Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘United States Environmental Protection Agency’

The Sunset Advisory Commission has put TCEQ on the agenda for December 15th, following the Department of Transportation and the Railroad Commission. What this means is that public testimony on TCEQ should begin sometime after lunch.

We hope some of you can make it to the December 15th hearing.  Please don’t hesitate to contact us directly with your questions! Feel free to email us at texasfeedback (at) citizen.org.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

Clean drinking water...not self-evident for ev...

Is your drinking water safe? -Wikipedia

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is ordering a natural gas company in Fort Worth to take immediate action to protect people living near one of its drilling operations who have complained about flammable drinking water coming out of their home faucets.

Read some of our earlier blogs about the process that is suspected of causing these kinds of  problems:

Read other recent posts about our regulatory agencies’ failure to adequately insure the safety of Texan’s drinking water:

Natural gas drilling (or fracking) near homes in Parker County west of Fort Worth has caused or contributed to the contamination of at least two residential drinking water wells, and the EPA  has confirmed that extremely high levels of methane in local water supplies pose an “imminent and substantial risk of explosion or fire.” The agency also found other contaminants including benzene, which can cause cancer, in the drinking water.

The EPA has issued an imminent and substantial endangerment order under Section 1431 of the Safe Drinking Water Act and has ordered the company to step in immediately to stop the contamination, provide drinking water and provide methane gas monitors to the homeowners.  EPA has given the company 24 hours to assure them that it will comply with the order and 48 hours to provide alternative water supplies to affected residents.

To see the EPA’s letter to the company, click here.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set a December 1, 2011 deadline for 13 states to develop plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, as the agency prepares to implement its major new rule January 2.

A dozen of the states plan to submit emissions plans that do not account for GHG emissions, thereby triggering federal control of their GHG permitting process, but the process between EPA and those states is an expected amicable agreement.  Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Oregon, and Wyoming will submit plans by December 22 and Kentucky; Clark County, Nevada; Connecticut, parts of California and Nebraska are expected to submit their plans after the beginning of the year.

This will enable 49 of the states to issue permits on or around January 2, either themselves or through the EPA.  But Texas, the lone holdout, did not say when it would submit a GHG plan, continuing a standoff with the EPA and the administration on its environmental policies. The state has also filed a series of legal challenges in federal court.

Under the rules of the Clean Air Act, Texas has until December 1, 2011 to submit a revised “state implementation plan” that accounts for regulating GHG emissions. Although the EPA, in its Friday announcement, said it would not wait until then to take control of the state’s GHG permitting and is planning additional actions to ensure that GHG sources in Texas, as in every other state in the country, have available a permitting authority to process their permit applications as of January 2, 2011.

Read Full Post »

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has publically demanded that Texas immediately take steps to reissue Clean Water Act permits to some 80 facilities that have been operating without the necessary paperwork.

Not pleased with what they felt was a decision to, ” jump the gun prematurely with this notice,” the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality quickly put out a statement saying it had been cooperating with the EPA to resolve the problems, and already had two proposals on the table.

The EPA and Texas/TCEQ/Gov. Perry  have been locked in battle for some time now that has moved from a dispute over environmental issues into an ugly all out war over state rights with Gov. Rick Perry using the dispute during the election cycle as an example of the federal government and the administration’s meddling in what he believes are state affairs.

This newest dispute is over water discharge permits. The EPA says many of the facilities in question have had their paperwork delayed due to concerns raised by the EPA  regarding the toxicity of the discharges and that their move to ask Texas to resolve the issue stems from their concern that, in some cases, the expired permits are allowing facilities to discharge toxic waste.

The EPA’s regional director, Al Armendariz, shot back, “We are taking a stand for clean water. The streams, lakes and bayous of our great state deserve to be protected from chemicals, bacteria and toxic metals. Our children and future generations should be able to swim and fish anywhere in the state without worries about pollution.”

Let’s see how many lawsuits Texas will file over this one.

Read Full Post »

The Las Brisas coal (pet coke) plant proposed for Corpus Christi has had its air permit recommended for denial by the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) for the second time. The SOAH judges presiding over the case have stated in their “proposal for decision” that:

At this time, we are unable to recommend that the requested permits be issued, because we find that Las Brisas Energy Center, LLC… has not made the necessary compliance demonstration to ensure that emissions from the proposed facility would not contribute to air pollution through a violation of a NAAQS or the PSD increment, particularly in regard to particulate matter (PM).

Though not legally binding, a recommendation of denial by SOAH for a second time will, hopefully, have some impact on the TCEQ, who has the final authority for granting the permit.  However, the TCEQ has a history of simply ignoring SOAH, the public, and even their own staff in order to grant inadequate and inappropriate permits to large, industrial sources of pollution such as Las Brisas.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

The Environmental Protection Agency issued a 100-page proposal, the “PSD and Title V Permitting Guidance for Greenhouse Gases” for public review and feedback in mid-November, providing two weeks  for responses by a Dec. 1 deadline. Finalized terms will be put in place by Jan. 2, 2011, in accordance with an implementing “Tailoring Rule” to guide state-level permitting authorities and extend the EPA’s influence over the greenhouse gas emissions of industrial sectors.  Click here to see a copy of the rule and EPA factsheets on the issue.

Operating through permitting authority asserted under the Clean Air Act, the agency will now require CO2 emissions to be considered in the design of every major project in which fossil fuel is combusted or CO2 emissions are released. Included are electrical power generation, refineries, iron and steel mills, pulp and paper mills and cement production.

Effective July 1, 2011, any new source of greenhouse gas emissions that exceeds 100,000 tons of CO2 per year or plant modification adding 75,000 tons annually, will be subject to permit approval based upon currently undefined case-by-case “best available control technology” assessments.

Some background information
In an April 2, 2007, Supreme Court case (Massachusetts v. EPA), the court ruled in a split 5-4 decision that greenhouse gasses fit within the definition of “air pollutants” and subsequently the EPA issued a finding of public health or welfare endangerment.

On Dec. 7, 2009, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson signed two distinct findings. One was an “Endangerment Finding,” which found that current and projected atmospheric concentrations of six greenhouse gases (including CO2) “threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” A second “Cause or Contribute Finding” found that “combined emissions of these well-mixed [greenhouse gases] from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare.”

On April 1 the EPA finalized a light-duty vehicle rule controlling greenhouse gas emissions, confirming that Jan. 2, 2011, is the earliest date that a 2012 model year vehicle meeting established limits can be sold in the U.S. Then on Oct. 25 the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a proposed rule to establish the first-ever greenhouse emission and economy standards for heavy-duty trucks that will phase in during model years 2014 to 2018 arguing that improved fuel efficiency growing out of this ruling will save the trucking industry money.

Read Full Post »

Last week, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals awarded a major victory to Public Citizen and Sierra Club in their long standing efforts to block the Sandy Creek coal plant near Waco when it ruled that developers improperly started construction without adequate clearance under the federal Clean Air Act.

The court overturned a district court ruling saying the developers of the Sandy Creek Power Plant should have been required to show that they would employ the “maximum achievable control technology” (MACT) to limit the emissions of mercury and other pollutants once the plant was up and running.

In 2006 the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) issued the permit for Sandy Creek, relying on an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  ruling from the year before exempting coal- and oil-fired generating plants from the MACT standard.

In 2008, an appeals court struck down the EPA’s earlier ruling and, even though construction had already started on Sandy Creek, the Sierra Club and Public Citizen filed a lawsuit arguing that work could not go forward because the plant had not shown it could meet MACT standard.

The district court sided with Sandy Creek because it had commenced with construction, and that, at the time, the plant was in compliance with the rules in place.

The circuit court said in its ruling that because the EPA was wrong to exempt coal plants from the MACT standard, Sandy Creek cannot rely on that exemption to continue construction without a proper permit, and sent the case back to the district court.

Click here to see the 5th Circuit’s full ruling.

Read Full Post »

Regardless of your car needs, a more fuel efficient vehicle is available. But we can do better!

As Texas families prepare for one of the busiest travel holidays of the year, a new Environment Texas report finds that more fuel efficient cars could save Texans over $16 million at the gas pump this Thanksgiving holiday alone. The report was released as new federal fuel efficiency and global warming pollution standards for cars and light trucks are being developed. (more…)

Read Full Post »

In a Republican dominated America with many Republicans deeply skeptical of global warming, it is unlikely the new Congress will do much on the energy front. A broad plan to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and use the revenue to fund alternative energy — known as cap-and-trade — is dead

Vyng for the leadership post of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce when the Republicans take the reins in January are four interesting contenders:

  • Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill, who last year, while quoting the Bible in a House hearing said, “The earth will end only when God decides it’s time to be over. ‘This earth will not be destroyed by a flood.'”
  • Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, who apologized to BP for what he called a White House “shakedown” when it agreed to establishing the $20 billion Gulf oil spill trust fund;
  • Rep. Cliff Stearns of Florida, who wants to open up Alaska’s wildlife refuge to drilling; and
  • Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan who is considered the front-runner and probably the most moderate of the bunch.  He has vowed to eliminate an offshoot of the committee, the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming and wrote in a recent editorial, “The American people do not need Congress to spend millions of dollars to write reports and fly around the world.  We must terminate this wasteful committee.”

There is one thing the newly empowered Republicans are sure to go after: the Environmental Protection Agency.

Over the past year, the EPA (after classifing greenhouse gases as a public health threat and then being under court order to do so after losing a Supreme Court challenge by the state of Massachusetts while under the Bush administration) has been quietly working on the sidelines to draft up rules to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Heavily targeted would be power plants, refineries, and heavy industries such as steel and concrete.

Republican lawmakers have made their intent clear and we can expect them to push for  more oversight of the EPA.  Even going as far as to try to pass legislation to limit the EPA’s authority.

Just last week, EPA issued guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions that will take effect this January. The guidelines were not particularly strict, which analysts took as a sign that the agency was willing to work with industry, but also as a sign that it plans on pressing ahead with its plan to regulate these gases

It seems that dealing with EPA is becoming a reality and Republican efforts to reign them in could get ugly.

Read Full Post »

The EPA said it issued the subpoena after Texas-based Halliburton refused to voluntarily disclose the a description of the chemical components used in a drilling technique called hydraulic fracturing, a drilling practice that has been at the center of a controversy in the DFW area.  Halliburton was the only one of nine major energy companies that refused the EPA’s request.

The agency said the information is important to its study of fracking, to see whether the practice affects drinking water and the public health. (more…)

Read Full Post »

In today’s Victoria Advocate, Victoria Environmental Programs Coordinator Marie Lester said that they will be in compliance with the EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations. (more…)

Read Full Post »

With states scrambling to align their own rules with U.S. EPA‘s new regulations, which are set to take effect on Jan. 2, 2011 and require regulators to start issuing Clean Air Act permits next year for large stationary sources of greenhouse gas emissionsTexas is now the lone holdout, according to an analysis  by the  National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA). Click here to see a copy of the analysis. (more…)

Read Full Post »

It has been about half a year since the battles started between the EPA and TCEQ over the Texas’s flexible air-permitting program. Unfortunately, the Governor has taken advantage of this issue to use to attack the Federal Government in his bid for the Governor post. Many have us have forgotten that the EPA started questioning the state’s permitting program during the Bush administration, long before Obama took office, but since this is an election year, Perry will do anything within his reach to cling on that chair.

The EPA finds the 16 year permitting program incompliant with the Clean Air Act. The program makes it difficult to monitor the pollution and reduce emission from Texas facilities because, rather than having to disclose pollution for each individual smokestack at a facility, they aggregate them all together. The Governor and the Attorney general have already sued the EPA protesting the latter’s “overstepping its authority.”  The TCEQ says the program is just fine and gives permits to Texas at a cheaper cost.

But we and most other environmental groups, find flex permits severely lacking.  All we (and the feds) are asking for is some basic transparency.  If flex permits do work, simply tell us what your emissions are, and let’s have a debate about the efficacy of the program.  Buit we can’t do that while industry and TCEQ hide the data from the public.

After the many twists and turns this battle has taken, the EPA has set in place a new rule to start a voluntary Audit Program under which refineries and other facilities in Texas can hire a third party auditor. If businesses fail to meet the standards after being audited, the EPA promises not to penalize them but to work with them to acquire a federal air permit.

TX facilities should find this program reasonable.  According to the EPA’s website, “The Audit Program is available for 90 days after publication in the Federal Register. Participants who sign up in the first 45 days can take advantage of a reduced penalty incentive for potential violations.”

The TCEQ has protested the new rule, “he state of Texas vigorously defends its flexible permits program and expects to prevail in court. Flexible permits are legal and effective,” said  Terry Clawson, the Spokesman for the TCEQ.

Well, if that’s so– show us the data. They won’t, because they know that it won’t stand up to scrutiny.

Finally, Texas facilities will follow the Clean Air Act, just like facilities in every other state.

Meanwhile, tax dollars Texans pay are being wasted on a state agency that refuses to do its job of protecting the state’s environment, and are being wasted by our governor and attorney general on meaningless lawsuits.  The EPA is not out to get Texas and just like Al Armedariz said, “Our objective is to get good permits.”

That’s our goal, too. TCEQ is undergoing Sunset Review by the Texas Legislature. Let’s hope we get an agency that follows the law.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

Welcome sign posted at the Corpus Christi, Tex...

Image via Wikipedia

We’ve got an Action Alert! This week, hundreds of people from Corpus Christi and across Texas will be calling the Environmental Protection Agency to ask them to ensure that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is complying with the Federal Clean Air Act. To protect our air, our water, our earth, and our health, we are going to make our voices heard!

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbWcTuvHwS8]

Under the federal Clean Air Act, the EPA has the power to intervene in any permitting process to make sure that polluters are complying with the law.

In the case of the Las Brisas Energy Center, the situation is critical and we need the EPA to step in. Pollution will increase by 82%, they’ll dump 220 pounds of mercury a year, the plant will use 3 million gallons of water a day, and Nueces and San Patricio Counties will almost certainly reach ozone non-attainment levels, which means pricey smog-checks for everybody and a rollback of production for local industries.

So, we’ve decided to call the EPA’s enforcement offices. We have two sample scripts for you to help you out, and remember: don’t be nervous! They are nice people, so don’t forget to smile (even though they can’t see you) and say thanks!

Call Gina McCarthy, head of enforcement at the EPA at 202-564-7404. If she’s not there, leave a message!

Script:

Concerned citizen (that’s you): “Hello Ms. McCarthy, my name is ___, and I’d like to bring an important issue to your attention.”

EPA: “Sure, go right ahead.”

Concerned Citizen:

1) “I am really concerned with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s permitting process on the Las Brisas Energy Center in Corpus Christi, Texas. I am worried about pollution in our air, our water, and our soil. I am calling to ask that the EPA intervene and ensure that the the permit complies with the Federal Clean Air Act. Thank you for your time.”

OR

2) “I have a real problem with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s permitting process as it considers whether to grant the Las Brisas Energy Center an air permit for its proposed petroleum coke plant in Corpus Christi, Texas. TCEQ officials have expressly stated that a case by case MACT analysis is not needed for this plant. I know that means that TCEQ is letting Las Brisas pollute at greater quantities into my area and with less oversight. I am calling to ask that the EPA intervene and ensure that the permit complies with the Federal Clean Air Act. Thank you for your time.”

You just did a good deed! Pat yourself on the back, email this to your friends, and stay tuned by checking out Public Citizen on Facebook, www.TexasGreenReport.org, Texas Sierra Club on Facebook, and @TexasSierraClub on Twitter.

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts