Natural gas as a transportation fuel the topic of conference
live.psu.edu/story/59583#nw69
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Increasingly, bus companies are switching to natural gas fuel. Shown here, a Centre Area Transportation Authority vehicle 'gases' up.
UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — A one-day conference in Lehigh County, sponsored by Penn State’s College of Agricultural Sciences, will provide a comprehensive overview of using natural gas as a transportation fuel in Pennsylvania and the mid-Atlantic region.
“Natural Gas Vehicles: The Road Ahead in Pennsylvania” will be held from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Monday, June 11, at Penn State Lehigh Valley in Center Valley. The program is being organized by Penn State Extension.
“The conference will be a place where clean-air and clean-transportation advocates, industry stakeholders, fleet managers and policymakers can learn the fundamentals of using natural gas as a transportation fuel,” said conference coordinator Dave Messersmith, extension educator and member of Extension’s Marcellus Education Team.
“Professionals attending the sessions will be able to network with other natural gas vehicle stakeholders, and they can discuss opportunities and challenges to greater adoption of natural gas as a transportation fuel.”
The conference will feature sessions titled “A Primer on Natural Gas as a Transportation Fuel,” “What’s Happening with Natural Gas Vehicles in Pennsylvania and the Mid-Atlantic,” “Understanding Shale Gas in Pennsylvania and Natural Gas Market Outlook,” “The Texas Clean Transportation Triangle: A Model for Success,” “Engine and Conversion Technologies,” and “Fueling Station Concepts and Technologies.”
Presenters include researchers, entrepreneurs and industry experts who will provide a fundamental understanding of natural gas as a transportation fuel.
The registration fee for the conference is $149. For more information, contact Carol Loveland at 570-433-3040 or by email at cal24@psu.edu.
To register for the conference by phone, call toll-free 877-489-1398. To register online, go to the conference website at http://agsci.psu.edu/natural-gas-vehicles and click on RSVP in the gray bar near the top of the page.
Study: ’Fracking’ may increase air pollution health risks
www.timesleader.com/stories/Study-Fracking-may-increase-air-pollution-health-risks-,129383
By Neela Banerjee, Los Angeles Times
Air pollution caused by hydraulic fracturing, a controversial oil and gas drilling method, may contribute to “acute and chronic health problems for those living near natural gas drilling sites,” according to a new study from the Colorado School of Public Health.
The study, based on three years of monitoring at Colorado sites, found a number of “potentially toxic petroleum hydrocarbons in the air near the wells including benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene and xylene.” The Environmental Protection Agency has identified benzene as a known carcinogen.
Soon to be published in an upcoming edition of Science of the Total Environment, the report said that those living within a half-mile of a natural gas drilling site faced greater health risks than those who live farther away. Colorado allows companies to drill for natural gas within 150 feet of homes.
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, involves injecting great volumes of water and sand laced with chemicals into shale formations to break apart the rock and unlock reservoirs of oil and gas. Its advocates say it carries minimal environmental risks and the chance of great economic rewards for companies and communities. Its critics have largely focused so far on fracking’s possible contamination of underground and surface water.
But when a well is fracked, it’s almost as if a small factory is rapidly erected at the drilling site, as machinery and tanks of chemicals and water are brought in. Studies have shown that air pollution at many of these sites is greater than in surrounding areas. Adhering to EPA standards, the researchers for this study used air toxics data collected in Garfield County from January 2008 to November 2010. A small rural community in Colorado, Garfield is poised to undergo a sharp increase in drilling activity.
The study pointed out that earlier research indicated that prolonged exposure to petroleum hydrocarbons in the air near refineries, oil spills and petrol stations pointed to “an increased risk of eye irritation and headaches, asthma symptoms, acute childhood leukemia, acute myelogenous leukemia, and multiple myeloma.”
“Our data show that it is important to include air pollution in the national dialogue on natural gas development that has focused largely on water exposures to hydraulic fracturing,” said Lisa McKenzie, Ph.D., M.P.H., lead author of the study and research associate at the Colorado School of Public Health.
The EPA is finalizing new rules to curtail air pollution at oil and gas drilling sites. A recent Bloomberg News poll suggested a majority of Americans would like to see tighter regulation of fracking.
DEP calls for Marcellus air data
republicanherald.com/news/dep-calls-for-marcellus-air-data-1.1264911
BY ROBERT SWIFT (HARRISBURG BUREAU CHIEF rswift@timesshamrock.com)
Published: January 31, 2012
HARRISBURG – Operators of Marcellus wells, drilling rigs and compressor stations are being notified by state officials to provide air emissions data by March 1, highlighting an issue activists want more attention given in pending impact fee legislation.
A notice by the Department of Environmental Protection in the Pennsylvania Bulletin calls for operators to provide emission source reports covering 2011 for facilities involved in different phases of the Marcellus production process. The agency notified 99 firms about the requirement last month and the notice in the Jan. 28 bulletin is to cast a wider net.
The March 1 deadline is set because DEP has to provide a comprehensive inventory of air emissions to the federal Environmental Protection Agency by year’s end. This inventory is updated every three years. This will be the first time emissions data for Marcellus production and processing operations is included in the inventory, which covers everything from refineries and manufacturing plants, to dry cleaners and gas stations.
The inventory is important for maintaining air quality standards and determining ozone levels, said DEP officials. The agency plans to start long-term air monitoring studies at several sites and the emissions data will be part of that effort. DEP did not identify any emission levels that would constitute a public health concern when it did short-term air quality sampling in 2010 in the drilling regions of Bradford, Susquehanna, Tioga, Greene and Washington counties, said DEP Secretary Michael Krancer.
A Pittsburgh-based environmental group said Pennsylvania needs to do more to address the issue of Marcellus-related air emissions.
DEP should look at the combined impact of emissions from stages of Marcellus production rather than permitting each emission as a minor source of pollutants, said Lauren Burge, an attorney for Group Against Smog and Pollution.
“Many sources in this industry are located near each other, connected to each other and owned by the same company. However, because DEP considers them to be separate sources of pollutants, many of these facilities are able to avoid being permitted as major sources.
Midwest utility to shut coal-burning power plants
www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/26/2610545/midwest-utility-to-shut-coal-burning.html
By BOB DOWNING
Thursday, 01.26.12
Akron Beacon Journal
AKRON, Ohio — FirstEnergy Corp. on Thursday said it will retire six coal-fired power plants, including four in Ohio, because of stricter federal anti-pollution rules.
The six older and dirtier plants will be closed by Sept. 1.
“It was a tough decision,” said Charles D. Lasky, vice president of fossil fleet operations for FirstEnergy Generation Corp.
FirstEnergy will be among the first American utilities to close aging, polluting power plants after tighter federal clean-air rules were finalized last month.
FirstEnergy had been keeping a close eye on proposed federal rules on mercury, heavy metals and air toxics from coal-burning power plants for years, Lasky said.
The new rules provided FirstEnergy with “sufficient certainty” to proceed with the closings, he said.
The federal mandate that improvements be completed within three years was a factor in the decision to retire the six plants, which represent 12 percent of the utility’s generation capacity, he said.
The decision affects 529 workers who will be eligible for severance benefits, the Akron-based utility said.
It indicated that the number of affected workers might be less because some might be considered for other openings within the company and because of a new retirement benefit being offered to workers 55 and older.
About one-third of those 529 workers are eligible for retirement. The utility has about 100 openings in its fossil fuel division, officials said.
The plants to be closed are:
-Bay Shore Plant, Boilers 2-4, in Oregon, Ohio, outside Toledo. One boiler with anti-pollution equipment will remain open.
-Eastlake Plant with five boilers, Eastlake.
-Ashtabula Plant, Ashtabula.
-Lake Shore Plant, Cleveland.
-Armstrong Power Station, Adrian, Pa.
-R. Paul Smith Power Station, Williamsport, Md.
The Eastlake plant is the largest, capable of producing 1,233 megawatts; the Williamsport plant is the smallest at 116 megawatts.
The average age of the six plants is 55 years, Lasky said.
The closings were triggered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s new Mercury and Air Toxic Standards (MATS), which were finalized Dec. 21.
Reducing emissions of mercury, heavy metals and airborne toxics from coal-burning power plants will protect people’s health, the EPA said.
Installing anti-pollution equipment on small, old power plants was not economically feasible, FirstEnergy concluded.
Lasky declined to say how much it would have cost FirstEnergy to equip the plants with bag houses, activated carbon filters and lime or sorbent injection systems to meet the new federal rules.
FirstEnergy saw no advantage to waiting to see whether legal challenges might overturn the new rules, said Ray Evans, executive director of environmental for FirstEnergy Services.
In some cases, there is not enough land around the old plants to install anti-pollution equipment, he said.
Pa. needs state standards for natural gas wells
www.pottsmerc.com/article/20120119/OPINION01/120119610/-1/opinion/pa-needs-state-standards-for-natural-gas-wells-&pager=full_story
Opinion: Posted: 01/19/12
The Pennsylvania natural gas frenzy began years ago, but still the state remains one of two in the nation with no statewide standards for private water well construction.
According to the state Department of Environmental protection, 3 million Pennsylvanians rely on water from 1 million wells. Some 13,000 to 15,000 new wells are drilled every year.
Furthermore, researchers have shown that 40 percent of 700 wells sampled since 2006 were
compromised in terms of safe drinking water standards, according to Capitolwire.com.
The most frequent health-affecting pollutant, Coliform bacteria, showed up in one-third of the tested wells. E.coli bacteria, which originates from either human or animal waste, was found in 14 percent of the wells tested.
That’s not much of a surprise in a state known for its intensive animal farming operations. But it argues powerfully for some kind of construction standard. Researchers said poor well construction was a factor.Right now all one has to do to dig a well is sign a form and obtain a drilling rig.
That’s pretty astounding, even if all we had to worry about was biological waste. But wait, there’s more.
One of the recommendations made by Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission last year was establishment of construction standards on new private water wells, according to Rep. Ron Miller, R-York. Natural gas drillers, by the way, denied all responsibility for that part of the report.
In any event, Miller has sponsored legislation to authorize the Environmental Quality Board to establish statewide water well construction regulations based on National Groundwater Association standards.
The Legislature should enact that bill as soon as possible.
Once again, we have another instance of Pennsylvania public health standards struggling to catch up with intensive industrial activity, in this case by agriculture and natural gas fracking.
But, hey, better late than never, right?
Special to The Mercury, Chambersburg Public Opinion
Toxic releases rose 16 percent in 2010, EPA says
www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/toxic-releases-rose-16-percent-in-2010-epa-says/2012/01/05/gIQAhbTpdP_story.html
By Juliet Eilperin, Published: January 5, 2012
The amount of toxic chemicals released into the environment nationwide in 2010 increased 16 percent over the year before, reversing a downward trend in overall toxic releases since 2006, according to a report released Thursday by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The spike was driven largely by metal mining, but other sectors — including the chemical industry — also contributed to the rise in emissions, according to the new analysis from the annual federal Toxics Release Inventory.
Air releases of dioxin, which is linked to cancer as well as neurological and reproductive problems, rose 10 percent from 2009 to 2010, according to the report. Other releases, such as landfill disposal, increased 18 percent.
Dioxins are formed as a byproduct of some processes with intense heat, such as smelting and recycling metals. The 2010 increase stemmed largely from the hazardous-waste-management and mining industries, according to the EPA.
In a statement Thursday, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson did not address the specific sources of emissions but said that the public reporting “has played a significant role in protecting people’s health and the environment by providing communities with valuable information on toxic chemical releases.”
According to EPA officials, a handful of metal mining operations helped drive the overall increase in toxic emissions.
“In this sector, even a small change in the chemical composition of the ore being mined — which EPA understands is one of the reasons for the increase in total reported releases — may lead to big changes in the amount of toxic chemicals reported nationally,” the statement read.
Some environmentalists said the new data show why the EPA should swiftly move to release a long-anticipated environmental assessment of dioxin, the first installment of which the agency plans to issue this month. EPA officials say they will issue a report addressing dioxin’s non-cancerous effects first and then later release a cancer-related report.
Some industry groups, including the American Chemistry Council, have urged the EPA to hold off issuing the report in what the trade association’s president and chief executive, Cal Dooley, has called “a piecemeal fashion.” Chemical manufacturers accounted for nearly 64 percent of total disposal of dioxins in 2010, though they reported a 7 percent decrease from 2009 to 2010.
In a letter dated Dec. 20, Dooley wrote Jackson that “it is worth noting that the Agency’s efforts to manage dioxin emissions have been successful. Indeed, as a result of both regulatory and voluntary initiatives, U.S. dioxin emissions from man-made sources have dramatically declined and environmental levels of dioxin have plummeted.”
ACC spokeswoman Anne Kolton noted in an e-mail: “U.S. emissions of dioxin have declined more than 92 percent since 1987 [through 2009] to the point where backyard trash burning is the primary source of dioxin emissions.”
Mike Schade — a campaign coordinator for the Center for Health, Environment and Justice — said the fact that emissions are now on the upswing makes it important for the EPA to release a report it started working on in 1985.
“Communities across America have been exposed to dioxin for decades as EPA has continued to work on this study. Every American has measurable levels of dioxin in their body,” Schade said in an interview, noting that most humans are exposed by eating meat or dairy products from animals that have accumulated the chemical in their bodies. “It’s critically important for EPA to finalize this study so the EPA can protect Americans from this toxic chemical.”
New fuel for coal vs. gas debate
www.timesleader.com/news/New_fuel_for_coal_vs__gas_debate_12-27-2011.html
December 27, 2011
By Steve Mocarsky smocarsky@timesleader.com
Wilkes-based group finds natural gas has smaller greenhouse footprint.
A research group based at Wilkes University recently revised its position on whether burning coal or natural gas has a worse impact on the environment and global warming.
Based on several new studies, the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research of Northeastern Pennsylvania concluded that, contrary to findings in an April study by researchers at Cornell University, natural gas produced from Marcellus Shale wells has a lower greenhouse footprint than coal.
According to the institute essay, the use of natural gas and the other fossil fuels for energy releases greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere. Those gases are thought to increase global temperatures.
Studies conducted between 2000 and 2007 suggested that natural gas produces fewer greenhouse gases than coal, especially when used to generate electricity.
But a study by a team of researchers at Cornell University published in April found that extracting natural gas from shale released large quantities of methane – a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
The researchers concluded that when the full life-cycle of energy extraction, delivery and use is considered, shale gas produces up to twice the greenhouse gas emissions compared to burning coal or oil – especially when viewed over a 20-year time span.
However, seven analyses released in the summer and fall of 2011 came to a different conclusion than the Cornell study. All seven found that natural gas produces 20 percent to 60 percent lower greenhouse gas emissions, especially when used for electrical generation and when viewed over a 100-year time span.
The discrepancies between the Cornell and subsequent studies appear to result primarily from the different time frames used (20-year time frame versus 100-year).
Kenneth Klemow
Wilkes professor Kenneth Klemow, one of the authors of the institute essay, was hesitant to rank as more credible either the Cornell study or a study by Carnegie-Mellon University researchers that the energy industry said disputed the Cornell study when the Carnegie-Mellon study came out in August.
Klemow had said the Carnegie-Mellon study tipped the balance more in favor of natural gas, but only “by a little bit.” While the gas industry had claimed the CMU study slam-dunked the Cornell study, Klemow said he wasn’t so sure about that.
He was sure that more research was needed and researchers needed to take more field measurements rather than rely on data from previous studies.
Klemow said last week that because of several new articles and reports that have come out in the past three months, researchers at the institute found it necessary to issue an update on the original position.
“The main message is that seven independent studies now agree that shale gas has a lower greenhouse footprint than coal. That conclusion largely contradicts the findings by a team of researchers at Cornell who published a paper last April that argued shale gas has a higher footprint than coal due to inadvertent releases of methane at gas wells,” Klemow said.
In addition to incorporating the findings of the recent studies, the institute included some graphics to illustrate key trends that have been observed. And in addition to summarizing the research to date, they say they provide “our own synthesis – especially relating to future research needs.”
“Scientists are becoming increasingly convinced that burning fossil fuels releases gases that affect our climate,” Klemow said. “Therefore, studies comparing emissions of natural gas against coal are vital if we want to have informed discussions and make wise choices.”
“While recent analyses generally show natural gas has a lower footprint than coal, the science is far from settled. More studies of methane leakage near Marcellus wells and pipelines are critically needed to give us a more accurate picture,” he said.
Pa. issues air pollution rules for gas drilling
www.timesleader.com/news/Pa-issues-air-pollution-rules-for-gas-drilling.html
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Pennsylvania state environmental regulators will follow new guidelines endorsed by a natural gas industry group for deciding how to group together facilities such as wells, dehydrators and compressors when enforcing air pollution standards.
The Department of Environmental Protection issued the new guidelines Wednesday and opened them up for public comment until Nov. 21.
The Citizens Voice of Wilkes-Barre reports (http://bit.ly/q4a4KE) that the industry group, Marcellus Shale Coalition, last year urged the state not to group air pollution sources that are not contiguous or adjacent, even if they’re connected by pipelines.
Instead, it recommended a quarter-mile rule that several other states follow and which the Pennsylvania DEP wants to follow.
The new guidelines take effect immediately, but are considered interim for now.
EPA hearing focuses on reducing gas drilling air pollution
http://www.timesleader.com/news/EPA_hearing_focuses_on_reducing_gas_drilling_air_pollution_09-28-2011.html
September 28, 2011
By KEVIN BEGOS
PITTSBURGH — A public hearing Tuesday on proposed rules to reduce air pollution from oil and gas drilling operations found at least some points of agreement between industry and environmental groups.
Howard Feldman, the director of regulatory and scientific affairs at the American Petroleum Institute, was the first speaker at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency hearing in Pittsburgh.
Feldman asked the EPA to extend the public comment period and give companies a one-year extension to comply with the new rules. The current EPA timeline would see the rules take effect in the spring of 2012.
But Feldman told The Associated Press that industry isn’t opposed to the basic concept of the EPA proposal, which would apply new pollution control standards to about 25,000 gas wells that are hydraulically fractured, or fracked, each year. The fracking process blasts large amounts of water deep into the earth to break up dense shale and allow natural gas to escape.
“We think EPA has done a good job on the rule. We think it’s pretty reasonable,” Feldman said. “We just need a few more accommodations to make this work smoothly.”
The technology to implement the proposed rule allows drillers to capture and sell gas that would normally go to waste. EPA estimates that the rule would actually save the industry about $30 million each year.
“A lot of companies are doing that already,” Feldman said of the capture process.
But some said the issues in Pennsylvania require more time to review.
Kathryn Klaber, president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, said her group thinks there’s “a lot more work to do” on the proposed rules, which could place a heavy burden on industry.
But citizens and environmental groups said there should be no delays in implementing the rules, because there are already problems.
New air rules to curb pollution from gas wells
http://standardspeaker.com/news/new-air-rules-to-curb-pollution-from-gas-wells-1.1181579#axzz1TUpEddKL
By Laura Legere (Staff Writer)
Published: July 29, 2011
In an effort to curb smog and airborne chemicals linked to oil and gas production, federal environmental regulators moved Thursday to place new controls on air pollution caused by the drilling, processing and transmission of the fuels.
The proposed rules released by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would for the first time require “green completions” at nearly all hydraulically fractured oil and gas wells in the country – a way of capturing and sending to market gas that would otherwise escape into the atmosphere.
The new requirements would also stem pollution from some compressors, valves, dehydrators and processing plants, as well as the storage tanks that hold the hydrocarbon liquids associated with “wet” forms of gas.
The rules aim to curb smog-causing chemicals called volatile organic compounds (VOCs), as well as air toxics, such as benzene, that are known or suspected to cause cancer. Although the rules do not directly target the leakage of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, the proposals to limit the VOCs and air toxics will also reduce the amount of methane escaping into the atmosphere by about 26 percent, the agency said.
The EPA characterized the rules as “extremely cost-effective” and estimated the requirements will save the industry nearly $30 million a year above the $754 million annually it will cost to meet the requirements. The agency said the rules will mandate practices already used voluntarily by some companies and required by some states.
“Reducing these emissions will help cut toxic pollution that can increase cancer risks and smog that can cause asthma attacks and premature death – all while giving these operators additional product to bring to market,” said Gina McCarthy, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation.
Environmental groups who sued the EPA to update its standards by a court-ordered deadline Thursday welcomed the proposals.
Jeremy Nichols, climate and energy program director of New Mexico-based WildEarth Guardians, said the “woefully outdated” current rules allowed the buildup of ground-level ozone in rural, heavily drilled parts of Wyoming so the smog there rivaled that in Los Angeles.
The proposed rules offer benefits to the industry and the environment, he said.
“The solution to clearing the air more often than not means keeping more product in the pipeline,” he said.
Rules mandating green completions may prove difficult at first for operators in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale, where pipeline infrastructure is still catching up to the pace at which new gas wells are drilled.
“Certainly it’s easier to capture methane when a gas field is a little more mature because the pipeline infrastructure is in place that allows you to capture it,” said former Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection secretary John Hanger.
He said the proposed rules “can help maximize the environmental benefits that using more natural gas in our society offers.”
In its response to the proposed rules, the Pennsylvania-based industry group the Marcellus Shale Coalition pointed to three short-term state air monitoring studies near Marcellus wells that did not find any compounds in concentrations “that would likely trigger air-related health issues.”
“This sweeping set of potentially unworkable regulations represents an overreach that could, ironically, undercut the production of American natural gas, an abundant energy resource that is critical to strengthening our nation’s air quality,” coalition president Kathryn Klaber said.
The EPA will have a public comment period on the proposed rules and three public hearings in the Dallas, Texas; Denver, Colo. and Pittsburgh areas, for which details have not yet been announced.
The agency is under a court order to take final action on the rules by Feb. 28, 2012.
llegere@timesshamrock.com