For further information, please contact Kathy Pendleton, Emissions Assessment Section, at (512) 239-1936.
Start Time: 14:00
Date: 2006-01-06

1. City of Houston seeks Administrative Specialist to Adminsiter REEP Weatherization Program. Administers the Residential Energy Efficiency Program (REEP) weatherization program daily operations and works with REEP team to ensure program is meeting its weatherization goals. Assists with applicant eligibility verification. Conducts community outreach to promote REEP program and sign-up REEP applicants. Manages day to day contractor weatherization activities and ensure weatherization contractors are fulfilling contract obligations. Administers REEP’s database by designing and modifying database tables, creating report templates and running weekly and ad hoc reports. Conducts REEP program data analysis, consumption analysis and REEP metrics. More at http://www.houstontx.gov. Search for PN 06790.
2. Ozone Theater seeks 2-4 Teaching Artists. GHASP/Mothers for Clean Air are looking to hire 2-4 Teaching Artists who will be independent contractors in the public education classroom.
   The ideal artist for this job is Bilingual, (Spanish/English) Energetic, Educated, Articulate, Passionate, Creative, Imaginative, Responsible and Resourceful.  http://houston.kijiji.com/c-Jobs-Part-time-students-PART-TIME-ART-SCIENCE-Instructor-W0QQAdIdZ141188209.
3. Ozone Theater seeks Freelance Graphic Designer. GHASP/Mothers for Clean Air hopes to hire a graphic designer, who will develop graphics for the new middle school curriculum – Air Pollution Solutions. The design targets not only this age group but must also appeal to educators. To apply, email cover letter and resume to hiring@ghasp.org.
4. The Trinity River National Wildlife Refuge, located in Liberty County, TX, is looking for two paid interns that will be hired through the Student Conservation Association (SCA).  The two positions, entitled “HCC Biological Technician Intern,” are listed on the SCA website at http://www.thesca.org and will be filled in August.  The positions will last approximately 30 weeks with free housing available on the refuge.  Interns
   will be doing a host of duties including, but not limited to: staffing the waterfowl check station, repairing fence lines, picking up litter, exotic invasive control, tending the butterfly garden, and visitor information activities at the public use area.
5. Artist Boat is seeking four motivated, creative, and self-starting art and science educators with environmental backgrounds to deliver Eco-Art Workshops, and Residencies to the communities of the Houston/Galveston Region, Louisiana (2-3 weeks a year), and Central/Lower Texas Coast (2-3 weeks a year). For a full job description, go to http://www.artistboat.org/employment-opportunities.html.
6. Artist Boat has two positions available for Eco-Arts Educators in Residence. The position involves delivering an Eco-Art Residency to an elementary school in Galveston and Houston and developing and delivering hands-on arts curriculum to K-5th grade students. For more information, visit http://www.artistboat.org/employment-opportunities.html.
7. The Student Conservation Association is currently recruiting for paid interns. To get a list of the most current Houston-area openings email Chelli Hill at chill@thesca.org. To browse the list of all SCA internships go to http://www.thesca.org/serve/internships/browse.
8. Texas Campaign for the Environment is currently hiring community organizers to build grassroots support for key environmental legislation to promote recycling and protect the health, economy and environment of Texas communities. Ideal candidates possess strong communication skills and a genuine commitment to the environment, social justice and progressive politics. Visit http://www.texasenvironment.org/jobs.cfm or call 713-337-4192 for more.

The Houston area now has three electric car dealers!

Apollo Scooters at 1239 Richmond and at 2103 Gray, an established scooter dealer, has recently gone electric. It now carries ZAP! products – autos (really an enclosed three-wheel motorcycle) and the retro style Zapino, an all-electric scooter with Italian chic. Apollo also sells the all-electric Segway. Apollo also plans to offer Segway tours of Houston. I saw a group of Segway tourists in San Antonio, all looking like ducklings following their mother.

On Monday, Houston Electric Cars opened its location at 2420 Rusk, just east of downtown, and made its first sale to Houston Electric Auto Association president Dale Brooks. He bought a blue ZENN (Zero Emissions No Noise) neighborhood electric vehicle. The car is governed to speeds slower than 30 mph, and goes 62 miles on a charge. It’s a two-seater, but there’s room in the back for three children. Unlike many electric autos, its air conditioning is standard. The car is built in Canada with parts from France. A 4-passenger, freeway-speed ZENN is scheduled for delivery in a few months.

Houston Electric Cars also plans to carry the Sun-motor sedan, which has a solar panel that extends over the hood past the rear window. The car plugs into any electrical outlet, but the 300-watt solar panel can produce some of the car’s power.

There is also a dealer for the MILES brand in Friendswood. These are also only for neighborhood use.

Also, Leisure Learning Unlimited offers a class on electric car conversion on August 27 and again on October 29. The class will discuss the basics: how far you can drive on a charge, what kind of batteries and motor to use, and how much the project might cost. The instructors will display the car and truck they converted for approximately $14,000 and $9,000 respectively. To register for the class go online.

Houston’s electric Auto Association meets on the third Thursday of the month at 3015 Richmond at 7 pm. For more information about the group, see their website.

I am starting a trip to Fort Davis in the morning, and the e-mail from the Chronicle “Subject: Breaking News – Texas gasoline prices hit record high” made me really glad that I have rented a Prius for the trip.

To my surprise, the rental rate for the Prius was the same as for Toyota Corolla and less than for a Camry. As I was trying to decide if it was really worth driving to the big airport to get that car, I ran across a really useful website. It’s the EPA’s Green Vehicle Guide. It lists a vehicle’s gas mileage, air pollution score, and greenhouse gas score; and also provides other useful information such as how many cubic feet of interior space and of truck space the vehicles have.

I used it to compare a Camry and a Prius and discovered that it would take 4 gallons of gas to get me 100 miles in the Camry and 2.17 gallons to get me that far in the Prius. Over the course of 1,200-mile trip, and at today’s prices, that’s a $70 saving in gas. One friend discovered an extra savings when he rented a Prius in Los Angeles – he got to park free at his hotel, rather than paying $15 per day.

The Prius also has a slightly better score on air pollution and greenhouse gasses. The comparisons also tell how many cubic feet of interior space and of truck space the vehicles have. I learned that the Camry’s inside is bigger, but the Prius’ trunk is bigger.

I rented from Hertz, which has a “Green Collection” that is chosen from cars that have the EPA’s “SmartWay” designation.

The EPA “SmartWay” and SmartWay Elite” designations indicate the vehicles with the best environmental performance. Higher air pollution scores indicate vehicles with reduced levels of emissions that cause smog. Higher greenhouse gas scores indicate vehicles with reduced levels of emissions that cause greenhouse gases. This is also connected to improved fuel economy. According to the website, SmartWay Elite is given to vehicles that have greenhouse gas and air pollution scores of 9 or better. There are eight models on this list.

SmartWay is a designation for vehicles that score a 6 or better on the air pollution and greenhouse gas scores and achieve a combined score of at least 13. There are more than fifty models on this list.

Other car rental places have plenty of eco-friendly vehicles available too. Think about getting a rental for your next road trip. If your car is a gas-guzzler, it might pay for itself.

March 1 begins the ozone season in the Houston area. Ground level ozone forms when sunlight and warm air (which we’ll have lots of) react with hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides. High ozone levels can cause coughing, wheezing and shortness of breath. They are dangerous to children, the elderly, and people with asthma and other respiratory illnesses.

Whether by coincidence or design, EPA and TCEQ officials and local officials and business leaders gathered today in Beaumont to celebrate the Beaumont-Port Arthur region’s reaching the eight-hour standard for ozone. Ozone monitoring data from 2005 to 2007 shows that the area meets the current eight-hour ozone standard of not more than 0.08 parts per million as well as the former one-hour standard of 0.12 ppm, which was revoked in 2005.

“This is an important clean air milestone for everyone in the Beaumont-Port Arthur area,” said EPA regional administrator Richard E. Greene. “EPA is pleased to recognize the committed efforts of the many residents and industry leaders who have worked side-by-side with air quality staff at the local, state and federal levels to reduce ozone in the region.”

Upon hearing the news from Beaumont, Matthew Tejada, executive director of the Galveston Houston Association for Smog Prevention (GHASP) said “I guess we should say “good job, now get back to work”, because Beaumont will again be out of attainment under a new standard for ozone due to be released in a couple weeks. But this is a great sign that communities can achieve better, healthier air quality when they work with their elected officials and have industries that recognize their role and responsibility for cleaning up the air.”

Houston is nowhere near meeting the EPA standard. According to Jane Laping, executive director of Mothers for Clean Air, there were 28 days in 2007 when ozone higher than the health standard and 36 days in 2006. “Since ozone formation depends on energy from the sun and since rain and clouds block energy from the sun, the weather in 2007 most likely contributed to cleaner air,” Laping said. New technologies and regulatory controls on industrial emissions also likely contributed to lower ozone pollution in 2007.

“The 2008 ozone season should answer if it was the weather or pollution reductions that made Houston’s air cleaner. But the odds are high that we won’t have two quiet ozone years in a row, so we need to be prepared to protect our health and the health of our children. The best way to do this is to reduce outdoor exposure when ozone levels are unhealthy,” said Laping.

GHASP announced today that is going to make it easier for citizens to find out when ozone levels are unhealthy. The organization commemorated the opening of the ozone season with an announcement that it will provide real-time information about ozone levels from four monitors in Waller, Fort Bend and Montgomery Counties and central Houston.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality allows the public online access to its ozone monitors, but it usually takes at least an hour before the information is available, according to Matthew Tejada, GHASP’s executive director.

“There are serious gaps in TCEQ’s existing ozone monitoring network,” Tejada said. “Parents, teachers, school officials and anyone concerned with breathing healthy air while outside need to be quickly informed about the quality of the air. Ozone information that can be one or two hours old simply is not good enough to protect people’s health.”

View the GHASP ozone monitoring information

Get more information on ozone.

Sign up for ozone alerts.

SOUTHEAST TEXAS AIR FINALLY MEETS U.S. STANDARD

A public meeting on the proposed standard permits will be held on March 18, at 1:30 pm at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Building E, Room 254S, 12100 Park 35 Circle, in Austin.

Copies of the draft Air Quality Standard Permit for Permanent Rock and Concrete Crushers may be obtained from the TCEQ Web site. Copies of the draft amendments to the Air Quality Standard Permit for Temporary Rock Crushers and Temporary Concrete Crushers may be obtained from the TCEQ Web site

Comments may be mailed to Blake Stewart, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Office of Permitting, Remediation, and Registration, Air Permits Division, MC 163, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087 or faxed to (512) 239-1070. Comments should reference the standard permit for permanent rock and concrete crushers. Comments must be received by March 21. For further information, contact Mr. Stewart at (512) 239-6931.

(Cuclis has been a research scientist at the Houston Advanced Research Center since 2004. Prior to that, he spent two years performing air quality studies with the University of Houston and 13 years at Shell’s Deer Park Complex. He has degrees in chemical engineering (UT-Austin) and analytical chemistry (UI-Urbana). He was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Cameroon.)

Many universities require that their engineering students take Engineering Ethics. One of the scenarios in the textbook used at Texas A&M goes something like this:

“Mary discovers that her plant is discharging a substance into the (air) that is not regulated by the government… As an engineer, she believes she has an obligation to protect the public, but she also wants to be a loyal employee. The substance will probably be very expensive to remove, and her boss advises, ‘Forget about it until the government makes us do something. Then all the other plants will have to spend money too, and we will not be at a competitive disadvantage.’ What should Mary do?” (adapted from Engineering Ethics by Harris, Richard, and Rabins, 1999).

Data from Texas air quality field studies in 2000 and 2006 indicate that the concentration of many volatile organic compounds have dropped by 40 percent from 2000 to 2006, but levels of VOCs are still ten to fifty times higher than reported by the petrochemical facilities in the Houston Ship Channel. (Rapid Science Synthesis Report, August 2007).

However, the reported inventories for nitrogen oxides (NOx) are very similar to the amounts measured by aircraft that have taken samples of the atmosphere in the same areas.

The problem is not limited to Texas or the US. Similar VOC emission inventory discrepancies have been found at refineries in Europe that have employed complex analytical techniques such as Differential Absorption Light Detection and Ranging (DIAL) or Solar Occultation Flux (SOF). Most of the 30 studies performed in the past 20 years show that the European refiners are emitting more than 10 times the VOCs that they report.

Investigations by TCEQ indicate that the Ship Channel facilities are, for the most part, properly employing EPA approved emissions estimating techniques for VOCs. In Europe, the refineries are using standard, environmental agency approved estimating techniques similar to those used in the US.

Considering that the engineers are doing what they are told to do, how they are told to do it, is it really possible that engineers have been this far off for more than 20 years when estimating emissions? How legitimate is the data behind this assertion? If emissions are really that far off, what should be done about it? If the VOC inventory is incorrect, does that mean that the inventories for air toxics and greenhouse gases are incorrect as well? And if “Mary” has an idea about why the emissions are not correct, what should she do?

Some people believe that the way emissions are estimated need to be changed, but others question the data behind the assertion that there are discrepancies between the reported and actual levels of VOCs.

The 2006 air quality field measurement platforms included a variety of ground-based sites. The Houston area has more monitors than any other metropolitan area in the US. This very extensive monitoring program is designed to track emissions from various sources. The system can track trends; however single point monitors on the ground cannot measure the total amount of material or even tell which direction it comes from. One cannot get an accurate emissions inventory from the ground level monitors due to three problems:

1. Many of the pollutants react prior to reaching the monitors,
2. There are concerns about how to convert a measured amount at a point into an emission rate, and
3. Because of Houston’s frequent shifts in wind direction it is difficult to identify the main source of the emissions.

The DIAL and SOF analytical techniques used in Europe and now in Canada and the US can identify and quantify emission rates from various parts a plant (tanks, process area, cokers, flares, cooling water towers, etc.), however the plants that employ these techniques almost always require confidentiality agreements that prevent sharing the knowledge gained on a large scale. Also, since the vendors of these techniques reside in Europe, it is very expensive to perform these studies in the US.

If you are interested in more information and some lively discussion about these topics, join the Houston chapter of Engineers Without Borders in one of its seminars on Engineering Ethics. One seminar will be February 26, from 6 to 8:30 pm, at Upper Kirby Conference Room, 3015 Richmond. The second will be February 27, from 3 to 5 pm, at the HGAC Building, 3555 Timmons, Second Floor, Room A. Each seminar will have the same speakers. Alex Cuclis will discuss the VOC emissions under-reporting issues and Professor Lisa Gossett from the University of Houston-Clear Lake will discuss professional licensing and certification issues. The cost is $30 ($20 for EWB members). If interested, please RSVP to Alex at acuclis@harc.edu, indicating the date you intend to attend, by February 22. The seminar is a benefit for Engineers Without Borders projects to help poor communities in India, El Salvador and Bolivia.

Also, Mothers for Clean Air and GHASP monthly Clean Air Exchange meeting will feature Paulette Wolfson, city of Houston attorney, to discuss the city’s authority to conduct environmental inspections and require registration of emissions. The talk will be Thursday, February 21, at 7 pm at St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church, 5308 Buffalo Speedway. For more information contact (713) 526-0110 or mfca@mothersforcleanair.org.

Correction: I included a note about Mothers for Clean Air and GHASP’s Clean Air Exchange meeting at the end of Alex Cuclis’ article on engineering ethics without making it clear that the meeting notice was not a part of his article. He is not associated with those groups and I added the notice without consulting him. I apologize.  Ella Tyler, editor

(Leslie is CEC’s intern. She has degrees in communication and nursing. We sent her to the EPA hearings to report her impressions. For other reports, see this Chronicle article and this Houston CLEAN report.)

As I drove into Houston’s Manchester neighborhood to attend Tuesday’s hearing on the EPA’s proposed emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants from refineries, I was struck by the billowing plumes of white smoke and realized that a person like me, who is not knowledgeable about petroleum refining, hasn’t a clue whether the smoke is harmless steam or poisonous benzene-laden pollution.

This struck me as an analogy for the east-end community. It’s obvious that there are problems to be addressed. The symptoms are visible. As I listened to the testimony, however, it became clear that pinpointing the problems and isolating their causes and contributing factors are far from easy tasks.

According to the EPA’s fact sheet about the proposals, the Clean Air Act requires EPA to review existing control technology standards that reduce emissions of air toxics (chemicals that are known or suspected to cause cancer and other health problems) from industrial facilities and to tighten those standards, if needed, to protect public health. EPA analyzed emissions at petroleum refineries and determined that the risks to human health are low enough that no further controls are warranted.

One EPA proposal is to retain the current standard. Its second option is to amend the standards to provide additional health protection. See the EPA website. However, many people who testified requested a third option of stricter standards.

The hearing provided a diverse and colorful tapestry of testimony. A few speakers represented the petroleum industry, many more were from environmental groups or were elected or government officials. Several had well-laid-out presentations with statistics and graphs, others told their personal stories.

The testimony that was most important, in my estimation, was that of the residents of the community. Many times, they said, their voices are not heard or heeded.

The issue most frequently addressed was “What is an acceptable health risk?” For the general population, EPA’s definition of an acceptable health risk is one (more) cancer case per million people for the general population, but, to the EPA, the acceptable risk is 100 cancer cases per million people if a person lives close to a refinery.

One industry representative, Jeff Holmstead of Bracewell and Giuliani Law Firm, later identified to me as a former EPA assistant administrator and now (again) a lobbyist, claimed that a one in one million risk is 27 times less than the risk of dying by a lightening strike. One in one million, he said, is simply the point at which risk is inconsequential. Holmstead continued to say that it would be silly to hold petroleum refineries to that standard, implying that getting struck by lightening is a hazard virtually no one considers in a risk/ benefit analysis of life.

This made me wonder. There is clearly risk inherent in living near a refinery, but what is the acceptable number considering many of us face risks greater than 100 per million (like a car accident for example) simply by getting out of bed in the morning?

However, several speakers questioned why people who live close to refineries should be less safe than the general public. To have one standard for the general public and a lesser standard for those living close to refineries is an example of environmental racism, they said.

Physician Bonnie New pointed out that people in communities like Manchester are often vulnerable populations (youth, age, illness, low income) and should therefore be more protected than the general population.

This hearing brought many issues to my attention. Which are steam, and which are benzene? Is it the petroleum refineries or the lack of health insurance (which one resident mentioned) that exacerbates health problems? Or something else entirely? Five or six Manchester residents testified that Texas Port Recycling, a newcomer to the neighborhood, is also a big concern. They claimed the company, which shreds cars, causes metallic dust and a cacophony of noise in the middle of night, causing health and morale problems.

Congressman Nick Lampson (D-TX) and Congressman Kevin Brady (R-TX) have introduced the Clean Air and Water Investment Act of 2007, to restore a provision that enables tax-exempt bonding for air and water pollution control facilities. This authority was previously available prior to 1986, and proved so effective that even facilities that were “grandfathered” – and not subject to clean air standards – opted to update their pollution controls voluntarily.

“This is an easy and cost effective way for Congress to increase industries’ investment in air and water pollution control facilities,” said Congressman Lampson. “Both industry and environmental groups should be advocating for this smart, sensible, and simple step of tax reform.”

“It is very important that our Texas communities meet Clean Air Act standards,” said Congressman Brady. “This legislation will help to affordably accelerate the installation of new pollution control equipment.”

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, as of 2005 there were 474 counties in thirty-two states that had not yet met clean air standards for ozone, and additional counties and states had not met carbon monoxide or particulate standards either. Many states have also increased their enforcement of total maximum daily loads for water pollution. Considering the growing number of health effects linked to environmental conditions, and the uncertainty surrounding the global climate, these standards are continuing to rise. This in turn has increased the demand and cost of pollution control facilities needed for clean industrial emissions and water.

Charles Ganze, General Manager of the Gulf Coast Waste Disposal authority said, “this bill will empower us to improve our own operations and assist industries all over Texas to meet higher clean air and water standards, with no added cost to the taxpayer.” Ironically, since 1986, state and local governments have been restricted in their ability to allocate the subsidy provided through tax-exempt financing to projects that may provide the greatest benefit: air and water pollution control facilities. The Clean Air and Water Investment Act gives state and local agencies the power to provide federal tax exempt bonding to industries seeking to improve the quality of air and water before it is released into the environment. Furthermore, the bill does not present any new liability to the Treasury because it is subject to an already existing state volume cap on private activity bonds. As of 2005 this cap held over $18 billion in un-allocated funds.

“By allowing state agencies to access this surplus, my bill represents an economically sound approach to rising pollution concerns that ought to be embraced by Republicans and Democrats alike, “said Mr. Lampson.

The EPA is holding public hearings on proposed changes to the 8-hour ozone standard on Wednesday, Sept 5 at the Houston Marriot West Loop, 1750 West Loop South, near the Galleria. The hearing will be from 9 am to 12:30 pm, 2 to 6 pm, and 7:30 to 9 pm. Hearings were in Philadelphia and Los Angeles yesterday, and will be in Houston, Atlanta, and Chicago on Sept. 5. The final rule is scheduled to be adopted next March.

The EPA is considering several options. Its proposal is to set a standard in the range of 0.070 – 0.075 ppm, but is also considering retaining the current 0.084-ppm standard. However, the EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee concluded that the standard should be set in the range of 0.060 to 0.070 ppm.

The EPA is soliciting public comments on all three options. For complete information about how to submit comments, see the EPA website.

In some ways, the standard is irrelevant to our region. We do not meet the current standard. The first deadline for the Houston area to meet an ozone standard was 1975, but the deadline was not met then. Three extensions later, the deadline is now 2019. Governor Rick Perry asked for an extension of the 2010 deadline for the Houston-Galveston area (which includes the adjacent counties) to comply. Perry asked for Houston to be reclassified from moderate to severe for the formation of ground-level ozone during an 8-hour period, giving the area an extra nine years to meet the EPA regulations.

Even if the new standard is yet another standard that will not be met, Houston residents are particularly competent to testify about the proposal because our weather is so favorable for producing high concentrations ozone. Houstonians can testify from their own experience about how ozone (a major component of smog) aggravate severe respiratory symptoms, and is dangerous for children and individuals with lung illnesses like asthma, chronic bronchitis and emphysema.

Additionally, a large crowd at the hearing, even if not everyone testifies, will show city and county officials that Houstonians are genuinely concerned about the problem of ozone in our city. Galveston Houston Association for Smog Prevention is seeking volunteers to be a part of the audience and help us keep track of the proceedings. Please call (713) 528-3779 or send an email to info@ghasp.org if you can help.

The deadline for written comments is October 9. The EPA site about the proposal is www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/actions.html. For more information about this issue, see the Mothers for Clean Air newsletter and the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club’s press release. It contains links to sample testimony and to the American Lung Association’s fact sheet about ozone.

One of Governor Perry’s few vetoes of the last legislative session was of a bill that would have prohibited diesel-fueled school buses from idling unnecessarily outside schools and school events. The bill had enjoyed support from school boards, the Texas Federation of Teachers, the Texas PTA, and other groups; and had met no opposition, so his decision puzzled many, especially the bill’s author, Scott Hochberg (D) (Houston), who received no advance notice of Perry’s intentions.

Idling school buses endanger children. Diesel emissions from the buses contain high levels of fine particulate matter, which lodges itself in the lungs where it can contribute to asthma, bronchitis, premature death, and possibly cancer. Children are particularly vulnerable to these particles because their lungs are still developing and because they breathe more quickly than adults, taking in more ambient chemicals.

Betin Santos, an air quality specialist with Environmental Defense, said that asthma is the number one childhood disease, accounting for the most hospital admissions and days lost from school.

Although Perry vetoed the no-idling bill, he allowed an appropriation bill rider that directs the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to spend for $3.75 million for the next two years on school buses upgrades to reduce emissions.

In the Houston region, about 25 percent of the school districts that have initiated their own no-idling policies. Cypress-Fairbanks, Friendswood, Fort Bend, Galena Park, Houston, Katy, Klein, Sweeny, and Willis school districts all reported to Galveston Houston Association for Smog Prevention that they have taken some action to limit school bus idling.

Representative Hochberg intends to reintroduce the no-idling bill if reelected, but parents and schools can take action now. Parents should learn their school district’s policy, talk to drivers, and report violations of the policy. Schools can continue with awareness campaigns, offer bus drivers climate controlled waiting areas, and enforce idling policies.

For more information, visit GHASP’s website; the EPA’s website; and Environmental Defense’s website.

Also, the award for clean air technology will be presented to Leak Surveys, Inc., of Early, Texas, for the “HAWK” Leak Detection System. Originally used to detect natural gas leaks in pipelines, HAWK has recently found a new application in petrochemical plants, refineries and terminals. Ship Channel companies and the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality use the system to detect leaks of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from storage tanks, barges, valves and fittings so they can be identified and repaired faster. VOCs are a component of smog. This system, which uses a passive infrared camera, has revolutionized the potential for VOC emission recognition. The technician scans for emissions while watching a digital video screen to verify a leaking component.

The Clean Air Excellence Awards recognize programs, projects, or technologies that directly or indirectly reduce emissions of criteria pollutants or hazardous/toxic air pollutants; are innovative and unique; provide a model for others to follow; and result in positive outcomes that are sustainable. The other categories of awards are community action, regulatory/policy innovations, transportation efficiency innovations, visionary programs, and individual achievement. The 7th annual Clean Air Excellence Award ceremony will take place on the evening of May 9 at Smithsonian’s Museum of the American Indian. Thirteen awards will be presented.

The City of Houston’s Planning Department, as part of its Urban Corridor Planning, is holding a series of workshops so residents can participate in planning for growth along METRO’s light rail and guided rapid transit corridors. These workshops will be held over the next six weeks, with an introductory workshop on April 14. After that, there will be workshops for each of the corridors.

The way the city grows is directly related to the rules for land development and infrastructure. Details such as the width of streets and sidewalks, the distance buildings are from the street, how many parking spaces a business must have, and what type of landscaping must be added, make the difference between a city that people can walk in or one where they must to drive everywhere.

The workshops will focus on developing plans about mobility, public spaces, urban design and implementation.

In the individual corridor workshops, planners and community members will explore the unique characteristics and needs of each corridor. For example, where are wider sidewalks and pedestrian crosswalks needed? Where are public gathering places, benches and parks needed? How can these improvements be funded?

Each corridor workshop take place over two consecutive evenings. Participants will work in small groups to respond to questions and complete activities from the design team. The first session will discuss key opportunities for change in the corridor. The next day, the design team will discuss design ideas and concepts for each corridor. These sessions are from 6 to 9 each evening. Also, participants may drop by the workshop location between 11 am and 5 pm either day and speak to a member of the design team one-on-one.

The introductory meeting, for all the corridors, is Saturday, April 14th, from 8:30 am to noon at the George R. Brown Con Convention Center. Ideas that may be applicable to all six corridors will be discussed.

The East End Corridor workshops will be Monday & Tuesday, April 16 & 17, at the Marbella Banquet Hall, 6632 Harrisburg Road.

The North Corridor meetings will April 18 & 19, at Reid Memorial United Methodist Church, 5203 Fulton St.

The Southeast Corridor meetings will be Wednesday & Thursday, April 25 & 26, at Holman Street Baptist Church, 3422 Holman Street.

The Main Street Corridor sessions will be Monday & Tuesday, April 30 & May 1, at Palmer Memorial Church, 6221 Main Street, close to the Hermann Park/Rice U Metro Rail stop.

The Uptown Corridor’s workshops will be May 2 & 3, at the Pavilion at Post Oak, 1800 Post Oak Blvd.

The workshop for the University Corridor will not be scheduled until the alignment for the corridor is chosen.

There will be a presentation of preliminary findings for all the corridors on Wednesday, May 23, from 6 to 9 pm at George R. Brown Convention Center.

Please RSVP to urban.corridor.planning@cityofhouston.net. For more information about the workshops, see the city’s website.

The report “An Analysis of Toxic Chemicals Released in Communities across the United States”, recently released by Environment Texas, is fascinating, in a horrifying kind of way. Many products that I thought were environmentally positive, rayon, for example, are produced by intensely polluting methods. However, many of these products are common consumer products, so individual buying decisions really can make a positive contribution to reducing air and water pollution.

According to the report, ”The chemical industry released the most developmental and reproductive toxicants to air and water in 2004.” The cellulosic manmade fibers (acetate and rayon) sector of the chemical industry was responsible for the most pollution.

For developmental and reproductive toxicants, the second most polluting industry is the rubber/plastics products industry. These products include meat packaging materials, sponges and scouring pads, and rubber gloves.

The printing/publishing industry ranked third in emissions of developmental toxicants. Food packaging, wallpaper, wrapping paper, magazines, and greeting cards are usually printed with toluene-based ink.

The industries that produce the largest amounts of suspected neurotoxicants such as methanol, ammonia and hydrogen fluoride, are (in order) chemicals/allied products, paper/allied products, and electric/gas/sanitary services.

The nitrogenous fertilizers sector of the chemical industry was one of the largest air and water polluters, releasing large amounts of ammonia and methanol. This sector manufactures ammonia fertilizer compounds and anhydrous ammonia, nitric acid, ammonium nitrate, ammonium sulfate and nitrogen solutions, urea, and natural organic fertilizers.

Methanol is released in large amounts by pulp, paper, and paperboard mills. It is a byproduct of the pulping and washing processes.

About 80 percent of all hydrogen fluoride released into the air in 2004 came from the electric/gas/sanitary services industry. Almost all of this pollution comes from the combustion of coal, which contains small amounts of fluoride compounds that form hydrogen fluoride when burned.

The largest amount of suspected respiratory toxicants were released by the electric/gas/sanitary services industries. This sector reported releases of 683,233,869 pounds of suspected respiratory toxicants in 2004. The next ranking industries, chemicals/allied products and paper/allied products, reported releases of approximately 210,000,000 pounds and 180,000,000 pounds (respectively) of these chemicals in 2004.

Nine of the 10 facilities releasing the most respiratory toxicants were power plants. Coal contains trace amounts of chloride; so coal-burning electric utilities release chloride into the air, where it combines with hydrogen to form hydrogen chloride. Upon contact with water, the hydrogen chloride forms hydrochloric acid.

Dioxins are so toxic that the EPA requires facilities to report their dioxin releases in grams rather than pounds. They are produced in chemical facilities, pulp and paperboard mills, petroleum refineries, and large coal-burning power plants. According to the report, in 2004 the chemical industry released the most dioxins to air and water, accounting for almost half (49 percent) of all air and water emissions of dioxins. The electric power sector and paper industry followed, together accounting for almost a third (31 percent) of the dioxin releases.

The report says, “A relatively small number of communities often experience the bulk of the air and water pollution.” According to the report, almost a quarter of all air and water releases of carcinogens occurred within just 20 U.S. counties; Tennessee, Texas and Illinois accounted for more than 40 percent of the nation’s developmental toxicant releases and more than 70 percent of the reproductive toxicant releases in 2004. Two-thirds of all air and water releases of dioxins reported occurred within just 20 zip codes.

That makes it easy to miss the link between air pollution and the products we use, but when we reuse our wrapping paper, we are not just saving a tree, we are giving the people in Dickson, Tennessee, toluene-free air to breathe.

The full report is at Environment Texas’ website (pdf).

The report “Toxic Pollution and Health” released this week by Environment Texas shows that the Houston-Galveston area leads the nation in industrial emissions of air toxics. Air toxics are chemicals that can cause many types of cancer and diseases of the reproductive, respiratory, and neurological systems. The report, which used the Toxic Release Inventory for its data (the reports of releases of toxic chemicals made by industry to the EPA), says that 10,619,097 pounds of recognized carcinogens were released into Texas’ air or soil in 2004.

The chemical and allied products industry releases the most carcinogens. Petroleum refining is the fourth largest contributor. Harris, Galveston and Brazoria counties hold spots 1, 2 and 4 respectively in the national ranking for the release of carcinogens. BP’s Texas City refinery reported releases of more than 2 million pounds in 2004, the most in the country.

Jane Laping, executive director of Mothers for Clean Air said the data underscore the need for improved control of air toxics in Houston-area communities. “There’s no reason our residents should be exposed to these high levels of air pollution,” she said.

The report analyzed suspected neurotoxicants, developmental toxicants, dioxins, suspected respiratory toxicants and reproductive toxicants also.

Harris County ranks second in the nation for suspected neurotoxicants and Galveston County ranks fourth. The chemical industry produces the most of these chemicals. Harris County is third on the list for developmental toxicants and for dioxins, fourth for suspected respiratory toxicants and fifth for reproductive toxicants. Brazoria County ranks first in the nation for dioxins.

Meg Healy, Research Director for the Galveston-Houston Association for Smog Prevention (GHASP) says that it is technically and economically feasible to reduce air toxics in the Houston region, but, “As long as Texas maintains its insufficient policies for pollution control, industry will continue to do as little as possible to reduce emissions.”

GHASP is supporting several air toxics bills in the 2007 Texas Legislature, including the following bills filed by Houston area legislators:

HB2475 by Hochberg, SB1855 by Gallegos, and SB1906 by Ellis, which are about regulation of toxic hotspots under the Texas Clean Air Act;

HB2363 by Hernandez, HB2722 by Thompson, and SB1924 by Gallegos, which would establish an air pollutant watch list and require certain reports; and

HB2890 by Vo and HB3156 by Noriega, which are about controlling emissions of air contaminants.

For more information about the bills, see GHASP’s website.

The “Toxic Pollution and Health” report is available from Environment Texas. According to its findings, in 2004, the industries that sent the most pollutants to the air and water were the chemical, paper, and electric utilities. The states most affected were Texas, North and South Carolina, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, Illinois, Georgia, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality will hold hearings on its proposed clean air plan on Monday, Jan 29. Two sessions are scheduled, one beginning at 2 pm and the second beginning at 6 pm. The hearings will take place at the Houston-Galveston Area Council, 3555 Timmons Lane, in the Greenway Plaza area in Houston. The hearings will be in Conference Room A, on the second floor.

The plan that TCEQ has proposed will not, by its own account, bring the Houston/Galveston/Brazoria non-attainment area into compliance with the US Environmental Protection Agency’s eight-hour standard for ground-level ozone until between 2009 and 2018. The deadline to comply, unless the EPA extends it, is 2010.

Local advocacy group Mothers for Clean Air is urging area residents to attend one of the meetings and let TCEQ hear their personal perspectives on this plan.

Jane Laping, executive director of Mothers for Clean Air, said, “We are not against the rules that are proposed, but we are against a plan that doesn’t demonstrate how to achieve clean air.”

Laping said that the proposed plan would control less than 4% of the emissions TCEQ calculates must be controlled to meet the 2010 ozone deadline and that, under the TCEQ plan, several monitors across the county are expected to show values above the current federal limit for ozone as late as 2018.

Laping’s three tips for testifying are:

• Bring a written copy of your remarks, if possible. Keep remarks brief and to the point.
• Start with your name and a sentence or two about yourself. State whether or not you agree with the proposed rules.
• Include in your comments any personal experiences with air pollution. Have you or your children experienced adverse health effects? Have you had to reschedule or cancel a child’s activities? How do you feel about bringing up your children in an area where you have to be concerned about the air they are breathing? Have you heard negative comments about Houston’s environment?

To view the plan, visit TCEQ’s website

TCEQ is also hosting a workshop to guide regulated entities in supplying comprehensive final reports of emission events to the TCEQ under the new streamlining process. The workshop will be offered on Tuesday, Jan 30, at the City of Houston’s E.B. Cape Center, 4501 Leeland Street.

Environmental activists from across the state will be meeting in Austin on February 11 and 12 to rally and lobby against issuing permits for proposed new coal-fired power plants under a fast-track procedure authorized by Texas governor Rick Perry in October 2005. The issue has been covered by NPR, Rolling Stone, and Fortune, but since none of the plants is in the Houston area or expected to contribute to our power supply, the controversy has not received much attention here.

A brief summary of the problem:
On October 27, 2005, Perry signed Executive Order RP49, which requires the Public Utility Commission to begin a campaign making customers aware of retail electric choices. RP49 also orders state agencies to develop plans for conserving energy and directs the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to “apply the full resources of the agency to prioritize and expedite the processing of environmental permit applications that are [1] protective of the public health and environment and [2] propose to use Texas’ natural resources to generate electrical power.”

Statewide, permits for nineteen coal-fired power plants are being considered under the fast track process. Eight of the proposed new plants circle Waco, three are in northeast Texas, and two are near Corpus Christi. The largest number of applications, eleven, were filed by TXU, the giant power company that supplies much of the Dallas area.

The additional coal plants would add 30,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, over 115 million tons of carbon dioxide, and nearly 4,000 pounds of toxic mercury each year, according to the Texas Cities for Clean Air Coalition.

Because of wind patterns, those air emissions are headed straight for some of the most heavily populated areas of the state, but none of the plants are near Houston or in its wind patterns. Power for Houston comes from the Parrish coal-fired plant in Fort Bend County, one of the cleanest coal facilities in the country, according to Jane Laping, executive director of Mothers for Clean Air.

Also announced Thursday was a plan to build a new power plant in Fort Bend County that will use innovative gasification technology. The technology, known by the acronym IGCC, turns petroleum coke into a cleaner-burning gas. TXU says this process is not yet reliable and too expensive to adopt.

Nan Hildreth, with the Houston Climate Protection Alliance, believes that the proposed coal-burning plants will adversely impact the Houston/Galveston area because of increased mercury pollution in our waterways and because of carbon dioxide’s role in global warming.

As a result of the order, the TCEQ’s review of applications for has been accelerated to such a degree that opponents of the permits are seriously handicapped in their ability to oppose the applications. The Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club says that some of the problems include scheduling hearings in different communities on the same day, with the result that residents affected by more than one plant could not attend both hearings; a six-month timeline for deliberations that would ordinarily take a year; and a strain on the State Office of Administrative Hearings.

Another problem with the expedited process is illustrated by McClennan County (Waco), where four plants are planned. There are no pollution monitors in the county, so there is no way to determine if the emissions allowed by the permits would place the region in violation of federal air quality standards.

On Wednesday, state representative Charles “Doc” Anderson (R-Waco) has introduced HCR 43, a concurrent resolution requesting the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to put a 180-day moratorium on approving permits for new pulverized coal-burning plants in Texas. Matt Welch, a staffer in Anderson’s office, said that nine of the proposed plants are in a 50-mile radius of McLennan County.

Welch says that the delay would give the legislature a chance to act on several bills, including one to give incentives for the use of clean coal, rather than the pulverized coal most of the plants will use. “When Governor Perry made this decision, the legislature was not in session, but now it is, and wants time to consider other solutions to the problem,” Welch said. “Also”, he said, “The Supreme Court may rule on carbon sequestration and there is bipartisan support in Congress to declare carbon dioxide a pollutant.”

In a press statement, Rep. Anderson said, “”Governor Perry acted prudently in 2005 when he fast-tracked the permitting process for new coal plants. At that time the price of natural gas was more than $15 per MMBtu and two hurricanes had created serious production problems in the Gulf. Today, however, natural gas in the $7 range and the Gulf production capacity has been restored.”

“We now have time”, Anderson continued, “to carefully analyze the effect of creating new pulverized coal plants in Texas. There is not currently an electrical generating capacity crisis in Texas. Existing natural gas electrical generating plants are not operating at full capacity.”

Opposition to the plants is bringing together a diverse groups of Texas activists, including the regional office of the American Lung Association, Texas Cities for Clean Air (Arlington, Cedar Hill, Coppell, Dallas, DeSoto, Duncanville, El Paso, Fort Worth, Frisco, Hillsboro, Houston, Irving, Lancaster, McKinney, Plano, Rockwall, and Wylie), the Texas Business for Clean Air PAC (a group of 50 business executives in Dallas), a variety of environmental groups, the Texas Democratic Party, Texas IMPACT, People of Faith Working for Justice, and the Waco Chamber of Commerce.

Local opposition to the project comes from Houston Mayor Bill White, Greater Caddo Lake Association, Houston Climate Protection Alliance and the all the area’s Sierra Club groups.

TXU’s statement about its applications can be found at TXU’s website. Information about the rally and lobby day is at StopTheCoalRush.com.