The US EPA has finalized air pollution standards related to oil and gas production, they announced in a press release April 18, 2012.

The updated standards are a result of input from the industry, public, public health groups and states. They include the first federal air rules for hydraulically fractured natural gas wells, and rules for emissions from storage tanks and other equipment.

The EPA estimates that the updated standards will save the industry $11 to $19 million annually.

Based on information collected from public comments, the updated standards establish a phase-in period to ensure that the necessary emissions-reduction technology is widely available.

Until January 2015, natural gas well operators must flare their emissions or use “green completions” technologies that are already used at many wells. In 2015, the EPA will require each new fractured well to use green completions. This will not require new federal permits.

Costs to implement the updated standards are reduced as they are achievable with cost-effective, widely-available technologies combined with processes already used by an estimated 50% of fractured natural gas wells across the US. The combination will not only reduce harmful emissions by 95%, but will allow operators to sell additional natural gas collected.

During the production of natural gas, escaping gas causes air pollution. The updated standards require that operators capture that gas, which the operators can sell to offset the cost of compliance. And, as approximately 13,000 wells are fractured or re-fractured each year, it is expected that reducing methane – the primary component of natural gas – will greatly benefit the environment.

It is the EPA’s goal that these standards will expand production of clean energy in the US while reducing negative impacts to public health.

EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said, "By ensuring the capture of gases that were previously released to pollute our air and threaten our climate, these updated standards will not only protect our health, but also lead to more product for fuel suppliers to bring to market.

"They're an important step toward tapping future energy supplies without exposing American families and children to dangerous health threats in the air they breathe.”

For more information, check out the EPA Web site.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has passed the first Clean Air Act standard for future power plants.

The rule is a step towards creating cleaner energy and decreasing pollution levels generated by the energy sector.

The new standard is a result of a 2007 Supreme Court decision in the case Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, wherein several states sued the EPA to force the agency to begin regulating air pollution caused by carbon dioxide (CO₂) and greenhouse gases.

The Clean Air Act will only apply to future power plants, but even these can qualify for exemption. According to the EPA, the passed standard will exclude:

• New plants that have permits and plan to begin construction within the next 12 months
• Power plants renewing permits that are already a part of a Department of Energy demonstration project
• Plants that will not burn any fossil fuels
• Any power plants not located in the continental US

The Clean Air Act is a standard based on compromise with the energy sector, allowing for slower change over the long term, if at all, where necessary. The EPA already believes that most of the new natural gas combined cycle units (95% of them) will not need to adjust at all to meet the carbon pollution standard.

Further, any new power plants that plan to employ a carbon capture and storage scheme will not need to meet the pollution cap average each year, as long as the plant’s 30 year average is lower than the proposed standard’s average over the same period of time.

According to ThinkProgress.org, the carbon pollution rule sets the standard at no more than 1,000 pounds of CO₂ per megawatt hour of electricity that is produced. Average natural gas units only emit approximately 800-850 pounds, while coal plants emit over 1,700 pounds of CO₂ per MWh.

While this is well above the EPA’s standard, it does not apply to already existing plants, and new plants have a wider range of technology available to help them meet this standard.

The new Clean Air Act for carbon pollution is a landmark piece of regulation in that it is one of the first federal rules for CO₂ pollution, it will be another 30 years before it can be determined as successful.

In the US, national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) have been established for industries emitting toxic air emissions that require the use of Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) for compliance.

Mercury NESHAP/MACT standards have been published for hazardous and municipal waste incineration, commercial/industrial boilers, chlor-alkali plants, and Portland cement kilns. Strategies for controlling mercury and other toxic air pollutants include pollution prevention measures, including product substitution, process modification, work-practice standards and materials separation; coal cleaning (relevant to mercury control); flue gas treatment technologies; and others.

More than 20 years after Congress passed the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on December 21, 2011, issued the first national standards for mercury pollution from power plants ̶ the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS).

The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments required the stricter standards on power plants in an effort to reduce toxic emissions across the country. These new rules finalize standards to reduce air pollution from coal and oil-fired power plants under sections 111 (new source performance standards) and 112 (toxics program) of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.

Power plants are the largest source of air pollution from mercury, arsenic and cyanide, and are responsible for half the mercury and over 75 percent of the acid gas emissions in the United States.

Mercury has been shown to harm the nervous system of children exposed in the womb, thereby causing impaired thinking, learning and early development. According to the EPA, the standards will prevent 130,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms and about 6,300 fewer cases of acute bronchitis among children each year.

Today, more than half of all coal-fired power plants already use pollution control technologies that will help them meet these standards. Once finalized, these standards will ensure the remaining plants – about 40 percent of all coal-fired power plants – take similar steps to decrease these hazardous pollutants.

In addition to reducing emissions of mercury and other toxic air pollutants, the controls needed to meet the standards will result in reduced emissions of sulfur dioxide and fine particles, which will lower airborne soot levels throughout the United States.

Under these standards, the EPA is providing the standard three years for compliance, but is also encouraging permitting authorities to make a fourth year available for technology installations. If still more time is needed, they will provide a pathway to address any localized electric reliability problems, should they arise.

Among the improvements that will result, it is estimated there will be approximately 540,000 missed work or “sick” days avoided each year, enhancing productivity and lowering health care costs, and 3,200,000 fewer Restricted Activity days.

People exposed to toxic air pollutants at sufficient concentrations and durations may have an increased chance of getting cancer or experiencing other serious adverse health effects. These health effects can include disruption to the immune system, as well as neurological, reproductive, developmental, respiratory and other health problems. In addition to exposure from breathing air toxics, some toxic air pollutants such as mercury can deposit onto soils or surface waters. They are then taken up by plants and ingested by animals and are eventually magnified up through the food chain.

The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, combined with the final Cross State Air Pollution Rule issued in 2011, are estimated to prevent up to 46,000 premature deaths, 540,000 asthma attacks among children, and 24,500 emergency room visits and hospital admissions. The two programs are estimated to provide a total of up to $380 billion in return to American families in the form of longer, healthier lives and reduced health care costs.

Toxics Released by Industry Up 16 Percent from 2009

On January 5, 2012, the US EPA released its 2010 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) National Analysis, its annual report displaying the agency's interpretation of the most recent TRI data, which outlines national and local trends in toxic chemical disposal into the environment. The report provides the American public with vital information about toxic materials in their communities.

Now in its 25th year, the TRI program helps citizens, emergency planners, public health officials, and others protect human health and the environment by providing them with toxic chemical release and other waste management data. The information can be used in decision-making processes that affect public safety and welfare.

Facilities must report their toxic chemical releases to the EPA by July 1st of each year under the federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 also requires information on waste management activities related to TRI chemicals.

The report indicates that in 2010, TRI facilities generated more than 21.82 billion pounds of toxic chemicals in production-related wastes. Of this total, nearly 17.85 billiion pounds were recycled, burned for energy recovery, or treated; the remaining 3.97 billion pounds were disposed of or otherwise released into the environment.

The data reflects on- and off-site or other releases into land, air or water, or releases injected underground. For 2010, the total releases of TRI chemicals into the environment are higher than the previous two years, but are lower than 2007 and prior-year totals. The 3.93¹ billion pounds of toxic chemicals released nationwide represents a 16% increase from 2009.

• Total air releases decreased 6%,
• Releases into surface water increased 9%, and
• Releases onto or into land increased 28% since 2009.

Most of the releases (41%) came from the Metal Mining sector, and is reflective of changes in the industry. A small change in the chemical composition of ore being mined may lead to large changes in toxic releases. The sector contributed 1,622.6 million pounds in 2010 versus 1,271.7 million in 2009, a 27.5% increase. Since 2001, however, the Metal Mining sector decreased TRI chemical release levels by 29%, or 652 million pounds. In both years, ±98% of the disposal was onto land.

Running second was the Electric Utility sector, which contributed 18% of TRI chemical releases in 2010 up from 12% in 2009, although the actual poundage was down: 702.4 million pounds in 2010 versus 801.6 million in 2009. In 2010, 88% was released into the air and land versus 91% in 2009.

In all, 7 of the 26 industry sectors originated 92% of all disposal or other releases of TRI chemicals.

The EPA has made improvements to this year’s TRI report by adding new information on facility efforts to reduce pollution and by considering whether economic factors could have affected the TRI data. With this report and EPA’s Web-based TRI tools, the public has access to information about toxic chemical releases that occur locally.

¹Note that the two metrics related to disposal or other releases are different, i.e. 3.97 and 3.93. One key source of the difference is that adjustments are made to the aggregated quantities to ensure that transfers of TRI chemicals sent off site to other TRI facilities are not counted twice.

I was surprised to see a news release from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stating that a former EPA fugitive had been caught and sentenced to prison for running an asbestos training scam. 

First of all, I wasn’t aware that the EPA had a fugitive list.  Second of all, I was appalled at what this fugitive had done. 

Albania Deleon ran an asbestos abatement training school in Methuen, MA from 2001 through 2006.  During this time, the company offered training courses on proper asbestos abatement.  Upon successful completion of an asbestos training course, participants are considered certified in asbestos abatement and given a certificate stating so. 

Ms. Deleon skipped a few key steps in this process.  She was convicted of, among other things, selling certificates to thousands of illegal aliens who had not taken the required course.  The individuals then filed the certificates with the Massachusetts Division of Occupational Safety in order to be authorized to work in asbestos abatement.

Ms. Deleon then placed these uncertified workers in positions as certified abatement workers in public buildings throughout New England. 

The fact that someone cold knowingly do this blows my mind.  It’s similar to a story covered previously on this blog about a man in Iowa who knowingly allowed a building he owned that contained asbestos-laden materials to undergo extensive renovations without the proper equipment or certified workers. 

What Ms. Deleon did happened on a much larger scale and with the potential for much larger consequences.  It is estimated that certificates were issued to over 2,000 unqualified individuals.

Ms. Deleon was captured in the Dominican Republic in November of 2010, nineteen months after her federal conviction in 2008.  She was sentenced to 87 months in prison and ordered to pay $1.2 million to the IRS (she was also found guilty of tax fraud), and $369,015 to AIM Mutual Insurance Company. 

After her conviction in 2008, but before she fled back to her native Dominican Republic, Ms. Deleon wrote in a letter “I pray that God will forgive my soul and allow me to atone the rest of my life repaying and repairing the harm I have done.  This is my solemn promise…I commit myself to work ceacelessly [sic] to make restitution to the government and to the keeper of my soul until I draw my last breath life (sic).” 

The irony in that statement is obvious, as many of the workers that received “certification” under her watch will suffer long and painful deaths from asbestosis or other asbestos-related diseases. 

I am glad to see that the EPA is cracking down on environmental criminals like Ms. Deleon.  The EPA fugitive website was launched in December 2008 and has helped aid in the capture of five environmental criminals in that time.

I recently talked with a smoker. I won't reveal his name, but Jimmy Smoke would suffice here.

During the conversation, Jimmy Smoke lit up several times, and it seemed that each flick of the lighter reminded him of how society was openly persecuting tobacco users. Smokers are relegated to distant patios. They can't smoke indoors anymore. They are surrounded by harpies that scold them. And now, some communities ban smoking outdoors, too!

"The air doesn't belong to anybody," he fumed.

After breathing the haze that had gradually come to surround him, and ruminating on how the smoke that had just circulated inside his lungs was now being inhaled into mine, I retorted, "The air doesn't belong to anybody; it belongs to everybody."

I couldn't tell whether my comment quieted or disquieted him, but for a moment he stood transfixed, and then went on to another topic. Many, I believe, have only a dim awareness that what they do to the air could affect anyone else. An ethics professor I know would chalk it up to infantile, self-centered thinking or inadequate social development.

The exchange with Jimmy was a microcosm; let's take a look at the mesocosm.

In June, a Des Moines developer by the name of Bobby Joe Knapp was sentenced to 41 months in prison for willfully violating the Clean Air Act. The prison term will be followed up by 2 years of supervised release, 300 hours of community service, and a $12,500 fine.

It seems that over a three-year period, Bobby Joe, owner and operator of the old Equitable Building in downtown Des Moines, carried out extensive renovations to the property that involved the removal of asbestos-laden pipe coatings and tiles.

Bobby Joe had his workers remove asbestos from the upper stories of the building and hide the material in an uncovered dumpster. The workers had neither protective equipment nor proper training. The tenants and customers who still did business on the lower floors had no idea of the dusty death that floated aloft.

Finally in 2009, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources became involved and fined Bobby Joe $500,000. What became of that fine is unclear as Bobby Joe has since been sentenced to prison and lost the Equitable in foreclosure.

Bobby Joe pled guilty, but asked to have his prison time reduced or eliminated completely. After all, he had done good things for people in the past. He was basically a good man and it was just a little air.

What Jimmy Smoke and Bobby Joe have in common is that they don't believe the air belongs to anybody. It's vast! There's so much of it! A little dust or smoke could do no harm.

Jimmy is now taking care of his wife, who – surprise! – is suffering from the first stages of lung cancer. He never realized that it was her air, too.

Bobby Joe thought he should be let off for spreading contamination throughout the streets of Des Moines, planting the seeds of mesothelioma in possibly thousands of lungs.

I don't feel the need to take this to the macrocosm, to large-scale polluters and politicians who want to eliminate the agencies that tell them, "The air doesn't belong to anybody; it belongs to everybody."

Large non-compliant corporations poison the air, too, on a far greater scale than my examples above, and I wonder why they do not end up either like Jimmy Smoke, forever grieving over his carelessness, or like Bobby Joe, griefless, still careless, but enduring its consequences?

Maybe it's the same in microcosm, mesocosm and macrocosm. Maybe it's just part of our lower human nature, infantile self-centeredness or inadequate social development to think, "The air doesn't belong to anybody."

One interesting side effect of the economic downturn has been a decrease in industrialized nations’ greenhouse gas emissions. 

An overall decrease of 5.6 percent was reported in industrialized nations’ greenhouse gas emissions in 2009. 

In 2009, greenhouse gas emissions fell 6.1 percent in the U.S., 7.2 percent in the European Union and 3.2 percent in Russia.  During the same time period, the overall domestic product of industrialized nations decreased by 3.4 percent. 

Pep Canadell, head of the Global Carbon Project noted that the recession coincided with high oil prices, adding yet another hit to energy-intensive sectors. 

Mr. Canadell said that there is "a risk of complacency” among industrialized governments regarding the decrease in emissions.  He noted that the decrease was not a result of sustainable long-term emission reduction strategies. 

Indeed, there is already information showing that the emissions numbers are on the rise again.  The Global Carbon Project estimated that global carbon dioxide emissions were up 3 percent in 2010, after a fall of 1.3 percent in 2009. 

While the decrease may have been a temporary one, it was certainly an unanticipated positive outcome during an overall negative time.  Hopefully it prompted businesses to look at less expensive and/or more efficient ways of operating…something they can continue in the future. 

On a side note, this week, May 2-6 is Air Quality Awareness Week.  Please take a moment to think about your impact on air quality, and how you can lessen your footprint.  It could be by doing something as small as carpooling to work or as large as implementing new company-wide system changes. 

Big or small, every effort helps!

This week’s post was written by Dr. Ken Ferguson, an independent consultant evaluating project risk and risk mitigation related to new nuclear reactor projects. He has a PhD in Nuclear Science and Engineering from Carnegie – Mellon University and a B.S. in Physics from the University of Michigan.

The recent events in Japan underscore the role that natural events, site selection, and site suitability have on the safety of nuclear power reactors. The developed world addresses the concept of nuclear safety as an integrated effect of the specific design proposed for power generation coupled with the specific site for which the nuclear reactor is being deployed. Many years ago, as a young engineer with nuclear engineering degrees, I made a decision to get the full view of nuclear power projects by accepting my first nuclear position as part of a licensing organization. I soon became involved in a rapid learning curve, appreciation, and incorporation of the “…ologies” into my safety and regulatory interfacing duties. Site characterizations regarding hydrology, geology, seismology, and meteorology are examples of critical information that is collected and transmitted in documents to regulatory reviewers. This information also provides key inputs to the duty cycles imposed on nuclear plant systems and components, as well as the related engineering and safety analyses and evaluations that are performed by nuclear design companies and independently by regulatory staff. In the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) creates a series of regulatory guides for power plant applicants to utilize in generating and utilizing site suitability and related plant evaluations. Regulations are promulgated regarding acceptance parameters such as radiological exposure limits for the public and workers for normal operations as well as accident scenarios.

Regulators are the referees, not the champions of the nuclear technologies in which they are involved. One key value performed is determining the safety of the reactor designs proposed by others for deployment. An historical, coincident question and challenge is “how safe is safe enough?”  For nuclear accidents, keeping the reactor sufficiently cooled to prevent fuel damage is an overriding concern. Operating plants utilize electrical powered pumps to deliver such cooling.

The recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan is expected to have compliance and regulatory implications for nuclear power plants world wide. The United States NRC, for example, has already become involved in an action for additional seismic risk evaluations of nuclear plants currently in operation. Other related actions can be expected to occur; including updates to the regulatory process and details to assure that a proper level of safety risk is involved in utilizing specific reactor designs at selected locations. Ramifications could involve rulemaking, public hearings, regulatory guide development and reviews, calls for additional analyses and testing, etc. aimed to assess current adequacy or to establish effective enhancement.

Some of the characteristics of the progression of these reviews and implications for the nuclear regulatory process may include the following:

1. Expect the United States NRC and its staff to be out in front regarding such actions and to be a standard for actions and attentions taken globally.
2. There has been recent attention in “Regulatory Harmonizing” globally regarding coordination and effective and proper consistency among countries. Expect future regulatory enhancement directions to ultimately reflect such harmony to an increasing degree.
3. Expect the attention to be focused on operating units (over one hundred in the US, over 400 globally), followed by new large reactors not constructed (perhaps 60 worldwide) and finally new concepts for small reactors, expected to be applied for next year in the United States.
4. Expect this action to include a necessary involvement of the dozens of emerging nations having a serious interest in nuclear power but not yet ordering plants. Many are working through the establishment of a nuclear regulatory structure as part of a supportive national nuclear infrastructure.
5. An interactive involvement of nuclear design companies, utilities, and regulatory staff as changes are drafted and reviewed internally and externally.
6. Effective implementation of finalized changes to any regulatory process must involve an “early and often” interfacing with regulators to assure that the body of work undertaken and documentation delivered achieves the compliance that the regulations and regulators require.

Do you think that these industry and regulatory actions make a nuclear plant “safe enough?” Tell us your thoughts on this matter.

On Friday, February 4^th, Southern California’s South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) approved a controversial plan that will allow small businesses and public facilities to receive free clean air credits.  The plan’s goal is to stimulate the economy by allowing small businesses (those that emit less than 4 tons of smog-forming pollutants a year) and public utilities to expand and create new jobs without the financial burden of having to pay for credits. 

Clean air credits are normally sold on the open market, and are created when polluters reduce their emissions or shut down.  Public entities that could benefit from this decision include sewage treatment plants and landfills.  AQMD spokesman Sam Atwood says that the agency’s plan “allows for some growth and at the same time allows us to meet clean-air standards.” 

Opponents of the decision believe that issuing the credits for free, instead of forcing polluters to buy the credits, will result in even more pollution in already smoggy region.  The impact on public health is also concerning for local residents who may be at risk for developing respiratory illnesses such as asthma. 

The Air Quality Management District encompasses all of Orange County and parts of Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Riverside counties – an area that is home to almost 17 million people. 

Do you think this is an acceptable compromise between economic growth and public and environmental health?  Do you have suggestions for other methods to balance economic growth while safeguarding public and environmental health?

For more information on the free emissions credits plan, visit the South California South Coast Air Management District’s website: http://www.aqmd.gov .

For the first time in its history, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued final rules that will cut emissions of mercury, particle pollution and other harmful pollutants from Portland cement manufacturing, the third-largest source of mercury air emissions in the United States.

This action limits mercury air emissions from existing cement kilns, strengthens the limits for new kilns and sets emission limits that will reduce acid gases. This final action also limits particle pollution from new and existing kilns, and sets new-kiln limits for particle and smog-forming nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide.
When fully implemented in 2013, the EPA estimates annual emissions will be reduced as follows:

• Mercury – 16,600 pounds (92%)
• Total hydrocarbons – 10,600 tons (83%)
• Particulate Matter – 11,500 tons (92%)
• Acid gases – (measured as hydrochloric acid): 5,800 tons (97%)
• Sulfur dioxide (SO2)– 110,000 tons (78%)
• Nitrogen oxides (NOx) – 6,600 tons (5%)

The EPA estimates that the rules will yield $6.7 billion to $18 billion in health and environmental benefits, with costs estimated at $926 million to $950 million annually in 2013.

For more information, visit http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3pfpr.html.