Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 4/25/16
-
(ACC Blog) What Makes Polystyrene so Different from Styrene? It’s a Matter of Chemistry
Apr 25, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By American Chemistry
On April 22, 2016, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) listed the substance styrene on California’s Proposition 65 list, pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 that requires the state to publish a list of substances known to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm. -
Environmentalists Urge Wider Water Sampling Of PFOA
Apr 25, 2016 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists are urging EPA to broaden its sampling of water systems to better determine how widespread the non-stick chemical perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) is in water supplies across the country, and calling on the agency to use production and disposal data to identify localities that may be at risk of contaminated water supplies. -
Striking a Commonsense Balance
Apr 25, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.)
The way we generate, transmit and use energy underscores everything we do on a daily basis. Stable and reliable energy allows our society to grow and prosper while supporting the innovation that keeps prices affordable and our environment clean. -
EPA Air Chief McCabe to Address Meeting of State Regulators
Apr 25, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
Air regulators from 18 states will gather in Columbia, S.C., later this week, and U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan will be a central topic. -
Search Finds Super-Emitters of Methane and Hydrocarbons
Apr 25, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
Certain oil and natural gas sites are known super-emitters of methane and hydrocarbons. -
New York Denies Critical Permit for Natural Gas Pipeline
Apr 22, 2016 | The New York Times
By Associated Press
New York environmental regulators have rejected a critical permit needed for a major natural gas pipeline project, saying the project fails to meet standards that protect hundreds of streams, wetlands and other water resources in its path. -
Pennsylvania Voters Torn Over Calls for a Fracking Ban
Apr 25, 2016 | The New York Times
By Reuters
For some Democratic voters in Pennsylvania, Tuesday's primary election will be more than just a chance to pick preferred candidates for public office - it will be a mini-referendum on the future of the state's downtrodden fracking industry. -
States, Industry Tout Waste-To-Energy Efforts But Equity Concerns Linger
Apr 25, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Anthony Lacey
States and waste reuse industry groups are touting the potential economic and environmental benefits of promoting waste-to-energy efforts such as reusing coal ash or capturing landfill methane emissions, but officials say consulting with equity communities nearby on such projects will be a major factor for their viability. -
Investing in 21st Century Energy Infrastructure
Apr 25, 2016 | The Hill
By Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.)
The energy sector is undergoing significant change. Some lawmakers would have you believe it’s the result of too much regulation, but that’s not the case. New technology, coupled with changes in markets, shifting consumer demand and improved efficiency, are all transforming the energy sector. -
Russian Cybersecurity Giant Sets Sights on U.S. Energy Infrastructure
Apr 25, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The world's largest private cybersecurity firm is tackling new vulnerabilities and batting down old rumors in a bid for U.S. control system customers. -
States Fault EPA On Data, 'Background' Ozone In Legal Fight Over NAAQS
Apr 25, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
A coalition of 10 states in a new legal filing faults EPA's decision to tighten its ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) from 75 parts per billion (ppb) down to 70 ppb, saying the rule is based on a “paucity” of scientific data and ignores natural “background” ozone levels that could make the standard impossible to meet. -
Researchers Tout 'Dynamic' Approach To Ozone, SO2 Emissions Mitigation
Apr 25, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Researchers funded by EPA grants are exploring alternative "dynamic" methods for industry and states to control ozone and sulfur dioxide (SO2) pollution by requiring pollution cuts over short time periods, including a hybrid approach that would "layer" such short-term controls with existing EPA emissions trading programs.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Blog) What Makes Polystyrene so Different from Styrene? It’s a Matter of Chemistry
Apr 25, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By American Chemistry
On April 22, 2016, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) listed the substance styrene on California’s Proposition 65 list, pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 that requires the state to publish a list of substances known to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm.
There should be no confusion between styrene and polystyrene; they are two different materials. Although the names sound similar and may be confusing, styrene and polystyrene are different and have different properties.
Styrene is a liquid and is used in the manufacture of many materials in several applications like high-performance plastics, car tires, carpet backing, and reinforced fiberglass composites such as those used in bathtubs, automobile body panels, and wind turbines – and polystyrene. Polystyrene is used to make a variety of important consumer products, such as foodservice containers, cushioning for shipping delicate electronics, and insulation. Once these products are manufactured, they are inert.
The food safety benefits of plastic foodservice packaging including polystyrene are undisputed. At the same time, the plastics used in contact with food are carefully regulated. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration regulates the safety of food contact packaging and has approved the use of polystyrene since 1958, as have other governments around the world. The National Toxicology Program (NTP) agrees that the safety of polystyrene in foodservice is not in question – pointedly saying that the safety of styrene is “not an issue.”
And, styrene’s listing under Prop 65 doesn’t change the decades of research that demonstrate polystyrene’ssafe use in foodservice packaging.
For more information on the benefits and safety of polystyrene, click here.
Two different chemistries
Polystyrene
The Basics: When styrene molecules become linked together into a polymer, polystyrene is created. Polystyrene is an inert plastic that can be used to make many products, such as polystyrene foam used to make disposable plates, cups, and other foodservice packaging products.
How It’s Used: Polystyrene is used in many applications. One application is foodservice – polystyrene foam is a clean and affordable option to insulate food and to keep it fresher for a longer period of time. Polystyrene foam is a lightweight material, about 95% air, with very good insulation properties and is used in many types of products, such as cups that keep your beverages hot or cold. Polystyrene foam is also widely used in cushioning or protective packaging that helps keeps computers and appliances safe during shipping. Most people incorrectly use the name STYROFOAM® to refer to polystyrene; STYROFOAM® is a registered trademark of The Dow Chemical Company that refers to its branded building material products.
Styrene
The Basics: Styrene is a clear, colorless liquid that is a component of materials used to make thousands of everyday products. Styrene occurs naturally in many foods, such as cinnamon, beef, coffee beans, peanuts, wheat, oats, strawberries and peaches. Synthetic styrene, which is chemically identical to naturally occurring styrene, is manufactured as a chemical building block for materials used to make packaging, insulation, automobiles, electronics, boats, and recreational vehicles.
How It’s Used: For more than 70 years, styrene has been used a chemical building block used to manufacture many familiar products, such as food containers, rubber tires, building insulation, carpet backing and reinforced fiberglass composites such as boat hulls, surfboards, residential kitchen countertops, bathtubs and shower enclosures.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2016/04/what-makes-polystyrene-so-different-from-styrene-its-a-matter-of-chemistry-2/
-
Environmentalists Urge Wider Water Sampling Of PFOA
Apr 25, 2016 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists are urging EPA to broaden its sampling of water systems to better determine how widespread the non-stick chemical perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) is in water supplies across the country, and calling on the agency to use production and disposal data to identify localities that may be at risk of contaminated water supplies.
The appeal, by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) in an April 25 letter hand-delivered to EPA headquarters, adds to the recent pressure from three Northeast governors, members of Congress and other environmental groups on EPA to take uniform action on the chemical by applying a stricter drinking water treatment level to water supplies that PFOA is contaminating. EPA plans to release a lifetime health advisory for the chemical this spring. Calls have also been made to EPA to develop an enforceable drinking water standard for the chemical, known as a maximum contaminant level (MCL).
EWG's letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy echoes those calls, but also asks the agency to “enhance and expand” sampling for the chemical, including using not only existing production and disposal data but also employing “the full extent of [EPA's] regulatory authority to supplement that information with whatever additional manufacturing, processing, and use data it can compel from companies, voluntarily or otherwise."
EPA has required large municipal water supply systems and a few small municipal systems to collect data on PFOA and other perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) under the Safe Drinking Water Act's Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR).
While UCMR data show PFOA in over 100 public water systems in 27 states, "the unfortunate truth is that the full extent of nationwide PFOA contamination remains unknown -- not only due to EPA's decision to overlook levels of PFOA below a certain threshold in its testing protocols, but also the fact that the UCMR only covers a miniscule number of small public water systems, and does not encompass private wells," EWG says in the letter.
The group notes PFOA has been detected in a growing number of small towns and private wells, including Hoosick Falls, NY. The discovery there and in other parts of New England “clearly show that this problem is more widespread and serious than EPA’s results suggest,” EWG says, referencing that the UCMR found PFOA above minimum reporting levels at just 1 percent of systems tested.
“Therefore, in order to more fully grasp the extent of PFOA contamination, the agency should follow up with monitoring of systems near localities where results showed elevated levels -- either by relisting the chemical in its next UCMR or simply drawing on its broad authority to protect public health. Again, that effort would be greatly improved if EPA accounted for PFOA inventory information and investigated the origins of these localities’ source waters."
EWG tells EPA it should draw on available information related to production, use and disposal and available water testing results "to enhance and expand sample testing of community water systems to determine what other localities may be at risk and identify and remediate the sources of water contamination."
In particular, EWG says EPA should enhance the way in which it monitors water systems for unregulated contaminants, incorporating production, use and disposal data received through the Toxic Substances Control Act into its statistical designs for selecting samples. It should also cull information from other sources in collaboration with local and state authorities, review trade publications and encourage chemical companies for voluntary input.
This additional data "would go a long way toward refining EPA's precision with respect to water system sampling and monitoring, especially in situations where only a handful of companies use(d) or produce(d) chemicals," EWG says. Once the agency obtains initial monitoring results, "it should cross-reference again[st] its inventory information and conduct additional testing of water systems that neighbor places of concern," the group says.
http://insideepa.com/the-inside-story
-
Striking a Commonsense Balance
Apr 25, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.)
The way we generate, transmit and use energy underscores everything we do on a daily basis. Stable and reliable energy allows our society to grow and prosper while supporting the innovation that keeps prices affordable and our environment clean. Our energy future could be even brighter as new technologies emerge, whether through new ways to store electricity or safer and more efficient ways to produce and harness our domestic resources. But as our rules and regulations are updated, protecting the environment must not stifle innovation and growth. There must be a commonsense balance.
We’ve made some progress on a path toward modernizing and protecting our energy infrastructure, promoting innovation and energy efficiency while strengthening U.S. energy security and jobs. But more work needs to be done. Last fall, the House passed a comprehensive energy bill, H.R. 8, the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act, to maximize America’s energy potential and modernize our 1970s-era energy policies. I look forward to conferencing with our counterparts in the Senate as we work to advance H.R. 8 in law and keep prices affordable for all Americans.
One of the areas H.R. 8 addressed is hydropower, which along with nuclear energy accounts for 25 percent of U.S. electricity and produces zero greenhouse gas emissions. H.R. 8 brings needed reforms to the hydropower licensing process, yet the administration seems to ignore this clean power source as an integral part of an all-of-the-above energy portfolio. Congress has rejected the administration’s limited view of hydropower’s role and recently passed seven committee bills that extend the operating licenses at various dams throughout the country. Meaningful legislation like this truly makes a difference at the local level, bringing jobs and affordable, reliable electricity to folks across the country. Hydropower must remain a part of any future energy mix.
Safe, clean nuclear power also remains a vital component in a realistic all-of-the-above energy portfolio. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has disregarded the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, leaving American taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars in legal liability. In the coming months, the committee will continue its work on developing a comprehensive solution to dispose of spent nuclear fuel, which begins first and foremost with the Energy Department fulfilling its obligation to complete its work on the Yucca Mountain Repository License Application. The committee will also ensure that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission remains a reliable and efficient safety regulator for our nuclear power plant fleet.
As our power generation portfolio continues to change, the committee will look to make certain that electricity markets are functioning to promote competition, support new technologies and most importantly to maximize value to consumers, all while making security, through enhanced resiliency and continued reliability, a major consideration. We will continue to work to develop and implement grid protections to mitigate risks and vulnerabilities throughout the sector while overseeing that there is regulatory balance. Quite simply, the Environmental Protection Agency should not be setting the nation’s energy policy and should not be the final arbiter regarding change in electricity markets. As the courts continue to litigate the president’s regulatory agenda, we will maintain our stringent oversight of the EPA.
When it comes to confronting climate change and the future of energy, I believe we must take an economically realistic and pragmatic approach. We need to ensure our domestic policies and regulations are promoting access to continued affordable, reliable power while allowing our communities to grow economically, adapt to changes and be resilient. I remain committed to supporting technological innovation and the development of new and efficient energy infrastructure both to reduce emissions and to withstand climate related events, regardless of causes.
The bottom line is that we all care about clean air and access to clean and safe drinking water, but the administration’s regulatory policies fail to take into account the very real-world consequences EPA rules and regulations are having on communities across the country.
Much work remains to be done, but these are some of the important pillars necessary to support an all-of-the-above energy policy. Only through innovation, not regulation, can we develop a modern and diverse energy portfolio, maintain affordable and reliable electricity, create jobs, modernize our energy laws and enact meaningful solutions to 21st century threats. With our eyes toward the future, we will continue to build upon our bipartisan record of success and enact meaningful legislation.
Upton has served the state of Michigan in the House of Representatives since 1987 and is chairman of the House Energy Committee.
http://www.thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/277267-dont-protect-environment-at-cost-of-innovation-growth
-
EPA Air Chief McCabe to Address Meeting of State Regulators
Apr 25, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
Air regulators from 18 states will gather in Columbia, S.C., later this week, and U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan will be a central topic.
Janet McCabe, acting assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, will be the featured speaker Friday at the spring meeting of the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies.
On Thursday, the group will hear an update on legal issues surrounding the EPA rule from Nathan Richardson of the University of South Carolina School of Law and Jeff Holmstead, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney with Bracewell LLP.
This is the first time that the 3-year-old organization has held a midyear meeting, said Sheila Holman, director of the North Carolina division of air quality and current president of AAPCA.
The group, whose members are mostly Southern state regulators, has some overlap with the larger National Association of Clean Air Agencies, which has 40 state members. But it oversees air quality for about 40 percent of the U.S. population, Holman said in an interview.
"I don't think the organizations are all that different," Holman said, emphasizing that AAPCA "is very much a consensus-driven organization."
"We are focused very much on technical issues and implementation issues. And we don't really take policy positions," she said, pointing in particular to the Clean Power Plan.
That is because "each state is in a very unique situation, and they're proceeding along different lines," Holman said.
North Carolina is among the states suing to have the Clean Power Plan overturned and stopped working with stakeholders on compliance options after the Supreme Court stayed the rule in February.
"Since the stay, we haven't gotten a lot of calls," Holman said. "But certainly if an organization reached out to us and we felt like it was helpful to meet with them, I think we probably would."
In the meantime, Holman is "keeping up with the industry discussion. We have to be prepared regardless of how the litigation comes out. We have to be prepared to move forward as a state, so we can't ignore all that is going on around us," she said.
Could North Carolina meet the goals of the EPA carbon rule if it survives legal challenge?
"I've seen different modeling that suggests that we could make it," Holman said. "I can't say we've had the time and opportunity to fully study it completely."
This week
Tomorrow, during its annual conference in D.C., the National Hydropower Association will host a panel discussion on the Clean Power Plan. It will focus on how hydropower, pumped storage and marine energy, as well as the import of Canadian hydropower, figure in state compliance scenarios.
Also tomorrow in D.C., the Center for Strategic and International Studies will host an all-day event focusing on U.S. energy policy in the 2016 elections and beyond. A low-carbon future is one of the areas of discussion. Panelists will include Phil Moeller, a senior vice president with the Edison Electric Institute; Christine Tezak with ClearView Energy Partners LLC; Rep. Kevin Kramer (R-N.D.); Bill Ritter, director of the Center for the New Energy Economy; and Vicki Arroyo, executive director of the Georgetown Climate Center. ClimateWire's Emily Holden will be reporting.
On Wednesday, the Washington State Department of Ecology will be holding a webinar of meetings on the "latest thinking" on their proposed carbon-capping Clean Air Rule, which they withdrew earlier this year to overhaul. E&E's California bureau reporter Debra Kahn will be covering.
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative meets in Boston on Friday for a spring stakeholdermeeting. The Northeast cap-and-trade program is gathering input on how member states could comply with the Clean Power Plan. Officials have asked states to consider whether RGGI should allow carbon trading with states outside the program, among other issues. In the afternoon, Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Resources for the Future, the Georgetown Climate Center and the Collaborative for RGGI Progress present a learning session on the program's cost-containment reserve, which introduces new carbon allowances when prices reach a certain point. The meeting will be webcast.
In case you missed it
An analysis by West Virginia's environment agency of the Obama administration's rule to limit power plant carbon emissions determined that the coal-heavy state can feasibly comply with the Clean Power Plan (EnergyWire, April 22).
Virginia's General Assembly blocked funding for the Department of Environmental Quality to work on ways of fulfilling EPA's mandate to cut greenhouse gas emissions (ClimateWire, April 21).
Former Duke Energy Corp. CEO Jim Rogers says innovation, not coal, is the future for utilities. "Natural gas has put coal in the coffin," he said. "The Clean Power Plan is putting the nails in the coffin" (EnergyWire, April 21).
Georgia Power executives said the company is doing enough to transform into a cleaner energy company and won't do any more to meet Clean Power Plan goals until the rule clears the courts (EnergyWire, April 21).
At a Senate hearing, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy fielded prolonged questioning about the plan's impact on states dependent on coal-fired power plants. Critics remain deeply worried that the CPP still has life (E&E Daily, April 21).
In Minnesota, lawmakers moved to amend the state budget to suspend all work on CPP compliance until the legal challenge to the rule is resolved (ClimateWire, April 18).
-
Search Finds Super-Emitters of Methane and Hydrocarbons
Apr 25, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
Certain oil and natural gas sites are known super-emitters of methane and hydrocarbons. Now, using helicopters and infrared cameras, researchers have better characterized these sites and pinpointed the major source of their emissions: leakage from field storage tanks and their hatches (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b00705). These leaks could be easily controlled with the appropriate equipment, the researchers say.
Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 100-year time span, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Controlling methane emissions is critical to curbing climate change. About 30% of U.S. methane emissions come from the oil and gas sector, according to the EPA.
In the new study, a team headed by scientists at the Environmental Defense Fund, a nonprofit advocacy group, hired a firm to survey more than 8,000 oil and gas well pads in seven regions of the U.S., using helicopters equipped with IR gas-imaging instruments to detect methane and hydrocarbon leakage. These IR cameras can detect gas plumes emanating from individual pieces of equipment at the facilities, such as tanks and pipes.
By matching IR-observed gas plumes at field sites with IR images of controlled releases of known size and duration, the scientists were able to determine leak rate and the exact location of leaking equipment at the well pads. They found that more than 90% of some 500 detected leakage sources were the tanks that hold, separate, and further process oil and natural gas in the field, as well as hatches allowing access to the tanks. Tanks are a somewhat surprising source, notes David R. Lyon, lead study author. In the past, he adds, more attention fell on leakage from other stages of the process, such as drilling, production, transmission, and distribution.
“Most of the tank sites had control devices that appear to be not working, ineffective, or undersized,” notes Lyon. He recommends more frequent inspections and a greater emphasis on eliminating tank emissions.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/web/2016/04/Search-finds-super-emitters-methane.html
-
New York Denies Critical Permit for Natural Gas Pipeline
Apr 22, 2016 | The New York Times
By Associated Press
New York environmental regulators have rejected a critical permit needed for a major natural gas pipeline project, saying the project fails to meet standards that protect hundreds of streams, wetlands and other water resources in its path.
The Department of Environmental Conservation said Friday it won't issue a water quality permit for the 124-mile Constitution Pipeline from Pennsylvania's shale gas fields to eastern New York. The agency said the project's construction would affect 251 streams and 500 acres of valuable forest as well as extensive wetlands.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved the pipeline project in 2014 contingent on the state permit, which is required by the federal Clean Water Act. The project had all needed permits for a segment in Pennsylvania and had already cleared trees there in preparation for construction.
Constitution Pipeline Company, a partnership formed by Cabot Oil & Gas, Williams Partners and Piedmont Natural Gas Company, can appeal the state decision to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
"We are very disappointed by today's decision," Constitution spokesman Christopher Stockton said. "We remain absolutely committed to building this important energy infrastructure project."
Stockton said the partners will decide whether to appeal after they finish analyzing the state's rationale for the denial.
The decision comes two days after Kinder Morgan Inc. announced it was mothballing its planned Northeast Energy Direct pipeline, which would have followed some of the same route as Constitution. Kinder Morgan, which was earlier in the FERC process, cited economic reasons for its decision.
After Gov. Andrew Cuomo banned hydraulic fracturing for shale gas in 2014, environmentalists turned their efforts to defeating pipelines and other energy infrastructure projects. They and community groups pressed Cuomo to decline the state permit for the Constitution Pipeline.
"Cuomo's leadership could inspire a domino effect of related pipeline rejections as other states begin to put the protection of water and our climate before flawed energy projects that do not serve the public interest," said Roger Downs of the Sierra Club's Atlantic Chapter.
But some local officials, labor groups and business interests argue the pipeline is essential since New York has been increasing its natural gas consumption.
"We are incredibly disappointed that the administration allowed fear-mongering to once again lead the way," said Heather Briccetti, president of The Business Council of New York State. She said the decision "will have a direct and immediate negative impact on our state's economy."
The Department of Environmental Conservation said that in addition to its review of Constitution's application and supporting materials, the agency also considered more than 15,000 public comments before reaching its decision.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/04/22/us/ap-us-constitution-pipeline.html
-
Pennsylvania Voters Torn Over Calls for a Fracking Ban
Apr 25, 2016 | The New York Times
By Reuters
For some Democratic voters in Pennsylvania, Tuesday's primary election will be more than just a chance to pick preferred candidates for public office - it will be a mini-referendum on the future of the state's downtrodden fracking industry.
Three candidates on the ballot, including Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders and two Democratic U.S. Senate hopefuls, want to ban or pause the controversial oil and gas drilling technique, splitting an electorate in parts of the state concerned about both jobs and the environment.
A debate over fracking emerged between Sanders and Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton over the last month, with Sanders calling for a nationwide ban and Clinton pushing a middle-of-the road approach that would allow it with caveats - a stance that has been criticized by more progressive democrats.
The outcome of the presidential and senate primaries in a state that now the second biggest natural gas producer in America after Texas may reveal how residents of heavily drilled areas feel about an industry suffering from a decline in oil and gas prices.
"Everyone is anxious," said Lois Martin, a sales manager at a store in Washington that sells gear, like steel-toe boots and drill-site clothes, to workers in the fracking industry. "Everybody is waiting for the elections to be over," she said.
The question of a ban on fracking has also emerged as a key issue in the hotly contested race to select a Democrat to run for a U.S. Senate seat in Pennsylvania against the incumbent Republican Pat Toomey.
Two candidates, former U.S. Congressman Joe Sestak and John Fetterman, a small town mayor, have called for a moratorium on fracking. The third candidate, Katie McGinty, the former head of the state’s environmental regulator, has been endorsed by President Barack Obama and Governor Tom Wolf, and is looking for stricter standards on the industry.
"Now is the moment to really do it," Sestak said about a ban, pointing to a slump in oil and gas prices that has left many drill pads idle. "We can’t even pump any more gas out because our pipelines are filled."
McGinty has called that stance a "sound bite", and not a serious proposal.
States like New York and Maryland have already passed moratoriums on fracking while they conduct studies into its environmental impacts.
Fracking - which involves pumping water, sand and chemicals into the ground to free oil and gas reserves from rock formations - is responsible for a boom in U.S. oil and gas production over the past decade that has slammed energy company profits and lowered costs for consumers.
It has also been implicated in ground water pollution, and a rash of small earthquakes in places like Oklahoma and Ohio, raising concerns about its safety.
Opposition to fracking, meanwhile, has risen to an all-time high nationwide of 51 percent, according to a Gallup poll released March 31, from 40 percent a year earlier.
WEALTHY OVERNIGHT
In many of the most heavily fracked regions of Pennsylvania some residents are not ready for a ban. They are looking for a way to both support the industry while also improving safeguards to protect the environment.
Mark Zabilitzky, a farmer with white hair in his early-sixties, said he leased out mineral rights on his property to a natural gas company four years ago in exchange for around $1,000 an acre and a cut of production royalties.
But the company has not drilled yet, and Zabilitsky is hoping for a rebound in natural gas prices to make it happen before he retires. "I am not too far off of retirement," he said. "We thought we would be wealthy overnight."
He said he appreciates Sanders' devotion to protecting the environment, but thinks fracking can be done safely.
David Spigelmyer, president of the Pittsburgh-based Marcellus Shale Coalition, said calls for fracking bans by Sanders and the Senate hopefuls posed a risk to "mom and pop shops that have provided jobs to our neighbors."
"We have people that want to take us in a dangerous direction," he said at a meeting of landowners in South Franklin township in Washington county last week.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2016/04/24/us/24reuters-usa-election-fracking.html?_r=0
-
States, Industry Tout Waste-To-Energy Efforts But Equity Concerns Linger
Apr 25, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Anthony Lacey
States and waste reuse industry groups are touting the potential economic and environmental benefits of promoting waste-to-energy efforts such as reusing coal ash or capturing landfill methane emissions, but officials say consulting with equity communities nearby on such projects will be a major factor for their viability.
Developing a waste-to-energy facility that will be located near a potential environmental justice area “is a contact sport, you can't do it from afar, you've got to be a part of the community very early in the process,” said Paul Gilman, Covanta senior vice president and chief sustainability officer, at an April 12 discussion here.
Gilman, several state officials, and other industry representatives all weighed in on using waste materials for energy purposes during the discussion at the Environmental Council of the States' (ECOS) spring meeting.
During the meeting, which took place April 10-14, ECOS -- which represents state environmental agencies -- also approved a revised resolution that it first issued in 2010 on promoting sustainable materials management at the state and federal level.
“Representatives of industries at various stages of maturity -- coal ash recycling, waste-to-energy, and forest products manufacturing -- will spotlight strides in curbing waste streams and promoting air quality and renewable energy and discuss how states can partner in these initiatives,” said ECOS in its agenda for an April 12 discussion of “The Recovered Material Role in Sustainable Materials Management: Corporate Roundtable.”
During the discussion, Covanta's Gilman noted the importance of engaging communities when companies are looking to locate waste-to-energy projects. Covanta “works with companies and communities to find sustainable solutions to their waste management challenges,” according to its website.
Gilman suggested that industry and community organizations could consider forming a group to identify “best practices” on risk communication and engagement for such projects.
He touted the economic benefits of such projects, including reducing overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by capturing the potent GHG methane from landfills and using that for energy.
Similarly, Maryland Secretary of the Environment Benjamin Grumbles said that waste-to-energy is a “great opportunity” and “makes a lot of sense” due to factors such as helping divert waste from landfills that have limited capacity, or from reducing GHG emissions by reusing waste streams.
But he added, “One of the fundamentally most difficult and biggest challenges on the waste to energy movement is environmental justice,” and called it also one of the “most contentious” issues. He cited what he called the “six-year saga” of trying to locate a Baltimore-area project that would convert municipal and other waste types to energy. Grumbles said the project ran into opposition from citizen and environmental groups due to concerns about emissions associated with incineration, truck traffic to the facility and other issues.
Echoing Grumbles' remarks, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Director Becky Keogh said, “It is important that we not shy away from those concerns but we actually speak to them.”
In addition to environmental justice concerns, waste-to-energy facilities are also controversial among some recycling advocates, who believe waste-to-energy incineration competes with recycling and results in fewer materials being recycled.
Economic Driver
Todd Parfitt, director of Wyoming's DEQ and also the ECOS waste committee chair, said at the meeting that economics are the major driver to an increased focus on sustainable waste management.
One example is the reuse of coal combustion residuals, also known as coal ash, in products such as cement. Supporters of the ash reuse industry said their business was effectively on hold while EPA decided whether to regulate ash under the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act's (RCRA) subtitle C hazardous waste provision or its solid waste subtitle D provision. Eventually EPA opted to issue a subtitle D RCRA rule for the waste.
Thomas Adams, executive director of the American Coal Ash Association, said that as the coal ash rule begins to be implemented, a growing area of focus will be the potential to reuse already-disposed ash. “This is an area that is just really starting to get serious attention across the country,” because of EPA's rule, he said. The regulation sets technical and siting requirements for new ash disposal sites, and for all existing disposal sites.
Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration and others show that despite some changes in the energy sector “we will have roughly the same amount of coal being burned 25 years from now as being burned today,” Adams said. “So we're going to continue to have coal ash to deal with going forward,” he added. “Our position . . . is that the solution to your disposal problems is don't dispose, try to recycle” the ash.
For the ash that has already been disposed -- of which Adams said some estimates say could be 1.5 billion tons in landfills and ponds -- the reuse sector is starting to assess whether those materials can reused. Some ash has been disposed in a way that makes its reuse impossible, he said, but for other types of already-disposed ash, companies are looking to see if “we can recycle these materials and reuse them.”
This work is an “exciting part of the industry that's just getting off the ground,” Adams said, adding that it is “going to require investigation and characterization” of the waste material.
Paul Noe, vice president for public policy with the American Forest & Paper Association, at the ECOS meeting promoted biomass as a carbon-neutral option for potential energy purposes. “We have members who have used some residuals from mills that can be processed into sources of energy,” he said.
Later at the meeting, Arkansas' Keogh touted the benefits of biomass, saying, “We would be short-sighted to not look at biomass as a possible fuel source and energy future source for Arkansas.”
Environmental concerns about to waste-to-energy projects linger, however, and Scott Thompson -- the executive director of Oklahoma DEQ and vice chair of ECOS' waste committee -- noted the potential high chloride content and associated major treatment costs when trying to recycle oil and gas produced water.
Still, he noted the environmental benefits from waste-to-energy projects, such as capturing what he noted were significant amounts of methane emissions that some landfills can generate.
ECOS Resolution
Meanwhile, ECOS at the spring meeting in a closed-doors session approved a revised version of the group's six-year old resolution on national sustainable materials management.
The updated resolution “supports the framework outlined in EPA’s 'Sustainable Materials Management: The Road Ahead' [and] commends EPA for engaging with international bodies including the G7 to further refine the concept of sustainable materials management and identify opportunities for implementation.”
It also “requests that EPA continue to collaborate with states to incorporate materials management as an important strategic approach for addressing environmental challenges; requests that EPA continue to work with states to integrate the use of life-cycle materials management into existing programs; and requests that EPA convene a national dialogue to accelerate sustainable materials management,” according to ECOS' website.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/states-industry-tout-waste-energy-efforts-equity-concerns-linger
-
Investing in 21st Century Energy Infrastructure
Apr 25, 2016 | The Hill
By Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.)
The energy sector is undergoing significant change. Some lawmakers would have you believe it’s the result of too much regulation, but that’s not the case. New technology, coupled with changes in markets, shifting consumer demand and improved efficiency, are all transforming the energy sector. It’s time Congress supports electric and gas infrastructure modernization efforts that will help further this transformation.
Last month, the Energy Information Agency outlined some significant changes in electric generation, and they really shouldn’t surprise anyone. The report found ongoing movement toward natural gas and away from coal, oil and nuclear energy. Renewable wind and solar generation continues to increase, and it’s projected to climb this year.
Utilities all across the nation also recognize the old financial and electricity delivery model is giving way to a more complex customer relationship. Today, some customers are no longer simply receiving power — they are delivering power to the grid and taking control of their energy needs.
The availability of improved technologies like microgrids, combined heat and power systems, energy storage and individualized energy management systems are facilitating consumers’ ability to access renewable, clean energy and lower their electricity bills. These trends are promising and are helping produce a sustainable clean energy economy.
However, Congress must do more. We must continue making investments to support renewable energy, and we must invest in modernizing our nation’s energy infrastructure so that it supports the changing economic and environmental conditions of our times.
Our energy infrastructure is aging. In many parts of our nation, the electric and gas infrastructure used today was built for the economy and energy sector of the 20th century.
The gas lines that serve major metropolitan regions are old and in desperate need of replacement. Deteriorating, leaky gas pipelines are a public safety and environmental hazard, as well as wasteful and inefficient. Over the last year, we’ve witnessed both a 100,000-gallon crude oil spill onto the California coastline and a massive gas storage facility leak in Los Angeles. The leak forced thousands of people from their homes for long periods of time and released nearly 100,000 metric tons of methane into the atmosphere.
Repair and replacement of gas pipelines is an essential and expensive undertaking, but moderate- and low-income ratepayers are not able to absorb the rate increases necessary to support this essential work. This forces many utilities to delay improvements that should be made now.
Last year, when the House Energy and Commerce Committee was developing a comprehensive energy bill, I proposed an initiative to provide economic incentives to pipeline companies to accelerate work on potentially dangerous lines and to provide assistance to ratepayers to offset higher energy bills. This program would have delivered tremendous benefits to natural gas customers and pipeline companies while improving air quality, promoting more efficient delivery of natural gas and improving safety.
The electric grid is also extremely vulnerable, and our changing climate is exacerbating power outages. The electric infrastructure is at higher risk from storm surges and coastal inundation. Since 2011, more than 40 extreme weather events here in the U.S. have each cost at least $1 billion in damages. These events forced private and public institutions to consider options for making electricity delivery more reliable and resilient during severe storms while reducing dependence on the fuels that contribute to extreme weather events.
Technologies are now available to do this. With modest federal investment, we could accelerate the pace of grid improvement. A perfect example of this is the Department of Energy’s recent work with the New Jersey transit system to create the NJ Transitgrid, which incorporates renewables, distributed generation and a microgrid design to assure power for NJ transit facilities during and after extreme weather events.
As part of the larger energy bill, Democrats worked to create a grant program to support similar innovative state and local government efforts to modernize the electric grid to make it more reliable and resilient.
Unfortunately, the final Republican energy bill passed by the House was designed for the energy sector of the past. Instead of embracing new distributed and renewable technologies, cutting edge energy storage and demand response, the Republican bill subsidized the large, expensive and inflexible facilities and energy sources of the past. The final bill did not include any funding to address some of the significant energy infrastructure issues our nation is facing.
The transformation in the energy sector is the result of many interrelated factors. Blocking regulations will not turn back this tide. Strategic investments in infrastructure will ensure we have a secure, dependable and safe energy supply for the 21st century.
Pallone represents New Jersey’s 6th Congressional District and has served in the House since 1988. He is the ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/277261-investing-in-21st-century-energy-infrastructure
-
Russian Cybersecurity Giant Sets Sights on U.S. Energy Infrastructure
Apr 25, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The world's largest private cybersecurity firm is tackling new vulnerabilities and batting down old rumors in a bid for U.S. control system customers.
Kaspersky Lab unveiled a suite of products earlier this month aimed at the $2.2 billion global market for protecting oil pipelines, power grids and "smart" buildings from online attacks.
"This is a very serious issue because not only is the continuity of the production process at stake, the environment and even human lives can be at risk," CEO Eugene Kaspersky said in an April 14 statement announcing the program.
"Kaspersky Industrial CyberSecurity" tested its mettle in a petrochemical plant along the Baltic Sea and a refining complex in central Russia, both owned by Russian companies.
It's too early to tell whether their American counterparts will warm up to the Russia-based security giant's latest offerings. Many U.S. critical infrastructure companies have already trusted Kaspersky with email servers and other corporate networks, but guarding operational systems -- computers that help keep the lights on and manufacturing humming -- is another matter. A bevy of security startups have a head start on tackling the industrial control system (ICS) security challenge, and Kaspersky could also find itself squaring off against the likes of Lockheed Martin or Honeywell.
"They will be dealing with some of the biggest names in the market, but at the same time, it's also a market that's very fragmented: Small, startup network security providers could also provide potential competition" for Kaspersky, said Konkana Khaund, principal consultant for the energy and environment practice at research firm Frost & Sullivan. "The Kaspersky name and the legacy behind it: That itself is quite a big advantage for them."
But branding can be a double-edged sword for a company with roots in Moscow. Eugene Kaspersky has said in a blog post that he's had to stamp out "questions we've answered a million times ... 'What are our links with the KGB? Why do you expose cyber-campaigns by Western intelligence services? When do you plan to hire Edward Snowden?' And other ones of the 'Have you stopped beating your wife?' kind."
Those comments came in response to a Bloomberg investigation last year outlining purported ties between Kaspersky and Russia's intelligence community.
More recently, the company's strategic shift toward U.S. control systems has reportedly aroused suspicions in the halls of the Pentagon, according to an article published in The Washington Free Beacon. The Defense Intelligence Agency did not respond to requests for comment about the suggestion that Kaspersky's products could deliberately introduce flaws into customers' systems.
Michael Canavan, vice president for Kaspersky Lab North America, denied such speculation in response to EnergyWire's questions.
"Kaspersky Lab is focused on protecting consumers, businesses and governments from cybersecurity threats, and we do not develop any offensive techniques for, or will ever help, any government in the world with offensive efforts in cyberspace," he said. "The company released a complete security solution to help protect industrial control systems and networks located around the world from cyberattacks. Our solution will help manufacturers and critical infrastructure operators, including those in the U.S., to prevent a crippling cyberattack against these sensitive systems that we rely upon every day."
Other security experts have pointed out that while whispers swirl around Kaspersky's Russian origins, no technical evidence has emerged that the Kremlin somehow holds sway over its products.
"If the [U.S.] government has an issue with a private company, it owes it to them and to the public to provide proof -- not to further business-damaging rumors," said Robert M. Lee, a former U.S. Air Force cyber warfare operations officer who now heads industrial cybersecurity firm Dragos Security LLC.
Rumored, but not ruled out
If Kaspersky did get the cold shoulder from the U.S. government, it wouldn't be the first time the geography of a company's headquarters came back to haunt it.
Two China-based technology firms, Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. and ZTE Corp., have been blacklisted from swaths of the U.S. market due to perceived security risks. The government's fear is that Chinese state actors will inject a backdoor into key telecommunications or critical infrastructure products, which later find their way into U.S. systems.
"I would argue that they've infiltrated many of our [industrial] systems already and can turn the switch off -- that's the power that they have," Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said of America's most sophisticated rivals late last year (EnergyWire, Nov. 5, 2015).
The U.S. intelligence community counts the Russian government among those adversaries, even as the two try to sort out their differences. A senior Obama administration official confirmed that meetings were held in Geneva last week to "discuss issues of mutual interest in cybersecurity" with high-ranking representatives from Moscow, including a review of a 2013 pact to de-escalate cyber tensions between the nations.
The same official declined to comment on "hypotheticals" regarding Kaspersky, deferring comment to the Department of Homeland Security, the lead agency for handling cyberthreats to U.S. systems. DHS did not respond to requests for comment, but reports of Kaspersky's industrial security initiative appeared on a DHS roundup of critical infrastructure news last week.
"Kaspersky launched a new cyber-security tool named Industrial CyberSecurity, which will help Industrial Control Systems/Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (ICS/SCADA) equipment become more resilient against cyberattacks," the headline reads.
For its part, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which oversees cybersecurity for some of the nation's most sensitive power assets, said it does not keep a "whitelist" of acceptable cybersecurity vendors.
"Each licensee has an approved supplier list based on their assessment of their quality assurance program," said NRC spokesman Eric Stahl. "Licensees also have to assess any software suppliers to determine if they meet NRC cybersecurity requirements, which do not rule out any specific vendors."
A careful approach
Kaspersky's Canavan hinted that the company is not too concerned about an icy reception for its new technologies.
"Kaspersky Lab continues to grow and develop its business across the globe, including North America, and has had tremendous success in several U.S. sectors for more than a decade," he said, noting that Kaspersky's offerings could "help companies effectively cover organizational issues" to comply with enforceable cybersecurity regulations for the bulk power sector.
The new product itself is customizable, but combines malware assessment tools, integrity checks for actual industrial processes and an "observability mode" that allows users to home in on any anomalies in the network, according to marketing materials.
"Critical infrastructure requires a special approach, and a tremendous effort is required from security vendors to ensure compatibility with those requirements and unique needs," Canavan said.
Kaspersky may find its smoothest path to the U.S. market through the same industrial supply chain U.S. regulators are most on edge about (EnergyWire, Jan. 29).
Khaund of Frost & Sullivan pointed out that the company is more firmly established in Europe, where many American critical infrastructure operators source their technologies and control system components.
She said equipment vendors can layer Kaspersky on their systems to "make their proposition a little more convincing" to American customers, from a cybersecurity standpoint.
"Kaspersky might actually come into the [U.S.] market in association with them" as opposed to being the direct vendor, Khaund said. "That might be an easier way for them to break in."
She said she does not expect rumors about Kaspersky and Russia to be a major setback in the U.S. private sector.
"At the end of the day, it's the strength of the technology that you're going to use, and what's going to protect [the network]," Khaund said. "I think the assessment will ultimately come down to that."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/04/25/stories/1060036165
-
States Fault EPA On Data, 'Background' Ozone In Legal Fight Over NAAQS
Apr 25, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
A coalition of 10 states in a new legal filing faults EPA's decision to tighten its ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) from 75 parts per billion (ppb) down to 70 ppb, saying the rule is based on a “paucity” of scientific data and ignores natural “background” ozone levels that could make the standard impossible to meet.
The states' April 22 opening brief follows filings that day from several industry groups who also criticize the decision to tighten the standard, and from advocates who say the ozone limit should be stricter.
Challenges to the NAAQS have been consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit case Murray Energy Corporation, et al. v. EPA, et al. The D.C. Circuit in prior suits over NAAQS has often deferred to the agency's scientific expertize for the levels at which it chooses to set the standards.
Critics of the Oct. 1 ozone rule, however, are citing scientific issues in their push-back on the stricter standard. The 10 states in their new filing echo attacks that the new standard ignores the role of naturally occurring background ozone, which is impossible to regulate. High background ozone will make the tougher limit impossible to meet in some areas, and this renders the rule unlawful, the states say.
State air regulators cannot address background ozone by limiting emissions from local sources, and hence face being classified in “nonattainment” with the new standard. Areas in nonattainment must impose tougher pollution controls on industry and, if states do not submit air quality implementation plans adequate to meet the NAAQS, they face the loss of federal highway funding.
“Numerous commenters presented EPA with studies demonstrating that the peak effects of sources that the States cannot control, on peak days, will make compliance with the new standard unduly onerous, and sometimes impossible. Indeed, EPA’s own modeling illustrates the same problem. Yet, the Agency did not take account of this critical issue, instead choosing to focus on 'average' and 'seasonal mean' impacts of uncontrollable sources,” the states say. Ozone NAAQS compliance is based on peak levels of pollution, not seasonal averages, they say.
“The peak effects of uncontrollable sources on peak days will lead the Agency to impose burdensome pollution control measures in areas where such measures have no potential to improve air quality or serve public health. This is the paramount problem with regard to the critical issue of background ozone, and EPA’s failure to address the problem requires that the Rule be vacated,” the states add.
Ozone 'Problem'
The states contend that EPA's failure to address “a significant aspect of a problem,” -- peak background ozone -- runs counter to D.C. Circuit precedent and is unlawful. They say EPA violated the Clean Air Act's requirement that EPA set NAAQS that can be “achieved and maintained.”
Further, relying on “enforcement-stage relief” to help states faced with NAAQS attainment problems is not enough, the states say. EPA is touting a streamlined “exceptional events” rule, which it will issue in final form this summer, to enable states to more easily claim regulatory exemptions for high air pollution stemming from unusual events such as wildfires and dust storms.
The agency has also said remote “rural transport areas” areas can take advantage of a similar waiver, and areas may be able to petition EPA to exclude from NAAQS compliance poor air quality stemming from abroad. However, critics say this is not enough for areas to avoid nonattainment status.
“Provisions addressing 'exceptional events' are ill-suited to addressing routine exceedances that will inevitably occur due to uncontrollable background ozone. Likewise, the Act’s limited measures for helping areas affected by rural transport and international pollution are intended for infrequent exceedances, as demonstrated by the assumption that these areas should remain classified as nonattainment and subject to the corresponding burdens,” the states say.
The states further claim that, contrary to the agency's claims, EPA based its decision on very little new evidence of ozone's adverse health effects. The cite EPA's “excessive reliance on a single clinical study with significant limitations,” that found decreased lung function in exercising adults at 72 ppb of ozone.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/states-fault-epa-data-background-ozone-legal-fight-over-naaqs
-
Researchers Tout 'Dynamic' Approach To Ozone, SO2 Emissions Mitigation
Apr 25, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Researchers funded by EPA grants are exploring alternative "dynamic" methods for industry and states to control ozone and sulfur dioxide (SO2) pollution by requiring pollution cuts over short time periods, including a hybrid approach that would "layer" such short-term controls with existing EPA emissions trading programs.
Air regulators in the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) of Mid-Atlantic and Northeast states at an April 12 meeting of the group in Washington, D.C., noted the problem of some power plants not operating their emissions controls and instead purchasing compliance credits for agency trading programs such as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which is designed to reduce SO2 and ozone-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx).
The research by the scientists -- who used grant funding under EPA's Science To Achieve Results (STAR) program -- could therefore spur regulators to weigh the merits of crafting new short-term pollution limits.
On a March 31 EPA-sponsored webinar, the scientists argued that "dynamic" emissions control, involving swift, short-term measures to limit emissions, could provide a cost-effective way to curb episodes of high air pollution. Sources say this to some extent echoes an ongoing focus by states within the OTC on short-term reductions.
During the webinar, two research teams presented their findings. Researchers Elena McDonald-Buller, David T. Allen and Mort D. Webster, from the University of Texas at Austin and also the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said their studies show that "time-differentiated" trading of NOx and also SO2, which leads to particulate matter formation, is a cost-effective way to meet increasingly tough federal ambient air standards.
Under time-differentiated trading, power plants are "dispatched," or run, according to when and where they can run with the lowest pollution impacts. The researchers looked at this theory for the Texas power grid, known as the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), and the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland (PJM) grid.
They found that imposing a high price on emissions under a trading program, for a short periods of time, could cost-effectively reduce pollution. Raising prices on high ozone days, for example, would effectively mitigate ozone-forming emissions, they argued. However, the best overall solution would a "layered," or "hybrid" approach that would combine this short-term approach focusing on peak emissions output with an existing emissions trading program based on whole years or ozone seasons, such as CSAPR.
CSAPR established an emissions trading program among power plants in 28 states in the eastern half of the country for SO2 and NOx, in order to help states meet the agency's 1997 national ambient quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and the 2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS.
EPA proposed an update to the CSAPR rule last year, so that it would address the stricter 2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), compared to the 1997 limit expressed as 84 ppb. EPA on Oct. 1 further tightened the ozone NAAQS to 70 ppb, but has yet to propose any interstate emissions rule to achieve that standard.
Layered Approach
The STAR-funded researchers found that a layered approach that imposed a $5,000 per ton NOx price on high ozone days in ERCOT would achieve additional NOx reductions of 10 to 15 percent, while in PJM the same NOx price would achieve 20 to 25 percent additional NOx benefits. Differentiating across space, rather than just time, risks shifting generation to dirtier units in other locations, the speakers said.
The researchers suggested that states have the air quality monitoring and forecasting capability to make such a system work. They also suggested the methodology they used is transferable to other power grid systems.
A second team of researchers, consisting of Jason West, Seth Blumsack and William Vizuete, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Pennsylvania State University, studied options for a system to avoid high ozone episodes in the eastern United States. The system would use "dynamic management" of emissions sources, such as power plants, to avoid running those plants that cause high ozone downwind.
The team analyzed a particular air pollution episode in Pittsburgh, and found that turning off enough power generation within the Mid-Atlantic to stop that episode "could threaten the reliability of the regional power grid," according to conclusions posted to EPA's website. However, "If the dynamic air quality management system was expanded to include the entire eastern United States, then ozone exceedances in Pittsburgh could feasibly be addressed through controlling coal-fired power plant output. The most critical units to control, our simulations found, were actually outside of the Mid-Atlantic region," the researchers said.
Reducing Emissions
The research coincides with continued debate in the 12 Mid-Atlantic and Northeast states in the OTC about how to limit SO2 and especially NOx emissions on high electric demand days (HEDD), which tend to occur on hot summer days that are already conducive to ozone formation.
At the OTC meeting, state air regulators again noted that specific power plants equipped with pollution controls appear not to be running them, contributing to the HEDD problem. This practice is legal under CSAPR if plants can rely on emissions credits they buy in order to comply with the rule. Also contributing to HEDD issues is "behind the meter" generation by diesel generators operating as part of demand-response programs, and small "peaking" power plants that operate only during periods of peak demand, air regulators said.
OTC has previously indicated it would like to explore ways to ensure that power plants with controls run them, with the most obvious being modifications to CSAPR that would increase emissions allowance prices to provide an incentive to run controls.
Episodic Controls
One OTC-area regulator says that episodic emissions controls, which could include the "dynamic" and "layered' systems explored by the STAR grant-funded researchers, could be viable. Indeed, states have previously experimented with "ozone action days" and encouraged such voluntary actions as carpooling and emissions testing of generators.
However, the regulator says, forecasting HEDD has actually become harder as NOx emissions and ozone levels have declined. A particular weather pattern is no longer a guarantee of high ozone as in the past, and HEDD may also not occur everywhere at the same time, making prevention of upwind emissions from different states difficult.
Attorney Gene Trisko, speaking on behalf of the American Coalition For Clean Coal Electricity, said that OTC's focus on individual problem power plants is misplaced, in the light of an overall major drop in NOx emissions from coal-fired plants in recent years. "This suggests unit level focus is basically irrelevant and misses the point," Trisko said. He advocated instead a focus on distributed generation by diesel generators that lack controls.
Attorney Skipp Kropp, representing the Midwest Ozone Group (MOG) coalition of power generators, warned that EPA's air emissions modeling for its proposed CSAPR update rule is "fatally flawed." An analysis prepared for the group by consultancy Alpine Geophysics shows that EPA wrongly used outdated assumptions about NOx emissions when preparing the CSAPR update, resulting in an overestimate of NOx emissions of some 93,000 tons - "a reduction larger than the 83,000 ton reduction per ozone season to be achieved by the proposed rule itself."
MOG argues that power plants are a very small contributor to the ozone problems, including HEDD issues, experienced by OTC-area states, Kropp said.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/researchers-tout-dynamic-approach-ozone-so2-emissions-mitigation
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested