perchloroethylene
Houston’s polluted Superfund sites threaten to contaminate floodwaters.
Harris County has at least a dozen federal Superfund sites, more than any county in Texas. Up to 30 percent of the county is under water, spurring worries about toxics leaking.
As rain poured and floodwaters inched toward his house in south Houston, Wes Highfield set out on a risky mission in his Jeep Cherokee. He drove in several directions to reach a nearby creek to collect water samples, but each time he was turned back when water washed against his floorboard.
“Yesterday as these large retention ponds filled up, eight feet deep in places, kids were swimming in them, and that’s not good,” said Highfield, a scientist at Texas A&M; University’s Galveston campus. The Brio Refining toxic Superfund site, where ethylbenzene, chlorinated hydrocarbons and other chemical compounds were once pooled in pits before the Environmental Protection Agency removed them, sits “just up the road, and it drains into our watershed,” he said.
Harris County, home to Houston, has at least a dozen federal Superfund sites, more than any county in Texas. On top of that, the state lists several other highly toxic sites managed by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Up to 30 percent of the county is under water. Like other scientists in the area, Highfield is deeply worried about toxins leaking into the water during an unprecedented rainfall and flooding from Hurricane Harvey that caused dams to spill over for the first time in history. On Tuesday, ExxonMobil reported that two of its refineries east of Houston had been damaged in the flood and released pollutants. “I made a couple of phone calls to colleagues who said bottle up [samples], label them and we’ll run them all,” Highfield said.
On Tuesday, EPA officials in Washington traveled to Houston to monitor environmental risks. On Monday, a spokesman for the Texas commission, Brian McGovern, wrote in an email that its workers “took steps to secure state sites in the projected path of Hurricane Harvey” by removing drums with chemical wastes and shutting down systems. McGovern said that “EPA has been coordinating with potentially responsible parties” that created the federal toxic sites to secure them.
“The TCEQ and EPA will be inspecting sites in the affected areas once reentry is possible,” McGovern wrote. But Highfield and a colleague at Texas A&M;, Samuel Brody, want to know what’s in the water now, as residents with children sometimes plunge into it as they wade to safety from flooded homes.
With its massive petroleum and chemical industry, Houston, part of the “Chemical Coast,” presents a huge challenge in a major flooding event, said Mathy Stanislaus, who oversaw the federal Superfund program throughout the Obama administration.
Typically the EPA tries to identify Superfund sites in a major storm’s path to “shore up the active operations” and “minimize seepage from sites,” Stanislaus said. “This is not the time to dictate; it’s the time to work together well with state and local officials to think about needs that need to be met.”
Before Sandy, the powerful and destructive weather system that vacillated between a hurricane and tropical storm as it bore down on New Jersey and New York, the agency rushed to sites in harm’s way. Still, Stanislaus said, “There was some spread of contamination.”
The EPA tested Superfund sites after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and found that contamination was relatively contained, said Nancy Loeb, director of the Environmental Advocacy Center at Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law. But she cautioned that other more risky sites lie in the path of any storm that strikes a major metropolitan area such as Houston.
Risks at Superfund sites where the contamination hasn’t been completely resolved “are of the flooding picking up contaminants as it goes,” Lobe said. “If the water picks up contaminated sediment from sites, that may get deposited in areas where people frequent — residential properties, parks, ballfields — that were never contaminated before. We can’t say for sure it will happen, but it’s certainly a possibility.”
Residents who use well water are especially vulnerable, Loeb said: “There’s no testing of their water to know whether it’s been contaminated.”
In addition to the toxic pits at the Brio in Houston’s Friendswood community, Harris County’s polluted Superfund sites include the low-lying San Jacinto River Waste Pits that “is subject to flooding from storm surges generated by both tropical storms (i.e. hurricanes) and extra tropical storms” that push water inward from Galveston Bay, according to an Army Corps of Engineers report released last year.
There’s also the Many Diversified Interests site near the heart of the city, the Crystal Chemical Co. site in southwest Houston, the Patrick Bayou site off the Houston Ship Channel, and the Jones Road Plume dry cleaning waste site. They include oily sludge and contaminants dangerous to inhale or touch: perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene and chlorinated hydrocarbons, to name a few.
Highfield became alarmed Saturday when he saw teenagers swimming near a football field where water had risen to the crossbar of the goal post. He mentioned what he saw to Brody and recalled that they both reacted with worry.
“I’ve been thinking a lot about this,” Brody said, so much so that the professor instructed a graduate student to analyze the distance between toxic release inventory areas such as Superfund sites and dry cleaners that store chemicals to 100-year and 500-year floodplains where housing and business developments sit.
According to the analysis, the average distance between the facilities to a 100-year floodplain in Harris County was 44 feet, compared with more than 2,000 feet in nearby Galveston and Chambers counties. The average distance to a 500-year floodplain in Harris County was about 70 feet, compared with more than 3,700 feet in Galveston County and 2,300 feet in Chambers County.
“I would love to do a study that combines sampling and physical measurements to understand the confluence of toxins to these flooding events,” Brody says. “When you get water in your home, it’s not just water, it’s sediment and debris. It’s the sediment that these toxic molecules bind to and become dangerous, like dioxins. Once you get water in the home and it has to be cleaned out, people are exposed.”
Both Brody and Highfield said Monday that they were fortunate: Water had not entered their houses. A month ago, Brody packed his family of four and moved from the Friendswood section of Houston that’s now being devastated by the flood, leaving his friend Highfield there. Brody specifically searched for a house on higher ground and is confident that water won’t enter it.
Highfield is less sure as the flood creeps toward his driveway. All around him, houses and cars are underwater. It fuels his concern about what might enter his house with the water, and what his neighbors and their children encounter when they frolic in the water.
“It was absolutely those kids swimming” that triggered his determination to test the water, regardless of whether Texas or the EPA did it. “That was kind of the aha moment. I plotted a path earlier thinking I could get kind of a back road path where I thought the water would be lower at the creek.”
But it was no use. His car was no match for what is by far the worst flooding ever in a city that has flooded since the month it was first founded. “I need it to stop raining. And I need things to drain a little bit,” Highfield said.
Keep reading...Show less
How humans can avert mass extinctions of animals.
Unlike other creatures, humans can consciously shape the future for generations to come. We should use ingenuity for the benefit of the countless creatures with which we share the Earth. That would also be good for our species.
For millions of years, Australia had no human inhabitants. When people finally arrived there some 45,000 years ago, the continent had 24 different creatures weighing 100 pounds or more. Within a few millennia, 23 were wiped out.
In his book "Sapiens," Yuval Noah Harari notes: "Long before the Industrial Revolution, Homo Sapiens held the record among all organisms for driving the most plant and animal species to their extinction. We have the dubious distinction of being the deadliest species in the annals of biology."
From all indications, we are not about to be dethroned. A new study published in a journal of the National Academy of Sciences says nearly 200 species have vanished in the past century, and 9,000 have seen substantial reductions in their numbers. Only 7,000 cheetahs are left, and the population of West African lions is down to 400. Scientists suggest that Earth is well into the sixth mass extinction of the last half-billion years.
We are seeing "a massive erosion of the greatest biological diversity in the history of Earth," which negatively affects the resources that sustain human life, says the article. The authors call for a reversal of "human overpopulation" and "overconsumption, especially by the rich." One of the scholars, Paul Ehrlich of Stanford, told The Washington Post, "I am an alarmist."
But the alarmism may be overdone. Ehrlich is infamous for erroneously predicting imminent mass global famine in his 1968 book "The Population Bomb." Humans turned out to be more adaptive and resourceful than he expected then, and there is no reason to believe they won't act to prevent the catastrophe being predicted now.
Climate change is one significant factor in the loss of creatures, and the nations of the world have entered into an accord to combat it by curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Even without the participation of the United States, that effort is bound to do some good — and it can be done without hobbling economic growth.
A materially richer world is likely to be a more ecologically conscientious one. "The countries that are wealthiest do the most to protect habitat and species health," says Reed Watson, executive director the Property and Environment Research Center, a think tank in Bozeman, Mont.
That's because conservation is one of the things people come to value more and more as their disposable income grows. Poor nations can't afford to worry so much about the plight of animals because they are preoccupied with feeding and housing people.
Humans are good at finding ways to protect the environment and our fellow creatures when the need is there. When the federal Wilderness Act was passed in 1964, it designated 9 million acres of land as wilderness. Today, we have nearly 110 million acres that provide unspoiled habitat for innumerable species.
Other federal lands such as national parks and forests are also protected from most forms of development — amounting to more than one-seventh of all the land in the country. Neighboring residents have learned that they can profit from tourists who come to hike remote woodland trails and see grizzly bears, eagles and wolves. All this is the fruit of prosperity, not poverty.
One challenge in saving species is devising methods that encourage humans to see animals as an asset, not a burden or danger. American bison, once hunted almost to extinction, have rebounded partly because ranchers raise them for food. Ocean fisheries have been rebuilt by limiting the annual harvest while granting fisherman transferable rights to a share of it —thus giving them a stake in conservation.
Namibia has boosted the number of black rhinoceroses, once down to six, to more than 1,400, reports NPR, while doubling the numbers of both cheetahs and elephants. It has also virtually eliminated poaching. How? By enabling communities to establish conservation areas and administer them in ways that benefit the people living there. One element that PERC's Watson acknowledges is "counterintuitive" is regulated trophy hunting, which generates income that rewards locals for protecting iconic species.
The report provides a sobering picture of how much irreversible damage could be done to worldwide biological diversity. Unlike other creatures, humans can consciously shape the future for generations to come. We should use ingenuity for the benefit of the countless creatures with which we share the Earth. That would also be good for our species.
Keep reading...Show less
Here's how California could change its cap-and-trade program for climate change.
Here’s a look at how cap and trade works now and how it could work in the future.
California has some of the world’s most extensive policies for slashing greenhouse gas emissions, including regulations on vehicle tailpipes and requirements for renewable energy. But none of them has drawn as much attention as the cap-and-trade program, which requires companies to buy permits to release emissions into the atmosphere.
It’s a complex system intended to provide a financial incentive for oil refineries, food processors and other industries to clean up their operations, and state lawmakers are debating whether to extend the program. Although many of the proposals are highly technical, they could have a dramatic effect on the state’s fight against global warming.
Here’s a look at how cap and trade works now and how it could work in the future:
What kinds of pollution would be targeted?
Current program
Right now, cap and trade is focused on reducing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane.
These emissions contribute to global warming, but they’re not the type of pollution responsible for air quality issues that contribute to public health problems such as asthma.
Assembly Bill 378
This proposal would modify the program so it also limits criteria pollutants, including smog-causing nitrogen dioxide, and toxic air contaminants, such as perchloroethylene from some dry cleaning operations.
Companies would face stricter rules on greenhouse gases if they violated regulations on other kinds of pollution.
How much would emission permits cost?
Current program
Companies bid on the permits in state-run auctions and the minimum price is currently about $13 per metric ton of greenhouse gases.
Permits can also be traded on a secondary market, allowing companies to sell excess permits or obtain more if needed.
The state also distributes a limited number of permits for free to help industries comply with regulations.
Analysts are concerned that prices have been too low to persuade companies to reduce their emissions to avoid needing to buy permits.
Senate Bill 775
This proposal would set stricter rules for minimum and maximum prices of permits during state auctions, and the prices would increase annually at steeper rates.
In 2021, bids would need to stay between $20 and $30. By 2030, the price range would be between $60 and $120.
No permits would be distributed for free.
Supporters of the proposal believe the higher prices would provide a better financial incentive for companies to clean up their operations.
How much money would be generated and where would it go?
Current program
Annual revenue from cap and trade has ranged from several million dollars to more than $1 billion in recent years, although there’s potential for much higher amounts if permits become more costly.
The money can only be spent on initiatives that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as rebates for electric cars and affordable housing near mass transit.
Gov. Jerry Brown has also used some of the money to build the bullet train from Los Angeles to San Francisco.
Senate Bill 775
Legislative analysts have not estimated how much revenue the proposal could generate, but it could reach tens of billions of dollars because of escalating prices.
Money would be allocated to environmental projects, scientific research and rebates to Californians, but it hasn’t been decided how much would go to each.
The rebate, called a “climate dividend,” would help offset higher costs for gasoline and electricity that could result from state regulations.
How would the program help the state meet its emission goals?
Current program
Right now the state sells a limited number of permits in auctions, no matter the price that companies bid.
This allows cap and trade to act like a backstop, assisting the state’s ability to meet its goal for reducing emissions by 2030.
Critics fear wide fluctuations in revenue and the potential for price spikes if permits become much more valuable.
Senate Bill 775
This proposal would require the state to sell an unlimited number of permits if the price reaches the maximum level.
By making this change, supporters say there would be less chance for price spikes during auctions or in the secondary market.
Opponents say this would make the program function more like a tax and provide less certainty that the state will meet its goals.
How would the program support other environmental projects?
Current program
Instead of buying emission permits or reducing their own emissions, companies can comply with regulations by financing offsets, which are projects intended to reduce greenhouse gases elsewhere.
The most popular offsets involve preserving forests. Others include turning methane from cow manure into electricity or destroying chemicals that would otherwise escape into the atmosphere.
Because climate change is a global problem, supporters say reducing emissions anywhere is helpful. Offset credits can also be cheaper than permits, providing a less expensive option for companies.
AB 151 and SB 775
Opponents of offsets are skeptical of their environmental benefits or dislike the opportunity for California companies to meet their obligations without changing their own operations.
There’s also opposition because offsets can be financed anywhere in the country. AB 151 would encourage companies to develop offsets in disadvantaged communities.
SB 775 would go a step further, preventing the use of any offsets to comply with regulations.
chris.megerian@latimes.com
Twitter: @chrismegerian
Keep reading...Show less
Australian clean energy heading for 'valley of death.'
Australia's clean energy research efforts are heading for "the valley of death" if Parliament passes the Coalitions's omnibus package of cuts, according to leaders in the sector.
Australia's clean energy research efforts are heading for "the valley of death" if Parliament passes the Coalitions's omnibus package of cuts, according to leaders in the sector.
Hundreds of researchers around Australia, including dozens at both the Australian National University and the University of NSW, will be faced with the dole queue if cuts to Australia'™s renewable energy research agency are passed by the Parliament, according to one of the sector's pioneers.
Deep cuts to the funding of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, contained in the Turnbull government's omnibus "œbudget repair" bill before the Parliament this week, is an "existential threat" to clean energy innovation in Australia, Professor Andrew Blakers says.
Professor Blakers of the ANU is a world leader in renewables research and he says many of his colleagues nationwide will lose their jobs if the government gets its bill through Parliament and advances that would deliver major economic benefits to the country would be lost.
The ANU and the University of NSW are world leaders in solar energy research with PERC solar cells, now the commercial standard globally with more than $9 billion in sales, invented by Professor Blakers and his colleague Martin Green at the NSW institution.
ARENA was established in 2012 by the Gillard government and abolished by the Abbott government in 2014.
The agency received a stay of execution in March 2016 but Coalition policy now wants to strip $1.3 billion of funding from ARENA and merge its funding role with the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which expects to see a financial return on money it invests in research.
The Clean Energy Council has published a briefing paper that likens de-funding ARENA to "plunging into the clean energy valley of death".
ARENA chief executive Ivor Frischknecht told Fairfax that existing commitments would be met even if Parliament agreed to back the Coalition's cuts.
"The proposed reduction in ARENA's uncommitted funding will not affect existing commitments," Mr Frischknecht said.
"Projects currently receiving ARENA funding will continue to receive funding and ARENA will continue to oversee ongoing contract management and knowledge sharing outcomes for these projects."
The office of Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg did not respond before deadline on Tuesday to a request for comment and Labor says it has not arrived at a position on the ARENA cuts.
Professor Blakers said the decision, if passed, may mean the end of Australia'€™s clean energy research effort and said both sides of politics would shoulder the blame.
"€œThere is an existential threat to renewable energy research, innovation and education in Australia," Professor Blakers said.
"€œIf ARENA is dismantled, then many people would lose their jobs including dozens at ANU.
"œIn the longer term, Australia's leadership in solar energy would vanish.
"After the fiasco involving CSIRO climate scientists, we now have a potential fiasco in mitigation of climate change."
The research leader called on the Labor Party not to just "waive through" the proposed cuts.
"œIt appears that the ALP might waive through a change to the ARENA Act, which would allow the end of ARENA granting," Professor Blakers said.
"€œFor 30 years there has been a renewable energy funding agency in one form or another in Australia.
"€œThis has led to phenomenal success in generation of technology and education.
"The worldwide silicon solar cell industry owes its existence in large measure to Australians who were supported by grants from government renewable energy agencies.
"Billions of dollars of benefits have accrued to Australia."
Keep reading...Show less
ORIGINAL REPORTING
MOST POPULAR
CLIMATE
