Category Archives: TCEQ

Premature To Remove Texas City From The Air Pollution Watch List

Estimated Distribution of Benzene Annual Concentration, Based on Retrieved Primary Source Location and Wind Direction Frequency

Last week, EDF, along with Air Alliance Houston (AAH), submitted comments to the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality (TCEQ) reflecting why we believe the proposed removal of Texas City for the pollutants benzene and hydrogen sulfide from the state’s Air Pollution Watch List (APWL) is premature.

The APWL is a list of areas in Texas where concentrations of harmful pollutants exceed the state’s own health-based screening level guidelines. While inclusion on the list indicates that additional scrutiny is given to permits issued to facilities in the area, some of the APWL areas have been listed for over a decade. This is significant because exposure to these toxics may impact human health and may lead to serious health outcomes, such as birth defects or cancer.

EDF has been actively engaged with TCEQ to improve management of the APWL program and to renew efforts to improve air quality in hotspot areas. TCEQ first added Texas City to the Air Pollutant Watch List in 2001 because of elevated concentrations of propionaldehyde. The organization added benzene in 2003 because the annual average concentration at the Ball Park Monitor exceeded the long-term health-based Air Monitoring Comparison Value (AMCV) of 1.0 ppb.[1]  Hydrogen sulfide was then added in 2004 based on mobile and stationary monitoring data showing exceedances of the 0.08 parts per million (ppm) threshold.

TCEQ’s proposal claims that recent air monitoring information justifies the removal of Texas City from the APWL. However, new analyses completed by EDF and AAH, indicate that data from the current monitoring network are not adequate in justifying the removal of Texas City from the APWL. Here are a few reasons why:

  • Air monitoring information has not been correlated with wind direction, meaning that the existing monitoring network does not capture the predominant downwind concentrations of pollutants in neighborhoods closest to the largest sources. As illustrated in the insert, the largest concentration of benzene is expected in between the existing monitors.
  • BP Texas City: The largest emitter in the area is also the worst environmental performer. BP Texas City is ranked as the largest benzene emitter in the region, not just the state. On March 23, 2005, an explosion killed 15 employees and injured 170 as a result of workers re-starting a unit at the BP refinery that had been closed for repairs. The problem started when workers filled a tank with 138 feet of flammable liquid, when it should have been filled with only 6.5 feet of liquid. Upon further investigation, it was discovered that BP had cut costs, resulting in risky working conditions, which were likely the cause of the catastrophic event. An investigation by the Chemical Safety Board found numerous problems, including out-of-date equipment, corroded pipes, and faulty safety alarms. This explosion has been characterized as one of the worst workplace incident in the U.S. between 1989 and 2005.
  • BP Texas City II: More recently in November 2011, there were reports of gas leaks at the BP Texas City refinery. A concerned citizen initially reported a sulfur dioxide leak to the National Response Center. BP confirmed an ongoing leak of methyl mercaptan; the odor was so toxic that 30 workers from a neighboring plant downwind were taken to the hospital.

Read More »

Also posted in Air Pollutants, Air Pollution, Benzene | Leave a comment

The Law Of Common Sense

Over the last week, media outlets around the country have highlighted lack of regulation and enforcement as contributing to the tragedy in West, where 15 people lost their lives, many of them first responders.

State officials have commented many times that there is adequate state oversight under the existing laws. And yesterday, eight state agencies testified about the tragedy at a special hearing held by the Texas House Committee on Homeland Security and Public Safety. As you might imagine, the overall tone of the speakers was defensive, and ultimately, none of the state agencies testified that they would have done anything differently because they were all doing their jobs.

What about the laws of common sense?

The attitudes presented yesterday are frustrating and disappointing for communities.  Texas is a great state and we can do better. We can start by taking a critical look at some of the bills working their way through the legislature right now designed to weaken public health protections. Consider the following bills that are in various stages of the legislative process:

  • House Bill (HB) 824 (Calligari) – Spill Reporting
    HB 824 aims to create a volume-based exemption for reporting accidental spills and discharges from wastewater facilities. Unfortunately, this one cleared the House Natural Resource Committee and is on its way to House Calendars.
  • Senate Bill (SB) 957 (Fraser) and HB 2082 (Ritter) – Contested Case Hearings
    These two bills would dramatically alter the way the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) handles certain permits and the judicial and administrative review process. The bills would shift the burden of proof on permits to the public, limit public input, and restrict evidentiary hearings.
  • HB 1496 (Van Taylor) – Hydraulic Fracturing
    HB 1496 would restrict a municipality’s ability to impose restrictions on hydraulic fracturing to protect public safety by adding any interest in an oil or natural gas well to the definition of private real property.

More information on current bills under consideration can be found here.

At the hearing, Progress Texas PAC Director Glenn Smith made comments that should make us all take notice:

Even this preliminary inquiry shows how dangerously wrong Rick Perry was when he said we had adequate regulations. State Chemists says security requirements are fence and door locks. The insurance commissioner says there is no requirement that the plant be insured, and that West Fertilizer's insurance was woefully inadequate to the risk. The TCEQ testified that the plant operated without a permit from 2004 to 2006, and that was only caught because someone filed an odor complaint in 2006.” Read More »

Also posted in Legislation | Leave a comment

West Explosion: Not Enough Protections Or Not Enough Oversight?

Source: www.thenation.com

There’s been a lot of debate following the West tragedy as to whether a lack of safety protections, lack of coordination and oversight among enforcement agencies, or some combination of both contributed to a system wide failure and 14 deaths with hundreds injured. As we have mentioned before, Texas leads the nation in total fatal occupational injuries, with more than 400 deaths in 2011. And while not every accident can be prevented, it does seem that Texas gets more than its fair share.

In recent reports, some state officials have indicated that the state’s level of oversight for facilities like the one in West is adequate. It is difficult to understand how one could make such bold statements when the cause of the explosion has yet to be determined. Furthermore, some legislators have recommended this legislative session that state environmental laws be weakened. This is in addition to recent budget cuts at the state environmental agency; the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s (TCEQ) budget was recently cut by $305 million, which reduced the agency by 235 full-time employees. Perhaps what some of our officials really mean is that it is not a lack of oversight, but rather a lack of due diligence in enforcing the laws already on the books, laws designed to protect citizens from events like this one.

The Governor of Texas was quoted recently claiming that the state upholds the standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). But frankly that is not quite true. Acting alone, Texas recently refused to abide by laws on permitting regulations for greenhouse gas emissions.  In fact, the state sent an aggressive letter to EPA stating that “On behalf of the state of Texas, we write to inform you that Texas has neither the authority nor the intention of interpreting, ignoring, or amending its laws in order to compel the permitting of greenhouse gas emissions.”  EPA actually had to devise a federal implementation plan for greenhouse gas emissions, so that any new facilities built in the state of Texas could in fact work with a legal permit. Currently, facilities that need a greenhouse gas permit must apply to EPA rather than to TCEQ, even though it is Texas’ responsibility. Read More »

Also posted in Air Pollution, Environment, Environmental Protection Agency, Legislation | 1 Response

Explosion At Texas Plant Renews Concerns About State Environmental Agency

Source: kxan.com

Unfortunately, last night’s explosion at West Fertilizer, a plant just north of Waco, Texas is just one more tragedy in a long list of facility disasters in the state of Texas. (See previous TXCAM posts here and here).

The same questions always arise – how could this accident have been prevented? Who is responsible? What are the long term health implications to those who have survived this catastrophe?

The Texas Commission of Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is the lead state agency in charge of permitting facilities such as the West plant. We know that the agency investigated the facility in 2006, only after a concerned citizen called to report a strong smell of ammonia. One of the troubling items regarding this complaint is that the agency knew that the smell was ammonia and that it was coming from a fertilizer facility (a deadly omen) and still took 11 days to investigate the complaint. Once the agency did get to the facility, they recognized that the plant was storing large quantities of anhydrous ammonia without a permit.

It turns out that the facility, originally built in 1962, had been grandfathered into the permitting program – the facility was not required to have a permit until September 1, 2004, the date marking the end of the grandfathered permitting period. This means that two years went by where the facility was operating in violation of a permit and completely unnoticed by the state environmental agency.

Another troubling bit of information is that the agency gave the facility an “unclassifiable” rating for their compliance history. Compliance history, as described by the agency, entails both positive and negative factors related to the facility's environmental performance at a site over the past five years—for example, whether at this site this customer has:

  • received an enforcement order, court order, or criminal conviction; related to environmental violations in another state;
  • received a citation for a chronic excessive emissions event;
  • received a notice of violation from the TCEQ;
  • received one or more inspections from the TCEQ (and, if so, the results of those inspections)

Given that the facility had been operating without a permit for two years, one might expect that the facility would have been given an unsatisfactory rating for compliance. An unsatisfactory rating would have triggered additional scrutiny or strengthened permit requirements for the facility. But of course we know that’s not what happened.

While no one questions that accidents happen, even at facilities that do abide by the law, it does seem that Texas gets more than its fair share of tragedies. In fact, Texas leads the nation in total fatal occupational injuries, with over 400 deaths in 2011. And when these tragedies happen at industrial facilities that handle large quantities of toxic and explosive materials, people die. Lives are forever changed.

The deaths in West, as well as all deaths from these kinds of tragedies, are senseless and preventable. In the name of all citizens in the state of Texas whose lives have ended in this tragic way, we implore the TCEQ to:

  • be more diligent with regard to monitoring of facilities – how many more facilities like West exist across the state?
  • hire more investigators since it is obvious that the current rate of facility inspections is woefully inadequate.
  • spend more time protecting the public than fighting against EPA and public health protections, using the saved funds instead for hiring more investigators.

Disclaimer: This video, filmed by a local citizen with his daughter, shows the plant as it explodes into a larger fire.  Not intended for sensitive audiences.

Also posted in Air Pollutants, Air Pollution, Environment, Environmental Protection Agency | Leave a comment

What More Sound Science Does The TCEQ Need?

This blog post was written by Larry R. Soward, and it originally appeared on the Air Alliance Houston’s blog.

In our December 2012 article, “New Soot Standards Will Better Protect Public Health,” we wrote about the new, stricter national air quality standard for fine particulate matter adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Particulate matter (PM) is one of the six "criteria" pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment for which the EPA is required to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards. PM that is 2.5 micrometers in diameter or smaller — called “fine particulate matter” or “PM2.5” and commonly known as “soot” — is of greatest concern because of its significant health effects on people with heart or lung diseases, children and older adults.

Because reductions in fine particle pollution have direct health benefits including decreased mortality rates, fewer incidents of heart attacks, strokes, and childhood asthma, the new PM 2.5 standard is predicted to have major economic benefits with comparatively low costs. The EPA estimates health benefits of the new standard to range from $4 billion to over $9 billion per year, while estimated costs of implementation range from $53 million to $350 million. While the EPA cannot consider costs in selecting a standard under the federal Clean Air Act, those costs are estimated as part of the careful analysis undertaken for all significant regulations.

Strongly supportive of this new, more health-protective standard is a landmark study recently announced at a conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and published in the American Heart Association journal. The study found a direct link between out-of-hospital cardiac arrests and levels of air pollution from PM and ozone. Conducted by Rice University researchers right here in Houston and based on 8 years of data collected from Houston's network of air quality monitors and more than 11,000 concurrent out-of-hospital cardiac arrests logged by Houston Emergency Medical Services, the study shows that the risk of cardiac arrest ratchets up significantly as the amount of air pollution increases.

Rice statisticians Katherine Ensor, a professor and chair of Rice's Department of Statistics, and Loren Raun, a research professor in the department, found that a daily average increase in fine particulate matter of 6 micrograms per day over two days raised the risk of cardiac arrest by 4.6 percent, with particular impact on those with pre-existing, but not necessarily cardiac-related, health conditions. The study also found that increases in ozone levels produced similar results, but in a compressed timeframe. Each increase of 20 parts per billion of ozone over one to three hours also increased the risk of cardiac arrest, reaching a peak of 4.4 percent. The risks were higher for men, African-Americans and people over age 65. Ensor and Raun noted that 55 percent of the cardiac arrest cases occurred during the summer months, the period of typically high ozone levels in Houston. Approximately 300,000 persons in the U.S. experience an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest each year, of which over 90 percent die. Read More »

Also posted in Clean Air Act, Environmental Protection Agency, Ozone, Soot | Leave a comment

Houston Air Quality Advocate Poised To Share Talents In New National Role

Dr. Tejada poses with the plaques he received from the City of Houston and the Texas Legislature.

This week, Houston honored a long time environmental advocate, Dr. Matthew Tejada, who will be leaving the Houston non-profit Air Alliance Houston for a new post at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as director of the Office of Environmental Justice. At a celebration this week hosted by Houston environmental attorney Jim Blackburn, Dr. Tejada was awarded with plaques from both the City of Houston (declaring February 18 as “Matthew Tejada Day”) and from the Texas state legislature, recognizing Dr. Tejada’s efforts in improving air quality in the Houston region.

The new post should come as no surprise to those who know him well. For the last five years, Dr. Tejada has been a documented champion of air quality, helping especially to address the air pollution concerns of low-income and minority communities in Houston and across Texas. In his new role, he will continue work he started in Texas, expanding the mission nationally from his base in Washington D.C.

Dr. Tejada told Environmental Health News that living and working with air quality issues in Houston has provided a good foundation for his new role: “Whether it's big national ambient air quality standards or toxics or health, the Gulf Coast—particularly the Texas and Louisiana Gulf areas—is really the crucible of a lot of these issues. We have the largest challenges, the most diverse challenges, the largest number of people that are suffering negative health impacts for the longest period of time, going back to the beginning of the 20th century.”

Air Alliance Houston Board President Bob Levy also believes Dr. Tejada is well-suited for the role ahead. “Matthew was a young, unknown quantity when Air Alliance (then known as GHASP) hired him as Executive Director over five years ago,” Levy said. “We soon discovered that he is very bright, quickly masters complex issues, and communicates effectively, both in written and oral communications.

“He has proven himself to be an outstanding leader who is liked and admired by co-workers, colleagues, acquaintances and even adversaries. During his tenure, Air Alliance Houston has roughly doubled its capabilities, vastly increased its impact, and now has a strong reputation as a leader in air quality advocacy statewide, even nationally.” Read More »

Also posted in Air Pollution, Houston, Ozone | 2 Responses

TCEQ’s Misplaced Priorities

Adrian Shelley, Community Outreach Coordinator at Air Alliance Houston

This blog post was written by guest author Adrian Shelley, Community Outreach Coordinator at Air Alliance Houston.

If there were any doubts about the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s (TCEQ) priorities, they were removed at a public hearing yesterday. The hearing was poorly attended, with zero testimony from Texas’ industry. It seems that industry is so confident that TCEQ has its best interests in mind that it isn’t even bothering to show up anymore.

Yesterday’s hearing was about a proposed rule relating to Houston’s failure to attain a decades-old ozone pollution standard. At Air Alliance Houston, we’ve made our opinion on the proposed rule well known: it is designed to avoid imposing any obligation whatsoever on polluters. Yesterday we told TCEQ that this is the wrong approach and a missed opportunity for the Houston region.

When the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made a finding last year that the Houston area failed to attain the 1979 one-hour ozone standard, the door opened on a new regulation—the section 185 fee. The fee creates an incentive for polluters to reduce their emissions. If they cut emissions by 20 percent, they don’t pay the fee.

But thanks to TCEQ, polluters won’t be paying any fees, ever. The agency proposes to pay the fee for the polluters, using money that Houston area drivers already pay into emissions reduction programs. In other words, in order to avoid making major polluters pay a fee, TCEQ would rather you, a Texas driver, pay that fee.

Of course industry will allow this to happen. Quietly. Not a single person spoke in support of TCEQ’s proposal yesterday. Why would they? Industry knows that the agency is already working in its best interests, and it sees no need to advertise this in a public forum. The absence of industry testimony yesterday demonstrates what we already knew—TCEQ places protecting industry ahead of bettering our environment.

Everyone deserves to breathe clean air, and TCEQ should use every opportunity to clean up our air. Yesterday, Air Alliance Houston let TCEQ know that, in its haste to forgive polluters, the agency was missing another opportunity. A representative from Sierra Club also spoke, taking TCEQ to task for shifting the fee obligation from polluters to Texas drivers.

It’s not too late for you to speak up, too. Environmental organizations across Texas are submitting written comments criticizing the proposed rule. We have until Monday to let TCEQ know that we don’t approve of its decision to keeping working for industry and sacrificing the air that we breathe. If you want to write to TCEQ, you can learn more about the fee here.

Speak up, and let TCEQ know that it works for you.

Also posted in Air Pollution, Environmental Protection Agency, Houston, Ozone | Leave a comment

2012 Texas Air Quality: A Year In Review

As we come to the end of another year, we reflect on all that has happened in the world of Texas air quality. This year has brought new challenges and reminded us of how much remains to be done in the quest for healthier air across the state. Our work is critical to the millions of those who are especially vulnerable to the harms of air pollution.

I’d like to thank my fellow bloggers for another outstanding year in helping to highlight the air quality issues of 2012 and for the continued support of all of our readers.  We look forward to bringing you more news and views in 2013. Wishing you and your family a happy, healthy, and prosperous New Year!

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released updated standards for fine particulate matter (PM2.5), often referred to as “soot” (although it actually comprises a broader array of fine particles). Fine particulate pollution in the air we breathe — some of it directly emitted from cars and trucks, some of it resulting from factories and electric power plants hundreds of miles upwind – can lodge in the lungs and cause a variety of respiratory and pulmonary disease, especially in children and seniors. EDF praised the move, which will help secure healthy air for millions of Americans, including those in Houston where existing soot levels already exceed the new limits.

The State of Texas and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) once again fight against clean air rules that will save Texans’ lives. This time, it was the first-ever standards limiting the amount of mercury and other toxics power plants could emit. The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) will ensure that 90 percent of the mercury content in coal burned by power plants is not released into our air. TCEQ, the Texas attorney general, and others challenged the standards in court, saying that the toxic pollutants covered by the mercury standards do not "pose public health hazards.” The reality is that power plants in the U.S. are a major source of many toxics such as mercury, arsenic, chromium, acid gas, and nickel. A report EDF released last year demonstrated that Texas had an oversized share of the top mercury emitting coal plants in the U.S. in 2009. We called on TCEQ and the state of Texas to stand up to harmful pollution instead of standing in the way of public health protections.

Clean school bus programs in Texas made significant progress toward improving air quality on our state’s school buses, though much work remains to be done according to an EDF analysis: “Review of Texas’ Clean School Bus Programs: How Far Have We Come and What Is Still Left to Do?” The report highlighted the efforts of state and regional programs in administering clean bus programs, and detailed the progress made with retrofits and replacements. With momentum from successes to date, the EDF report recommended that communities, ISDs, and government officials carry on the clean school bus momentum by continuing to seek funding for these types of projects; completing existing clean school bus projects; and investing in these projects through budget and legislative funding allocations. Again, work remains to be done to protect the health of Texas children and improve the air quality in and around school buses – until all of Texas’ oldest buses are either replaced or retrofitted.

Since 2009, the Drayage Loan Program (DLP) has worked to replace older, more polluting trucks in the Houston area with newer, cleaner trucks by providing critical funding and support to local independent owner operators and drayage fleets. The innovative program, administered by the Houston-Galveston Area Council and supported by the Port of Houston Authority, Environmental Defense Fund, and numerous drayage companies and truck dealerships, combines low-interest loans and substantial grants to fund the fleet turnover. The effort led to the successful replacement of 138 drayage trucks, engaged numerous drivers and carriers, and spent nearly the entire original EPA SmartWay grant. At full implementation, the program is expected to eliminate 1,638 tons of nitrogen oxide, 26.7 tons of particulate matter, and 3,636 tons of carbon dioxide. This represented an important step toward reducing air pollution in the Houston area.

With around 45,000 shale gas wells operating in the United States – triple the number in 2005 – people are rightfully concerned about the extent of the shale boom’s potential damage to the environment. The issue became the focal point of discussion during “Can Natural Gas Be Sustainable?,” a five-person panel presentation at the second annual SXSW Eco conference in Austin. As part of the panel, we discussed how stronger standards and employing best practices could minimize impacts of increased natural gas production in the wake of growing public concern about the health and environmental impacts of drilling. EDF continues to address the key problem areas associated with natural gas development: exposure to toxic chemicals and waste products; faulty well construction and design; climate impacts from methane leakage; local and regional air pollution; and land use and community impacts.

Clean air protections were threatened with a U.S. Court of Appeals decision against EPA’s cross-state air pollution rule (CSAPR). The rule estimated to reduce power plant emissions across state boundaries, saving up to 34,000 lives each year, preventing 15,000 heart attacks and 400,000 asthma attacks, and providing $120 to $280 billion in annual health benefits for the nation. Issued under the “Good Neighbor” protections of the Clean Air Act, CSAPR would have reduced power plant sulfur dioxide emissions by 73 percent and oxides of nitrogen by 54 percent from 2005 levels across 27 eastern states and the District of Columbia. The ruling changed little about the facts on the ground in Texas. That is, cross-state air pollution from Texas will still be regulated under the – albeit somewhat weaker – Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) adopted in 2005 during the Bush administration. Texas power plants must therefore comply with both the first phase of the CAIR that took effect in 2010 and the second-phase reductions that are required in 2015.

In a much-anticipated report on the management of the Port of Houston Authority (PHA), the Sunset Commission, as directed by the Texas legislature, identified several opportunities to improve aspects of port management, including accountability and stakeholder trust. The 95-page report includes a series of recommendations for improvement in a number of basic management and fiduciary areas at the port. While the report reaffirmed the Authority’s ongoing “responsibility as a government agency,” it also highlighted a pervasive “lack of accountability.” Understanding that the port is a unique institution, PHA is criticized in the report for not following a number of best practices in either the private or public sector. As EDF continues to work in partnership with PHA to reduce emissions from oceangoing vessels, trains, cargo handling equipment, and port trucks and improve Houston air quality, we were encouraged by this report’s findings and recommendations. These reforms will also make PHA stronger and better equipped to handle the inevitable diverse pressures over the next several years.

The potential health impacts to workers who daily toil in and around the hundreds of drilling sites were highlighted in a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Hazard Alert, identifying exposure to airborne silica as a health hazard to workers conducting hydraulic fracturing operations during recent field studies. NIOSH is working to identify other potential health risks at drilling sites, acknowledging that there is a real lack of information on occupational dust and chemical exposures in this industry. However, silica is just one of several chemicals used during the hydraulic fracturing process that can pose hazards at well sites, according to State Impact.

Thanks to a federal appeals court decision, EPA’s health-based air quality standards for sulfur dioxide (SO2) will stand firm. These National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for SO2 will improve health protections, especially for children, the elderly and individuals with asthma. EDF Attorney Peter Zalzal praised the decision saying it “strongly affirms that EPA’s clean air protections addressing dangerous sulfur dioxide are firmly grounded in science and the law.”

The annual Texas smog season – April through October – appeared in full swing this year with numerous counties around the state exceeding health-based ozone concentrations many times since March. Ozone-forming pollution is emitted by cars, refineries and various industrial plants.  As more Texans began to see shale gas drilling rigs pop up around them, many asked the question: Could emissions from natural gas and oil operations significantly contribute to ground-level ozone? The answer was an unequivocal yes.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a unanimous opinion affirming EPA’s protective carbon pollution standards issued under the Clean Air Act.  The Court upheld EPA’s science-based finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare and the Clean Car Standards. The court also dismissed petitions challenging the requirement for large industrial sources to install modern cost-effective solutions to address greenhouse gases and EPA's common sense approach to inoculate small sources. Today’s ruling underscored what we have long known — that EPA’s climate protections are firmly grounded in science and law and will help secure a healthier, more prosperous future for all Americans.

Though the cancer risks from exposure to diesel emissions have been known for many years, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a part of the World Health Organization (WHO), officially announced that diesel emissions were carcinogenic to humans. The agency cited the robust body of scientific literature on the issue and stated that diesel emissions were associated with lung cancer and bladder cancer. WHO estimates that cancer kills 7.6 million people worldwide, and is the leading cause of death globally in 2008. Of all cancers, lung cancer is the most lethal, and accounted for 18 percent of all cancer deaths, the agency said.

EPA released a new online tool which provides data about pollution emissions for the country’s largest industrial emitters of greenhouse gases. Together, these industry sources are responsible for billions of tons of climate disrupting pollution. This will be the first time that this data is publicly available and will inform Americans about the heat-trapping greenhouse gases emitted in their communities. EDF attorney Peter Zalzal summed up our enthusiasm for this new tool: “Americans have a right to know about the pollution in their air. This greenhouse gas emissions data promotes transparency and provides a strong foundation for Americans to work together in deploying smart climate policies.”

Also posted in Air Pollution, Clean Air Act, Clean school buses, Diesel engines, Environmental Protection Agency, Houston, Natural gas, PM2.5, Ports | Leave a comment

Texas Plays At Collecting Fees From Ozone Polluters

Source: www.kidsstuffworld.com

This blog post written by Adrian Shelley originally appears on the Air Alliance Houston blog.

Earlier this year, we wrote about the consequences of Houston’s failure to meet a thirty year old one-hour ozone pollution standard. The federal Clean Air Act imposes a penalty fee on major sources of ozone-producing pollutants in areas, like Houston, that have failed to attain this standard. In 2009, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) proposed a rule to begin collecting these fees, which are called section 185 fees after the section in the Clean Air Act that imposes them. It was estimated that Texas would collect between $73 and $125 million in section 185 fees per year for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) area.

For reasons related to shifting Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) policy and Texas’ status under another, more recent ozone standard, TCEQ’s 2009 rule was never finalized. In our last writing on the issue, we expressed our hope that the fees would eventually be collected and the money used to improve air quality in the Houston area.

Now, three years after TCEQ proposed its original section 185 fee rule, the Commission has proposed a new rule. Unfortunately, the new rule makes it apparent that TCEQ has no intention of ever collecting any fees. It is possible, though unlikely, that EPA could review Texas’ rule and conclude that it doesn’t satisfy the requirements of federal law. If this happened, EPA would be required to collect the money itself. Although this is a remote possibility, it highlights the fact that Texas should have a robust section 185 rule that ensures that this money stays in the Houston area where it belongs.

A section 185 fee program that complied with the unambiguous requirements of the Clean Air Act would collect a fee per ton of emissions of certain ozone precursors – volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) – emitted in excess of 80% of an established baseline amount. The fee, adjusted for inflation, amounts to $8,630 per ton in 2008, the first year it should have been collected in Houston. The fees, which could approach $100 million each year, would be collected from major sources of emissions in Houston and, ideally, be used to reduce air pollution in the Houston area. They would also serve as a powerful economic incentive for industry to cut emissions.

TCEQ’s proposed section 185 fee rule does not follow this model. It seems to have been designed to ensure that polluters won’t ever pay a dime. To begin with, the TCEQ proposes to let industry offset its fee obligation against money that is already being collected from Houston area residents for other pollution reduction programs: the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan (TERP) and the Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (VIM) program. TERP and VIM collect money from drivers upon inspection and registration renewal and then are supposed to use those funds for various air quality improvement programs. But, as Texas’ budget woes have increased in recent years, the state has begun holding on to this money as a way of artificially balancing the state budget. In the last biennial budget, Texas sat on $130 million in TERP money. This money should have been used to replace or upgrade heavy-duty diesel-powered trucks, machinery, train engines and construction vehicles.

Under the newly proposed section 185 fee rule, Texas would offset the penalty fees owed by major sources in the Houston area using unspent TERP and VIM money. If Texas doesn’t spend that money during the next year, it could credit it against its fee obligation again. In other words, Texas now has another incentive not to spend money it collects from Houston area drivers for pollution reduction programs: using money that you and I have paid to excuse big polluters from paying fees they owe under federal law.

TCEQ doesn’t even hide the fact that it intends to forgive polluters the entire amount they owe. After some back-of-the-envelope calculations in the rule package proposing the section 185 fee rule, TCEQ declares that “this [TERP and VIM] revenue could be used to fully offset the area's fee obligation and no fee would be assessed on major stationary sources for a particular calendar year.”

What’s more, this is only one way that Texas is thumbing its nose at federal law. The Clean Air Act requires that section 185 fee collection apply retroactively. Polluters owe fees back to 2008 – the year after the HGB area failed to attain the ozone standard. Texas gives another huge break to polluters by ignoring this federal mandate and declaring that it won’t collect fees until the year preceding the adoption date of its section 185 fee rules. That’s 2012 at the earliest, which means Texas is forgiving nearly half a billion dollars in fees that could be used for pollution reduction programs in our area while also holding on to over $100 million plus dollars that we have already paid and should also be used for programs that make our air cleaner.

And let’s not forget that if EPA rejects the Texas program, the federal government is then required to collect any fees that Texas fails to collect. With interest.

That’s money that could leave Texas forever and enrich the federal government – a prospect that should frighten even the most hardened federalists.

The proposed rule abounds with such bizarre and unnecessary measures. Federal law requires that section 185 fees are collected until the EPA finds that the HGB area has attained the one-hour ozone standard. TCEQ’s rule puts the fee program on hold as soon as it has air quality data that suggests that the area will attain. TCEQ has also defined baseline emissions in a way that is contrary to Clean Air Act requirements and allows sources to inflate their baselines by using outdated historical allowable emissions and including unauthorized maintenance/startup/shutdown emissions. This means that it is unlikely that very many sources will exceed 80% of their baselines and face significant fee obligations anyway.

Remember the TERP and VIM money that Texas is going to use to forgive section 185 fees? Money that Texas should already be spending on pollution reduction programs, but isn’t? TCEQ has decided that even though it won’t collect section 185 fees retroactively, it will go ahead and reach back to 2008 to credit TERP and VIM money against the 185 fee obligation.

Got that? Texas explicitly contradicts federal law to forgive polluters several years of retroactive penalty fees, but it uses the concept of retroactivity from that same law to conjure up a huge pile of money that it pretends already satisfies the penalty fee obligation.

Never mind that TERP and VIM money has already been collected for years. Or that the only reason we have so much of it on-hand is that we refuse to spend it on the very projects it was designed to fund. Or that there is nothing in federal law that allows us to credit anything against our section 185 fee obligation. TCEQ has created from whole cloth a bizarre method to forgive penalties that should be assessed against the major polluters who carry equal responsibility for the poor air quality that led to the imposition of those penalties in the first place by not spending money that residents of our region have been paying in order to clean up our air. We should all, in short, be completely outraged by this slight of hand.

If there were any doubt that TCEQ doesn’t intend to collect any fees under the section 185 program, we need only look at one final provision of the proposed rule. The rule says that polluters must pay fees within 30 days of receiving an invoice. What it doesn’t say, is when—or if—the invoices will be sent.

That’s right: there is nothing in TCEQ’s proposed rule that requires the Commission to send section 185 fee invoices.

You can learn more about TCEQ’s proposed section 185 fee rule here.

Thank you to Gabriel Clark-Leach of Environmental Integrity Project for contributing research to this report.

Also posted in Air Pollutants, Air Pollution, Houston, Ozone | Leave a comment

TCEQ Extends Deadline To Apply For Clean School Bus Grants

As we told you earlier this week, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) operates a Texas Clean School Bus Grant Program that is designed to improve the health of school children and bus drivers by reducing emissions of diesel exhaust from school buses. I am pleased to share that TCEQ has extended the application deadline for the program to December 14, 2012.

The TCEQ provides grant money to purchase and install devices on school buses to reduce emissions. All sizes of diesel-powered school buses are eligible. The bus must operate on a regular, daily route to and from a school and have at least five years of useful life remaining.

Applications will be considered on a first-come, first-served basis through the extended deadline. While there is not a limit on the amount of funding that can be applied for, the amount award is at the discretion of the TCEQ. You can download the request for grant applications at www.texascleanschoolbus.org.

Additionally, please check out our recently released EDF report, “Review of Texas’ Clean School Bus Programs: How Far Have We Come and What Is Still Left to Do?”, which highlights the efforts of state and regional programs in administering clean bus programs, and details the progress made with retrofits and replacements.

Also posted in Air Pollution, Clean school buses, Diesel engines | Leave a comment