Community Groups Make their Voices Heard in Forcing Exide Plant Closure in Frisco

Written by

exidesmokestacksGreenSource DFW
Julie Thibodeaux

When Shiby Mathew and her family moved to Frisco in 2008, they didn’t know that one of their neighbors would be a lead smelter. It wasn’t until Mathew was at her pediatrician’s office in 2010 with her two children that she learned about Exide Technologies, a battery recycling plant about two miles from her home.

Explaining that there were some concerns about the lead processing facility, her doctor suggested an in-office test on her children for lead. The facility was at the time under scrutiny for its high lead emissions.

When both of her children tested positive, Mathew suddenly found herself on the road to life as an environmental activist. By fall 2011, she was leading Frisco Unleaded, a grass-roots group whose goal became to shut Exide down.

This week, Mathew and other Frisco residents who fought the facility, were celebrating after a city announcement that Exide would cease operations by the end of the year. After years of effort, this was an outcome thanks in large part to the effort of local citizens like Shiby Mathew.

The Exide plant’s history dates back to the 1960s, when Frisco was a small farming community of about 1,500 people. In 1969, Exide began recycling batteries, a process that involves melting extracted lead. Since then, the city has grown to more than 115,000, and the plant is now surrounded by schools, businesses and luxury homes. The facility came under fire in recent years when it planned to expand operations without notifying the city and was unable to meet new EPA standards. Residents concerned about the growing research linking lead exposure to health risks and learning problems started asking questions.

Like Mathew, fellow Frisco Unleaded member Eileen Canavan didn’t know about the possible dangers of living near the plant when she moved to the community in 2007. The company is still listed in the chamber director as a battery recycling center.

“I thought ‘recycling’ — that sounds good,” she said.

She joined the movement for the first time last year after seeing a TV news report about the controversy surrounding the plant’s emissions. A lifelong Republican who supports big business and harbored skepticism about the EPA, Canavan suddenly found herself on the side of local environmental advocates opposed to the Exide facility.

By that time, public activism was already underway. In April 2011, Joy West, a former Frisco city councilwoman, and Val Maso, wife of Frisco Mayor Maher Maso, had launched Get the Lead Out of Frisco, a group that oversees leadfreefrisco.com, a website to keep the public informed. The website published a map showing the dozens of daycares, businesses and schools that lay within a 5-mile radius of the plant.

In August, Texas Campaign for the Environment began canvasing Frisco neighborhoods urging people to get involved. The organization collected nearly 1,500 comments from residents with concerns. Frisco Unleaded formed soon after. With support from Texas Campaign for the Environment and Downwinders at Risk, a DFW-based environmental group devoted to air quality concerns, they helped keep the issue in the spotlight. Jim Schermbeck, director of Downwinders at Risk, advised them to shift their focus from pressuring Exide to comply with federal standards to shutting the plant down.

Members attended every public meeting, met with city council members and sent out flyers to homeowners. In October, they hosted a canned food drive with a goal of collecting 2,000 cans, equal to the number of pounds of lead released from Exide’s smokestacks annually. At one public meeting, members, along with TCE staff, showed up wearing smokestacks on their heads.

Schermbeck believes their participation in the discourse influenced city leaders to take more aggressive action.

“There’s no doubt this group reframed the debate,” he said.

Frisco Mayor Maso said the city welcomed public involvement from groups like Frisco Unleaded as well as individuals.

“None of us are as smart as all of us,” he said. “We received a lot of feedback from residents. That helped us ask some of those questions and look at some of the angles.”

At the end of May, after initially starting a legal process to close the plant, the city announced an agreement with Exide to cease operations this year. As part of the negotiation, the city of Frisco is purchasing 180 acres surrounding the facility for $45 million dollars, with the hopes of reselling part of it for commercial use and possibly developing it for municipal activities and a park after cleaning up the site.

Zac Trahan, program director of Texas Campaign for the Environment’s DFW office, views the announcement with “guarded optimism.”

“It’s good news but we really need to know more,” he said.

He urges Frisco residents to stay on top of cleanup efforts and ensure it’s done right.

“We can’t leave it to Exide. We can’t leave it to bureaucrats. We want a lot more public participation and citizen involvement.”

While Canavan said she is still concerned about lead buried on the Exide site, she chalked up a victory when she heard the plant was closing.

“If one child is helped by this, then my time and the group’s time is worth it.”

Although Mathew is relieved that the plant will no longer be operating, she is skeptical whether she can ever feel safe living around the site. She and her family plan to move. However, she feels empowered by the outcome.

“When there’s a small group of voices, it still has an effect regardless of how small the group is,” she said. “Eventually, people will listen.”

Environmentalists wary of potential natural-gas drilling plans in Dallas

Written by

trinitymap1Dallas Morning News
Randy Lee Loftis

A week before the Dallas City Council takes a step toward deciding how to regulate natural-gas drilling, advocates of tight rules pointed Tuesday to a map that shows parkland and Trinity River flood plains included in a city lease to one gas company.

The inclusion of park land and environmentally sensitive flood plains in potential drilling plans has set up another round in a two-year fight over how tough the city will be on gas drilling and its industrial accompaniments.

“Now that we see this map, it’s clear that the stakes are high,” said Zac Trahan, Dallas-Fort Worth program director for Texas Campaign for the Environment.

“It doesn’t speak well of our vision for the future. Do we want to create a world-class park system … or do we want to create a river of gas wells?”

David Biegler, chairman and CEO of Dallas-based Southcross Energy and a member of Dallas’ gas-drilling task force, said those concerns were overblown, in part because of mandatory city reviews of any proposal.

“Every single circumstance is different,” he said.

The gas-drilling task force is set to present its recommendations to council members May 16. The group met for six months to shape a new ordinance that would govern gas exploration, drilling, hydraulic fracturing, waste handling, traffic and noise.

Last-minute reversals as the task force finished its work in February signaled more access for drillers to parkland and flood plains — provisions that made their way into the new draft ordinance written by the city attorney’s office.

Until Tuesday, the possibility of drilling on city-owned land was largely abstract, with only general ideas of where many leased tracts might be. Now city staff members have translated the biggest lease into a map and are working on maps showing two other leases.

The finished map, covering a lease to Fort Worth-based Trinity East Energy LP, paints a drillable swath through woodsy land on the east side of the Elm Fork of the Trinity River. The lease continues south into the Trinity’s main stem, west of downtown.

It also shows leased land in some tracts of city park land, not all of them developed. The city is not mapping leases granted by private owners.

A lease doesn’t mean drilling will occur, but it’s necessary before a company gets a specific-use permit from the city and a drilling permit from the state.

With current low prices for natural gas, many leases on private land in Dallas County have expired after three years when the company decides not to drill. The Dallas city leases date from 2008 and were to expire last year, but the city and the companies renewed them.

Even without any drilling, the city received $19 million for the Trinity East lease and $14.7 million from ExxonMobil subsidiary XTO. Companies will also pay the city a percentage of the income if they drill wells and produce gas.

Oak Cliff resident Raymond Crawford, who has campaigned for strict rules on drilling, said letting drillers into park land or flood plains relaxes the city’s existing rules from 2007.

“They just kind of turned the gas ordinance on its head,” Crawford said.

Biegler said some land had no public use. “Not every bit of parkland has swing sets where children play,” he said.

Floodplains would face no new risk, Biegler said, considering that the city already allows uses such as garbage dumps.

“You’re not going to have an invasion of the flood plain,” he said.

The long-term recycling deal

Written by

Photo: Houston ChronicleOffthekuff.com
Charles Kuffner
Original article here

I noticed this when it was posted last week but didn’t give it much thought at the time.

There’s a 20-year no-bid contract on today’s City Council agenda.

That’s legal because it’s an amendment to an existing contract, not a new contract.

But it’s still got Councilman Ed Gonzalez‘s attention. He tagged it last week so that it could not be voted on until today. And today, City Hall sources say, Gonzalez will propose sending it back to the administration to have the recycling contract bid competitively.

“The markets are emerging and the value of the commodity is emerging,” Councilman C.O. Bradford said Tuesday, and that emerging value is increasing. “So why would we lock ourselves into a 20-year deal?”

Environmentalists are also questioning the wisdom of the contract.

“We think it makes common sense that it should be bid because you’re going to get a better deal for Houston taxpayers if you have an open, competitive process,” said Zac Trahan of the Texas Campaign for the Environment.

The effort by CM Gonzalez to send this back was successful. Trahan emailed me later with some background on all that happened. From his email:

Houston had a short-term contract (through 2012) with Abitibi when they owned the facility, then WMI bought the recycling center, and then city officials begun working on a long-term recycling contract extension with WMI. We found out about this contract about two weeks ago, and together with allies at the SEIU Texas State Council, the Apollo Alliance and the Houston Sierra Club, we’ve been working to delay its adoption and make sure it goes through a competitive “request for proposal” process instead. At today’s City Council meeting it seems we were successful.

Of course, our organizations have spent the past couple weeks communicating with the Solid Waste Management Department, Mayor Parker and all City Council Members about this contract. We spoke at length with Sustainability Director Laura Spanjian. We sent email alerts to our members urging them to contact Houston officials. Our phone-banking staff asked our members to participate by calling Mayor Parker and other Council Members directly.

However, we also reached out to other waste and recycling companies to gauge their level of interest in submitting a formal proposal. Two companies – Texas Disposal Systems, out of Austin, and Greenstar, here in Houston – have expressed interest so far. These companies both sent letters to Mayor Parker and the Council Members communicating that they would indeed bid and compete for the contract if given the opportunity. A representative from Greenstar even attended today’s city council meeting to testify to this effect. During the meeting Council Member Gonzalez made a motion to send the contract back to the administration to go through the RFP process, and that motion prevailed. We see this as a victory for recycling and a victory for Houston taxpayers, because an open, competitive bidding process will certainly result in the best recycling contract and the best deal for Houston residents.

Of course this issue is far from settled. We’re only beginning our work. Next we must ensure the RFP itself is designed with the right criteria in mind – not just that Houston officials should go with the “lowest bidder,” but that we should identify the best overall recycling program for our money. Then we must work to see that the best proposal really is selected, and to defeat efforts by any company or companies attempting to use their connections at city hall to influence the process. We’ll keep you posted as this process moves forward.

Here’s a copy of a letter that was sent to Mayor Parker by Trahan and folks from the Apollo Alliance, the Sierra Club, and the SEIU Texas State Council. I’m glad to see that this deal will now be competitively bid, and I think Trahan and his colleagues are correct to think in terms of the deal in more than just lowest-cost terms. For example, according to that blog post the deal that had been in the works with WMI called for them to give the city 15,000 big green recycling carts this year and 1,500 carts a year thereafter. That sounds like a lot until you realize that as of February there were 270,000 households serviced by Houston’s Solid Waste department that do not have the big bins. I’d like to see the speed at which the companies would get these wheely-bins to the public be part of the bid evaluation. For that matter, I’d like to see what ideas these guys have for expanding the recycling program beyond the 375,000 households that Solid Waste serves. Do they have any thoughts about getting apartments, office buildings, restaurants, or other commercial establishments involved? This is a 20-year deal, we should be thinking big. Think about what you’d like to see and let your Council members know.

Group, council member seek regulations in Dallas gas drilling

Written by

DMNfracking2WFAA News Dallas
Gary Reaves

DALLAS – While drilling for gas in the Barnett Shale has made some people rich, others have claimed it has made them ill. The drilling hasn’t started in Dallas, yet. However, it’s coming soon, bringing along controversy over how to regulate the drilling.

This week, five city council members pushed to get a much talked about gas drilling task force on the agenda for next month. Now, one group of environmentalists has taken to foot in their attempt to ramp up the pressure.

Lake Highlands is on the opposite side of the city from where gas drilling is planned. Staffers from the Texas Campaign for the Environment have hit the area, going door to door. They’re looking for supporters willing to pressure council members into creating tough regulations on gas drilling.

The group wants wells at least 1,000 feet from homes, schools, businesses and water supplies.

“We’re asking for meaningful air and water monitoring,” said Jeffery Jacoby, with the Texas Campaign for the Environment. “We’re asking for the city, on the company’s dime, to hire an inspector like many cities across the metroplex have done.”

Right now, the separation is 300 feet. WFAA reached out to several major drillers on the issue, but none responded officially, although, one spokesman said the companies like the law just like it is.

“I’m not hearing a lot from the industry,” said city council member Angela Hunt.

She is pushing for a task force of citizens and experts to recommend the right regulations

“What are the setbacks?” she said of questions she wants answered. “What is appropriate? Is this a technology we want to see in an urban environment?”

In Lake Highlands, support for that seems easy to find.

“I would not raise my kids next to a gas station,” one mother said. “I do not want them near a gas well.”

Say Goodbye to Single-Use Shopping Bags in March 2013

Written by

austinbagbanKUT News Austin
Nathan Bernier

Austin City Council voted at 2 o’clock this morning to ban plastic and paper shopping bags starting March 2013.

City council was scheduled to hold a public hearing on the proposal at 4 p.m. Thursday, but with a busy agenda, council didn’t get to the bag ban hearing until midnight. Most speakers who stayed until then supported the bag ban, but some urged council not to vote at such a late hour.

“I think it’s really hard to make a decision at 12:41 a.m. and I’m going to tell you, I’m not in my best speaking self,” Jenn Studebaker told council. “Many of the people that came with me are not here. I think there’s a problem with that. You called a public hearing at midnight.”

But council appeared to have already made up its mind to pass the bag ban. The only squabbling was over specifics, like whether or not there should be a one-year transition period during which retailers would be required to charge for single-use bags.

By 2 a.m., the measure before council had been amended to become one of the most expansive bag ban proposals anywhere in the country. It passed unanimously, 7-0.

Council wound up stripping the transitional period from the original proposal. The full ban on single-use plastic and paper bags takes effect March 1, 2013.

Environmentalists erupted in cheers after the vote.

“I am ecstatic that Austin has finally passed a comprehensive ordinance that will cut down on the use of single-use bags both paper and plastic,” Texas Campaign for the Environment director Robin Schneider told KUT News.

The bag ban had the tentative support of some retailers, including H-E-B, which sent a representative to council to propose some slight changes. But Texas Retailers Association president Ronnie Volkening was not happy with the outcome of the vote.

“This ordinance is moving us towards a regressive bag ban that will be borne disproportionately by low income citizens, by families, by tourists coming to visit the city,” Volkening said in an interview.

The city plans to conduct a marketing campaign over the next year to let people know what’s coming in March 2013. And while other Texas cities like Brownsville, Fort Stockton and South Padre Island have all adopted their own versions of a ban, Austin is now the largest city in Texas to have prohibited the use of single-use shopping bags.

Lovell: Nuclear energy? No, it’s a bad deal for Austin

Written by

STNPAustin American-Statesman Op-Ed
Trevor Lovell, Public Citizen

The siren song of supposedly cheap, clean, reliable nuclear energy has finally come to Austin in the form of an op-ed from Juan Garza, former Austin Energy general manager and now an NRG executive.

It’s not much of a surprise to hear Garza pleading with Austinites to buy in since the project he’s selling has been on life-support for over a year, and it shouldn’t be of much concern because Austin is too smart and transparent to take such a bad deal.

Let’s start with the basics: NRG’s deal is too expensive and way too risky. A few things worth noting:

NRG has asked for a pre-emptive bailout — it wants the Department of Energy to provide an $8.5 billion loan so that if the project goes south, American taxpayers will be on the hook.

The estimated cost of the reactors tripled from 2006 to 2009. It started at $5.2 billion and just over three years later had risen to $18.2 billion.

NRG ended up in a $32 billion lawsuit with San Antonio over this same project just last year. San Antonio’s City Council was being asked to approve a $200-plus million payment for the project without being told that the estimated cost had risen another $4 billion.

No U.S. civilian nuclear reactor has been built on time and on budget in the past 40 years — ask folks who were here in the 1980s what it was like when our first two nuclear reactors came in eight years late and six times over budget.

Despite all of this, NRG is sending Garza to visit City Council members to sell an advance contract for power from two unbuilt nuclear reactors. All signs point to a minimum price of 8.5-cent per kilowatt-hour (9 to 11 cents is more likely), far above either the 5.1-cent per kilowatt-hour Austin Energy spends to generate its own electricity or the 3- to 4-cent per kilowatt-hour cost for electricity from the ERCOT grid.

Any guesses who will end up covering the difference? That’s right — you!

Last year, the mayor appointed a task force with members representing the public, the environment and local industries to look at our options for electricity. Based on an independent analysis by PACE Consulting, a firm the city hired, the mayor’s task force concluded that buying power from these nuclear reactors was far too expensive.

Instead of nuclear power, the task force recommended keeping bills low using energy efficiency, renewables, and gas while ramping down our share of the Fayette coal plant. The City Council, in turn, took huge amounts of public testimony and voted for such a plan with one caveat: that an “affordability matrix” be added. That plan was finally approved last week.

Now for some background on NRG. I’d like to ask my fellow Austinites to indulge me by checking out the newspapers from San Antonio starting in October 2009 through February 2010.

Around that time, San Antonio officials were being misled by NRG and top executives at the city’s own utility who were trying to force another spin on this project through. It ended in a torrent of exposed corruption and accusation, and heads rolled: The interim general manager of the city utility and the board chairwoman were both forced to resign in disgrace.

They want a pre-emptive bailout. They misled their last municipal partner about this same project and got sued. Their bond rating has slipped to “speculative,” and they’re trying to circumvent an electric generation planning process for which Austin has been loudly praised.

Does NRG sound like a company we want to do business with? It blew its deal with San Antonio, so now it’s come to us with promises of cheap nuclear power and coal capture technology, neither of which exist. The choice is obvious.

The Austin public is highly engaged, and the foolishness of this project will become abundantly apparent, just as it did in San Antonio. People who want to learn more can visit SolarSiNuclearNo.org.

Lovell is the Nuclear Program Coordinator at Public Citizen’s Texas office.

EPA chief calls for e-waste export ban

Written by

estewardrecyclingE-Scrap News
Staff Report

Speaking at last week’s 2010 Global E-Waste Crime Group Meeting, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson called for stronger legislation governing the export of scrap electronics.

The three-day meeting, hosted by INTERPOL, the U.K. Environment Agency and the U.S. and Swedish Environmental Protection Agencies, attracted more than 100 attendees from 21 countries, and over a dozen non-governmental organizations, to offer feedback on and learn about the draft project of the international law enforcement agency.

Speaking on the first day of the meeting, Jackson called for a two-pronged attack on illegal exports, saying that “through a combination of legislation and regulation, we know that we can create incentives to spur the design of better, safer electronics … [and] help limit harmful exports that are happening under the name of legitimate reuse, refurbishment and recycling.”

Representatives supporting re-use, and those seeking to ban exports of non-working electronics, both cautiously applauded the EPA chief’s statements.

“It was very good to see the enforcement agencies from Interpol begin to meet and learn the economics behind used electronics exports,” said Robin Ingenthron, president of the World Reuse, Repair and Recycling Association, in an e-mail to E-Scrap News. “Jackson’s recognition of the value of re-use was evident from her praise of a re-use program in Westerly, Rhode Island and the export of computers to Cameroon for re-use. I am confident that ‘fair trade’ — which is the continued export of working and repairable equipment without toxics along for the ride — can be a part of the solution.”

Jackson additionally noted that e-waste “too often ends up illegally overseas in developing countries, like India and Africa, where labor is cheaper and workers are often less safe,” further saying that the U.S. “can take steps toward ratifying the Basel Convention.”

“Jackson’s call for legislation to limit exports of e-waste to developing countries including those exported under the name of reuse is very promising,” Jim Puckett, executive director of Basel Action Network, told E-Scrap News. “If EPA is finally turning the corner from promoting free trade in toxic waste, and now recognizes that this trade not only outsources poisons to developing countries but outsources good green jobs from this country as well, we lend our full support and applause.”

SMU professor Al Armendariz named EPA region administrator

Written by

armendarizDallas Morning News
Randy Lee Loftis

Dr. Al Armendariz, a Southern Methodist University engineering professor who has sharply criticized federal and state regulators for not cracking down on North Texas polluters, was named on Thursday as the Environmental Protection Agency’s new regional administrator over Texas and four adjacent states.

Armendariz, 39, an El Paso native, has found fault with Texas’ efforts on Dallas-Fort Worth smog, saying that the state’s programs did too little and that the EPA erred in approving them.

In particular, he has targeted the giant cement plants in Midlothian, south of Dallas, and natural gas exploration in the Barnett Shale region west of Dallas, arguing in each case that Texas regulators were too lax on major pollution sources.

As the top environmental official in the nation’s oil and chemical heartland, Armendariz will help carry out the Obama administration’s policies on curbing global warming, enforcing federal laws on air and water quality and toxic waste, and pushing for overhauls of Texas’ air pollution rules.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, who has bluntly criticized some Texas environmental programs for not meeting federal requirements, offered Armendariz the job, and he accepted. The post is officially a presidential appointment, but it does not require Senate confirmation, so Armendariz can start work immediately.

Armendariz’s appointment is the clearest sign yet that the EPA under President Barack Obama will take a more active role, especially in Texas, than it did under President George W. Bush.

Since Obama took office in January, the EPA has rejected a copper smelter in El Paso that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality had approved after years of controversy, and it threatened to strip the commission of its authority to issue federal air permits.

Jackson, an Obama appointee, has met with Texas environmentalists and community activists to hear their long-standing complaints that the state is easy on polluters. Texas officials and industries have rejected those assertions.

“I think the president and Lisa Jackson have clearly put the EPA on a different track,” Armendariz said Thursday. He cited moves toward controlling greenhouse gas emissions, tightening rules on toxic substances, and renewing efforts to protect communities, especially low-income, minority, and border areas, from pollution.

“I think this is part of a significant change in emphasis and priority in the government,” Armendariz said. “I’m thrilled to be a part of it.”

The regional EPA post has been vacant since former Arlington Mayor Richard Greene, a Bush administration appointee, left in January. The EPA’s Region 6 oversees programs in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana and New Mexico, but in the EPA’s 39 years, each regional chief has been a Texan.

Other candidates included John Hall, an industry lobbyist in Austin and former Texas environmental agency chairman; and Ron Curry, New Mexico’s environmental secretary.

Texas environmentalists lobbied Jackson in person in support of Armendariz, arguing that the region needed an environmental advocate with strong scientific credentials.

“Dr. Armendariz is exactly the kind of person you want to have this job but seemingly never gets it,” said Jim Schermbeck of Downwinders at Risk, a North Texas environmental group for which Armendariz served as a consultant on Midlothian cement kiln emissions.

Armendariz is an associate professor at SMU’s Lyle School of Engineering, where he has taught environmental and civil engineering. SMU said he would keep his faculty appointment while serving at the EPA.

“We are thrilled that Al Armendariz’s work in improving our living and working environments has been recognized by the president and EPA administrator,” SMU engineering Dean Geoffrey Orsak said. “Al is an extraordinarily talented, insightful, and balanced engineer who will make a significant contribution to our nation and region.”

Dr. Bryan W. Shaw, Gov. Rick Perry’s appointee as commission chairman, also congratulated Armendariz, but he also foreshadowed what could be a tense relationship. The agencies are wrestling over federal demands that the state rewrite rules that the EPA says allow illegally high emissions from many Texas chemical plants, refineries and factories.

Armendariz’s engineering studies have targeted what he called lax commission regulation of toxic and smog-causing emissions. In addition, he advocates steps to slow global warming, while Shaw–on leave from his post as an agricultural engineering professor at Texas A&M – has said climate change science is unsettled and carbon regulations unwarranted.

“I look forward to working with [Armendariz] on our common goals of protecting the health and environment of the people of Texas,” Shaw said. “While he has a long history as an environmental activist, I hope Dr. Armendariz recognizes that this position is too important to be used as a podium for environmental activism. I urge Dr. Armendariz to use sound science in his decisions.”

Armendariz said he based his critiques of Texas programs on science.

“My previous criticisms were never personal,” he said. “They were grounded in what I felt were legitimate disagreements about policy issues. Insofar as we can build new bridges and work collaboratively on projects, I certainly want to do so.”

Surprise Veto of TV Recycling Bill Turns Heads

Written by

perryvetoSan Antonio Current
Queblog

Since the 81st regular legislature closed up shop June 1, environmental organizations here waited to hear Governor Rick Perry say yes and officially sign HB 821, otherwise known as the TV TakeBack Bill, into law – or at least let it slide by unconfronted. The TV TakeBack Bill was based on the 2007 Computer TakeBack Bill (HB 2714), and it would have created a widespread recycling system less reliant on taxpayer dollars, according to Jeff Jacoby, Director of the Texas Campaign for the Environment’s Dallas office. Everyone was ready for the yes.

The digital transition that took place on June 12 was one motivator for the creation of this bill because consumers are expected to dump their old TVs en masse. “Ninety-nine million TVs are currently sitting in storage in the United States. If you look at the number proportionally, eight million TVs are sitting and gathering dust in Texas,” Jacoby said. “With the switch, we estimate about 3 million TVs could be sent to the landfill.” Even so, not everyone decided to dump their TVs.

But Perry vetoed the bill, June 19. Before the TCE found out about the veto at 4 p.m. that Friday, “all indications from his staff were that he was OK with the bill,” Jacoby said.

“At the end of May, that’s when we got a very strong message that the Governor would be fine with this,” Robin Schneider, TCE Executive Director, said.

The office of Representative David Leibowitz seemed similarly confident of Perry’s support. Prior to the veto announcement, Rob Borja, Leibowitz’s Chief of Staff, noted that Perry signed the Computer TakeBack Bill, so there was a high probability he would sign this bill as well.

Rep. Leibowitz himself was stunned at the announcement. “It did nothing but help people, then out of the blue, he vetoes it. It absolutely boggles my mind,” he said. “Of all the missteps and all the screw-ups in this session, this is probably the most tragic.”

The bill’s author, Leibowitz, is taking the veto personally. “It’s as if somebody said ‘Who cares about your hundreds of man hours?’” he lamented.

Governor Perry’s statement concerning his veto was full of reasons why this bill was not beneficial for Texas – many of which are seen as contradictory by the TCE and Leibowitz’s office. “Although House Bill No. 821 attempts to make it easier for consumers to recycle old televisions, it does so at the expense of manufacturers, retailers and recyclers by imposing onerous new mandates, fees and regulations,” his statement said.

Schneider assessed the statement as “strange, because these groups worked with us [to create the bill]. The retailers were not necessarily for it, but they were not opposed.”

“The first draft of the bill that we worked off of, which was provided by the television industry, included these fees,” Borja said. “The industry said the $2,500-a-year fees were fine. It was a trade-group and TV-manufacturer proposal.”

“All the different perspectives kept meeting until we came up with a compromise everyone agreed on,” said Leibowitz. “It was very unique in the sense that all these different groups worked together . . . I know we even met with a Baptist organization.”

Schneider received no better answer when she confronted Perry the morning after the veto. “The weird thing was he said he vetoed the bill because it was an industry-backed bill. He said it was backed by GE,” she said. “What he failed to mention was that the [Computer TakeBack bill he passed] was made by computer manufacturers like Dell.”

Perry recommends “that the next legislature look at this issue and maybe look at ways to make [the TV TakeBack Bill] like the computer recycling bill,” Perry’s Press Secretary, Allison Castle, said.

Yet after looking at Perry’s statement, participants in the creation of the bill were again confused. “[Gov. Perry] put it in the veto message that the bill needed to be more like the Computer TakeBack Bill,” Borja said, “but that was the bill this was based on.”

Even with the veto, the fight is not yet over. “Well we can’t override a veto if we are not in session, and the governor has not called a special session,” Leibowitz said. He believes the Governor might have waited until the session ended on purpose, but he said “[I am] working on a response to his veto right now.”

Eco-activists push for TV recycling at CES

Written by

zombiesCESKVBC News Las Vegas
Jerry Brown

As you filled out your holiday list of new electronic gadgets you just had to have, did you give any thought to what happens to old, outdated equipment?

Thursday at CES, the problem of television recycling was being addressed. The emphasis is on cutting edge technology, such as Sony television sets which are eco-friendly and use 40 percent less power.

Outside the electronics show, activists turned the spotlight on another timely question: what happens to old TVs that aren’t recycled? Dressed as analog TV zombies, they paraded down Convention Center Drive en route to a press conference.

“After the digital TV switch, a lot of people are going to say ‘no one’s going to want my old analog TV, I need to get rid of this,’ and we expect to see an e-waste tsunami of electronic trash headed for our landfills,” Robin Schneider with Texas Campaign for the Environment, said.

Some companies, such as Sony, Samsung, and LG, already have recycling programs, and they’re aiming high: they want to have recycling centers nearby for 95 percent of America’s population.

“Ultimately we want to have a recycling center within five miles of at least 95 percent of the American population,” Schneider explained.

Activists targeted companies like Mitsubishi, Philips, JVC, and Hitachi, which, they claim, have yet to address the recycling problem.

There is good news for advocates of recycling. At the CES convention, industry giants Toshiba, Panasonic, and Sharp announced that they are starting a national recycling program for analog TVs.