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.

The Costa Concordia cruise ship ran aground off the coast of Italy almost a week ago.  As the search for survivors, sadly, winds down, the efforts to pump the large reserves of fuel and oil off of the ship ramp up. 

The ship is carrying around 2,400 metric tons of diesel fuel and lubricating oil, an amount comparable to a small oil tanker.  The fuel tanks appear to be intact currently, but as the ship continues to lie half-submerged in uncertain ocean waters, there is no telling what could change, or when. 

The method being used to remove the fuel is a process referred to as “hot tapping.” 

Since the oil and fuel are so thick, they must be heated up before being removed.  This is accomplished by pumping steam into the storage tanks to make the oil or fuel more liquid.  They can then be siphoned off into a waiting tanker as sea water is pumped in to maintain the ship’s precarious balance. 

This will need to be done for 13 external fuel tanks and 10 internal tanks. 

Corrado Clini, Environment Minister of Italy, said it would take about a month to extract the fuel for the external tanks but had no estimate on the internal tanks, which are much harder to access.

Clini also said if the ship does sink deeper, it would be better for the fuel tanks to rupture and for the fuel to float to the top of the ocean. 

While this would look scary, it would make the fuel easy to see and recover.  If the fuel leaks out slowly it would take years to clean up and create more long term damage.

No matter where in the ocean an oil/fuel spill occurs or has the potential to occur it is bad news for the environment.  But in this case, a spill would affect not only the environment, but the livelihoods of many nearby residents. 

The Costa Concordia ran aground off of Giglio Island, a renowned diving site and home to diverse plant and animal species.  Tourism is the number one industry in Giglio, and residents and business owners are rightfully concerned that the cleanup proceeds quickly and cleanly. 

Massimiliano Botti, owner of a restaurant in Giglio said, “If there is a massive fuel spill, we might as well close everything down, throw away the key and come back in 10 years.” 

It has yet to be decided what will be done with the ship itself once all of the fuel has been removed.  It is likely that it will be cut up and hauled away for scrap—a process that will adversely affect the marine environment no matter how carefully it is done.

While there are many unanswered questions—how did this happen?, who is responsible?, what are the long-term ramifications?—what is certain is that this is a tragedy, one that could have been much worse, but also one that didn’t need to happen at all. 

Hopefully the cleanup will go as quickly and smoothly as possible, justice will be served where it is due and the plants and animals that live around Giglio Island will be impacted as little as possible.

The United Nations (UN) Climate Change Conference (COP17/CMP7) was held in Durban, South Africa November 28 through December 9. 

Given the tough economic times that many countries are facing right now, most were apprehensive about the outcome of the conference and what changes it might bring to already struggling countries and economies. 

The need for some kind of change is imperative, though. 

The UN estimates that, given the current trajectory of world greenhouse gas emissions, 2020 emissions will exceed the target set by the Kyoto Protocol for keeping global warming under 2 degrees Celsius. 

What came out of the Durban conference was an agreement by the European Union to continue emissions abatement under the Kyoto protocol.  In return, all countries, including the highly polluting developing countries of China and India, will negotiate a new mitigation regime by 2015, with the goal of making it operational by 2020. 

Perhaps the biggest breakthrough of the conference was that this new emissions mitigation regime will be shared among all countries, developed or developing. 

This is important, given that developing countries are now responsible for 58% of global greenhouse gas emissions. 

The Durban deal also acknowledges that current mitigation efforts are not enough to keep global warming under 2 degrees Celsius.  Indeed, when it comes down to the people and businesses that actually need to make the changes, things are still not exactly clear. 

The head of sustainability and climate change at PricewaterhouseCoopers, Jonathan Grant, said, “The agreement reached was more of a victory for the UN process, than for the global climate, or in creating a new business imperative.”

“Business will shrug its shoulders over Durban and wait for direction from national capitals,” Grant said.
However, even with a lack of formal regulation, some businesses are making the choice to implement changes that help counteract global warming.  Many have discovered that some “green” investments, like energy efficiency and improved waste management, make commercial and financial sense. 

High oil prices mean that improved energy efficiency can end up saving a business a lot of money, with the “side” benefit of being better for the environment. 

According to the Carbon Disclosure Project, “59% of emissions-reducing investments made so far—mostly in energy efficiency or renewable energy—will pay for themselves in three years.” 

Renewable energy, such as solar and wind energy, is attractive because the electricity generated from solar panels or wind turbines goes directly back into the business. 

Businesses with operations in remote areas (such as some mining operations) can benefit from being able to provide their own electricity.  These businesses may be ahead of the game in other areas, as well. 

A business with the foresight to develop or use products that consume fewer natural resources will be ahead of the game both environmentally and monetarily when the supply of natural resources dries up.

By Phil Osterholt

Amidst a sea of snotty professional athletes (who probably think sustainability means driving a luxury sedan twice a week rather than a tricked-out, over-sized SUV) it's refreshing every two years when the Olympic Games occur and remind us just how "good" the world of sports, and the world in general, can be.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) is an organization that has earned the respect of the world. And like the straight-A student who just haaaaadto put in more community service hours than everyone else, the IOC reminded us of its integrity during the 9th World Conference on Sport and the Environment last week in Doha, Qatar.

Oh, that question you're asking yourself, "What in the heck is the World Conference on Sport and the Environment?" needs to be replaced. "Why in the heck ..." is better suited. The answer: "The IOC does this to lead by example."

There was no international agency that tapped the IOC on the shoulder and said, "Eh-hem, to comply with XYZ regulations, you shall participate in a biennial meeting to establish progressive means in which the world of sports may demonstrate sustainability."

Well, let's not be too Polyanna about this. It’s probably not completely “just because,” as there are other "business" reasons for the IOC doing this sort of thing, mainly to maintain that sterling reputation and to generate some ink from time to time (happy to oblige).

In general though, it appears that this type of conference is essentially put on to benefit mankind.

The roots of the World Conference on Sport and the Environment are based in the 1992 "Earth Summit" held by the United Nations. The meeting prompted the IOC to consider the environment in its actions, and in 1994, the IOC made "the environment" the third pillar of the Olympic Movement while creating a branch of the organization to handle environmental issues. The IOC then teamed with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to host the first biennial World Conference on Sport and the Environment in 1995 in Switzerland.

And where has the IOC gotten to now? Let's look at the 2010 Winter Games in Vancouver, for which the Olympic Village went on to be honored with a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Platinum rating...

Reduce: they warmed buildings using heat generated from raw sewage, lowering the need for traditional energy sources.

Re-use: they utilized wood from trees that had been killed by pine beetles in construction of the Richmond Olympic Oval [picture above], and collected rainwater from roofs to flush the toilets.

Recycle: they turned the venue into a community center upon completion of the Games.

Again, these were not things they had to, but things they wanted to do. When the eyes of the world are upon you, that's the right thing to do.

So whose eyes are on you? You’re following your EHS regulations and playing by the rules, but what little things could you, or your company, do to take it to the next level?

Maybe your company can reduce its paper output by converting its utility bills to paperless, or by offering direct deposit (it's not just abut the paper with direct deposit, but also eliminating employee's superfulous trips to their respective financial institutions).

Those are itsy bitsy teeny tiny things, and are "tired" thoughts at this point. In other words, those aren't "leadership" actions, but "follow-the-herd" actions. That’s not to say that the little things help change our world too, but leadership is about doing something huge.

And if "just because" doesn't float your boat ... try making an innovative change in the right direction, and see what it does for your "image."

And, again, think about whose eyes are on you.

If you’d like to increase the number of those who know of your good deeds, feel free to brag about something you've already done by leaving a comment below. It’s not just bragging, it’s sharing ideas so others can follow.

Today is Earth Day and many people are focused on what they can do to celebrate the day-- turn off a light, carpool, recycle their drink container.  But let’s take a step back and take a look at the bigger picture. 

Think about all of the laws and regulations that affect the earth every single day…emissions limits for industries, energy conservation requirements, waste disposal and recycling laws.  All of these things happen on a daily basis and are important in the broader sense of protecting environmental resources. 

Keeping yourself informed and up-to-date about the regulations in your industry is just as important as recycling that drink container or figuring out who to carpool with.

For example, 40 CFR 63 – “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories” and 49 CFR 196 – “Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards” were updated earlier this month. 

These are examples of federal regulations, but keep in mind that states update their regulations frequently, too. 

Environmental health and safety regulations at all levels of government (federal, state, county, city, etc.) are added to and amended all of the time.

So, do what you can to celebrate today…turn off that light, recycle that container.  But also keep current with the rules and regulations in your industry. 

Not only will that ensure you are in compliance with the latest regulations, but you will be doing your part to protect the earth and its resources, every day.  That’s something to feel good about!

Technorati Tags: Earth day, EHS, Regulations, Environment