After seeing this, now I know why the Texas Railroad Commission does such a lousy job of regulating the Gas and Oil Industry. It is physically impossible for the TRC to keep up with regular inspections on gas and oil wells. As of a year ago, the TRC only had 83 inspectors as reported in a Star Telegram article
Richard Varela, the commission's executive director, said the agency does the best it can with limited staff. There are 377,000 wells in Texas, each with associated pipelines, tank batteries and other equipment. And there are only 83 inspectors. That's about 4,500 wells per inspector.
http://startelegram.typepad.com/barnett_shale/files/many_wells_go_uninspected_30_in_tarrant_have_not_seen_state_scr.htm
The great state of Texas is in trouble. We need better regulation and accountability.
Click on the link below to see how many gas wells are in Texas. This is just gas wells and does not include oil wells and injection wells.
http://www.propublica.org/special/map-number-of-producing-gas-wells-708
Friday, July 10, 2009
Smelly Gas Substance Spews on Keller Neighborhood
Gas drilling companies keep saying that it is the "clean burning" fuel. Some residents in Keller might feel that there is nothing "clean" about natural gas drilling. Encana claimed the substance wasn't toxic but Ms. Hall's vegetation died after the yellow drizzle from the malfunctioning gas well fell on her yard.
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Mysterious-Substance-Rains-Down-on-Keller-Neighborhood.html
Smelly Substance Rains Down on Keller Neighborhood
A malfunctioning gas well spewed a smelly mixture of salt water and natural gas into the air of a Keller neighborhood Monday evening.
Resident Lindy Hall said she and her family were shocked when they saw the substance spewing out of the gas well about a football field away from her back yard.
"Everybody was just going, 'What is that? What is that?' And we were watching the geyser," she said.
Encana, the company that manufactures the gas well, said a valve malfunctioned, sending the mixture into the air.
Hall said it smelled awful.
"When I saw the yellow drizzle coming down, we knew something wasn't right," she said.
The next day, she discovered a shiny film on her plants, most of which were dying or wilting away, Hall said.
"God knows what was in that stuff that they dumped in my yard," she said.
Hall said she wants to make sure the substance doesn't have the same effect on her child and pets that it had on her plants.
An Encana representative said the substance is not toxic. The company is investigating why the valve malfunctioned.
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Mysterious-Substance-Rains-Down-on-Keller-Neighborhood.html
Smelly Substance Rains Down on Keller Neighborhood
A malfunctioning gas well spewed a smelly mixture of salt water and natural gas into the air of a Keller neighborhood Monday evening.
Resident Lindy Hall said she and her family were shocked when they saw the substance spewing out of the gas well about a football field away from her back yard.
"Everybody was just going, 'What is that? What is that?' And we were watching the geyser," she said.
Encana, the company that manufactures the gas well, said a valve malfunctioned, sending the mixture into the air.
Hall said it smelled awful.
"When I saw the yellow drizzle coming down, we knew something wasn't right," she said.
The next day, she discovered a shiny film on her plants, most of which were dying or wilting away, Hall said.
"God knows what was in that stuff that they dumped in my yard," she said.
Hall said she wants to make sure the substance doesn't have the same effect on her child and pets that it had on her plants.
An Encana representative said the substance is not toxic. The company is investigating why the valve malfunctioned.
Monday, July 6, 2009
No Drilling Expected Under The New Cowboy Stadium?
It appears the City of Arlington has some concerns about gas drilling under the new stadium. According to the City Attorney Jay Doegey, the following was stated in an article in the Dallas Morning News.
Doegey said the city hasn't conducted any research to calculate potential dangers of drilling underneath a megastructure like Cowboys Stadium. But he said there has to be a concern about drilling beneath a structure that expensive ($1.15 billion) and that heavy (more than 805 million pounds).
"Doegey said that when he lived in Southern California, oil extraction had caused some surface collapses and seawater had to be injected into the rock to mitigate that."
Doegey said the city hasn't conducted any research to calculate potential dangers of drilling underneath a megastructure like Cowboys Stadium. But he said there has to be a concern about drilling beneath a structure that expensive ($1.15 billion) and that heavy (more than 805 million pounds).
"Doegey said that when he lived in Southern California, oil extraction had caused some surface collapses and seawater had to be injected into the rock to mitigate that."
I guess it is okay to drill under homes, schools, parks, hospitals, land used for farming and livestock (food sources), near water wells etc., but not under the Cowboy Stadium!
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/070509dnmetmineralrights.3ce41e0.html
Cowboys Stadium site in Arlington isn't expected to be used for gas drilling
10:34 PM CDT on Saturday, July 4, 2009
By JEFF MOSIER / The Dallas Morning News jmosier@dallasnews.com
Natural gas wells could eventually crisscross the rock formations below almost every part of Arlington, but one area is expected to remain off limits.
City Attorney Jay Doegey said that standard language in contracts with the Dallas Cowboys probably would prohibit drilling under the team's new stadium. He said there are concerns – although they are remote – that drilling could affect the building's structural integrity.
"We don't want the ground to give and cause it to crack or sink," Doegey said about the rock beneath the stadium.
The language was put in the contracts long before five small earthquakes shook Cleburne in a single week in early June. Researchers are looking into whether those and many others recently were the result of extensive gas drilling in the underground Barnett Shale formation.
Earthquakes have been rare in North Texas until recently. Thousands of wells have been drilled in the western areas of North Texas in recent years.
Arlington and the Cowboys' decision to include the language could potentially make it harder – but not impossible – to lease the 200-acre stadium site for drilling. The options are already limited since the property is in a developed area.
Attorney Glenn Sodd, who represented some property owners whose land was acquired for the stadium, said this is the first he's heard of the potential ban. It's of particular interest to him because his last group of clients who settled was allowed to keep some mineral rights through a deal that hadn't been publicized before now.
At stake could be thousands of dollars for Sodd's clients and potentially millions for the city.
By banning drilling under the stadium property, the city could only lease the land to drillers if it were "pooled" with adjacent property. The drilling would have to occur under the other property, but revenue would be split among all mineral rights owners.
There are no immediate plans to lease the stadium land for gas drilling, and the market for such leases has slowed dramatically in the past year. The recession and falling natural gas prices have dropped signing bonuses from nearly $30,000 per acre in some areas to about $2,000 to $2,500 per acre.
Doegey said the city hasn't conducted any research to calculate potential dangers of drilling underneath a megastructure like Cowboys Stadium. But he said there has to be a concern about drilling beneath a structure that expensive ($1.15 billion) and that heavy (more than 805 million pounds).
"I don't know that we would want to take the chance, even if it was a long shot," Doegey said.
Parts of the stadium extend about 120 feet below street level. Gas drilling in the Barnett Shale often happens at a depth of about 1 ½ miles (or 7,920 feet).
Ed Ireland, executive director of the Barnett Shale Energy Education Council, said he's not sure there is any research that would back up the city's stance.
"I'm not aware that there ever has been any correlation between anything that happens on the surface and drilling," he said. "Most of that 8,000 feet is various layers of rock."
Doegey said that when he lived in Southern California, oil extraction had caused some surface collapses and seawater had to be injected into the rock to mitigate that.
Ireland said he's not familiar with what happened in Southern California, but he said that could have been the result of drilling at a shallower depth or a different makeup of the underground formations.
Sodd said he's not too concerned with the city's policy as long as Arlington officials still intend to lease the land eventually. He said that was a significant part of his negotiations with the city.
Arlington officials balked at first, saying that such a deal could potentially allow private property owners to have surface access to the stadium property. One official raised the possible threat of former property owners demanding that a drilling rig be placed in a Cowboys parking lot.
Sodd's clients were among the last to sign a deal with the city, a settlement with no mention of mineral rights. He said he couldn't remember who suggested keeping the mineral rights out of the contract.
While gathering the land needed for the stadium, Arlington bought some property and condemned other tracts. Instead of taking the straightforward route, the city dropped its eminent domain cases against Sodd's clients. He then had a portion of the mineral rights deeded to a company owned by his law firm, according to county records.
Soon after, a deal was struck without having to mention the mineral rights in the public settlement.
Doegey said he wasn't involved in the negotiations on this case. But he said that other property owners weren't as insistent as Sodd's clients about keeping the mineral rights.
Sodd said this type of quiet approach is common in eminent domain cases. He said that many government agencies don't want details of settlements to be released because they could affect negotiations with others.
"If that was their intention, I don't blame them," Sodd said.
Although the mineral rights are now worth only a fraction of what they once were, Sodd said patience could eventually be rewarded.
"The one that is a certainty in the oil and gas business is that prices are going to rise and fall," he said. "The question is not whether it's going to [rise in price], it's when it's going to."
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Congress grills experts on Hydraulic Fracking
Here a two videos from the Congressional hearings on the Gas and Oil exemption from the Clean Water Act aka Halliburton Loophole. It is pretty obvious that the Gas and Oil industry are trying to hide something. It looks like the days of secrecy may be coming to an end.
http://vimeo.com/5298837
http://vimeo.com/5367213
http://vimeo.com/5298837
http://vimeo.com/5367213
Hydraulic Fracking Chemicals Suspected of Causing Health Issues
This video is evidence of why full disclosure of fracking chemicals is needed!
http://vimeo.com/1973850
http://vimeo.com/1973850
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Citizens Complain About "Bad Odor"
This letter was forwarded to me.
It is in response to bad odors being detected coming from the Cotton Belt Compression Station in the triangle of 635, 121, and 114. DFW Environmental Affairs Department responded to complaints and did testing. They are doing their best to regulate and keep their eye on this common problem. Is it enough? Maybe for DFW airport but not for most North Texans.
This will continue to be a concern as gas drilling gets closer to urban areas. DFW has the money and resources to try to regulate this common problem. Average citizens like us do not. Rural areas of North Texas have been dealing with the problems like this and many others for many years. When this happens in our neighborhoods, it will be more difficult to detect and regulate. Health and safety will be an issue with gas drilling getting closer to highly populated areas and schools. Gas wells are not the only issue with gas drilling. Where there is gas drilling, a compression station and gas gathering pipelines are not far away.
Dear XXXX
This summary of DFW Environmental Affairs Department [EAD] recent response actions to odor complaints associate with Chesapeake Energy natural gas mining project being conducted at DFW Airport provides you an update of DFW Environmental Affair’s efforts to identify and reduce sources of odors and provides you a copy of air grab sample laboratory results for your edification.
EAD staff have confirmed natural gas odors emanating from the Cottonbelt Compressor Station consistent with recent 3rd party complaints. EAD collected air grab samples from the compressor station pad on two occasions to determine the constituents and concentrations of contaminants of concern that may be associated with these presenting natural gas process related odors. EAD concerns were shared with Chesapeake Energy site operations personnel as well as Chesapeake's Fort Worth office project manager. A subsequent site meeting confirmed that odors were emanating from both the glycol and BTEX process treatment units. In response to EAD and Chesapeake Energy operations personnel discussions, Chesapeake Energy enacted a reconfiguring of process piping in an effort to mitigate the odorous fugitive emissions. In response to a subsequent complaint from nearby residents, EAD conducted a second round of air sampling at the suspect Cottonbelt Compressor Station. Laboratory analysis [attached pdf files] indicated the presence of very low concentrations of some of the same constituents evident in the first round of air grab samples.
"One sample approached but did not exceed, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Effects Screening Level (ESL) for benzene. This ESL is not a regulated limit"
Benzene is a known carcinogen.
None of the resultant emission concentration levels are considered by OSHA or NIOSH as a worker safety concern. One sample approached, but did not exceed, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality [TCEQ] Effects Screening Level (ESL) for benzene. This ESL is not a regulated limit. We are committed to reducing sources of emissions even in the absence of compelled regulatory drivers. EAD is also responsive to a TCEQ enforced Nuisance Odor Rule in the interest of mitigating odors generated by sources located on Airport.
This is a common problem with compression stations (as confirmed by the EAD staff to be a common problem in the Oil & Gas Industry and stated below). But we all know gas companies are not forth coming about incidents like this.
DFW Airport’s Board of Directors, executive and senior management team is committed to beyond compliance environmental stewardship Airport-wide. DFW’s Environmental Management System (EMS) provides an umbrella of environmental compliance, and beyond compliance response action policies, procedures, monitoring and verification protocols applicable to DFW Board, tenant and contractor activities across the board. Chesapeake’s Fort Worth based project manager has stated that Chesapeake is working to eliminate the odor sources to the extent possible. EAD staff have been assured by Chesapeake Energy that Chesapeake has the capability and resources to effectively address sources of fugitive emissions. EAD staff research confirmed that compressor station emissions are a common problem throughout the oil & gas industry; and that there are mitigation measures available to reduce industry related sources of emissions.
"EAD will continue to press Chesapeake to further identify and mitigate fugitive emissions etc. etc." It would be more comforting if it were possible to demand it or no drilling but unfortunately for all of us, that isn't how it works. BETTER REGULATION IS NEEDED!
I hope you find this summary of efforts in progress and laboratory results helpful. EAD will continue to press Chesapeake to further identify and mitigate fugitive emissions going-forward and to deploy effective odor mitigation technology and best management practices. Please let me know if you require additional information or clarification at this time.
Sincerely,
Dan Bergman, M.S., J.D.,
Vice President Environmental Affairs
It is in response to bad odors being detected coming from the Cotton Belt Compression Station in the triangle of 635, 121, and 114. DFW Environmental Affairs Department responded to complaints and did testing. They are doing their best to regulate and keep their eye on this common problem. Is it enough? Maybe for DFW airport but not for most North Texans.
This will continue to be a concern as gas drilling gets closer to urban areas. DFW has the money and resources to try to regulate this common problem. Average citizens like us do not. Rural areas of North Texas have been dealing with the problems like this and many others for many years. When this happens in our neighborhoods, it will be more difficult to detect and regulate. Health and safety will be an issue with gas drilling getting closer to highly populated areas and schools. Gas wells are not the only issue with gas drilling. Where there is gas drilling, a compression station and gas gathering pipelines are not far away.
This is good example of why there needs to be better regulation. Texas is in need of a better regulation system. As stated in previous posts, contact the Texas Oil & Gas Accountability Project. They are forming a chapter in Texas. Great progress has been made by lobbying for bills to protect the citizens, air and water in New Mexico and Colorado. They need support to be ready for the next Legislative Session. Many bills were presented to make it easier on Gas and Oil this session and they didn't pass. Gas and Oil will be pushing even harder now. The Gas and Oil industry spent over 44.5 million in the first 3 months of 2009 lobbying Congress and other federal agencies for their industry. $129 million was spent in 2008. Oil and Gas Accountability Project was able to make a difference. Link is below.
https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/676/t/5240/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=4483&track=txOGAPfDear XXXX
This summary of DFW Environmental Affairs Department [EAD] recent response actions to odor complaints associate with Chesapeake Energy natural gas mining project being conducted at DFW Airport provides you an update of DFW Environmental Affair’s efforts to identify and reduce sources of odors and provides you a copy of air grab sample laboratory results for your edification.
EAD staff have confirmed natural gas odors emanating from the Cottonbelt Compressor Station consistent with recent 3rd party complaints. EAD collected air grab samples from the compressor station pad on two occasions to determine the constituents and concentrations of contaminants of concern that may be associated with these presenting natural gas process related odors. EAD concerns were shared with Chesapeake Energy site operations personnel as well as Chesapeake's Fort Worth office project manager. A subsequent site meeting confirmed that odors were emanating from both the glycol and BTEX process treatment units. In response to EAD and Chesapeake Energy operations personnel discussions, Chesapeake Energy enacted a reconfiguring of process piping in an effort to mitigate the odorous fugitive emissions. In response to a subsequent complaint from nearby residents, EAD conducted a second round of air sampling at the suspect Cottonbelt Compressor Station. Laboratory analysis [attached pdf files] indicated the presence of very low concentrations of some of the same constituents evident in the first round of air grab samples.
"One sample approached but did not exceed, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Effects Screening Level (ESL) for benzene. This ESL is not a regulated limit"
Benzene is a known carcinogen.
None of the resultant emission concentration levels are considered by OSHA or NIOSH as a worker safety concern. One sample approached, but did not exceed, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality [TCEQ] Effects Screening Level (ESL) for benzene. This ESL is not a regulated limit. We are committed to reducing sources of emissions even in the absence of compelled regulatory drivers. EAD is also responsive to a TCEQ enforced Nuisance Odor Rule in the interest of mitigating odors generated by sources located on Airport.
This is a common problem with compression stations (as confirmed by the EAD staff to be a common problem in the Oil & Gas Industry and stated below). But we all know gas companies are not forth coming about incidents like this.
DFW Airport’s Board of Directors, executive and senior management team is committed to beyond compliance environmental stewardship Airport-wide. DFW’s Environmental Management System (EMS) provides an umbrella of environmental compliance, and beyond compliance response action policies, procedures, monitoring and verification protocols applicable to DFW Board, tenant and contractor activities across the board. Chesapeake’s Fort Worth based project manager has stated that Chesapeake is working to eliminate the odor sources to the extent possible. EAD staff have been assured by Chesapeake Energy that Chesapeake has the capability and resources to effectively address sources of fugitive emissions. EAD staff research confirmed that compressor station emissions are a common problem throughout the oil & gas industry; and that there are mitigation measures available to reduce industry related sources of emissions.
"EAD will continue to press Chesapeake to further identify and mitigate fugitive emissions etc. etc." It would be more comforting if it were possible to demand it or no drilling but unfortunately for all of us, that isn't how it works. BETTER REGULATION IS NEEDED!
I hope you find this summary of efforts in progress and laboratory results helpful. EAD will continue to press Chesapeake to further identify and mitigate fugitive emissions going-forward and to deploy effective odor mitigation technology and best management practices. Please let me know if you require additional information or clarification at this time.
Sincerely,
Dan Bergman, M.S., J.D.,
Vice President Environmental Affairs
Friday, June 26, 2009
EPA has huge concerns about Texas air quality and regulation
It looks like someone is finally listening to the people of Texas about our air quality. Here is a great article from the Dallas Morning News about the EPA's concerns. See the full article below
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/062409dnproepatexas.3e2ebaf.html
EPA echoes activists in challenging Texas' air pollution permits, practices, commission
06:43 AM CDT on Wednesday, June 24, 2009
By RANDY LEE LOFTIS / The Dallas Morning News rloftis@dallasnews.com
Groups attacking Texas' environmental policies have gained an important ally: the Obama administration.
Shucking off years of arms-length relations with Texas' anti-pollution activists, the Environmental Protection Agency has reached out to organizations that have challenged state permits and practices.
Also Online
Download: EPA presentation
Download: TCEQ response
Blog: Energy and Environment
The new federal attitude is already putting pressure on some major Texas industries and on the oft-criticized Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, which is run by Republican Gov. Rick Perry's appointees.
In the five months since President Barack Obama took office, the EPA has sided with the TCEQ's critics and blocked the reopening of a controversial copper smelter in El Paso; signaled new federal enforcement against big, state-regulated facilities such as refineries and chemical plants; and threatened to strip Texas of its authority to issue major air pollution permits unless the state agrees to changes.
The EPA also invited leaders of Texas and national environmental groups that are battling the state to a private meeting with Administrator Lisa Jackson on her first visit to Texas as Obama's top environmental appointee. They told Jackson that Texas was "a state under siege" and that the EPA needed to send "reinforcements and enforcement," said Tom "Smitty" Smith of Public Citizen, who attended the meeting.
Jackson told The Dallas Morning News in an interview that Texas' environmental regulation has become a major concern of hers. She singled out what she described as inadequate opportunities for the public to review key permit decisions.
"Transparency is something I'm really concerned about, especially here in Texas," Jackson said. "That's an issue we're going to have to address head-on."
Perry has repeatedly defended how Texas regulates toxic emissions from factories, refineries and other big industries, saying the state is protecting jobs along with the environment.
"Governor Perry has proven that stifling government mandates are not the answer to our state's energy and environmental challenges," press secretary Allison Castle said. "Texas has proven it possible to balance sound environmental policies with pro-growth economic efforts that have produced the best business climate in the country."
The TCEQ rejected the federal complaints. In a June 5 letter to the EPA's acting regional administrator in Dallas, Executive Director Mark R. Vickery said the commission meets federal requirements.
Vickery outlined "options for bridging the perceived gaps in our permitting program." He offered to clarify state rules "to reflect the TCEQ's existing practice."
Commission officials provided Vickery's letter to The News but declined to comment on their differences with the EPA.
North Texas residents demanded change at the commission during an EPA hearing last week on new emissions limits for cement kilns.
"Unfortunately, our state environmental agency ... has failed us," Dallas resident Rita Beving told EPA officials.
State Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, told the EPA that the TCEQ had "exhibited a lack of public concern" by refusing to order formal hearings on major permits. The most recent North Texas case came in February, when TCEQ commissioners approved a 10-year permit renewal for TXI's Midlothian cement plant without a formal hearing.
"They've played their hand for too long," Davis said.
'Major concerns'
During a meeting with state environmental officials May 26, EPA officials laid out "major concerns" with state procedures on key permits. The EPA cited limited public input, lack of public notice for some permits, inadequate emissions accounting and a failure to enforce rules that trigger tougher requirements for new or modified plants.
If the agencies do not resolve their differences, the EPA could revoke Texas' authority to manage permits under the Clean Air Act, according to a presentation the EPA made at the meeting. The EPA later provided a copy to The News.
Like most states, Texas now has authority to handle federal air permits on the EPA's behalf. The EPA retains approval authority over state programs and can formally object to a state-issued permit, as it threatened to do in the case of Asarco's controversial copper smelter in El Paso.
That threat came Feb. 3, just two weeks into the new administration. The EPA said it found numerous legal and procedural problems with Asarco's permit renewal. The EPA said it would order work stopped on the smelter and start enforcement against Asarco if the state did not rescind the permit.
Asarco immediately gave up its permit.
The next week, the TCEQ's commissioners voted 2-1 to renew another contested permit, this one for TXI's Midlothian cement plant. The commissioners rejected numerous requests for a formal hearing, a long, trial-like process.
The contested case hearing is a potentially powerful weapon for a plant's opponents that does not exist in federal law – an example, Texas officials point out, of greater public input under Texas' system.
However, the TXI case also revealed a lack of public scrutiny of state permits. The North Texas environmental group Downwinders at Risk found this month that the TCEQ had approved a modification for TXI – allowing it to burn scrap tires as fuel in its newest Midlothian kiln – with no public notice, chance for public comment or trial burn, a test of how a new fuel affects emissions.
Because burning scrap tires instead of coal, the kiln's typical fuel, usually reduces smog-causing nitrogen oxides, the TCEQ considered the change a pollution reduction project that required no public notice. Environmentalists said they had no chance to review possible increases in other emissions, including metals.
Groups sue
Public interest groups have sued Texas companies under the federal Clean Air Act to force pollution cuts that neither the state nor the EPA had achieved. In one such case, Environment Texas and the Sierra Club sued Shell's massive refinery and chemical complex in Deer Park, near Houston, in early 2008.
Despite Shell's state permits, the environmental groups found more than 1,000 occasions from 2003-06 when emissions exceeded hourly limits, which are meant to protect the public from acute, short-term harm.
On three dates, records showed, Shell emitted more toxic compounds in a single day than its permits allowed in an entire year.
Shell responded in a legal filing that many emissions came during start-ups, shutdowns and maintenance, "clearly contemplated by the state as being an expected part of refinery and chemical plant operations." Until recently, Shell said, the TCEQ did not put permit limits on those emissions.
A settlement signed by a federal judge June 16 requires Shell to cut excess emissions by more than half within three years, improve emissions accounting, change equipment and processes, and pay $5.8 million to Houston-area environmental programs.
The federal government was not a party to the suit, but EPA officials were privy to settlement talks and later repeated many of the lawsuit's themes – including the state's apparent failure to clean up Shell's emissions – in their talks with the TCEQ.
The TCEQ has cited Shell's Deer Park complex for air violations 14 times since 2003, assessing nearly $975,000 in civil fines, records show.
The EPA told the TCEQ that the state had allowed far higher emissions than the EPA would have authorized. The EPA analyzed three plants – Shell, ExxonMobil's Baytown complex and Magellan's East Houston terminal – but said 1,461 Texas plants might have similar issues, suggesting possible future enforcement.
The TCEQ disputed the EPA's assertions.
Neil Carman, clean air director for the Sierra Club's Texas chapter, was involved in the Shell settlement talks. He said the EPA's tough stance on Shell and similar companies represented a significant change.
"It's a sign of the new sheriff in Washington," Carman said.
AT A GLANCE: WHAT EPA, TEXAS SAY
The Environmental Protection Agency says:
•Parts of the Texas permit system do not meet minimum federal requirements.
•The state offers inadequate public notice for both minor and major permits.
•State air pollution plans are incomplete and lack adequate monitoring and compliance provisions.
•The state has not addressed concerns of environmental groups or Houston Mayor Bill White, who is seeking reductions in airborne toxic chemicals.
•The state has missed opportunities to reduce pollution.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality says:
•The state's permit system meets all federal rules but might need language changes to clarify compliance.
•Texas permits are written to include all necessary information.
•State air pollution plans include all required information.
•The public has ample opportunities to comment on permits.
•Texas permits provide enforceable and effective limits on pollution.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/062409dnproepatexas.3e2ebaf.html
EPA echoes activists in challenging Texas' air pollution permits, practices, commission
06:43 AM CDT on Wednesday, June 24, 2009
By RANDY LEE LOFTIS / The Dallas Morning News rloftis@dallasnews.com
Groups attacking Texas' environmental policies have gained an important ally: the Obama administration.
Shucking off years of arms-length relations with Texas' anti-pollution activists, the Environmental Protection Agency has reached out to organizations that have challenged state permits and practices.
Also Online
Download: EPA presentation
Download: TCEQ response
Blog: Energy and Environment
The new federal attitude is already putting pressure on some major Texas industries and on the oft-criticized Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, which is run by Republican Gov. Rick Perry's appointees.
In the five months since President Barack Obama took office, the EPA has sided with the TCEQ's critics and blocked the reopening of a controversial copper smelter in El Paso; signaled new federal enforcement against big, state-regulated facilities such as refineries and chemical plants; and threatened to strip Texas of its authority to issue major air pollution permits unless the state agrees to changes.
The EPA also invited leaders of Texas and national environmental groups that are battling the state to a private meeting with Administrator Lisa Jackson on her first visit to Texas as Obama's top environmental appointee. They told Jackson that Texas was "a state under siege" and that the EPA needed to send "reinforcements and enforcement," said Tom "Smitty" Smith of Public Citizen, who attended the meeting.
Jackson told The Dallas Morning News in an interview that Texas' environmental regulation has become a major concern of hers. She singled out what she described as inadequate opportunities for the public to review key permit decisions.
"Transparency is something I'm really concerned about, especially here in Texas," Jackson said. "That's an issue we're going to have to address head-on."
Perry has repeatedly defended how Texas regulates toxic emissions from factories, refineries and other big industries, saying the state is protecting jobs along with the environment.
"Governor Perry has proven that stifling government mandates are not the answer to our state's energy and environmental challenges," press secretary Allison Castle said. "Texas has proven it possible to balance sound environmental policies with pro-growth economic efforts that have produced the best business climate in the country."
The TCEQ rejected the federal complaints. In a June 5 letter to the EPA's acting regional administrator in Dallas, Executive Director Mark R. Vickery said the commission meets federal requirements.
Vickery outlined "options for bridging the perceived gaps in our permitting program." He offered to clarify state rules "to reflect the TCEQ's existing practice."
Commission officials provided Vickery's letter to The News but declined to comment on their differences with the EPA.
North Texas residents demanded change at the commission during an EPA hearing last week on new emissions limits for cement kilns.
"Unfortunately, our state environmental agency ... has failed us," Dallas resident Rita Beving told EPA officials.
State Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, told the EPA that the TCEQ had "exhibited a lack of public concern" by refusing to order formal hearings on major permits. The most recent North Texas case came in February, when TCEQ commissioners approved a 10-year permit renewal for TXI's Midlothian cement plant without a formal hearing.
"They've played their hand for too long," Davis said.
'Major concerns'
During a meeting with state environmental officials May 26, EPA officials laid out "major concerns" with state procedures on key permits. The EPA cited limited public input, lack of public notice for some permits, inadequate emissions accounting and a failure to enforce rules that trigger tougher requirements for new or modified plants.
If the agencies do not resolve their differences, the EPA could revoke Texas' authority to manage permits under the Clean Air Act, according to a presentation the EPA made at the meeting. The EPA later provided a copy to The News.
Like most states, Texas now has authority to handle federal air permits on the EPA's behalf. The EPA retains approval authority over state programs and can formally object to a state-issued permit, as it threatened to do in the case of Asarco's controversial copper smelter in El Paso.
That threat came Feb. 3, just two weeks into the new administration. The EPA said it found numerous legal and procedural problems with Asarco's permit renewal. The EPA said it would order work stopped on the smelter and start enforcement against Asarco if the state did not rescind the permit.
Asarco immediately gave up its permit.
The next week, the TCEQ's commissioners voted 2-1 to renew another contested permit, this one for TXI's Midlothian cement plant. The commissioners rejected numerous requests for a formal hearing, a long, trial-like process.
The contested case hearing is a potentially powerful weapon for a plant's opponents that does not exist in federal law – an example, Texas officials point out, of greater public input under Texas' system.
However, the TXI case also revealed a lack of public scrutiny of state permits. The North Texas environmental group Downwinders at Risk found this month that the TCEQ had approved a modification for TXI – allowing it to burn scrap tires as fuel in its newest Midlothian kiln – with no public notice, chance for public comment or trial burn, a test of how a new fuel affects emissions.
Because burning scrap tires instead of coal, the kiln's typical fuel, usually reduces smog-causing nitrogen oxides, the TCEQ considered the change a pollution reduction project that required no public notice. Environmentalists said they had no chance to review possible increases in other emissions, including metals.
Groups sue
Public interest groups have sued Texas companies under the federal Clean Air Act to force pollution cuts that neither the state nor the EPA had achieved. In one such case, Environment Texas and the Sierra Club sued Shell's massive refinery and chemical complex in Deer Park, near Houston, in early 2008.
Despite Shell's state permits, the environmental groups found more than 1,000 occasions from 2003-06 when emissions exceeded hourly limits, which are meant to protect the public from acute, short-term harm.
On three dates, records showed, Shell emitted more toxic compounds in a single day than its permits allowed in an entire year.
Shell responded in a legal filing that many emissions came during start-ups, shutdowns and maintenance, "clearly contemplated by the state as being an expected part of refinery and chemical plant operations." Until recently, Shell said, the TCEQ did not put permit limits on those emissions.
A settlement signed by a federal judge June 16 requires Shell to cut excess emissions by more than half within three years, improve emissions accounting, change equipment and processes, and pay $5.8 million to Houston-area environmental programs.
The federal government was not a party to the suit, but EPA officials were privy to settlement talks and later repeated many of the lawsuit's themes – including the state's apparent failure to clean up Shell's emissions – in their talks with the TCEQ.
The TCEQ has cited Shell's Deer Park complex for air violations 14 times since 2003, assessing nearly $975,000 in civil fines, records show.
The EPA told the TCEQ that the state had allowed far higher emissions than the EPA would have authorized. The EPA analyzed three plants – Shell, ExxonMobil's Baytown complex and Magellan's East Houston terminal – but said 1,461 Texas plants might have similar issues, suggesting possible future enforcement.
The TCEQ disputed the EPA's assertions.
Neil Carman, clean air director for the Sierra Club's Texas chapter, was involved in the Shell settlement talks. He said the EPA's tough stance on Shell and similar companies represented a significant change.
"It's a sign of the new sheriff in Washington," Carman said.
AT A GLANCE: WHAT EPA, TEXAS SAY
The Environmental Protection Agency says:
•Parts of the Texas permit system do not meet minimum federal requirements.
•The state offers inadequate public notice for both minor and major permits.
•State air pollution plans are incomplete and lack adequate monitoring and compliance provisions.
•The state has not addressed concerns of environmental groups or Houston Mayor Bill White, who is seeking reductions in airborne toxic chemicals.
•The state has missed opportunities to reduce pollution.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality says:
•The state's permit system meets all federal rules but might need language changes to clarify compliance.
•Texas permits are written to include all necessary information.
•State air pollution plans include all required information.
•The public has ample opportunities to comment on permits.
•Texas permits provide enforceable and effective limits on pollution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
