Flamable tap water, earthquakes – this fracking business just keeps getting better and better . . .

Posted in Fracking | Tagged , , , |

Wishing you a happy holiday season

December 23, 2011 by Citizen Carol

Holiday Greetings

Posted in Global Warming | Tagged |

Texas Groups Hail First-Ever Protections from Mercury Pollution

December 21, 2011 by Citizen Carol

Texas environmental and public health groups welcome today’s new EPA safeguards to reduce mercury and other toxic air pollutants from the smokestacks of the nation’s aging fleet of coal and oil-fired power plants.  The new public health protection has been developed over nearly twenty years and is required by law under the Clean Air Act, the landmark public health legislation passed during the Nixon Administration.  The rules will be a significant benefit to public health and water quality in Texas since six of the top 10 worst mercury emitting power plants in the nation are in Texas.  Twenty-three Texas lakes near coal plants are so contaminated with mercury that eating fish from those lakes could cause brain damage to unborn children. Information about the new health protection can be found at http://epa.gov/mats/.

 

“As a family doctor, I am regularly obligated to council young women to limit fish consumption.  Mercury exposure during pregnancy can cause severe mental retardation, cerebral palsy, deafness, blindness, and seizures in children.  Kids who eat contaminated seafood have demonstrated deficits in attention, fine motor function, language, visual-spatial abilities, and memory. Prevention is key — I can’t fix a child’s brain that has been damaged by mercury.  The costs both to those families that are affected by mercury toxicity and to our society as a whole are staggering.  At last there is good news.  I applaud the EPA standards which could go a long way to clean up our air and reduce unnecessary exposures to mercury and other dangerous toxins,” said Dr. Lisa Doggett, a practicing Physician and co-president of Austin Physicians for Social Responsibility.

 

In July, more than 800,000 comments from across the country were delivered to EPA in support of the new mercury and air toxics rule, with more than 600,000 of these from Sierra Club members and supporters. Despite being the single largest industrial emitters of heavy metals like arsenic, mercury, and selenium, power plants have been exempt from Clean Air Act standards that apply to all other industry sectors.

 

“The only thing more shocking than the large amounts of toxic chemicals released into the air each year by coal and oil fired power plants is the fact that these emissions have been allowed for so many years,” said Ilan Levin, Environmental Integrity Project Associate Director.

 

According to a report based on utility data by the Environmental Integrity Project (available at http://www.environmentalintegrity.org), Texas is by far the nation’s top power plant mercury polluter.  Texas coal-fired power plants emitted 16.9 percent of the total U.S. mercury air emissions for 2010, and Texas is home to 11 of the top 50 mercury polluters in the nation. Dallas-based Luminant (formerly TXU) operates the nation’s dirtiest power plant for mercury emissions; the Big Brown coal plant, located about halfway between Houston and Dallas, pumped 1,610.1 pounds of mercury into the air in 2010.  Three of Luminant’s other large coal-fired power plants are also ranked among the top 50 dirtiest power plants in the nation: Martin Lake (number three), Monticello (number seven), and Sandow 4 (a single coal-fired boiler ranked number 28).

 

Other Texas coal-fired power plants owned by American Electric Power, NRG, and the Lower Colorado River Authority and City of Austin are among the nation’s top 50 worst mercury air polluters.  EPA’s new rule is intended to reduce the levels of toxic metals and acid gases that these electric power plants emit into the atmosphere.

 

The list of the most polluting plants and states can be found here: http://www.environmentamerica.org/home/reports/report-archives/clean-air/clean-air/americas-biggest-polluters-how-cleaning-up-the-dirtiest-power-plants-will-protect-public-health

 

“Today’s new health protection will reduce mercury pollution in our air and water substantially over the next decade,” said Jen Powis, Senior Regional Representative with the Sierra Club.  “Reducing mercury pollution will have a significant impact for Texans’ health, and all Texas power generators should look forward to the opportunity to promote the health of women, babies, and young children in our state.”

 

In addition to lowering mercury emissions, the rule will reduce other fine particle heavy metals like arsenic, chromium, and lead, saving thousands of lives and billions of dollars each year.  EPA has estimated that the power plant air toxics rule will avoid between 6,800 and 17,000 premature deaths each year, and will result in annual savings of $48 to $140 billion.

 

“The hidden costs of toxic pollution from power plants far exceed the pennies that cleanup will cost each consumer. For every dollar spent on pollution controls we will get $5 to $13 in health benefits. Coal-fired power plants are also the single largest source of toxic mercury air pollution in Texas and the rest of the United States.  Besides mercury, coal-fired power plants emit a suite of other toxic air pollutants, which can cause serious health effects, especially for children and developing fetuses. Studies by the University of Texas Health Sciences Center in San Antonio have found correlations between high levels of mercury emissions and kids with autism in schools in Texas,” said Karen Hadden, Director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition.

 

Tom “Smitty” Smith of Public Citizen said, “For decades, the electric power industry has delayed cleanup and lobbied against public health rules designed to reduce pollution. They have decided that it was cheaper to invest in politicians than pollution controls and we see the result here in Texas. The technology and pollution control equipment necessary to reduce emissions of mercury and other dangerous air toxics are widely available and are working at some power plants across the country. There is no reason for Americans — and Texans in particular — to continue to live with risks to their health and to the environment.”

 

Stacy Guidry, Director of Texas Campaign for the Environment, Austin office, said, “The City of Austin has a ‘green’ reputation, but our very own Fayette Power Plant is right up there among the dirtiest – number 49 out of more than 450 coal fired power plants nationwide, in terms of sheer pounds of mercury emitted into the air.  In 2010, the Fayette power plant, owned by the Lower Colorado River Authority and Austin Energy, reported spewing 360 pounds of mercury out of the smokestacks.  Airborne mercury falls to the ground and contaminates water and soil.  That’s not my definition of ‘green’ and the City of Austin can do better.”

EPA Rule Information

###

Posted in Global Warming | Tagged , , |

ERCOT says Luminant can shut two Monticello power units

December 20, 2011 by Citizen Carol

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

Posted in Air Quality, Energy | Tagged , , , |

Help! Tar sands pipeline – it all comes down to Barack Obama and YOU!

December 16, 2011 by Citizen Carol

Big Oil’s representatives in the House and Senate are pushing legislation that would rush approval of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Up until now President Obama has stood strong, threatening to reject any bill that includes the pipeline.

But in the last hour, some terrible news has begun to leak from DC. President Obama seems to be on the verge of caving on Keystone. There’s no way to sugarcoat it — if the President allows Keystone to move forward, he will be failing the single biggest environmental test of his presidency.

The next few hours will be absolutely crucial — the President needs to hear from you that cutting a back-room deal with Big Oil on Keystone XL is unacceptable. If he steps up and threatens to veto this bill, he can stop this pipeline in its tracks.

Can you make a call right away? Here’s the White House number: 202-456-1111

Feel free to say what you want on the call, but remember to drive this one message home: to keep his promises, President Obama needs to veto legislation that would rush approval of Keystone XL. This pipeline is a threat to our climate and jobs and needs to be stopped.

After you’ve called the White House, take 30 seconds to let us know how it went by clicking here.

(Don’t worry if you get a busy signal — it’s actually a good sign: it means we’ve flooded the White House switchboard and that the movement is sending an overwhelming message to the President. Just keep on trying until you get through.)

President Obama came into office promising to “end the tyranny of oil.” This is his chance to prove he was serious. If he’s not, he needs to know right now that there will be real consequences.

Big Oil cut a back-room deal with the dirtiest Members of Congress to attach this legislation to a must-pass tax cut bill. These kinds of deals exemplify the tyranny Big Oil exercises over our government, and underscores why the President needs to threaten a veto.

We have just a few hours to convince him to stand strong and veto any legislation to rush the Keystone pipeline. Can you make a call right now and tell him that we expect nothing less? Here’s the number again: 202-456-1111

Your calls right now are absolutely crucial, and you should also be getting ready to get back into the streets in the days and weeks to come. We’re dusting off our plans to go to Obama 2012 offices and raise some ruckus. Call the White House, but also get in touch with your friends to start plotting your next steps locally.

This fight isn’t over yet — not by a long shot — and you can make a difference.

Posted in Global Warming | Tagged , , |

NRC halts STP expansion over foreign ownership issues

December 15, 2011 by Citizen Carol

STP US vs Foreign OwnershipThe Nuclear Regulatory Commission has suspended its review of the foreign ownership portion of the application to expand the South Texas Project nuclear plant over concerns that the owners haven’t done enough to ensure domestic control of the plant.

Toshiba Corp., based in Japan, could obtain an 85 percent ownership stake in the two nuclear plants proposed for the site outside of Bay City, the NRC found, meaning the company could have “the power to exercise ownership, control or domination over NINA,” or Nuclear Innovation North America.

NINA is a partnership between Toshiba and NRG Energy, which currently shares ownership of STP’s existing nuclear plants with CPS Energy and Austin Energy.

According to the Express-News, NRC staff, in its Dec. 13 letter to NINA, determined that the plan as submitted doesn’t meet the requirements of a federal law prohibiting foreign ownerships of a nuclear plant because, since NRG will not be investing additional capital in the project, “there is reason to believe that most of the financing going forward will be from Toshiba,” a foreign corporation.

This decision could push back a final decision on the license application:

The commission confirmed that the rest of the licensing application will continue to move ahead, but a license, which has been expected by sometime in 2012, will not be granted until the foreign ownership question is resolved.

Back in April of this year, federal officials said French owned UniStar Nuclear Energy was not eligible to build a third reactor at Calvert Cliffs because it is not a U.S.-owned company.  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said although a review of the application for the $9.6 billion reactor in Southern Maryland will still take place, a license would not be issued until the ownership requirements were met.  That application now lies languishing for want of U.S. based investors.

Here’s a link: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/energy/article/NRC-halts-nuclear-expansion-s-review-over-foreign-2402923.php

Posted in Global Warming | Tagged , , , , |

Sierra Club, Public Citizen, and Sandy Creek Reach Legal Agreement To Slash Air Pollution

December 14, 2011 by Citizen Carol

Earlier this week, Sierra Club, Public Citizen, and Sandy Creek Energy Associates filed a consent decree with a federal court settling legal challenges to the Sandy Creek Energy Station near Riesel, TX. Although the U.S. Court of Appeals had previously ruled in favor of Sierra Club’s and Public Citizen’s lawsuit against this proposed plant for Clean Air Act violations, construction of the Sandy Creek Energy Station is mostly complete. The proposed consent decree requires Sandy Creek to slash its emissions of toxic mercury and particle pollution from this plant and make significant clean energy investments in the local community.

Jen Powis, Campaign Representative with Sierra Club, said, “With this settlement, Sierra Club and Public Citizen were able to secure more than $400,000 for solar generation around the Riesel community, creating clean energy jobs and boosting the state’s solar capacity. This settlement also achieves a significant reduction in pollution, which benefits Texans and our neighbors.”

Specifically, the settlement requires Sandy Creek to lower its pollution levels and reduce the impact this plant will have on Texas’ already severe air quality problems.

“The federal courts found that we were right on the law,” said Tom “Smitty” Smith, Director of the Texas office of Public Citizen, “but the plant is now almost complete, so emission reductions and solar on school rooftops are a good compromise that will both reduce pollution and help bolster reserve capacity for next summer.  This would not have occurred if the citizens in the area had not gotten together to oppose the plant as it was originally proposed.”

The clean energy investments required by this settlement include a proposed solar panel installation at the nearby school. Kent Reynolds, the Superintendent of the Hallsburg Independent School District said, “Hallsburg ISD is very fortunate to be the beneficiary of a settlement allowing Hallsburg School to install solar panels on our facility for electricity production that will directly benefit the district. The savings on electricity realized by this project will allow the school to spend that money on the over-all instructional program for the students.”

“This is a great settlement for our community and our schools,” said Robert Cervenka, co-chair of the local organization, Texans Protecting Our Water Environment and Resources (TPOWER).  “As a result of our efforts, this new settlement will reduce emissions of mercury by 50 percent and particle emissions by another 25 percent.  This in addition to significant reductions we had already achieved as a result of citizens standing up for their rights, with the added bonus of a solar system being built on one of our local schools.  This just shows the power of people in a community working together to maintain the quality of life we moved here for and I’d like to thank everyone for all the help.”

Sierra Club, Public Citizen, and other public health and environmental groups continue to fight Texas’ other proposed coal plants in court and with grassroots pressure. Renewable energy, especially wind power, continues to demonstrate its reliability and affordability across the state.

Posted in Global Warming | Tagged , |

US environmental authorities have declared for the first time that fracking may be to blame for groundwater pollution.

December 9, 2011 by Citizen Carol

A draft finding by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could have a chilling effect on states trying to determine how to regulate the process.

Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, involves pumping pressurised water, sand and chemicals underground to open fissures and improve the flow of oil or gas to the surface.

The EPA found that compounds likely associated with fracking chemicals had been detected in the groundwater beneath the Wyoming community of Pavillion where residents say their well water reeks of chemicals.

Health officials advised them not to drink their water after the EPA found hydrocarbons in their wells.

The EPA announcement has major implications for the vast increase in gas drilling in the US in recent years. Fracking has played a large role in opening up many reserves.

The industry has long contended that fracking is safe, but environmentalists and some residents who live near drilling sites say it has poisoned groundwater.

The EPA said its announcement is the first step in a process of opening up its findings for review by the public and other scientists.

“EPA’s highest priority remains ensuring that Pavillion residents have access to safe drinking water,” said Jim Martin, EPA regional administrator in Denver. “We look forward to having these findings in the draft report informed by a transparent and public review process.”

At this time, the EPA is emphasising that the findings are specific to the Pavillion area. The agency said the fracking that occurred in Pavillion differed from fracking methods used elsewhere in regions with different geological characteristics.  Further studies need to be done in specific areas and the finding of this report should not be extrapolated to other areas of high activity.

This feels a bit like the EPA is hedging their bets and is scant consolation to those folks in other parts of the country who have the sideshow ability to light their water taps on fire.  Nevertheless, this finding may make it easier for other communities to have their voices heard when they express concerns about pollution of their water supplies.  This will be particularly important in Texas which is looking at a multi-year, record breaking drought in their future.

The fracking occurred below the level of the drinking water aquifer and close to water wells, the EPA said. Elsewhere, drilling is more remote and fracking occurs much deeper than the level of groundwater that anybody would use.

In Colorado, regulators are considering requiring oil and gas companies to publicly disclose the chemicals used in fracking

The public and industry representatives packed an 11-hour hearing on the issue on Monday. They all generally supported the proposal but the sticking point is whether trade secrets would have to be disclosed and how quickly the information would have be turned over.

Industry representatives say Colorado and Texas are the only states to have moved to consider disclosing all fracking chemicals, not just those considered hazardous by workplace regulators.

Posted in Water | Tagged , , , |

Radioactive waste dump seeking amendment to its license

December 8, 2011 by Citizen Carol

Waste Control Specialists LLC (WCS) is seeking several amendments to its Radioactive Material License # R04100 from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ).  Five of the amendments request design changes to the Compact Waste Disposal Facility (CWF) and the Federal Waste Facility (FWF) for commercial and federal low-level radiactive waste disposal. The other two amendment applications set forth new Waste Acceptance Criteria that includes rates and contract considerations and new pavement design considerations.

Just as important, TCEQ is considering revising language and definition for waste of international origin, acceptance criteria, reporting of inventory and liability coverage as well as the issued TCEQ waste water permit.

TCEQ is accepting public comments and requests for a public meeting.  These can be submitted by mail to:

the Office of the Chief Clerk
MC 105
TCEQ
P. O. Box 13087

or electronically at www.tceq.state.tx.us/about/comments.html by December 17th.

If you need more information about the license application or the licensing process, please call the TCEQ Office of Public Assistance at 1-800-687-4040.

We will post the link to the amendment applications as soon as we are able to find them.  TCEQ recently migrated its database and the links no longer work.  Makes finding materials to base written comments on a bit more complicated.

Posted in Nuclear, Radioactive Waste, Water | Tagged , , , , , , |

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »