Find the polluters in your city
EPA data lets you find local sources of toxic emissions
By David Fleshler and Dana Williams, Sun Sentinel
March 29, 2011
Industrial discharges of benzene, styrene, hydrochloric acid and other pollutants fell 60 percent in Broward County and 74 percent in Palm Beach County in 2009 from 2006, according to an analysis by the Sun Sentinel of four years of reports by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Sun Sentinel has prepared a database, http://www.sunsentinel.com/pollution, that allows you to find out who the major polluters are in your city and see whether pollution levels in your community are rising or falling. While South Florida is not a center of heavy industry, it generates a significant amount of air pollution from sugar production, power plants and scores of small manufacturers.
The polluter information, drawn from the EPA's annual Toxic Release Inventory, is not a complete list. It includes emissions only from local sources — air pollution does not respect political boundaries, as shown by the news Monday of the detection of low-levels of radiation in Florida believed to be from Japan's crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
It excludes emissions that fall below certain thresholds. It focuses on industrial polluters, ignoring sources such as airplanes, cruise ships and cars, the biggest source of air pollution in South Florida. But environmentalists say the EPA's release of pollution data from across the country allows you to at least see whether pollution is increasing or decreasing and who is responsible for it.
"Letting people know what's going into their air and water is a good thing," said Frank O'Donnell, president of the environmental group Clean Air Watch. "What we've seen is that with EPA publishing the discharges, it puts some subtle and not-so-subtle pressure on them to reduce their pollution."
In Broward County emissions dropped over the past few years as several plants closed and Florida Power & Light reduced operations at its Port Everglades plant, which dates to 1960.
Sun Graphic Inc. of Pompano Beach, the second-ranked polluter in Broward County in 2006, with 150,900 pounds of emissions of toluene, a chemical that can harm the nervous system, was sold that year and closed. Jupiter Marine International, a boat manufacturer that ranked sixth in 2006, emitting 20,100 pounds of styrene, a suspected carcinogen, moved its factory from Fort Lauderdale to the Gulf coast. American Whirlpool Products of Hollywood, the ninth-ranked polluter in 2006, with 10,884 pounds of styrene emissions, was acquired by a Nashville company that transferred its operations to Tennessee.
The top-ranked polluter in Broward County was and remains the Florida Power & Light plant at Port Everglades, an oil-fired plant constructed in the early 1960s. But the plant shows a 25 percent drop in emissions from 2006 to 2009, dropping from 192,791 pounds of hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, vanadium and lead to 144,281 pounds.
Swapping power from cleaner, more efficient energy-generating plants elsewhere in the state for the electricity that had been produced at the Broward plant contributed to the decrease, said FPL spokesman Greg Brostowicz. Among these are three new solar plants in Brevard, DeSoto and Martin counties, as well as cleaner-burning natural gas plants in Martin, Manatee and western Palm Beach County.
The sluggish economy also contributed to cleaner air, as falling consumer demand led companies to cut production of manufactured goods. Manufacturers also switched to less toxic materials.
Dusky Marine, a Dania Beach builder of custom sport fishing boats that ranked fourth for pollution emissions in 2006, showed a sizable drop in styrene emissions from 30,300 pounds in 2006 to 6,140 in 2009. Mike Brown, vice president of the company, attributed the change to two factors: a slump in sales due to the recession and the use of low-styrene materials that lower the fees the company needs to pay to the EPA.
"Sales are down," he said. "But we have the best possible resins and the best possible gel coats, with the lowest styrene levels. I don't want to pay anyone anything I don't have to, especially to the EPA."
Palm Beach County's largest single polluter in 2006 was the U.S. Sugar Bryant Mill, located just east of Lake Okeechobee, which has emitted thick clouds of white smoke since the Kennedy Administration. In 2006 the plant's stacks discharged 1.5 million pounds of naphthalene, benzene, zinc compounds and other chemicals, largely waste from the burning of cane stems and other woody residue for fuel. The plant closed in 2007 as the company consolidated refining operations at a newer facility in Hendry County.
The sugar industry remains a significant polluter. A refining plant operated by the Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative in 2009 released 227,309 pounds of methanol, which contributes to the formation of smog.
The twin stacks that tower over the Riviera Beach waterfront had been the third-ranked source of air pollution in Palm Beach County, emitting in 2006 about 76,017 pounds of hydrochloric acid, lead and sulfuric acid. But FPL closed the plant temporarily in 2008 to tear out the old oil-fired system and install a cleaner system that uses natural gas. The change, which takes effect when the plant reopens in 2014, will cut pollution by more than 90 percent and reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, the primary global warming gas, by about half, said Greg Brostowicz, the company's spokesman.
FPL's West County Energy Center, a controversial project that drew sharp opposition from environmentalists, in 2009 released 45,209 pounds of ammonia, a chemical that forms fine particles that can lodge in the lungs. The ammonia is used to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides, compounds that form smog, according to FPL. This was its first year of operation.
The decline in South Florida pollution discharges reflects a national trend, driven largely by economic decline, tighter regulations and improved emissions controls.
Like many environmental programs, the Toxic Release Inventory system was created in response to a catastrophe. In 1984 the Union Carbide Corp. pesticide plant in Bhopal, India, accidentally released clouds of toxic gases that killed thousands.
"The question was raised about what we know about industrial facilities," said Mark Stephan, associate professor of political science at Washington State University Vancouver, who has written a forthcoming book on the EPA's toxic disclosure system. "There was a push to do some sort of inventory. The underlying idea was that people have a right to know about the chemicals in their communities."
A lot of the data that you have a right to know may be confusing to the average person who may be unable to assess the relative risks of the chemicals discharged into the environment. But Stephan said the value isn't so much the ability to see what's near your house – although obviously if massive discharges are taking place, that's probably good to know. What the data can do is show trends over time – whether pollution discharges are rising or falling in a particular area. And he said it can focus companies' attention on their own emissions, giving them an incentive to cut them to avoid appearing on top-polluter lists.
"Probably the most effect it's had is pushing the companies to start measuring things they hadn't been measuring," he said. "It's clearly had some successes in inspiring and motivating companies to reduce their emissions."
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Public radio's Living on Earth profiles Duke chief Jim Rogers
http://www.loe.org/shows/shows.html?programID=11-P13-00011
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Waxman offers compromises to win committee votes
Waxman Said to Offer Free Permits in Climate Talks
By Jim Efstathiou Jr., Daniel Whitten and Lorraine Woellert
May 7 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Representative Henry Waxman, sponsor of a plan to cut greenhouse-gas emissions, is offering power producers and companies such as steelmakers free pollution permits, said people familiar with the negotiations.
Waxman, the Democratic chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, made the proposal in an effort to win approval in his panel for legislation to establish a carbon- trading program, said the people, who declined to be identified discussing the private talks. The free permits may be worth as much as $40 billion a year, according to Mike McKenna, president of MWR Strategies, a policy consulting firm based in Washington.
Waxman’s offer marks a break from President Barack Obama’s original proposal to auction off all permits to pay for a middle-class tax cut. Businesses and some lawmakers of both parties opposed the president’s approach.
“Polluters should have to pay for the privilege of dumping their stuff into the atmosphere,” Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, a Washington environmental group, said in an interview. “The problem is purely a political one as they try to round up votes in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.”
The cap-and-trade legislation proposed by Waxman would require companies to obtain a permit for every ton of carbon dioxide they pump into the atmosphere. In 2012 when the program begins, 4.7 billion permits would be issued, after which they could be traded on a market.
‘Significant Consensus’
“There has been significant consensus reached in the last 24 hours,” Representative Jay Inslee, a Washington Democrat who serves on the committee, said today on a conference call with reporters.
Karen Lightfoot, Waxman’s spokeswoman, declined to discuss the talks. Waxman of California, who has pledged to act before Memorial Day on May 25, delayed action on the climate-change measure in a subcommittee this week as negotiations continued.
Obama originally proposed auctioning all permits. He later said some could be given away. A program viewed as too costly for businesses wouldn’t be politically viable, he said.
Waxman’s draft was silent on how permits would be distributed. Representative Rick Boucher, a Democrat who represents Virginia’s coal-producing region, was among committee members who said utilities should get free permits for all of their emissions.
The free permits are needed because cutting greenhouse gases will raise electricity prices, Jeffry Sterba, chairman of Albuquerque-based PNM Resources Inc., told the House panel in April. Michael Morris, chief executive officer of American Electric Power Co., the biggest U.S. producer of electricity from coal, said utilities should get all permits for free.
Memorial Day Goal
“The president would still like to see a bill by Memorial Day,” Representative Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat, said in an interview this week. “That’s going to be difficult to do.”
Under the proposed compromise, about 55 percent of the pollution permits could be given to utilities, refiners and manufacturers, according to McKenna, who added that the specifics may change as the talks continue.
“Much of the debate internally between moderate Democrats in the coal states and the other Democrats on the subcommittee is really with respect to the transition and the allocation of allowances,” Jim Rogers, chief executive of Duke Energy Corp., said this week on a conference call with analysts.
17% Reduction
A target for emissions reductions would drop to 17 percent by 2020 from Waxman’s original proposal of a 20 percent decline, according to a Democrat on his committee who sought changes in the draft bill and declined to be identified. Sponsors of projects to capture and bury carbon emissions from coal plants would get $10 billion, the lawmaker said.
more at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=a22ABxy4p9ak
By Jim Efstathiou Jr., Daniel Whitten and Lorraine Woellert
May 7 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Representative Henry Waxman, sponsor of a plan to cut greenhouse-gas emissions, is offering power producers and companies such as steelmakers free pollution permits, said people familiar with the negotiations.
Waxman, the Democratic chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, made the proposal in an effort to win approval in his panel for legislation to establish a carbon- trading program, said the people, who declined to be identified discussing the private talks. The free permits may be worth as much as $40 billion a year, according to Mike McKenna, president of MWR Strategies, a policy consulting firm based in Washington.
Waxman’s offer marks a break from President Barack Obama’s original proposal to auction off all permits to pay for a middle-class tax cut. Businesses and some lawmakers of both parties opposed the president’s approach.
“Polluters should have to pay for the privilege of dumping their stuff into the atmosphere,” Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, a Washington environmental group, said in an interview. “The problem is purely a political one as they try to round up votes in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.”
The cap-and-trade legislation proposed by Waxman would require companies to obtain a permit for every ton of carbon dioxide they pump into the atmosphere. In 2012 when the program begins, 4.7 billion permits would be issued, after which they could be traded on a market.
‘Significant Consensus’
“There has been significant consensus reached in the last 24 hours,” Representative Jay Inslee, a Washington Democrat who serves on the committee, said today on a conference call with reporters.
Karen Lightfoot, Waxman’s spokeswoman, declined to discuss the talks. Waxman of California, who has pledged to act before Memorial Day on May 25, delayed action on the climate-change measure in a subcommittee this week as negotiations continued.
Obama originally proposed auctioning all permits. He later said some could be given away. A program viewed as too costly for businesses wouldn’t be politically viable, he said.
Waxman’s draft was silent on how permits would be distributed. Representative Rick Boucher, a Democrat who represents Virginia’s coal-producing region, was among committee members who said utilities should get free permits for all of their emissions.
The free permits are needed because cutting greenhouse gases will raise electricity prices, Jeffry Sterba, chairman of Albuquerque-based PNM Resources Inc., told the House panel in April. Michael Morris, chief executive officer of American Electric Power Co., the biggest U.S. producer of electricity from coal, said utilities should get all permits for free.
Memorial Day Goal
“The president would still like to see a bill by Memorial Day,” Representative Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat, said in an interview this week. “That’s going to be difficult to do.”
Under the proposed compromise, about 55 percent of the pollution permits could be given to utilities, refiners and manufacturers, according to McKenna, who added that the specifics may change as the talks continue.
“Much of the debate internally between moderate Democrats in the coal states and the other Democrats on the subcommittee is really with respect to the transition and the allocation of allowances,” Jim Rogers, chief executive of Duke Energy Corp., said this week on a conference call with analysts.
17% Reduction
A target for emissions reductions would drop to 17 percent by 2020 from Waxman’s original proposal of a 20 percent decline, according to a Democrat on his committee who sought changes in the draft bill and declined to be identified. Sponsors of projects to capture and bury carbon emissions from coal plants would get $10 billion, the lawmaker said.
more at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=a22ABxy4p9ak
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Global warming battle heats up
From The Washington Independent
Four Democratic senators demanded late last month that the head of the Environmental Protection Agency must go. Their call for EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson's resignation -- after eight months of looking into his actions as agency chief -- is largely due to Jason K. Burnett, Johnson's former deputy in developing global warming policy.
Since resigning in May as the No. 3 official at EPA, Burnett has helped congressional investigators build a compelling case that the White House strong-armed Johnson into denying California a waiver to police greenhouse gas tailpipe emissions and also stopped the EPA from setting a national greenhouse gas standard...
Close observers of the EPA are skeptical about Burnett's recent turn against the Bush White House...
"Nobody knows for sure why he went public and started ratting out his colleagues," said Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. "He was one of the political insider's at EPA. People [on staff at EPA] are stunned that he's trying to rewrite history and say that he was a good guy all along."
More at http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/global-warming
Four Democratic senators demanded late last month that the head of the Environmental Protection Agency must go. Their call for EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson's resignation -- after eight months of looking into his actions as agency chief -- is largely due to Jason K. Burnett, Johnson's former deputy in developing global warming policy.
Since resigning in May as the No. 3 official at EPA, Burnett has helped congressional investigators build a compelling case that the White House strong-armed Johnson into denying California a waiver to police greenhouse gas tailpipe emissions and also stopped the EPA from setting a national greenhouse gas standard...
Close observers of the EPA are skeptical about Burnett's recent turn against the Bush White House...
"Nobody knows for sure why he went public and started ratting out his colleagues," said Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. "He was one of the political insider's at EPA. People [on staff at EPA] are stunned that he's trying to rewrite history and say that he was a good guy all along."
More at http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/global-warming
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Great Falls (Montana) paper details special Baucus deal in Lieberman-Warner climate bill
WASHINGTON — Montana's rural electric cooperatives could get a break from a nationwide crackdown on greenhouse gas emissions for more than two decades, thanks to U.S. Sen. Max Baucus.
Montana's senior senator inserted a provision into a climate change bill pending in Congress that would give the rural electric co-ops in his state until 2035 to fully curtail their greenhouse gas emissions. The bill requires utility companies in other states to comply by 2012....
"I'd call that a special deal for a special senator whose vote was desperately needed on that committee," said Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, a Washington-based environmental group. "It's called quid pro quo."
more at http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007711070338
Montana's senior senator inserted a provision into a climate change bill pending in Congress that would give the rural electric co-ops in his state until 2035 to fully curtail their greenhouse gas emissions. The bill requires utility companies in other states to comply by 2012....
"I'd call that a special deal for a special senator whose vote was desperately needed on that committee," said Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, a Washington-based environmental group. "It's called quid pro quo."
more at http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007711070338
Friday, October 12, 2007
EPA Joins Settlement of Lawsuit but Adds a Waiver
[from the Washington Post]
Although the Environmental Protection Agency joined in a legal settlement this week to force the largest power-plant pollution cleanup in U.S. history, the Bush administration signaled in the agreement that it has no intention of taking enforcement actions against the utility for the same kind of Clean Air Act violations in the future.
The language of the settlement indicates that the administration has not wavered in its distaste for a Clinton-era policy of using the law to force power plants to upgrade their pollution controls whenever they significantly update or expand a plant. That marks a significant victory for the power industry, which has strenuously opposed the "New Source Review," saying that it penalizes them for efficiency improvements that ultimately benefit consumers and the environment....
both Scott H. Segal, a lobbyist for utility and coal companies, and Frank O'Donnell, who heads the advocacy group Clean Air Watch, said in interviews that this week's court deal does not mean that the legal fight over air policy is over.
"Seven or eight years ago, the U.S. electric industry was frantically on the run because federal enforcers were going after them at every turn," O'Donnell said. "Then the Bush administration called off the dogs."
more at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/10/AR2007101002389.html?hpid=topnews
Although the Environmental Protection Agency joined in a legal settlement this week to force the largest power-plant pollution cleanup in U.S. history, the Bush administration signaled in the agreement that it has no intention of taking enforcement actions against the utility for the same kind of Clean Air Act violations in the future.
The language of the settlement indicates that the administration has not wavered in its distaste for a Clinton-era policy of using the law to force power plants to upgrade their pollution controls whenever they significantly update or expand a plant. That marks a significant victory for the power industry, which has strenuously opposed the "New Source Review," saying that it penalizes them for efficiency improvements that ultimately benefit consumers and the environment....
both Scott H. Segal, a lobbyist for utility and coal companies, and Frank O'Donnell, who heads the advocacy group Clean Air Watch, said in interviews that this week's court deal does not mean that the legal fight over air policy is over.
"Seven or eight years ago, the U.S. electric industry was frantically on the run because federal enforcers were going after them at every turn," O'Donnell said. "Then the Bush administration called off the dogs."
more at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/10/AR2007101002389.html?hpid=topnews
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Coal Fuels A Debate Over Obama
from today's Washington Post
Democrat Stuck Between Industry and Environment
By Alec MacGillis and Steven MufsonWashington Post Staff WritersSunday, June 24, 2007; Page A01
BENTON, Ill. -- In 2004, as a state legislator running for the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama came to this small town 300 miles from Chicago to pledge support for southern Illinois' struggling coal country.
More than just an obligatory visit to the more conservative and rural part of the state, it was a chance for Obama to affirm his reputation as the rare politician who could see both sides of an issue and form alliances across traditional divides.
"It doesn't matter if you are a Republican or Democrat, you've got to be able to work with people to accomplish some common-sense policies and make people's lives a little bit better," he said from the steps of the county courthouse.
Three years later, with Obama now a candidate for president, his embrace of southern Illinois and its dominant industry is showing signs of strain. Obama finds himself caught between his advocacy of huge federal subsidies for liquefied coal for transportation fuel, a technology that the Illinois coal industry views as a salvation, and environmental groups that reject it as a boondoggle that would set back efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the fight against global warming.
After co-sponsoring legislation earlier this year for billions of dollars in subsidies for liquefied coal, Obama more recently began qualifying his support in ways that have left both environmentalists and coal industry officials unsure where he stands. His shift has helped shape this month's Senate debate over how to reduce both dependence on foreign oil and carbon dioxide emissions; on Tuesday, he voted against one proposal to boost liquefied coal and for a more narrowly worded one. Both failed.
More broadly, Obama's contortions on coal point to the limits of the role he likes to assume, that of a unifier who can appeal across traditional lines and employ a "new kind of politics" to solve problems. In reaching out to the coal industry, some observers say, he may have been trying to show that he is a different sort of Democrat, but the gesture had the look of old-style politicking and put him in a corner, where he wound up alienating some on both sides of the issue.
"He was trying to throw a bone to the southern Illinois coal interests . . . and was surprised when people started saying, 'What the heck are you doing?' " said Frank O'Donnell, president of the environmental group Clean Air Watch. "That's a rookie mistake for a presidential candidate, to think you can get in the middle of a controversial issue and no one will notice."
[more at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/23/AR2007062301424.html?hpid=topnews ]
Democrat Stuck Between Industry and Environment
By Alec MacGillis and Steven MufsonWashington Post Staff WritersSunday, June 24, 2007; Page A01
BENTON, Ill. -- In 2004, as a state legislator running for the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama came to this small town 300 miles from Chicago to pledge support for southern Illinois' struggling coal country.
More than just an obligatory visit to the more conservative and rural part of the state, it was a chance for Obama to affirm his reputation as the rare politician who could see both sides of an issue and form alliances across traditional divides.
"It doesn't matter if you are a Republican or Democrat, you've got to be able to work with people to accomplish some common-sense policies and make people's lives a little bit better," he said from the steps of the county courthouse.
Three years later, with Obama now a candidate for president, his embrace of southern Illinois and its dominant industry is showing signs of strain. Obama finds himself caught between his advocacy of huge federal subsidies for liquefied coal for transportation fuel, a technology that the Illinois coal industry views as a salvation, and environmental groups that reject it as a boondoggle that would set back efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the fight against global warming.
After co-sponsoring legislation earlier this year for billions of dollars in subsidies for liquefied coal, Obama more recently began qualifying his support in ways that have left both environmentalists and coal industry officials unsure where he stands. His shift has helped shape this month's Senate debate over how to reduce both dependence on foreign oil and carbon dioxide emissions; on Tuesday, he voted against one proposal to boost liquefied coal and for a more narrowly worded one. Both failed.
More broadly, Obama's contortions on coal point to the limits of the role he likes to assume, that of a unifier who can appeal across traditional lines and employ a "new kind of politics" to solve problems. In reaching out to the coal industry, some observers say, he may have been trying to show that he is a different sort of Democrat, but the gesture had the look of old-style politicking and put him in a corner, where he wound up alienating some on both sides of the issue.
"He was trying to throw a bone to the southern Illinois coal interests . . . and was surprised when people started saying, 'What the heck are you doing?' " said Frank O'Donnell, president of the environmental group Clean Air Watch. "That's a rookie mistake for a presidential candidate, to think you can get in the middle of a controversial issue and no one will notice."
[more at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/23/AR2007062301424.html?hpid=topnews ]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)