There are concerns of swimmer safety with parasites and sewage lingering in Long Island Sound according to Calf Pasture lifeguard supervisor Joy Coreau.

For more on this story, visit: Norwalk beaches remain closed – The Hour Publishing Company: Norwalk.

Upon entering Calf Pasture beach, a sign reading “Emergency Order: No Swimming Today” was posted for residents looking to spend their Sunday relaxing and swimming under the sun.

The beach waterfront was closed Sunday because of heavy rainfall early Saturday morning that caused debris to collect and sewage to overflow into Long Island Sound.

For more on this story, visit: Sewage spill shuts down swimming at Norwalk beaches – The Hour Publishing Company: Norwalk.

—————

Health officials have re-opened 19 Long Island beaches that had been temporarily closed because of concerns about bacteria in the water after heavy rains.

For more on this story, visit: Officials Re-open 19 Long Island Beaches | NBC New York.

There are about 100 sewage treatment plants on Long Island Sound in New York, dwarfing the number in Connecticut. The lifespan of water pollution control plants is between 20 and 30 years, at which time costly repairs must be made.

The Connecticut River Watershed Council’s 15^th Annual Source to Sea Cleanup – always held in early fall – comes at a perfect time to help communities in Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connecticut that are still cleaning up from Tropical Storm Irene.

              “It’s not too late to join one of our 50 registered groups by going to our website, www.ctriver.org,” said Jacqueline Talbot, CRWC’s Cleanup Coordinator.  “If you don’t find a good match or want to go out on your own, just download our trash tally form and let us know what you picked up.”

“The flood inflicted great losses on many communities and also caused great harm to river habitats and species,” said Talbot. “Joining the Cleanup is helping your neighbors put their lives back together and improving shoreline habitats and water quality in our rivers and streams.”

For the past 14 years, the Watershed Council has organized thousands of adults and children volunteers who have removed more than 650 tons of refuse from along waterways in four states during the biggest single-day river cleanup in New England.  CRWC coordinates the work of individual groups and supplies them with bags and gloves.

“Be sure and register in the next few days so we can be sure and get you supplies and other information in enough time to make your participation a success,” Talbot said. Questions may be directed to her at cleanup@ctriver.org or 860-704-0057.

“Above all, we want people to be safe,” Talbot said.  “In some places, unstable piles of trees and debris are all tangled up together. If group leaders have questions about safety, they should consult their local fire department or highway department and only tackle areas that are not dangerous.”

“If you can’t actually get out and lend a hand in the field, you can help us meet the greater challenge this year with a cash donation that will go directly to the Cleanup effort,” Talbot said.  Interested donors may go to www.ctriver.org and donate to CRWC to help cover the costs of this year’s massive Cleanup.

Founded in 1952 and based in Greenfield, MA, the CRWC advocates for clean water and fisheries protection in the 11,000 square miles of Connecticut River watershed in Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connecticut.

The Cleanup is supported by major sponsorship by NRG Energy’s Middletown Station, TransCanada, Lane Construction, the Metropolitan District Commission, and Covanta.

The Department of Energy and Environmental Protection said Tuesday that the decision affects swimming areas at Chatfield Hollow State Park in Killingworth, Kettletown State Park in Southbury, Rocky Neck State Park in Niantic, Sherwood Island State Park in Westport, Silver Sands State Park in Milford and Wharton Brook State Park in Wallingford.

Read more here: AP-CT–Closed Swimming Areas,105 – Courant.com.

He is arranging to mark the borrow pit area in the harbor off the seawall in the Morris Cove section with buoys.

At the same time the flotilla is gathering around 2 p.m., others will gather at the seawall on Townsend Avenue to protest on land.

Read more here: Dredging Today – USA: Opposition to New Haven Harbor Dumping Plan Grows.

Read more here: Resident: Town needs to coordinate efforts on water quality – GreenwichTime.

Representatives from the three communities are working together to create a watershed management plan that will need to be signed by the mayor and first selectmen. The final plan is scheduled to be ready by September.

Read more here: Towns join to restore Pequonnock River – Connecticut Post.

Read more here: Greenwich agrees to penalty, fixes for sewage releases – GreenwichTime.

Federal officials said Wednesday that Greenwich also agreed to rehabilitate a critical wastewater collection system that serves three of the town’s major wastewater pump stations. The agreement settles allegations of Clean Water Act violations by the town stemming from two major ruptures of the town’s sewage system.

Read more here: Greenwich agrees to pay $200,000 penalty over raw sewage releases :: The Republic.

Sound Health 2010, looks back at environmental conditions in the Sound and its watershed over the last two years and compares them to conditions from the last 20 to 30 years (a separate biennial report, Protection and Progress (pdf), details the management actions taken to improve the Sound).

“The densely populated and developed western basin, which includes ‘the Narrows,’ a narrow section connecting with the East River, is the most stressed, with fair water quality the majority of the time, and with sediment conditions rated as poor for half of the basin area,” according to the report.

Water quality improves moving eastward. The central basin has good water quality conditions more than 50 percent of the time, and the eastern basin has good conditions more than 80 percent of the time. Sediment conditions also improve in the central and eastern basins. The gradient in conditions from west to east refects the decrease in development and human population density between basins. In the lands comprising the western Long Island Sound watershed, 44 percent of the area is developed compared to nearly 20 percent in the central watershed and 16 percent in the eastern watershed. An increase in development indicates the potential for more pollutants to be fushed from hard surfaces such as roads and parking lots into storms drains that connect to tributaries and the Sound. The higher population also contributes more sewage to wastewater treatment plants and septic systems, and more vehicle emissions that deposit air pollution into the Sound.

Hypoxia:

In the Sound, hypoxia occurs mostly in the summer months and usually in the western basin and narrows. From 1987 through 2010, the maximum area of hypoxia averaged 195 square miles—an area about nine times the size of Manhattan, according to the report. The area of hypoxia has been below average for 11 out of the last 15 years. The summer of 2010 was the third least severe year of hypoxia since 1987, with hypoxia affecting 101 square miles. The duration of hypoxia in 2010 was 40 days, the fourth shortest duration since 1987, and 14 days fewer than average.

Also noted in the report:

• Scientists and resource managers are seeing changes in species population as a result of warm temperatures.
• Municipalities and state and federal agencies are using climate change projections to map what future conditions might look like on the coast as a result of climate change.

Sound Health reports that from 1980 to 2006, the population in the New York and Connecticut portion of the Sound’s watershed increased from 6.3 million to 7.2 million (the population of the entire watershed, which extends into parts of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Rhode Island, increased from 7.8 million to 8.8 million).

Population growth leads to development that adds parking lots, rooftops, streets, and other hard surfaces to the “built” environment. Hundreds of studies around the U.S. suggest that water quality and overall stream health decline when impervious surfaces exceed 10 percent in a watershed (the area of land that drains into a body of water). When the impervious area in a watershed exceeds 25 percent, stream conditions become severely degraded. In many of the local subwatersheds surrounding the western basin of the Sound, developed land exceeds 51 percent, and can be as high as 89 percent. Without vegetation and healthy soils fltering pollutants, stormwater runoff can carry pesticides, pathogens, motor oil, debris, and excess nutrients into storm drains and streams. These pollutants eventually fow into the Sound.

Also of note:

• Tidal wetlands are a critically important habitat along thshoreline. Until the 1970s, the value of wetlands was not widely recognized.
• Despite efforts to protect them, some wetlands are losing vegetation and converting to mudflats.
• Eelgrass is an important underwater plant for fish and other wildlife. Learn more about Long Island’s Seagrass Conservation Web site, and information about the Sound’s different habitats at www.LIShealth.net.

To download the full report, plus to view a plethora of links to websites helpful to learning more about protecting Long Island Sound and its watershed visit http://longislandsoundstudy.net/2010/12/sound-health-2010/.

(phohto: Allen Appel, New Haven Independent)

“I don’t want to eat an oyster growing on top of a toxic pile. They’re going to glow and be big mothers, and I don’t mean mother of pearl.”

So said Cove Street resident Linda Pinsky in reference to one of the proposed benefits of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plan to drop a quarter-million cubic yards of contaminated dredged yuck from Bridgeport Harbor into Morris Cove.

Her voice was among more than 100 neighbors who gathered for the second and likely last public hearing on the matter at the Nathan Hale School Monday night to blast the Corp’s plan and to question its science.

At issue were two ideas for for what to do with sludge, some of it toxic and carcinogenic, to be dredged from Bridgeport Harbor.

via Cove To Corps: Don’t Budge The Sludge | New Haven Independent.

From The New Haven Register:

NEW HAVEN — Audrey Rivetta stole the show Saturday, appealing to the cooks and environmentalists alike as she marched across the green at the Pardee Seawall in her blue crab costume with her fellow protesters.

via Protesters decry proposal to dump toxins in New Haven harbor?- The New Haven Register – Serving New Haven, Connecticut.

Fabio Dioses, 52, of Cheshire was the superintendent of a facility owned by Phoenix Products in Terryville when he supervised the dumping of waste materials in the Plymouth sewer system in September 2008, court documents said.

via  Man sentenced to probation in Terryville waste-dumping case | The Bristol Press.

“The proposed regulations result from the business community’s long-standing interest in greater definition about when and how discharges and spills must be reported,” DEP Commissioner Amey Marrella said.  ”No one wants to see a spill or discharge occur – and Connecticut’s business work hard to prevent them from happening.  But when these types of incidents do occur, businesses need clear rules on what they must do to comply with Connecticut’s statutory reporting requirements.”

The public notice regarding the proposed regulations, which includes a link to the regulations, can be viewed at www.ct.gov/dep/publicnotices.

Details of the Proposed New Regulations

The proposed new regulations clarify the reporting requirements by providing specific notification procedures.  These procedures spell out the types of materials for which releases must be reported, based upon either the quantity of the released material, the threats posed as a result of the chemical characteristics of the material, or the combination of the quantity, chemical characteristics, and location venue (i.e., catch basin or storm or sanitary sewer) which may cause public safety concerns.

The proposed regulations will also identify specific details that must be reported as well as identifying exceptions and exemptions to reporting requirements.

In 2007, the Connecticut Business and Industry Association (CBIA) proposed legislation to clarify reporting standards for spills and discharges.  This led to discussions with DEP and the formation of an external advisory committee comprised of representatives of the regulated community.  The participation of committee members assisted in the development of the proposed regulations.

Process for Adopting the Regulations

DEP has scheduled an informational session on the proposed regulation for:

• September 22, 2010
• 1:30 – 3:30 p.m.
• DEP Headquarters – 79 Elm St., Hartford
• Phoenix Auditorium -  5^th Floor

 

A formal public hearing on the proposed regulation will be held:

• October 5, 2010
• 10 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.; 1:30- 4:00- p.m.; and 6:00 p.m. until all comments are heard
• DEP Headquarters – 79 Elm St., Hartford
• Phoenix Auditorium -  5th Floor

 

Written comment may also be submitted through October 5, 2010 to:

• David A. Sattler
• DEP, Bureau of Water Protection and Land Reuse
• 79 Elm St.
• Hartford, CT, 06106-5127

 

Following the public hearing and the close of the comment session, DEP will evaluate comments on the proposed regulations and then issue proposed final regulations.  The proposed final regulations must be approved by the General Assembly’s Regulations Review Committee before taking effect.

The consent order was signed by the city on Sept. 9, 2010, and signed by the DEP the next day. It outlines the process the city will undertake to bring the park to a higher level of use for the future. The consent order lays out an orderly process for hiring design engineers and construction contractors with an agreed upon timetable.

Mayor Pavia said he is glad the consent order has been negotiated. “This is the result of many hours of work on the part of many people and brings to a conclusion the questions that exist about the future of the park. We now have a concrete road map as to how we proceed with Scofieldtown Park.”

Michael Larobina said “the consent order settles all possible claims and enforcement action the State of Connecticut can have against the City.” “I’m confident we have come to a mutually agreeable settlement that serves both the interest of the City and the State.”

Prior to Mayor Pavia taking office, the park was the subject of questions concerning well water contamination to private wells. After extensive testing by an independent environmental consultant (TRC), no links have been established between the park and the well contamination. The consent order will allow the City to bring the remediation of the park to current technology standards to ensure the conclusions of the TRC study remains the same in the long term future.

The company announced that the Connecticut River Watershed Council needs a few thousand volunteers for the Oct. 2, 2010, Source to Sea Cleanup.  This year, NRG Energy again leads the way as title sponsor, with many of its Connecticut employees also donating their time and energy for a cleanup on Friday, Oct. 1.

“If last year’s event was any indication, this year may be even better,” according to a news release. Despite showery skies last year, 2,132 volunteers fanned out across the 410 mile river basin for last year’s Cleanup.  They ranged from scout troops and river neighbors, to corporations, schools, and boating clubs.

For more information visit http://www.ctriver.org/programs/outreach_education/source_to_sea_cleanup/scouting 

New and returning volunteers and potential sponsors are asked to register with CRWC by Friday, Sept. 17.  For more information on the Cleanup in your area, visit www.ctriver.org  or contact Jacqueline Talbot by e-mail at: cleanup@ctriver.org, or by phone at: (860) 704-0057.

Recently the NRG plant in Uncasville was the only Connecticut site among 39 listed in a recent report from the Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice and the Sierra Club about the dangers of coal ash wastes to groundwater and surface water supplies.

The CRWC was founded in 1952 and has restored access to spawning areas for migratory fish, protected over 8,000 acres, and mobilized volunteers to conduct water quality testing and remove over 100 tons of trash from local waterways through the annual Source to Sea Cleanup. Learn more at www.ctriver.org.

NRG Energy owns and operates one of the country’s largest power generation portfolios. Headquartered in Princeton, NJ, the company’s power plants—including plants in Cos Cob, Middletown, Milford, Norwalk and Uncasville, Conn.—provide more than 24,000 megawatts of generation capacity, enough to supply more than 20 million homes.

The foam is not harmful to people, officials said, but fish die off has been reported.

via ‘Tens of thousands of gallons’ of foam fouls West Haven river as Yale fire suppression system malfunctions – The New Haven Register.

Scientists discovered the new microbe while studying the underwater dispersion of millions of gallons of oil spilled into the Gulf following the explosion of BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig.

And the microbe works without significantly depleting oxygen in the water, researchers led by Terry Hazen at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, Calif., reported Tuesday in the online journal Sciencexpress.

via New microbe discovered eating oil spill in Gulf | Tampa Bay Online.

Environment Connecticut's Christopher Phelps

The United States, long considered a laggard in addressing global warming, is poised to achieve substantial reductions in global warming pollution thanks to clean energy policies adopted over the past decade by state governments, according to a new report by the Environment America Research & Policy Center.

“While there’s no doubt that Congress must pass a comprehensive climate bill, our research shows that the states have delivered a down payment on the pollution reductions,” said Nancy Pyne, Field Associate with Environment Connecticut.
Senator Edward Meyer of Guilford, Co-chair of the General Assembly’s Environment Committee, proudly stated, ” There is no bill I have ever sponsored that is more important than the bill which reduced green house gas emissions in Connecticut and addressed the major issue of climate change.”

Representative Richard Roy of Milford, Environment Committee Co-chair, said, “I encourage the federal government to enact, adopt or adapt legislation or regulations based on what has been accomplished by Connecticut and other states.” Roy added, “The United States could move to the forefront on addressing the issue of global warming by using state activities as a road map to comprehensive programs to protect the polar caps as well as threatened coastal lands. Congress must act now to control carbon emissions that contribute to the warming that is melting glaciers and raising sea levels.”

The new report, America on the Move, released just days before world leaders convene in Copenhagen to negotiate an international agreement on global warming, found that state policies will reduce global warming pollution by approximately 536 million metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent per year by 2020 compared to business as usual.

The emission reductions are significant. They represent:

• More global warming pollution than is currently emitted annually by all but eight of the world’s nations
• Approximately 7 percent of total U.S. global warming pollution in 2007
• Annual emissions from 104 million cars – about 42 percent of the nation’s motor vehicles
• Annual emissions from 163 coal-fired power plants – about 27 percent of the nation’s coal-fired power plant fleet.

“We can be proud that action in the United States on global warming started in 2001 right here in New England. Connecticut has set important national precedents reducing global warming pollution from power plants and setting a renewable electricity standard, clean cars standards, and a state wide “carbon cap” law,” said Roger Smith, campaign Director for Clean Water Action and Coordinator of the Connecticut Climate Coalition. “It’s time for President Obama to show the world we’re serious and commit the United States to significant pollution reductions in Copenhagen.”

America on the Move reviewed more than 100 policies adopted by states, most of them enacted over the past decade, and projected the emission reductions that will result from those actions.

For example, while the U.S. Congress has yet to adopt a binding national limit on global warming pollution, Connecticut and five other U.S. states – California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Maryland and New Jersey – have adopted such regulations. These six states account for nearly a quarter of America’s economic output and 13 percent of its fossil fuel-related carbon dioxide emissions. If these six states were a separate country, they would rank as the world’s fifth-largest economy and seventh-leading emitter of carbon dioxide.

Collectively, these six states have committed to reducing global warming pollution by approximately 13 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. State-level programs include the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative cap on power plant emissions adopted by Connecticut and 9 northeastern states. The report shows that mandatory emission caps will reduce U.S. emissions by approximately 270 million metric tons per year by 2020 – a level of carbon dioxide pollution comparable to emissions produced annually by the Netherlands and Turkey.

According to the report, additional reductions will result from a variety of clean energy policies adopted by multiple states including Connecticut, namely renewable electricity standards adopted by 29 states, energy efficiency resource standards adopted by 22 states, and a variety of other policies.

Moreover, since President Obama’s inauguration in January, the federal government has implemented several policies initiated by states nationwide (including limits on vehicle global warming pollution adopted by Connecticut, California and 12 other states,) energy efficiency standards for appliances and lighting, and energy-usage codes for buildings. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, passed by Congress in February, also supports a variety of state and local programs to save energy and reduce global warming pollution.

“When it comes to America’s response to global warming, what’s happening on Capitol Hill is only half the story,” said Charles Rothenberger, Staff Attorney for Connecticut Fund for the Environment. “States have great power to reduce global warming pollution within their borders and many states are now using that power to implement responsible energy policies that can and should serve as a model for national action,” he added.

Environment Connecticut, Clean Water Action and Connecticut Fund for the Environment urged the federal government to require reductions in global warming pollution in the United States consistent with the reductions science tells us are necessary to prevent the worst impacts of global warming – specifically, emission reductions of 35 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and at least 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050, with the vast majority of those reductions to occur domestically. They also encouraged the federal government to implement the best clean energy policies already in place at the state-level, and urged states to continue to take leadership in adopting and implementing strong policies to reduce global warming pollution.

“States have been called America’s ‘laboratories of democracy,’” said Pyne “By taking strong action to address global warming, states are showing the nation – and the world – that a clean energy future is within our reach,” she concluded.

It’s a relatively new term, but expect it to become more common as travelers increasingly seek to stay in a place that practices environmentally responsible policies, from saving water to recycling.

In Connecticut, there are already 15 accommodations that participate in the Connecticut Green Lodging program, and several of them are located in eastern Connecticut.

A number of bed and breakfasts, lodges and hotels have met the requirements of the program and are listed on the DEP website at www.ct.gov/dep/greenlodging and the tourism commission’s site at www.CTvisit.com.

Read more in Lodgings target ‘green’ as the color of success | The Day.

From the DEP website:

Green Lodging Certification Program

The CT Green Lodging is a self-certification program based on accumulating points associated with environmental practices at your facility. The points are recorded in the Connecticut Green Lodging Self-Certification Workbook.

The Workbook is available as a fillable Word form (preferred) or you can print the pdf version and fill it in by hand. (Note: certification forms were updated March 2010.)

• How to fill out the Workbook
• Workbook assistance and review
• Instructions for submitting the Workbook
• Certification
• Audits

via Portland Asphalt Factory Fire – WFSB Hartford.

Also see: PORTLAND FIRE: Blaze damages portion of Triram asphalt plant – The Middletown Press. PORTLAND — A stubborn fire damaged a portion of a manufacturing facility at the Triram Connecticut LLC asphalt plant on Brownstone Avenue Sunday morning.

via Harwinton Board of Selectmen reviewing low impact development plan in effort to reduce water runoff – The Register Citizen.

In accordance with applicable federal and state law, the Commissioner has made a tentative determination that continuance of the existing discharge serial numbers (DSNs 200 and 201) would not cause pollution of the waters of the state and continuance of the existing system to treat the discharge (DSN 202) would protect the waters of the state from pollution and the Commissioner proposes to issue a permit for the discharges to the sanitary sewer.

The proposed permit, if issued by the Commissioner, will require that all wastewater be treated to meet the applicable effluent limitations and periodic monitoring to demonstrate that the discharges will not cause pollution.

APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL

Bridgeport Energy LLC presently discharges a maximum daily flow of 370,500 gallons per day of boiler blowdown, boiler drain, steam piping drain, floor drain, transformer secondary containment drain, laboratory sink, condenser drain and LCL tanks containment sump (consisting of primarily stormwater and boiler water maintenance drains wastewaters) and steam system drain floor washing and equipment drains from the following areas: workshop, steam turbine building, gas turbine building, boiler area, feed water pump house and fire pump house wastewaters to the City of Bridgeport West Side Sewage Treatment Facility from the electrical power generating operations at the facility.

The name and mailing address of the permit applicant are: Bridgeport Energy LLC, 10 Atlantic Street, Bridgeport, CT 06604.

The activity is taking place at: 10 Atlantic Street, Bridgeport, CT 06604.

REGULATORY CONDITIONS

Type of Treatment

DSN 200 – No treatment is necessary for the discharge.

DSN 201- No treatment is necessary for the discharge.

DSN 202 – Oil/Water Separator

Effluent Limitations

This permit contains effluent limitations consistent with a Case by Case Determination using the criteria of Best Professional Judgement and which will protect the waters of the state from pollution when all the conditions of this permit have been met.

In accordance with section 22a-430-4(l) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies the permit contains effluent limitations for the following types of toxic substances: heavy metals.

COMMISSIONER’S AUTHORITY

The Commissioner of Environmental Protection is authorized to approve or deny such permits pursuant to section 22a-430 of the Connecticut General Statutes and the Water Discharge Permit Regulations (section 22a-430-3 and 4 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies).

INFORMATION REQUESTS

The application has been assigned the following numbers by the Department of Environmental Protection. Please use these numbers when corresponding with this office regarding this application.

APPLICATION NO. 200302018 PERMIT ID NO. SP0002330 FACILITY ID NO. 015-481

Interested persons may obtain copies of the application from Mr. John Klopp, Plant Manager, 10 Atlantic Street, Bridgeport, CT 06604, (203) 332-8680.

The application is available for inspection by contacting Mr. Charles Nezianya (860) 424-3018, at the Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Materials Management and Compliance Assurance, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT, 06106-5127 from 8:30 – 4:30, Monday through Friday.

Any interested person may request in writing that his or her name be put on a mailing list to receive notice of intent to issue any permit to discharge to the surface waters of the state. Such request may be for the entire state or any geographic area of the state and shall clearly state in writing the name and mailing address of the interested person and the area for which notices are requested.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Prior to making a final decision to approve or deny any application, the Commissioner shall consider written comments on the application from interested persons that are received within 30 days of this public notice. Written comments should be directed to Mr. Charles Nezianya, Bureau of Materials Management and Compliance Assurance, Department of Environmental Protection, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT, 06106-5127. The Commissioner may hold a public hearing prior to approving or denying an application if in the Commissioner’s discretion the public interest will be best served thereby, and shall hold a hearing upon receipt of a petition signed by at least twenty-five persons. Notice of any public hearing shall be published at least 30 days prior to the hearing.

Petitions for a hearing should include the application number noted above and also identify a contact person to receive notifications.  Petitions may also identify a person who is authorized to engage in discussions regarding the application and, if resolution is reached, withdraw the petition.   Original petitions must be mailed or delivered to: DEP Office of Adjudications, 79 Elm Street, 3rd floor, Hartford, 06106-5127.  Petitions cannot be sent by fax or email.  Additional information can be found at www.ct.gov/dep/adjudications.

/s/Oswald Inglese, Jr., Director
Water Permitting and Enforcement Division
Bureau of Materials Management and Compliance Assurance

Published in the Connecticut Post on August 12, 2010

Draft Permit

via DEP: Bridgeport Energy LLC – Notice of Tentative Determination Intent to Renew a State Permit (Bridgeport).

The watershed plan will detail the existing conditions of the watershed and identify its current problems and sources of pollution. Also, it will address emerging issues facing the watershed, and will outline detailed action steps for implementation. The plan will have the potential to affect on-the-ground change within the watershed.

MISSION

The mission of the Pequonnock River Initiative is to protect and improve the water quality, habitat, and public enjoyment of the Pequonnock River and its watershed.

ORGANIZATION

Several agencies and organizations, working collaboratively, have brought the Pequonnock River Initiative to fruition.  The City of Bridgeport received a Section 319 grant from the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection to hire an engineering consultant to perform the technical components of a watershed plan for the Pequonnock Watershed.  Bridgeport has engaged the firm Fuss & O’Neill, an experienced group of water resource professionals. The DEP also awarded a Section 604(b) grant of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for this project led by Save the Sound, a program of Connecticut Fund for the Environment, Inc. and the Southwest Conservation District.  Save the Sound’s responsibilities include the formation of a watershed coalition, organizing workshop meetings, assisting in the development of watershed plan recommendations, and doing public education and outreach.  Additionally, Harbor Watch/River Watch, a program of Earthplace, The Nature Discovery Center at Westport has received 319 funding provided by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act to perform water quality testing of the Pequonnock River for the years 2009 and 2010.

A Steering Committee has been formed consisting of a core group of representatives from the governments and commissions of each of the watershed’s towns in Bridgeport, Trumbull, and Monroe.  Also, a number of state agencies, non-profit groups, community organizations, and individuals are participating members.  The Steering Committee will help shape the goals, objectives, and final recommendations of the watershed plan.  It is hoped that a sustainable watershed coalition can continue forward beyond 2011 and take charge of implementing the action plans outlined in the final watershed plan.

ABOUT THE WATERSHED

A watershed can be defined as the land area that contributes runoff to a particular point along a waterway. In the case of the Pequonnock River, it captures runoff, or drainage from, a 29 square mile area that includes the City of Bridgeport and the towns of Trumbull and Monroe. The Pequonnock Watershed is also comprised of smaller sub-watersheds, of which ten have been identified. Each of these ten sub-watersheds are in many ways different from each other, and as a result, will have different water resource objectives.

The Pequonnock River begins in Monroe in a mostly forested area with fresh water marshes and little development. It bends to the southeast through William E. Wolfe Park and then flows to Great Hollow Lake. From there the Pequonnock River leaves the park and flows through an industrial park on the Monroe/Trumbull line.

Once the River enters Trumbull it crosses Spring Hill Road and enters a second industrial park before it crosses Monroe Turnpike and skirts the western edge of Old Mine Park. Much of the river in Trumbull flows through wooded areas with reasonable margins of riparian buffer and limited residential development. Once the brook reaches Daniel’s Farm Road, the river enters a congested corridor between White Plains Road to the west and route 25 to the east. Ultimately, the river skirts the western edge of Twin Brooks Park where it makes a confluence with Booth Hill Brook and heads south under the Merrit Parkway to enter the western edge of Unity Park.

The Pequonnock crosses under route 8 and enters the City of Bridgeport and Bunnell’s Pond. The pond is approximately a mile long with route 25 and a concrete bank on the west side and Beardsley Park on the east bank. Once the River flows over a large concrete dam and leaves the park it enters a long tunnel and emerges in the old industrial area of Bridgeport on its way to Bridgeport Harbor. This section of the River is in a deteriorating section of the City with discarded scrap metal in the river water and crumbling banks supported with aging pilings and concrete bulkheads.

WATER QUALITY

For the period of May 1, 2009 through September 30, 2009, the Harbor Watch/River Watch  Program at Earthplace conducted water sampling at 10 sites along the main stem of the Pequonnock River; from the river’s origin in the woodlands of Monroe, to the foot of the river as it reaches Bridgeport Harbor. Water samples were collected and analyzed for temperature, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen, as well as fecal coliform and E. coli (Escherichia coli) bacteria levels.  E. coli is considered an indicator organism.  If high levels of E. coli are found in water samples, these bacteria can “indicate” that there are also potential high levels of other harmful, disease causing pathogens (bacteria and viruses).

Prior to the monitoring study, it was hypothesized that water quality should decline as the river flows from Monroe (little development) to Bridgeport (high urban development).  The results generally verified this hypothesis.

Results of  E. coli testing showed that, on average, the testing sites from Monroe to the base of Bunnell’s Pond in Bridgeport  meet the state’s classification for a Class B river.  The remaining sites southward to the foot of the river in Bridgeport, all have light to moderate levels of E. Coli, with levels increasing as the river approaches Bridgeport Harbor. The highest level of E. Coli was found at the most southerly testing site near the harbor.  This latter finding is expected based on the condition of the shoreline with crumbling bulk heading, possible unseen discharges, a disturbed river bottom, and the presence of combined sewage overflows.

The ultimate goal of the Pequonnock Watershed plan is to see reductions in the levels of E.coli, and achieve a Class A status for all portions of the river.  To view the entire Harbor Watch/River Watch 2009 water quality report please go to “Maps and Downloads” and read “Water Quality Report 2009”.

MAPS & DOWNLOADS

Download – Water Quality Report ’09

Various GIS maps created by Fuss & O’Neill

Download – Aerial Photographs

Download – Flood Zones

Download – Impaired Waters

Download – Land Use

Download – Soil Suitability for Pervious Pavement

Download – Water Quality

CONTACT

To learn more about the Pequonnock River Initiative, and ways that you can participate, please contact the Coordinator, Chris Cryder of Save the Sound, at 203-787-0646 ext: 127 or ccryder@savethesound.org.

New provisions call for regional water quality standards and permits, voluntary nitrogen trading, consideration of climate change, and pilot project using shellfish to remove pollution. Audubon Connecticut joined with Environment Connecticut and Save the Sound to urge House passage of this legislation protecting these great waters. Further progress on this legislation is expected in the fall.

House Introduces Far-Reaching Reauthorization for LIS | Audubon Connecticut 

A new study of artificial turf fields containing crumb rubber infill conducted by four state agencies shows that health risks are not elevated from playing on the fields, the State Department of Environmental Protection said late Friday. However, higher contaminant levels at one indoor field indicate that ventilation of indoor fields should be considered. Storm water run off findings indicate that proper management of this run off is prudent to address possible environmental effects.

via State study finds no health hazards in outdoor artificial turf fields.

More contaminants at an indoor field suggest ventilation needs

HARTFORD – A new study of artificial turf fields containing crumb rubber infill conducted by four state agencies shows that health risks are not elevated from playing on the fields. However, higher contaminant levels at one indoor field indicate that ventilation of indoor fields should be considered. Storm water run off findings indicate that proper management of this run off is prudent to address possible environmental effects.

Nancy Alderman, from Environment and Human Health Inc., thinks the study is off base when it says the artficial turf poses no elevated health risk.

She cites this part of the report in support of her statement: “The field investigation detected a variety of compounds that were present above the fields at concentrations greater than the range seen in background samples. Based upon the pattern of detection, it is considered likely that benzothiazole, acetone, toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, butylated hydroxytoluene, naphthalenes and several other PAHs were field-related, with other detected chemicals less certain to be field related. For example, benzene, methylene chloride, methyl chloride and acrolein were detected only in personal monitoring samples and not in the stationary samplers placed just above the field.”

Alderman adds that the news release from the DEP makes no mention of the CT Agricultural Experiment Station’s laboratory findings that investigated the chemicals being emitted from the ground up rubber tires. The study findings were peer reviewed by the Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering, whose comments were incorporated into the final report.

“This study presents good news regarding the safety of outdoor artificial turf fields,” stated Department of Public Health Commissioner Dr. J. Robert Galvin. “While the findings indoors were below the health risk targets, the elevated contaminant levels suggest a need to ventilate these fields so they can be brought to the level of safety outdoors. What we’ve learned from this study in Connecticut will provide valuable guidance to municipalities, schools and others who operate or are considering installing artificial playing fields.”

Study Background

The four state agencies, the University of Connecticut Health Center, the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, the Department of Public Health and the Department of Environmental Protection evaluated the health and environmental impacts associated with artificial turf fields containing crumb rubber infill. A key aspect of the study was a field investigation conducted in July 2009, when the UCONN Health Center sent a team of researchers to four outdoor fields and one indoor field across Connecticut. Three soccer players at each field were equipped with personal monitoring devices and the recorded results, together with the stationary samplers, were used to characterize possible exposures. Overall, approximately 200 chemicals were tested at each field.

Health Risk Assessment

The Department of Public Health (DPH) used the data from the field investigation to evaluate health risks. Exposures and risks were not elevated relative to what is commonly found in outdoor air for both children and adults using the fields. Indoor fields showed higher levels of chemical emissions. While these levels do not suggest a health risk, DPH recommends ventilation of indoor fields. Developers of new indoor fields should consider alternatives to crumb rubber infill as a cushioning agent.

Environmental Evaluation

The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) evaluated the environmental risk associated with storm water runoff from the artificial turf fields tested in the air study. Three of eight storm water samples showed elevated levels of zinc leaching from the fields that may present a risk to aquatic organisms. Other metals and rubber related compounds tested in run off were not elevated. Based on these results, DEP concludes that there is no risk to drinking water from this runoff, but a potential risk exists for surface waters and aquatic organisms.

The DEP suggests that use of storm water treatment measures may reduce the concentrations of zinc in the storm water runoff from artificial turf fields to levels below the acute aquatic toxicity criteria. Individual artificial turf field owners should evaluate the storm water drainage systems at the fields and the hydrologic and water quality characteristics of any receiving waters to determine the appropriateness of a storm water treatment measure.

CASE Review

The state agencies asked the Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering (CASE) to review and comment on the study. CASE is a private, nonprofit, public service institution whose mission is to evaluate issues and technological advances that are of potential concern to the people of Connecticut. CASE assembled a nine member expert panel to review all aspects of the study. Comments included that cancer risks calculated by DPH may have been overestimates because of the inclusion of benzene detections that are likely not coming from the playing field but from the players themselves. To address CASE’s comments, the risk assessment describes the issues and finds that they do not change the overall conclusions and unlikely present added risk.

Background on Artificial Playing Fields and Crumb Rubber

Installation of artificial turf fields has become a more common practice as cities, towns, and educational institutions seek to reduce both maintenance needs created by the heavy use of grass fields and demands for water and pesticides needed for care of natural grass. One popular design for these fields involves the use of crumb rubber infill, which provides, drainage, a layer of padding and holds the blades of synthetic grass upright. The crumb rubber used in artificial turf fields is mainly composed of recycled tires, which contain man-made and natural rubber. Chemicals called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) can be found in the crumb rubber. Crumb rubber can also contain heavy metals such as zinc and copper.

The study was funded with $245,000 available to DEP for special projects from the settlement of cases involving violations of environmental regulations.

For more information and to view the entire study, please visit www.ct.gov/dep/artificialturf.

In a recent update from Environment and Human Health Inc.’s Nancy Alderman: 

UPDATE: Environment and Human Health has reviewed the Peer Review Committee’s Report (CASE) and found that CASE asked the CT Department of Public Health to re-write the headline of their Press Release so not to scare parents and schools officials.  Please see below.
               
You may check our comments by going to the website of the Artificial Turf Study Executive Summary below  and then click on the CASE Report and go to page 10.

http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2690&Q=463624&depNav_GID=1511

The original Heading of the CT Department of Public Health’s findings of the Artificial Turf Study was  “THE RESULTS INDICATE CANCER RISKS SLIGHTLY ABOVE DE MINIMIS LEVELS FOR ALL SCENARIOS EVALUATED.”  (Page 8)

The Peer Review Committee (CASE)  advised that the findings be softened to avoid causing undue concern for the public.

See paragraphs copied below from page 10 of the Peer Review Committee  (CASE) Report
 
The CASE Peer Review Committee’s summery ends with the following paragraphs:

“The CASE Peer Review Committee strongly urges the CT Department of Public Health to revise its risk assessment and then present its findings with appropriate cautions. At the least, the various assumptions underlying the risk assessment should be compiled and presented in a manner so that they can be understood by non-scientists (e.g., parents and journalists) reading the report.”

“In addition, the range of uncertainty should be explicitly stated. For that purpose, the committee provides the following paraphrase of a statement found in numerous California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) risk assessments:”

“While it is theoretically possible that the true risk could exceed this value, that is considered unlikely. On the other hand, it is plausible that the lower bound on the human risk includes zero. In other words, it is possible that use of ARTIFICIAL TURF FIELDS (ATF) poses no human risk whatever.”

“Finally, the Peer Review Committee is very aware of the shrinking resources available to support our children’s and recreation activities. It is almost certain that the “headline” conclusion of the Department of Public Health (DPH) report will become the focus of media reports and will unnecessarily frighten parents as well as school and municipal supervisors. Parents may be motivated to withdraw their children from beneficial athletic activities, and schools and towns will consider the financially wasteful removal of existing fields. This would be an unfortunate result, one that would likely pose greater risks to the welfare of Connecticut than the continued use of outdoor Artificial Turf Fields.”

If you found this blog post helpful please make a contribution to help this service survive. Thank you.

via Geese Are Likely Culprits In Eight-Day Closure At Eichler’s Cove | The Newtown Bee.

Environmental Protection Commissioner Cas Holloway has announced the operation of enhanced treatment measures to reduce the amount of nitrogen being discharged into the East River at the Hunts Point Wastewater Treatment Plant in the Bronx. The installation of biological nitrogen removal technology at the plant will reduce nitrogen discharges at the plant by 45%, from 22,000 pounds per day to 12,000 pounds per day. This phase of work cost $280 million, and a second $20 million phase will reduce nitrogen discharges by an additional 7,000 pounds per day by 2014.

DEP is investing an additional $770 million in nitrogen reduction measures at the other three Upper East River wastewater treatment plants: Bowery Bay, Tallman Island and Wards Island. These projects are scheduled to be complete in 2012, and will reduce total nitrogen discharges into the East River by more than 52%. Commissioner Holloway was joined at the announcement by Council Member Maria del Carmen Arroyo and Eric Goldstein of the Natural Resources Defense Council at the Hunts Point Wastewater Treatment Plant.

“The East River and Long Island Sound are vital natural resources for all New Yorkers and the investments we are making at our East River wastewater treatment plants will immediately improve water quality in these waterways,” said Commissioner Holloway. “Years of steady and committed work to improve our treatment plants have already had measurable effects. Today, our harbor water quality is the best it has been in 100 years and New York City is now meeting monthly secondary treatment standards for the first time ever. Improved water quality means more opportunities for New Yorkers to enjoy our waterfront — a critical component of PlaNYC, Mayor Bloomberg’s blueprint for a sustainable city.”

“I applaud the DEP’s continued efforts to reduce the amounts of nitrogen discharged into our waterways,” said Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr. “It is essential that we work together to minimize and eventually eliminate the impact of our wastewater treatment process on the local environment. The DEP’s commitment to clean up the East River combined with the efforts of many of our local organizations, as well as that of my office, to reduce stormwater runoff and minimize water pollution in the Bronx will result in cleaner, healthier aquatic ecosystems and an attractive waterfront for all to enjoy.”

Although it is not a pathogen and poses no risk to human beings, high levels of nitrogen can degrade the overall ecology of a waterway. They can lead to reduced levels of dissolved oxygen in waterways and excessive algae growth, especially in warm weather months.

The western end of Long Island Sound funnels into a narrow area bounded by lower Westchester, western Nassau, and the Bronx and northern Queens. The waters of the East River and Long Island Sound are periodically impacted by algae blooms, which can sometimes grow to several miles in area. These blooms depress the amounts of dissolved oxygen in the Sound, impairing the survival of fish and other marine organisms. Algal colonies propagate from sunlight and nutrients, such as nitrogen. The primary sources of nitrogen in the Sound are wastewater treatment facilities that serve more than a dozen municipalities along the Connecticut and New York coasts.

DEP’s wastewater treatment plants were not originally designed to remove nitrogen, a naturally-occurring component in all wastewater. Currently, the 786 million gallons of daily wastewater handled by the six wastewater treatment plants on the East River result in the discharge of approximately 96,000 pounds of nitrogen each day. The six wastewater treatment plants located on the East River are: Newtown Creek, Red Hook, Bowery Bay, Tallman Island, Wards Island, and Hunts Point.

In total, DEP will spend more than $1 billion by 2016 to reduce nitrogen discharges to all New York waterways by more than 60,000 pounds per day. The project at the Hunts Point plant includes modifications and upgrades to the treatment processes, so that the ammonia-nitrogen in wastewater will now be converted to nitrogen gas. Both chemical and biological systems are used to do this, including a process that cultivates a naturally-occurring bacteria that metabolizes ammonia.

Last November, DEP announced the use of a new technology to remove nitrogen from wastewater, which is being used at the Wards Island Wastewater Treatment Plant in Manhattan. The technology, patented as the SHARON (Single Reactor System for High Rate Ammonia Removal Over Nitrate) Process, has the ability to quickly break down ammonia nitrogen at less cost and with a smaller carbon footprint than traditional technologies. The SHARON system is expected to reduce the discharges of nitrogen into Long Island Sound by more than 10,000 pounds per day.

The City is also investing $100 million to install new nitrogen control technologies at wastewater treatment plants located on Jamaica Bay. In June, DEP announced the launch of the first phase of enhanced treatment measures to reduce the amount of nitrogen being discharged into Jamaica Bay at 26th Ward Wastewater Treatment Plant. The installation of biological nitrogen removal technology at the plant will reduce nitrogen discharges by more than 4,000 pounds per day, or 10% of the total nitrogen discharges from treatment plants into the bay, until additional investments are completed by 2014. These investments, made in concert with $95 million the City already has committed for nitrogen control upgrades, will reduce the nitrogen loads discharged into Jamaica Bay by nearly 50% over the next ten years.

In addition to the nitrogen-removal upgrade at the Hunts Point plant, odor controls have been extensively upgraded, with the consolidation within a single building of all off-site residual materials. The new Residuals Handling Building includes large carbon absorbers that filter odorous air.

The Hunts Point Wastewater Treatment Plant began operating in 1952 and is designed to treat up to 200 million gallons of wastewater a day from approximately 684,000 residents from the eastern section of the Bronx. Approximately 108 sewage treatment workers, engineers and other DEP personnel work at the plant. New Yorkers produce, and DEP treats, more than 1.3 billion gallons of wastewater every day. The wastewater is collected through 7,400 miles of lateral sewers that flow downhill into large interceptor sewers, which lead directly to the City’s 14 wastewater treatment plants.

Mayor Bloomberg has made investing in the City’s infrastructure a top priority. Since 2002, the City has invested more than $5 billion in upgrading its 14 wastewater treatment plants. That work has already yielded benefits for New York’s waterways, which are the cleanest they have been in 100 years since the City has began collecting water quality data in New York Harbor. DEP also is reaching City-wide monthly average Clean Water Act secondary treatment standards for the first time ever — three years ahead of schedule.

DEP manages the City’s water supply, providing more than 1 billion gallons of water each day to more than 9 million residents, including 8 million in New York City. New York City’s water is delivered from a watershed that extends more than 125 miles from the City, and comprises 19 reservoirs, and three controlled lakes. Approximately 7,000 miles of water mains, tunnels and aqueducts bring water to homes and businesses throughout the five boroughs, and 7,400 miles of sewer lines take wastewater to 14 in-City treatment plants.

“We are remaking our entire transportation structure in Connecticut, and this is an important part of our vision. It is an innovative alternative way to address traffic and freight issues on Connecticut roads and highways,” Gov. Rell said.

“We are constantly looking for new ways to reduce traffic volume on our highways, and this is a creative solution. We are blessed with a coastline along the entire length of our southern border. Let’s use the waterways off that coastline to transport goods and services and to get trucks off our highways.”

The Connecticut DOT had submitted an application for enhanced service across Long Island Sound, from New London to Orient Point, New York, to move freight more efficiently from New England to New York and beyond. Connecticut will be working with the state of New York to design and refine the proposal, which is in very preliminary stages today. DOT Commissioner Jeffrey A. Parker said it was too early to predict when the cross-Sound service would be introduced or its ultimate price tag.

The USDOT is setting aside an initial $7 million for which states can compete under the program. Connecticut is among just eight states selected for participation in the competition.

According to the USDOT, such projects have “the potential to reduce air pollution and gridlock as well as provide jobs for skilled mariners and shipbuilders.” The projects were selected from among 35 applications from ports and local transportation planning agencies received by the Department’s Maritime Administration (MARAD).

See a related story in The Day:

Connecticut is one of eight states selected to compete in America’s Marine Highway Program, a federal Department of Transportation initiative to encourage use of waterways to reduce traffic congestion and move freight along the country’s coastlines.

via CT looks to sea to ease road congestion | The Day.

via The Day – Montville WPCA holds off on contract vote | News from southeastern Connecticut.

Trenton — Wastewater treatment companies have asked the Christie administration to allow more pollutants to be discharged into New Jersey’s rivers and streams.  The Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and a coalition of 17 other groups are opposing the proposed change in state Surface Water Quality Standards.

If they’re successful, perhaps they can take advantage of this car that runs on methane gas produced by human waste has been launched and its makers claim drivers cannot tell the difference.

In order to reduce the cost of treatment, the wastewater facilities want to discharge effluent that exceeds the human health criteria for nitrates and total dissolved solids provided these standards are met at the point of intake for drinking water use.  In New Jersey, rivers are a supply source for major drinking water.

“The last thing New Jersey rivers need is more sewage,” said Abbie Fair of the Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions, which argues that the plan would violate both the federal Clean Water Act and the state Water Pollution Control Act.  “It is unconscionable that the wastewater authorities want to turn our waterways into pollution treatment streams.”

By extending the “mixing zone” where pollutants exceed potable limits from the wastewater facility discharge pipe to drinking water intake points, the proposal would make longer stretches of receiving rivers and streams unsuitable for swimming, fishing or wildlife survival.  Moreover, with shrinking water supplies, there may not be enough freshwater to dilute the treated sewage.

“Few people realize that sewer plants and industries discharge partially treated wastewater short distances upstream from water supply intakes.  In summer when rainfall is low, 100% of the flow of the Passaic River is treated sewage water – there is no clean water left to dilute the outflow,” stated New Jersey PEER Director Bill Wolfe.  “My concern is that this proposal may have already been secretly green-lighted by the Christie administration under the guise of regulatory relief.”

Current water quality standards are set to protect those drinking water supplies and limit the amount of dilution allowable in setting permit limits.  However, current lax individual facility permit limits have caused ambient river water quality levels of nitrate to approach the drinking water limit.  This is a critical problem because there is no treatment to remove nitrates from source water.  High pollution levels also hamper the refilling of depleted reservoirs with pumped river water, exacerbating drought shortfalls.

Nitrates are known to cause “blue baby syndrome”, which can be fatal.  Cumulative discharge of nitrates also has significant downstream ecological effects on bays, estuaries and the ocean, contributing to excessive eutrophication and oxygen free “dead zones”.  Besides nitrates and dissolved solids, the proposal will also increase the amount of pesticides and other chemicals as well as un-metabolized pharmaceuticals, none of which are screened out of treated wastewater.

Under the state Administrative Procedures Act, the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has 60 days from its July 19 publication in the New Jersey Register to grant, deny or seek an additional 30-day extension to render a decision on this wastewater petition.

Even if approved by DEP, the relaxed standards would be subject to review by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for compliance with federal clean water standards.  In addition, EPA has announced that it is considering nitrate as a potential candidate for a new health effects assessment due to concerns that ingested nitrate or nitrite can be carcinogenic to humans.  Any reassessment would likely result in tighter nitrate limits that would cost water treatment plants far more than any savings they could hope to achieve by this proposal.

Read the coalition letter

View the rulemaking petition

Look at the pre-existing weakness of state water quality standards

See 2009 NJ plan to control nutrients

via Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility: News Releases.

Unbelievably, the Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering (CASE), which performed the study’s peer review, advised that the findings of the artificial turf study  “be softened”  to avoid causing the public to be alarmed.

CASE urged the DPH to change its press release headline from “The Results Indicate Cancer Risks Slightly Above de Minimis Levels for All Scenarios Evaluated” to the more reassuring headline, “Result of State Artificial Turf Study: No Elevated Health Risk.”

The CASE summary urged the DPH:

“To revise its risk assessment and then present its findings with appropriate cautions. At the least, the various assumptions underlying the risk assessment should be compiled and presented in a manner so that they can be understood by non-scientists (e.g., parents and journalists) reading the report,”

Case continued, “[We are] very aware of the shrinking resources available to support our children’s and recreation activities. It is almost certain that the ‘headline’ conclusion of the CT Department of Public Health (DPH) report will become the focus of media reports and will unnecessarily frighten parents as well as school and municipal supervisors. Parents may be motivated to withdraw their children from beneficial athletic activities, and schools and towns will consider the financially wasteful removal of existing fields. This would be an unfortunate result, one that would likely pose greater risks to the welfare of Connecticut than the continued use of outdoor Artificial Turf Fields.”

Testing of the artificial turf fields took place last summer when temperatures were unusually cool, between 70 and 80 degrees.  EHHI points out that this summer temperatures have consistently reached 90 degrees with fields frequently exceeding temperatures over 135 degrees. If the testing had been done this summer, offgassing of chemicals would have been higher and health risks shown in the report would have been higher.  Although new fields offgas more chemicals, all the fields tested were two years old or older.

According to the DPH’s press release and executive summary, many toxic chemicals were found in the fields. “The field investigation detected a variety of compounds that were present above the fields at concentrations greater than the range seen in background samples. Based upon the pattern of detection, it is considered likely that benzothiazole, acetone, toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, butylated hydroxytoluene, naphthalenes and several other [polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons] PAHs were field-related, with other detected chemicals less certain to be field related. For example, benzene, methylene chloride, methyl chloride and acrolein were detected only in personal monitoring samples and not in the stationary samplers placed just above the field.”

The laboratory testing found numerous toxic chemicals off-gasing from the crumb rubber. According to their report, ”The laboratory studies showed offgassing of numerous compounds including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (particularly naphthalenes), VOCs (e.g., benzene, hexane, methylene chloride, styrene, toluene), and rubber-related SVOCs (benzothiazole, tert-octylphenol, butylated hydroxytoluene). The primary constituent detected by both laboratories was benzothiazole. Pre-weathering the crumb rubber outdoors for ten weeks decreased the volatile emissions 20-80%.”

The report went on to say that indoor synthetic turf fields are offgassing toxic chemicals at high enough levels for the DPH to call for greater ventilation of such facilities. “However, it would be prudent for building operators to provide adequate ventilation to prevent a buildup of rubber-related VOCs and SVOCs at indoor fields. New indoor fields should consider alternatives to crumb rubber infill as a cushioning agent.”

The study showed very high variability in the levels of toxins that were found in each field. Since there are 40,000 tires in each field, enormous variability of toxins would be expected.

The stormwater sampling detected various metals and semi-volatile compounds. Zinc was found in high enough levels to cause risks to surface waters and aquatic organisms. “Three samples exhibited acute toxicity for both Daphnia pulex and Pimephales promelas. The only analyte in the stormwater detected in concentrations exceeding acute aquatic toxicity criteria for surface waters was zinc. Zinc exceedences of the acute criteria were detected in the same three stormwater samples that exhibited acute toxicity for both Daphnia pulex and Pimephales promelas. These results showed that there is a potential risk to surface waters and aquatic organisms associated with whole effluent and zinc toxicity of storm-water runoff from artificial turf fields.” The results of the ground water sampling documented in this press release leads us to not only believe ground up rubber tires are not good for children, but are also not good for the environment.

There is nothing in this press release and executive summary that reduces EHHI’s concern about children playing on ground-up rubber tires. The study looked at the safety of chemical exposures one chemical at a time and yet it is clear from this study that the exposures are to many chemicals at the same time. If the study had been conducted when the ambient temperatures had been more in line with normal July temperatures in Connecticut, the off gassing of chemicals would have been greater and  that would have pushed the risk levels higher. As well, the data shows that the more people playing on a field will cause more chemicals to be released from the crumb rubber, as the players impacts on the turf causes more toxins to be released into the air.  The data collected in this study is very important; EHHI’s strong disagreement is with the interpretation of that data.

http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2690&Q=463624&depNav_GID=1511

via Solar panels still strong on town building roof | Canton News.

Factoring out a wildlife anomaly in 2008, Connecticut beaches have been closed or carried posted advisories for 108 days for the past three years in a row, demonstrating that the state has been unable to make significant progress in reducing the health threat facing the swimmers and boaters who want to enjoy the state’s waterways, according to a news release from Save the Sound.

The great majority, 81 percent, of beach closures and posted advisories reported in 2009 were due to stormwater contamination, a condition that can be mitigated through investment in sewer infrastructure upgrades and stormwater management techniques like green infrastructure and landscaping. Other unknown sources of contamination account for the remaining 19 percent of beach closures and advisory days.
“For the past two years Connecticut has stood still in the top 25 percent of states as far as water quality is concerned. That’s not good enough,” said state Senator Ed Meyer (D-Guilford), who is Senate Chairman of the legislature’s Environment Committee. “We owe it to the citizens of this state and to future generations to work harder, to seek more state and federal funding for clean water projects, and to reduce the annual number of beach closings to zero. Only then will we have accomplished our mission. This is a true quality of life priority.”
“Like the Gulf, Long Island Sound is central to our way of life in Connecticut,” said Sandy Breslin, Director of Governmental Affairs for Audubon Connecticut, the state organization of the National Audubon Society. “Unlike the Gulf, we know how to stop the Sound’s pollution. Sustained state and federal investments in clean water are the key to making sure Long Island Sound remains a summer refuge for people and wildlife.”

Polluted stormwater runoff is also a contributing factor in the Sound’s “dead zone,” a growing area in the western portion of the Sound where oxygen deprivation is stressing marine animals and flora. Long Island Sound is an eight-billion-dollar regional economy in which the marine trades play a major role—for businesses that depend upon a thriving and healthy waterway, hypoxia is a key concern as it signals an inability of the marine environment to sustain life.

NRDC analyzed Connecticut Department of Health data for 65 beaches monitored by the state and municipalities. Connecticut slipped from its 12th place ranking last year to 13th in the nation for the percentage of tests that exceeded national standards, with five percent of those tests failing to meet standards set for bacteria.

The full NRDC report can be found at www.nrdc.org.

Read the Courant report here: State Slips To 13th Place In Water Quality According To Annual Report – Courant.com.

The New Haven Register reports: “Connecticut saw a decrease in beach closings and advisories in 2009, but is 13th in the nation in beachwater quality and still has much work to do to ensure that Long Island Sound and the waters draining into it are clean and healthy, environmental advocates and public officials said today as they released the Connecticut results of an annual national environmental snapshot.”

via Mixed results on annual beach report card (documents)- The New Haven Register – Serving New Haven, Connecticut.

Picture of BioMag process (contributed photo)

The Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA) in the town of Stonington, Connecticut, has announced plans to upgrade its Mystic Water Pollution Control Facility. Plans call for the installation of a nutrient removal system called BioMag, developed and implemented by Cambridge Water Technology (CWT), to meet the plant’s performance goals.

Cambridge Water Technology has successfully completed a full-scale, 4 month-long demonstration at the Mystic site which confirmed the efficacy of the technology and its cost effectiveness. In a 2009 trial, CWT’s BioMag process demonstrated that the plant could meet its future effluent limits without adding new tankage or treatment steps.

Prior to the installation of BioMag, the Mystic facility’s total nitrogen discharge was over 30 pounds per day. Two months after BioMag installation, that number was down to 12 pounds per day.

“That level of nitrogen reduction was more than we could have hoped for,” James Sisk, Chairman of Stonington’s Water Pollution Control Authority said in a news release. “Last year’s trial proved how the BioMag process would provide Mystic with a stable, high performance and economical wastewater treatment system well into the foreseeable future.”

The Mystic Water Pollution Control Facility is required to comply with the State of Connecticut’s General Permit for Nitrogen Discharges, which sets the plant’s average effluent nitrogen concentration goal to less than 5 mg/L. To achieve this level of treatment with conventional technology, the Mystic WPCF would have to expand significantly.

Stonington’s Water Pollution Control Authority has been actively evaluating plant upgrade options for submittal to the DEP as part of its Facilities Plan to meet the long-term needs of the town and improve wastewater effluent. Camp Dresser and McKee Inc. (CDM) has been the town’s engineer in the facilities planning effort.

“The town of Stonington has known for some time that its aging wastewater treatment facilities needed to be brought into compliance with state-mandates. We’ve evaluated available processes and technology options for their ability to meet WPCA goals,” said Bill McConnell, Project Engineer, CDM. “In BioMag, we have identified the best, most cost-effective technology to provide the necessary treatment within the physical constraints of an aging Mystic facility. This technology positions the town with a long term, environmentally responsible and cost-effective solution.”

Cambridge Water Technology’s BioMag ballasted activated sludge process is a technology that achieves low effluent suspended solids, BOD, nitrogen, and phosphorus concentrations in a compact footprint. BioMag has the ability to substantially reduce biological treatment tank volume requirements and decrease the footprint needed for BOD and nitrogen removal. The key to BioMag’s effectiveness is its ability to improve the rate and reliability of the clarification process of biological treatment systems.

For more information about the town of Stonington, CT, please visit: http://www.stonington-ct.gov/pages/index.

About Cambridge Water Technology, Inc.

Cambridge Water Technology, Inc. develops, designs and provides solutions to economic and operating challenges of water and wastewater treatment for industries and municipalities.

About Camp, Dresser and McKee

CDM is a consulting, engineering, construction, and operations firm delivering exceptional service to public and private clients worldwide, and works with many cities and towns in Connecticut that face wastewater treatment challenges similar to Stonington.

A Eulogy to Stephen Schneider, Ben Santer, RealClimate, 7/19

Stephen Schneider did more than any other individual on the planet to help us realize that human actions have led to global-scale changes in Earth’s climate. Steve was instrumental in focusing scientific, political, and public attention on one of the major challenges facing humanity – the problem of human-caused climate change.

See below for links to more stories:

Some climate scientists have exceptional talents in pure research. They love to figure out the inner workings of the climate system. Others have strengths in communicating complex scientific issues to non-specialists. It is rare to find scientists who combine these talents. Steve Schneider was just such a man

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=4472

Utilities, Signaling Support for Carbon Caps, Want ‘Relief’ on Other Air Pollutants, NY Times, July 15, 2010  EVAN LEHMANN

The Senate’s move to abandon those sources of pollution, in a scramble to find enough support for a nationwide carbon cap on power plant smokestacks, is driving utilities to seek their newest compromise: If transportation polluters don’t offset the cost of carbon fees on electricity plants, another form of relief is needed, the industry says.

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/07/15/15climatewire-utilities-signaling-support-for-carbon-caps-37350.html

Poison Ivy Growing Faster, More Virulent, NPR, Robert Siegel, July 20, 2010

Lewis Ziska, plant physiologist for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s agricultural research service, says rising carbon dioxide levels and forest disruption are making poison ivy spread faster, grow larger, show up in new places and become more toxic. He tells host Michele Norris what makes the plant uniquely affected and how to treat skin that’s been exposed.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128650169

From tobacco to climate change, ‘merchants of doubt’ undermined the science

Historians Naomi Oreskes and Erick M. Conway document how a handful of right-wing ideologues — all scientists — have (mis)shaped U.S. policy for decades, delaying government action on life-and-death issues from cigarettes and second-hand smoke, to acid rain, and now, finally, to climate change.

http://www.grist.org/article/from-tobacco-to-climate-change-merchants-of-doubt-undermined-the-science/PALL

via WPCA Presents Town Facilities Plan | The Cheshire Herald.

“The response to the current Challenge has been very exciting,” said Energy Efficiency Fund Chairman, Rich Steeves in a news release. “Several of the homes are complete or nearly so and a number of them are operating at near or below zero energy. We are confident that the next group of participating new homes will also rise to the challenge and be a model for home builders across the state.”

Applications are due by July 31, 2010. Participants will then be announced and their building progress will be documented on the Zero Energy Challenge web site and through media announcements until their completion, no later than Dec. 1, 2011.

The new residential building projects selected to participate will be competing to achieve the lowest possible energy use. Each participating home will be ranked in order based on how it performs in four categories. The overall winner of the Challenge will possess the lowest aggregate score, and will receive $10,000. In deciding the overall winners, and in the case of a tie, additional consideration will be given to those homes that also utilize non-energy-related green building features, including those related to water efficiency, materials use, advanced framing, and waste and site management.

Individual category winners will also be recognized and awarded $5,000 cash prizes. These categories are as follows: 1.) Lowest overall HERS* Index; 2.) Lowest HERS* Index without renewable technologies; 3.) Most affordable project (cost/square foot); and 4.) Lowest projected annual operating cost.

* Home Energy Rating System or HERS is a scoring system used by third-party professionals to compare the projected energy use of a given home to a similar home built to code standards.

Participating utilities are The Connecticut Light and Power Company, The United Illuminating Company, Connecticut Natural Gas Corporation, Southern Connecticut Gas Company and Yankee Gas Services Company. The homes being entered in the Zero Energy Challenge must be built in the service territory of one of the participating utilities and must be a customer of that utility. Eligible homes include any home or unit about to be, or in the process of development in Connecticut that can be categorized under the residential designation by the Connecticut state building code. This may include homes that are single family attached and detached, multi-family, condos and townhouses. Multi-family attached homes must be three stories or less to be considered “residential.” Complete details on eligibility, the rating system, how to enter and required documentation can be found on the Connecticut Zero Energy Challenge web site, www.CTZeroEnergyChallenge.com.

The purpose of the Challenge is to showcase and promote builders and developers of highly energy-efficient homes (near zero energy). These innovative homes will demonstrate that building to this level of super efficiency is achievable today. It is expected that homes in the Challenge will greatly exceed minimum code standards and will incorporate advanced design and construction techniques such as superior insulation, high efficiency heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) systems including inverter driven or geothermal heat pump technology, solar thermal water and photovoltaic systems, and advanced construction.

About the Connecticut Energy Efficiency Fund

The Energy Efficiency Fund promotes efficient energy use, helps residents and businesses save on their electric and natural gas bills, advances economic development, reduces electric demand and helps reduce air pollution. Energy Efficiency Fund conservation programs serve residential customers, including limited- and fixed-income customers, as well as business and municipal customers. Connecticut’s energy efficiency programs are funded by a charge on customers’ utility bills and administered by the state’s electric and gas utilities including: The Connecticut Light and Power Company, The United Illuminating Company, Yankee Gas Services Company, Connecticut Natural Gas Corporation and Southern Connecticut Gas Company. Additional information on Connecticut’s energy efficiency programs can be found at http://www.ctenergyinfo.com.

Also: The Connecticut Energy Efficiency Fund is taking applications for its 2010-2011 Zero Energy Challenge competition where the builder of the most energy-efficient home receives $10,000.

via CT Energy Fund sponsors $30K green building competition | Hartford Business.

The funding, which will be awarded to the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority (CRRA), is the final installment for the closure project, which has already commenced in the Hartford’s north-end.

“This landfill needs to be closed, and these funds will make that happen,” Governor Rell said in a release recently. “This funding represents an important final step in closing this landfill and addressing many of the concerns raised by residents of the area. One of the unique aspects to this project is that the closure is just one piece to a more comprehensive effort aimed at improving the quality of life for those who reside in Hartford’s north end.”

Through an agreement reached in 2007, CRRA, as part of the closure process, agreed to help fund measures to reduce diesel emissions and increase recycling in Hartford.

The Hartford Landfill is located on 100 acres north of the city near I-91 on Leibert Road. The landfill was opened by the city in 1940 and CRRA leased the landfill from the city starting in 1982. Since 1988, CRRA has used 80 acres of the site to dispose of materials that cannot be processed at CRRA’s Mid-Connecticut Project Trash-to-Energy Facility. Both facilities, the landfill and trash-to-energy plant, serve 70 cities and towns.

“In addition to the benefits to the community, the landfill will be closed in such a manner as to prevent pollution from emanating out of the site and impacting groundwater and the nearby Connecticut River,” Governor Rell said.

via WPCA votes down waste-to-energy project – Connecticut Post.

New Haven – Save the Sound, a program of Connecticut Fund for the Environment, released a statement Thursday in response to news that the Champlain Hudson Power Express project brought forward by Transmission Developers Inc. will not extend into Long Island Sound, as previously proposed.

Plans to bring energy from Canada to the New York-New England market via a submerged cable in the Sound off of Bridgeport were scrubbed as the Connecticut segment of the project did not generate enough interest among power suppliers. According to Transmission Developers, Inc. representatives, the project will now end in New York.

“This project is yet another in a long line of projects that illustrates this region needs a bi-state entity charged with coordinating long-term planning and protection of Long Island Sound’s natural resources,” said Leah Schmalz, Director of Legislative and Legal Affairs for Save the Sound.

“While thankfully we may never need detailed investigation of an environmental impact statement, nor the rigorous inquiry of independent scientists on the Sound portion of the Champlain Hudson project, we can be sure that we will face another potentially impacting energy inquiry in future years—this was the seventh Long Island Sound energy proposal in fewer than ten years,” Schmalz said.

“Certainly no disruption in Long Island Sound is better for the environment and the marine trades economy,” Schmalz said. “But the bigger picture should be addressed: the need for a planning body to help balance the ever-increasing energy and development demands of the region with the other critical economic drivers—the environment, the traditional local industries, and the residents of this region that depend on healthy water, fully-operational fisheries, harvestable shellfish beds, and clean beaches.”

“Connecticut and New York have this beautiful shared landscape, and with that privilege comes the responsibility to manage this invaluable resource,” Schmalz said. “Long-term planning is a smart way to protect Long Island Sound and ensure that its eight billion dollar economy stays strong and vibrant. Residents and public officials in both states share common goals to reduce damaging stormwater pollution, protect coastal open space, and preserve our quality of life.”

Transmission Developers Inc. held a meeting at Bridgeport City Hall last night.

Malloy and Wyman’s plan focuses on protecting our water, specifically Long Island Sound; lowering air pollution by investing in energy efficient technology and public transportation; and a renewed approach to land use that preserves open space and redevelops brownfield sites throughout Connecticut. The full plan can be viewed at www.danmalloy.com/policy/environment.

via ConnecticutPlus.com News – Malloy and Wyman lay out plans for CT’s environment.

For example, the National Academy of Sciences has found that air pollutants from coal plants, which generate almost half of U.S. electicity, cause damages of at least $62 billion per year, mainly in the form of premature deaths from heart and lung disease. And that’s not even counting air emissions of mercury and other toxic metals, or the contamination of land and water supplies from coal mining and waste disposal, or the huge potential costs of global warming emissions from burning coal.

via Are There Serious Reservations in the Scientific Community Regarding Wind Energy? | Union of Concerned Scientists.

In accordance with applicable federal and state law, the Commissioner has made a tentative determination that the discharge will not cause pollution of the waters of the state and the Commissioner proposes to modify a permit for the discharge to the Long Island Sound.

The proposed permit modification, if issued by the Commissioner, will require periodic monitoring to demonstrate that the discharge will not cause pollution.

APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL

University of Connecticut, Marine Sciences and Technology Center presently discharges a maximum of 720,000 gallons per day of sea water to the Long Island Sound from aquarium operations at a research and teaching laboratory. The applicant is proposing to increase their discharge by 54,600 gallons per day of ancillary wastewaters from a research and teaching laboratory.

The name and mailing address of the permit applicant are: University of Connecticut, Marine Science and Technology Center, 1080 Shennecossett Road, Groton, CT 06340.

The activity takes place at: 1080 Shennecossett Road, Groton, CT 06340.

The proposed activity is within the coastal area as defined in C.G.S. Section 22a-94. Pursuant to C.G.S. Section 22a-98, the applicant must demonstrate that the activities are consistent with all applicable goals and policies in C.G.S. Section 22a-92, and that such activities incorporate all reasonable measures mitigating any adverse impacts on coastal resources and future water-dependent development activities.

REGULATORY CONDITIONS

Type of Treatment

No treatment is necessary for the discharges.

Effluent Limitations

This permit contains effluent limitations consistent with a Case by Case Determination using the criteria of Best Professional Judgement and which will protect the waters of the state from pollution when all the conditions of this permit have been met.

COMMISSIONER’S AUTHORITY

The Commissioner of Environmental Protection is authorized to approve or deny such permits pursuant to (1) section 402(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, 33 USC 1251, et. seq. and (2) section 22a-430 of the Connecticut General Statutes and the Water Discharge Permit Regulations (section 22a-430-3 and 4 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies).

INFORMATION REQUESTS

The application has been assigned the following numbers by the Department of Environmental Protection. Please use these numbers when corresponding with this office regarding this application.

APPLICATION NO. 200802673 PERMIT ID NO. CT0028631 FACILITY ID NO. 059-010

Interested persons may obtain copies of the application from Jason Coite, University of Connecticut, Office of Environmental Policy, 31 LeDoyt Road, Storrs, CT 06269, (860) 486-9305.

The application is available for inspection by contacting Ewa Wozniak (860) 424-3018, at the Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Materials Management and Compliance Assurance, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT, 06106-5127 from 8:30 – 4:30, Monday through Friday.

Any interested person may request in writing that his or her name be put on a mailing list to receive notice of intent to issue any permit to discharge to the surface waters of the state. Such request may be for the entire state or any geographic area of the state and shall clearly state in writing the name and mailing address of the interested person and the area for which notices are requested.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Prior to making a final decision to approve or deny any application, the Commissioner shall consider written comments on the application from interested persons that are received within 30 days of this public notice. Written comments should be directed to Ewa Wozniak, Bureau of Materials Management and Compliance Assurance, Department of Environmental Protection, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT, 06106-5127. The Commissioner may hold a public hearing prior to approving or denying an application if in the Commissioner’s discretion the public interest will be best served thereby, and shall hold a hearing upon receipt of a petition signed by at least twenty-five persons. Notice of any public hearing shall be published at least 30 days prior to the hearing.

/s/Oswald Inglese, Jr. Director

Water Permitting and Enforcement Division
Bureau of Materials Management and Compliance Assurance

Published in the New London Day on June 28, 2010

via DEP: University of Connecticut, Marine Sciences and Technology Center – Notice of Tentative Determination Intent to Modify a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (Groton).

In a report made for the legislature, the Long Island Sound Assembly comprised of representatives from coastal town spelled out the importance of government support of the Clean Water Fund.

via Playing catch-up: state money to be used for clean water programs – Fairfield Citizen.

In “Climate Change Impacts in Connecticut,” the Nature Conservancy offers an alarming forecast. With a 1- to 4-foot rise in sea levels from Bridgeport to New London over the next several decades, coastal flooding and storm surges will increase, beaches and dunes will be damaged, if not destroyed, resulting in the loss of crucial natural habitat.

By 2100, the average temperatures will rise by 5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit, leading to more days per year over 90 degrees (from the current 13 days to as high as 32). Connecticut’s air pollution, already the worst in New England, will worsen. Slowly, as temps rise, the sugar maple and paper birch trees will disappear, and the diseased hulks will lead to a 20-percent increase in the risk of forest fires. The warming waters of the sound will further kill off the lobster population and striped bass will also head for cooler water.

via Global Warming is Coming to a Coastline Near You – New Haven Advocate.

Outdoor wood-burning furnaces, also known as an outdoor wood boilers, are essentially small, insulated sheds with short smokestacks. They burn wood that heats water that is then sent through underground pipes to heat a home or a building. Outdoor wood furnaces are not to be confused with indoor wood stoves, which are tested and certified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Outdoor wood furnaces emit thick smoke 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Each outdoor wood furnace emits the same amount of wood smoke as 22 indoor wood stoves. A recent study conducted by the Massachusetts Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences shows that, per unit, wood releases more climate-damaging gases than coal or oil. So now we know that these OWFs are not only harmful for all those families who live near them – but are also harmful for the environment.

Most outdoor wood furnaces employ very primitive combustion technology. As a result, they emit dense smoke that endangers the health of families and neighbors. The particles of wood smoke are so small that closed doors and windows cannot stop them from entering homes, even energy-efficient, weather-tight homes. OWFs literally smoke out their neighbors.

The use of outdoor wood furnaces has increased over the past few years, causing many complaints about their smoke and the fact that their smoke emissions are making people who live near them sick.

The Connecticut State Department of Environmental Protection’s Web site has a fact sheet that includes the question: “Are OWFs harmful to the environment and human health?” The answer given: “Yes, OWFs produce a lot of thick smoke, which in addition to being a nuisance to neighbors, has serious health and air pollution impacts. Smoke from OWFs contains unhealthy amounts of particulate matter, dioxin, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, hydrochloric acid, formaldehyde and other toxic air pollutants. Exposure to smoke from an OWF can increase adverse respiratory and cardiovascular symptoms. Exposure to other pollutants listed above is associated with a diverse range of harmful health effects, including asthmatic sensitivity, lung illnesses and cancer.”

Because the furnaces are in a closed shed, one cannot see what is being burned. Although they are designed for wood, owners can add yard waste, packing materials, construction debris, household garbage and tires without anyone knowing.

Burning those substances is illegal. However, there is no way to know what is being burned. If these other substances are burned, it will increase the toxic and hazardous air pollutants.

Different states have tried to protect people from these furnaces by passing regulations. However, none of the regulations have proven to be effective enough to protect health. Only the state of Washington has protected its citizens by banning them throughout their state. Some of the Connecticut towns that have now banned OWFs are: Granby, Tolland, Hebron, Woodbridge, South Windsor, Portland, Ridgefield, Norfolk and Haddam.

Because of their basic design, it is possible that the furnaces can never be made safe. Their emissions problems are complicated by the fact they cycle between oxygen-deficient and oxygen-rich burning. The smoke that leaves the stack, irrespective of height, lacks the heat necessary for it to rise or to be diffused. The smoke falls to the ground and the plume of smoke can travel at low levels for up to 1/2 a mile.

Breathing air containing wood smoke has many harmful effects. It can reduce lung function and increase asthma, emphysema, pneumonia and bronchitis. It can aggravate heart disease, irritate eyes, lungs, throat and sinuses, as well as trigger headaches and allergies. Its components are also carcinogenic.

Environment and Human Health Inc. receives no funding from businesses or corporations and joins the American Lung Association in New England asking that outdoor wood furnaces be banned until better technologies are found.

Nancy Alderman is president of Environment and Human Health Inc., 1191 Ridge Road, North Haven 06473. E-mail: info@ehhi.org.

NEW YORK, N.Y. (June 29, 2010) — The Natural Resources Defense Council filed a lawsuit last night against New York State for failing to take legally required steps this year to clean up one of the primary causes of pollution in its waterways — urban runoff.

“As summer starts, New Yorkers are heading to the beach, getting in kayaks and breaking out their fishing poles,” said Larry Levine, attorney at the NRDC. “But many of New York’s waterways — including Long Island Sound, our Atlantic beaches, and hundreds of lakes, rivers and streams across the state — are polluted from urban runoff and the state isn’t doing what is required to clean them up. Green roofs and other smart water practices are available today and will provide environmental and economic benefits that are simply not possible if we continue business as usual.”

Every five years, New York State must update a Clean Water Act permit for the operation of municipal storm sewer systems across the state, with the exception of New York City, which has its own permits. By law, the permit must reduce polluted urban runoff enough to achieve state water quality standards for fishing, swimming, shellfish harvesting and other uses in New York’s rivers, streams, lakes and coastal waters. NRDC’s lawsuit challenges the permit, issued in April, for failing to meet this requirement because in most cases it would allow runoff pollution to continue at existing levels rather than reducing it.

Additionally, the permit fails to ensure sufficient measures are taken to meet pollution reduction targets set years ago for certain bodies of water the state has prioritized for cleanup. These troubled bodies of water include: Long Island Sound, Peconic Bay and other coastal waters in Long Island, and Onondaga Lake near Syracuse.

NRDC filed the lawsuit in New York State Supreme Court in Westchester County yesterday, along with a coalition of environmental groups throughout the state, including: Riverkeeper, Waterkeeper Alliance, Soundkeeper, Save the Sound, Peconic Baykeeper, NY/NJ Baykeeper and Hackensack Riverkeeper.

As a result of two years of advocacy from NRDC and its coalition partners, the state has made positive advances in requiring smarter water practices for new development projects, collectively called “green infrastructure.” However, troubling loopholes in the permit will undercut the effectiveness of these practices.

Cleaning up waterways in the state is not only important for the environment and New Yorkers’ quality of life, it’s critical for our economy. Degraded waterways cost the state millions every year in lost revenue to its lucrative tourism, recreation and fishing industries. For example, NRDC’s annual beachwater quality report, Testing the Waters, consistently finds urban runoff as the primary cause of beach closings and advisory days in the state – costing Long Island more than $60 million in 2007. And the Long Island Sound alone contributes roughly $8.5 billion a year to the regional economy from boating, fishing, swimming and sight-seeing activities, which are closely tied to its water quality and suffer when it’s degraded.

Green infrastructure improvements are the cheapest and most effective way to clean up waterways. Green infrastructure uses vegetation and soils as natural sponges for rainwater — storing it or allowing it filter into the ground instead of washing pollution such as disease-causing bacteria, excessive nutrients that breed algae blooms, toxic pesticides and other chemicals to nearby waterways. These methods can take several forms — from green roofs to permeable pavement, rain gardens and roadside plantings — and working together provide a smarter, sustainable alternative to the pavement and pipes of the past that are failing communities today.

Green infrastructure prevents runoff and transforms rainwater into a valuable resource that helps to literally green urban and suburban landscapes. This not only cleans up waterways, it reduces flooding, cools and cleanses the air, reduces asthma and heat-related illnesses, saves on heating and cooling energy costs, beautifies neighborhoods, creates urban oases of open space, and generates landscaping and construction jobs.

In addition to New York, NRDC has been working to boost green infrastructure investments nationwide to improve water quality. This includes efforts to incorporate these practices in stormwater permits in California, Maryland, Virginia, Washington, D.C., and West Virginia. NRDC is also working to advance green infrastructure as a cost-effective solution to sewer overflow problems in cities such as Philadelphia, which has proposed a first-of-its-kind, 20-year plan for more than $1 billion of green infrastructure investments. In New York City, NRDC is also working to promote a similar approach to address the City’s 27 billion gallon-per-year sewage overflow problem.

The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, nonprofit organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC has 1.3 million members and online activists, served from offices in New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Beijing.

“Connecticut’s efforts to improve the quality of rivers, streams and Long Island Sound will receive a tremendous boost,” Gov. Rell said. “This new infusion of support for Connecticut’s Clean Water Fund (CWF) will make funding available for several local projects that are ready to move forward.”

“This is the highest level of funding in recent history, and it demonstrates Connecticut’s commitment to building upon the gains we have made in improving the quality of our waters over the last several decades. There is no doubt that by supporting these projects, this funding will make a real difference for the future of our state,” Rell said in a news release.

Under the CWF program, various categories of projects qualify for a different mix of state grants and loans. Loans offered under the program are at 2 percent interest for 20 years.

The state’s CWF, created in 1987, is administered by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and Office of the Treasurer. DEP maintains a priority list of projects and once Bond Commission approval is obtained the funding is allocated to top projects that are ready to move forward.

The types of projects covered by the CWF include:

• Construction, upgrades or expansion of local sewage treatment plants
• Expanding the capability of local sewage treatment plants to remove nitrogen from wastewater in order to protect the water quality of Long Island Sound
• Building sewers to solve community pollution problems
• Construction of either new sanitary sewers or new storm sewers to eliminate overflows caused by single pipe sewer systems that carry both sanitary sewage and storm water.

via Advocates cite need to protect Sound – The New Haven Register.

Branford, CT — Environment Connecticut was joined by State Senator Ed Meyer, Sandy Breslin of Audubon CT and Leah Schmalz of Save the Sound to release Protect Our Great Waters, a new report that outlines the regional, environmental, and economic significance of eight of America’s most treasured waterways.

Protect Our Great Waters, a new report from Environment Connecticut, lays out the specific problems facing each of the eight water bodies, as well as potential legislative solutions. The release of this report comes a week before a key vote in the Environment and Public Works committee in the U.S. Senate.

Long Island Sound is one of New England’s greatest treasures. Because of its ecological significance, Long Island Sound was named one of America’s “Great Waters” by Environment America.

The Sound provides habitat for more than 1,000 species of marine life, and its watershed is home to nearly 9 million people. Consequently, as we continue to allow excess sewage to spill into the Sound, we are putting this essential ecosystem at risk.

“Our waterways are invaluable resources for the recreation, tourism and fishing industries in Connecticut. We need them protected- not polluted,” according to Nancy Pyne, Field Associate with Environment Connecticut.

The Protecting Our Great Waters report found:

• The revenue generated from the recreation, tourism, and fishing industries in the Sound exceed $5.5 billion annually.
• In 2008, the dead zone in the Sound, which develops every year due to high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus from storm water and agricultural run-off, grew to 180 square miles.

“Unlike in the Gulf, we don’t have spill cam footage or front page New York Times photos of pollution in the Sound,” said Pyne. “What we do have is a dead zone off our coast that can grow to be more than seven times the size of Manhattan.”

According to a news release, the report describes legislation that Congress is currently considering- including a bill introduced by New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand called the Long Island Sound Restoration and Stewardship Act of 2009 (S.3119). According to Environment Connecticut, this bill would provide essential funding for restoration programs as well as strengthen pollution-controls throughout the Sound’s watershed. A package of similar bills designed to protect Long Island Sound and other great waters across the country will be voted on next week.

As Chairman of the General Assembly’s Environment Committee, Senator Ed Meyer has been a long-time advocate for protecting our waterways at the state-level. Senator Meyer stated, “I’m delighted to be joining this great cause to protect Long Island Sound. In the last several years, I have helped lead the fight to defeat Broadwater and the Islander East Pipeline as well as supported the clean water funds and the creation of buffer zones between our waterways and construction.”

“The States of Connecticut and New York have invested millions of tax-payer dollars in the restoration of Long Island Sound, and now is the time for the federal government to step up and match these strong state commitments,” said Sandy Breslin, Director of Governmental Affairs for Audubon Connecticut, the state chapter of the National Audubon Society. “In the face of emerging challenges like global warming and sea-level rise, and continuing threats like waste and storm water pollution, passage of the Long Island Sound Restoration and Stewardship Act of 2009 will set us on the right path toward ecological and economic health in the estuary. ”

“At a time when global attention is riveted on the suffering of birds and wildlife as a result of the Gulf Oil Spill, this legislation will ensure that Long Island Sound remains a true ‘Great Water’ for generations to come,” Breslin said.

“Maintaining America’s great waters is going to take new action and stronger measures than are currently in place,” Pyne said. “We are counting on the Senate to pass legislation not only for Long Island Sound, but for many of America’s great waters.”

Connecticut’s high energy costs hurt our economy by making our businesses less competitive and by reducing the amount of money residents have to spend on other in-state goods and services. Pollution from burning fossil fuels to generate electricity and heat our homes, businesses and institutions causes significant health problems and contributes to climate change that threatens our coastline, valuable natural resources, health, and economy.

The simplest, most cost-effective way to advance Connecticut’s human, environmental and economic health is to make our energy use as efficient as possible:

• Energy efficiency is the lowest cost, cleanest energy resource we can buy.
• Energy efficiency provides greater job creation than any other energy resource.
• Energy efficiency increases state economic productivity faster than any other energy resource

keep clicking for a large version of this graphic

First. The new governor should act immediately to prevent the ill-advised, eight-year $28.7 million-per-year raid on existing energy efficiency funding included in Governor Rell’s and the legislature’s recent deficit mitigation plan. If allowed to stand, this decision will divert $229.6 million of utility ratepayer funds targeted to efficiency assistance, requiring Connecticut consumers to pay $800 million more for energy, shrink the state’s economy by $1.3 billion and lose over 1,100 jobs.
Second. The new governor should commit to implement high value, common sense policies to put Connecticut back on track by maximizing investment in low-cost, clean energy efficiency.

• Provide the leadership needed to fully implement Connecticut’s critically important yet unmet requirement that all efficiency investments that are cost-effective and cheaper than buying electric generation be funded by the Department of Public Utility Control (DPUC) in accordance with Connecticut’s current energy law, Public Act 07-242.
• Extend this commitment to natural gas and require that the gas utilities invest in all cost-effective efficiency if available at lower cost than additional supply.
• Work with state and federal policy makers to deliver a stable and meaningful funding source for efficiency programs for oil and propane customers.

Electric Consumer Benefits. The benefits of investing in efficiency for the state are enormous. For every $1 invested in electric energy efficiency measures, consumers save $3-4. As a result, money saved on electric bills can be spent on other goods and services in Connecticut, translating into economic and job growth. Specifically, every dollar spent on efficiency measures rather than on buying electricity, results in $5-6 supporting non-energy related jobs because money not spent on energy is available to grow other businesses. That growth adds more than $5 in Gross State Product (GSP) for $1 spent on efficiency. Doubling the roughly $100 million annual investment Connecticut currently makes in electric efficiency would save consumers an additional $350 million on their bills and contribute over $500 million to the GSP each year and support more than 4,000 additional jobs. For this reason, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont have each recently committed to significantly increase efficiency investments. Connecticut should be a leader – not a follower.

Natural Gas and Heating Oil Consumer Benefits. Instituting comparable efficiency programs for natural gas and oil heat consumers has even greater economic, job and environmental benefit because there has been relatively little investment in efficiency for these fuels. Existing natural gas programs can easily be ramped up and funded within the current regulatory structure. Since oil dealers are unregulated, a specific funding stream needs to be established so that consumers can get the enormous potential health and economic benefits of reducing their fuel oil consumption. Funding options include advocating for federal authorization to collect a fee or adoption of a small state fee to fund programs.

Innovative Consumer Financing Options. In order to maximize utilization of all of these programs, the governor should advance development of innovative funding and repayment mechanisms such as on-bill and possibly property assessed financing, consistent with provisions of 2010 SB494, to make it easier for homeowners to take advantage of energy savings that come from upgrading equipment and building components. The Connecticut Energy Efficiency Fund (CEEF) programs provide the cash incentives or rebates that are needed to get consumers to actually make use of the programs. The CEEF programs are currently piloting residential finance programs, but a reliable source of low-interest capital is needed in order to assist customers in financing their portion of the upgrades and minimize the use of CEEF funds. Widely-available, low-interest financing would provide consumers with ways to help cover the up-front costs of larger efficiency upgrades.

In addition to the top priority commitments to maximizing investments in efficiency above, a new governor can take other, immediate steps directing our state agencies to take the following actions:

• Immediately direct the Department of Economic and Community Development to commit to the weatherization work in government-owned housing that is completely funded by federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act dollars and which was abruptly canceled by the Rell administration. Failure to do so will likely mean returning the money to the Department of Energy. The Office of Policy and Management should be directed to work with the Department of Social Services to ensure that the remaining weatherization funds are fully and effectively expended to benefit state residents and require an ongoing public accounting of their expenditure;
• Ensure that the Department of Public Safety promptly adopts strong energy efficient building codes including the requirements of PA 09-192, provides specific advanced training pertaining to the efficiency portion of the code, and institutes measures to ensure current low levels of compliance; ;
• Promptly adopt the latest efficiency standards for appliances and equipment in accordance with the 2010 HB 5217 (later incorporated into the vetoed SB 493). To date, the Office of Public Management has failed to carry out the mandate previously adopted PA 07-242, which has necessitated additional legislation to ensure that Connecticut residents are purchasing the most efficient equipment and appliances;
• Lead by example by requiring the Department of Public Works to contract for efficiency upgrades and retrofits, including combined heat and power (CHP), for all state facilities, with priority given to those under the Department of Administrative Services’ oversight, and provide incentives to all other state facilities by enabling such agencies or sub-entities to retain a majority of savings for use toward specifically designated agency initiatives; and
• Invigorate the Governor’s Steering Committee on Climate Change by requiring regular meetings that include agency heads and adoption of a timetable for state agencies to develop specific legislation or regulations consistent with the Global Warming Solutions Act’s mandates, and require agencies to include an evaluation of the climate impact of their actions and major proposals.
Building Efficiency. Within the broader energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction strategies, a specific focus on increasing the energy efficiency of new and existing buildings in the State could yield significant benefits to all classes of Connecticut consumers. A new governor’s specific legislative initiatives in this area could include:
• Requiring the use of the National Home Energy Label currently under development on information provided at the time of sale of all properties;
• Requiring energy use disclosure at the time of lease or rental when such is paid by the tenant;
• Authorizing municipalities to incentivize or adopt higher building efficiency standards than the State code; many other states have municipal, county or state “stretch” code options;
• Amending the State Building Code to prepare Connecticut for new technologies by requiring that new construction include rough plumbing and wiring to facilitate the simple and economical installation of solar hot water and charging of electric vehicles; and,
• Expanding incentives and support for additional cost-effective combined heat and power in the state—particularly for small to mid-size applications.

The new governor will have a unique opportunity to set Connecticut on a course that can significantly benefit the State’s economic and environmental future. As the chart below illustrates, not only is maximizing efficiency far cheaper than purchasing energy, but also the potential for increasing the amount of efficiency versus generation is enormous.

For further analysis of the economic benefits of efficiency investments, please see ENE’s Energy Efficiency: Engine of Economic Growth report at http://env-ne.org/mod_program/resource/edit/id/964. The Connecticut summary of that New England wide report is attached as Appendix A.

Contact: Jessie Stratton, Director of Government Relations jstratton@env-ne.org, 21 Oak Street, Suite 202, Hartford, CT 06106 860-246-7121.  

Headquarters: 8 Summer St., PO Box 583, Rockport, ME 04856 (207) 236-6470
Boston, MA / Providence, RI / Hartford, CT / Charlottetown, PEI, Canada
admin@env-ne.org / http://www.env-ne.org / Daniel L. Sosland, Executive Director

Environment Northeast is a nonprofit organization that researches and advocates innovative policies that tackle our environmental challenges while promoting sustainable economic development. ENE is at the forefront of state and regional efforts to combat global warming with solutions that promote clean energy, clean air and healthy forests.

Bringing polluters back within the law’s reach

In 1969, the abuse of America’s waterways hit a new low. Ohio’s Cuyahoga River—already infamous for the black oil that floated along its surface, the trash that lined its banks, and the complete absence of animal life within its waters—caught fire.

The incident, along with a Time magazine article that covered the fire and called the Cuyahoga the river that “oozes rather than flows,” helped spur the modern environmental movement, ultimately resulting in the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972. For decades, government officials and citizen activists have used the Clean Water Act to reduce industrial discharges into our waterways, large and small. When polluters balked, the EPA imposed tough penalties, compelling companies to clean up their act.

Progress at risk

Today, that progress is at risk due to two wrong-headed Supreme Court decisions brought forth by private developers and supported by other water polluters. In the words of a recent Environment Connecticut study, these anti-environmental decisions “shattered the fundamental framework of the Clean Water Act” by placing thousands of polluters beyond the law’s reach. In these decisions, a slim majority of Supreme Court justices ignored the Clean Water Act’s promise to protect all “waters of the United States.” Instead, the judges seized upon a single word—“navigable”—to call protections into doubt for one-fifth of the nation’s wetlands and more than half of America’s streams.

“We are, in essence, shutting down our clean water programs in some states,” said one EPA lawyer. “When companies figure out the cops can’t operate, they start remembering how much cheaper it is to just dump stuff in a nearby creek.”

An estimated 52 percent of our streams could now be open to unregulated dumping, threatening the drinking water for more than 2 million people across Connecticut. These streams and wetlands feed and protect major rivers, lakes and coastal waters, such as Long Island Sound. Environment Connecticut is calling on our congressional delegation to restore Clean Water Act protections. Yet a coalition of powerful polluters is pushing back. One polluter described the strategy: “If you can get Glenn Beck to say that government storm troopers are going to invade your property, farmers in the Midwest will light up their congressmen’s switchboards.”

When the 2010 legislative session kicked off in February, polluters and the Connecticut Business & Industry Association launched a full-scale assault on Connecticut’s clean water and clean air protections.

From bills making it easier for industry to emit air and water pollution, to an outrageous proposal that would eliminate Connecticut’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), polluters made it clear that rolling back the state’s environmental protections was their top priority at the capitol in 2010.

Fighting back, with our members

Connecticut has made strong progress toward cleaning up rivers, streams and Long Island Sound, preserving our landscape, and cutting smog and toxic air pollution—in large part due to the environmental protections that are now on the chopping block in Hartford.

That’s why Environment Connecticut’s staff sprang into action to stop the polluters’ rollbacks of our environmental protections that have made all of this progress possible.

We organized our allies to speak out against the environmental rollback bills during public hearings in February and March. In the hearings, we went toe-to-toe with the polluters’ lobbyists and urged the legislators to stand up for clean water and clean air.

We mobilized Environment Connecticut members across the state to contact their legislators to urge them to stop these rollbacks. In just one week, hundreds of Environment Connecticut members responded by e-mailing their legislators,
prompting one member of the Legislature’s Environment Committee to tell our staff, “We stirred up a hornet’s nest, didn’t we?”

In newspapers, on the radio and on the Internet, we worked to shine a light on some of the most outrageous rollbacks, and the polluters’ attempts to defend them by pretending that clean air and clean water protections were to blame for the economic recession. An editorial in the Hartford Courant said, “blaming environmental laws for the state’s economic woes is scape-goating.”

The battle continues

We uncovered the polluters’ attempts to defend these rollbacks. At the time this newsletter went to press, some of the most outrageous rollbacks (such as eliminating the DEP) had been stopped by the Legislature.

Unfortunately, other bills were still very much alive—including a sweeping bill approved by the Legislature’s Commerce Committee that would tie the hands of the DEP when it comes to limiting air pollution and pollution discharges into rivers and streams, protecting wetlands, and more.

Sadly, a “Task Force” convened by Gov. Jodi Rell at the behest of the Connecticut Business & Industry Association—and stacked with representatives of polluting industries—was poised to issue recommendations endorsing many of the polluters’ rollback proposals.

Building a solar future

America could harness the power of the sun to supply 10 percent of our electricity by 2030 if we adopt a set of relatively simple policy solutions, according to a new report that Environment Connecticut released this spring. Getting 10 percent of the nation’s power from solar energy would give the United States more energy than we produce at every nuclear power plant in the country.

Our report examines a wide variety of solar technologies and tools. Use of these technologies, while already occurring in places from Wal-Mart stores to Boston’s Fenway Park, could be greatly expanded through new investments in research and development, stronger renewable electricity standards and incentives, and green building codes.

As this issue went to press, our staff were working to urge policy-makers to expand Connecticut’s use of solar power. Legislation pending at the Capitol would result in enough electricity to power up to 90,000 homes statewide with new solar power.

New study promotes green buildings

Connecticut families could save more than $2,500 per year on their energy bills by 2050 if we start investing in the energy efficiency of our buildings today. Environment Connecticut released the findings in a March report entitled “Building Better:How High-Efficiency Buildings Will Save Money and Reduce Global Warming.”

Our researchers pored over government data to estimate the potential energy savings if we committed to dramatically improving the energy efficiency of new and existing buildings. It’s enough energy to power 235 million homes every year. Most buildings last for decades, so investing in energy efficiency today locks in savings for years. Thanks in part to our advocacy, states like Connecticut have recently updated or are considering updating their building codes. The Obama administration has provided $16 billion for efficiency-boosting weatherization programs.

“Let’s not waste any more time, any more energy, or any more money on outdated buildings,” added Environment Connecticut’s Nancy Pyne. “We need to invest in efficiency today so we can start building a better tomorrow.”

New auto emissions standards build on states’ work

New fuel economy and auto emission standards approved on April 1 by the Obama administration will reduce the nation’s oil dependence by 11.6 billion gallons by 2016—an amount equal to half the oil we import from Saudi Arabia each year.

These important standards were made possible in part by the grassroots advocacy and action of Environment Connecticut and our national federation—especially in the 14 states, including Connecticut, where our staff and citizen members helped win approval of state emission standards over the last decade. These state-level victories set the stage for the president’s announcement this spring.

Still, the new clean cars standard faces at least one last hurdle. Big Oil and their allies in Congress—led by Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska—have pushed to block the Obama administration’s efforts to limit global warming pollution, including the new clean cars standard.

via Connecticut’s environment under attack | Environment Connecticut.