Last Thursday at an all-day meeting in Richmond, the Virginia State Water Control Board approved Dominion Power’s permits to drain its coal ash ponds at Possum Point Power Station in Prince William County (as well as permits for its Bremo Power Station in Fluvanna County). Previously, Dominion Power had submitted three successive permit modification requests for their coal ash ponds at the Possum Point Power Station on June 30, 2014, December 22, 2014, and August 18, 2015. At the Possum Point Power Station. The previous permit requests were modified to reflect the coal ash pond closures so the only remaining permits cover two storm water outfalls SI07 and SI08. These permit requests were made and approved despite no analytical data existing for either stormwater outfall S107 or S108 (per Dominion Power permit request).
Outfall SI 07 collects storm water from coal ash Pond D and under the existing permit was characterized as a non-industrial stormwater outfall. Collected stormwater is discharged to Quantico Creek. Dominion reports that this outfall collects groundwater infiltration from toe drains associated with coal ash Pond D. The drainage area is approximately 14.4 acres of permeable plant ground cover.
Outfall S108 is a new storm water outfall that discharges to an unnamed tributary of Quantico Creek, located south of coal ash Pond E. This outfall is located at the point of convergence for runoff from a VDOT culvert and the culverts containing the station's former ash sluice lines. The drainage area is under an acre of mostly permeable surfaces.
Possum Point Power Station is owned by Dominion Power. It sits on a 650-acre site located in Dumfries Virginia in the eastern part of Prince William County that borders the Potomac River and the Quantico Creek. Dominion Virginia Power has not burned coal at Possum Point for 13 years and is unlikely to burn coal to generate power in the future, but 3.7 million cubic yards of coal ash remain from the historic burning of coal.
Ash Ponds A, B, and C are currently being decommissioned. One million cubic yards of coal ash from those ponds is being moved into Pond D, a 120-acre pond that already contains 2.6 million cubic yards of coal ash. Coal ash Pond E is presently being decommissioned and replaced with a treatment system, as required. Dominion Power is proceeding with a plan to “close in place” the 3.7 million cubic yards of coal ash by consolidating and dewatering the coal ash into a coal ash pond they claim is lined (as required by regulations) which will then be capped with an impermeable membrane to prevent infiltration of rain in the future. These old coal ash ponds have been open to the elements and taking on water for decades as well as being in contact with shallow groundwater as was disclosed in the permit applications and modifications.
It is possible that trace contaminants including metals (and potentially hexavalent chromium) in the coal ash have already leached into the groundwater, Quantico Creek and Potomac from the coal ash ponds. Permanently disposing of the coal ash on site, when properly done, can be protective of the environment and water resources, but requires a liner separating the coal ash from the groundwater and ongoing monitoring and maintenance. All physical barriers fail over time this is addressed by the monitoring and maintaining the systems required by the regulations.
The State Water Control Board that approved the permits is composed of seven Virginia citizens appointed by the Governor, and is responsible for oversight of the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (VPDES permit) under section 402 of the Clean Water Act that established the program to limit pollutant discharges into streams, rivers, and bays. In the Commonwealth of Virginia, DEQ and the State Water Control Board administer this program by issuing VPDES permits for all point source discharges to surface waters.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maintains authority to review applications and permits for "major" dischargers, a distinction based on discharge quantity and content. Several groups have raised concerns with the plan and the speed with which they are proceeding without community involvement and input. Most importantly, the Southern Environmental Law Center and the Potomac Riverkeeper Network contend that the large pond where they are consolidating all the coal ash is only partially lined. The Potomac Riverkeeper Network plans to file a lawsuit to have the permit revoked, believing that the permit does not comply with the requirements of the Clean Water Act. (In the interest of full disclosure I was once a member of the Hudson River Fishermen’s Association a predecessor of the Hudson Riverkeepers, and I volunteer with the Prince William County Rural Household Water Quality Program.)
The finalized EPA regulation for coal ash requires that coal ash disposal site must have protective liners to prevent groundwater contamination. The rule also requires companies to conduct monitoring of disposal sites, clean up any existing contamination, and close and remediate unlined disposal sites that have polluted groundwater. Finally, monitoring data, corrective action reports, and other important information about the site must be made available to the public.
Dominion’s closure plan should include additional site investigation to demonstrate to the stakeholders in the community that the liner in coal ash Pond D is sound. In addition it is essential that testing of groundwater, surface water sediments, and the water treated at the outfalls be done for a broader spectrum of contaminants to better protect the environment and determine the extent of impact if any from the decades storage of the coal ash on site. Though Possum Point is downstream from nearby drinking water supplies and is unlikely to impact local residents beyond what has already taken place over the decades; however, the current level of impact needs to be investigated and monitored for the 24 nearby private wells.
Monday, January 18, 2016
Thursday, January 14, 2016
Toxics Everywhere How to Find Them
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) , the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), and National Toxicology Program (NTP) within the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences have announced a new challenge that will award in total up to $1 million to improve the data generated from automated chemical screening technology used for toxicity testing.
Chemicals are everywhere, they exist in pharmaceuticals, household products, personal care products, plastics, pesticides, industrial chemicals, human and animal waste; they are in short, all around us. According to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) inventory of chemicals there are more than 84,000 chemical substances, as defined in TSCA today. These chemicals include organics, inorganic, polymers, and UVCBs (chemical substances of Unknown or Variable composition, Complex reaction products, and Biological materials). Yet, very few of these chemicals have been evaluated to health risks because under TSCA the EPA can only require testing for existing chemicals when there is evidence of harm. EPA's New Chemicals program tries to manage the potential risk from chemicals new to the marketplace. For purposes of regulation under TSCA, if a chemical is on the TSCA Inventory, the substance is considered an "existing" chemical.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (CDC) has found widespread exposure to some chemicals throughout the population that they tested. Samples are collected from participants in CDC's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which is an ongoing survey that samples the U.S. population every two years for 212 chemicals. Each two year sample consists of about 2,400 people.
Findings indicate widespread exposure to some commonly used industrial chemicals and raises the question of exposure to the thousands of other chemicals out in our environment. Our ability to identify chemical concentrations at parts per trillion has opened the door to a raft of concerns and questions.
It has been believed for hundreds of years that the toxicity of a chemical is related to its dose (in addition to a person's individual susceptibility). The philosophy that small amounts were of no health consequence has been the cornerstone of toxicology and regulation, but that has come into question. For most the thousands of chemicals we are exposed to every day, tools are needed to determine whether exposure even at extremely low levels is a cause for concern or if the chemicals can be metabolized to a more toxic form.
Out of thousands upon thousands of chemicals in commerce today, very few have been fully evaluated for potential health effects. Until recently when screening assays became available it was impossible. Scientists from EPA, NTP, and NCATS are now using screening assays to evaluate the potential health effects of thousands of chemicals to choose the ones to look at further to consider regulating. This screening uses automated methods that allow for a large number of chemicals to be rapidly evaluated for a specific type of biological activity.
However, the assays in current use do not incorporate chemical metabolism, so they would miss chemicals that are metabolized to a more toxic form in the body where impact could be magnified. The challenge announced by the EPA, “Transform Tox Testing Challenge: Innovating for Metabolism,” is designed to encourage the science community to find new ways to incorporate physiological levels of chemical metabolism into screening assays, using both prestige and modest cash awards. The winning screening tool will help regulators more accurately assess effects of chemicals and better identify the highest risk chemicals that regulating or eliminating will deliver the biggest impact to protect human health. This is how EPA gets things done in the modern age.
The goal of the current award is to generate both interest and results from the scientific community. Teams of scientists will compete in three stages for a total award of $1 million. The first stage, opened last week and will be closing April 8, 2016 seeks ideas for designs for a test that could be further developed. Up to ten submissions may receive a prize of $10,000 each and an invitation to continue on to the next stage.
The second stage requires a prototype that demonstrates the proposed idea in use. Up to five participants may be awarded up to $100,000 each and invited to participate in the final stage. The final stage requires a commercially viable method or technology for EPA and its partners to demonstrate and test. One participant will win the final prize of $400,000 for delivery of a method or device that can provide metabolic analysis to high speed screening assays. Good luck, we will all be winners if this succeeds.
Chemicals are everywhere, they exist in pharmaceuticals, household products, personal care products, plastics, pesticides, industrial chemicals, human and animal waste; they are in short, all around us. According to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) inventory of chemicals there are more than 84,000 chemical substances, as defined in TSCA today. These chemicals include organics, inorganic, polymers, and UVCBs (chemical substances of Unknown or Variable composition, Complex reaction products, and Biological materials). Yet, very few of these chemicals have been evaluated to health risks because under TSCA the EPA can only require testing for existing chemicals when there is evidence of harm. EPA's New Chemicals program tries to manage the potential risk from chemicals new to the marketplace. For purposes of regulation under TSCA, if a chemical is on the TSCA Inventory, the substance is considered an "existing" chemical.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (CDC) has found widespread exposure to some chemicals throughout the population that they tested. Samples are collected from participants in CDC's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which is an ongoing survey that samples the U.S. population every two years for 212 chemicals. Each two year sample consists of about 2,400 people.
Findings indicate widespread exposure to some commonly used industrial chemicals and raises the question of exposure to the thousands of other chemicals out in our environment. Our ability to identify chemical concentrations at parts per trillion has opened the door to a raft of concerns and questions.
It has been believed for hundreds of years that the toxicity of a chemical is related to its dose (in addition to a person's individual susceptibility). The philosophy that small amounts were of no health consequence has been the cornerstone of toxicology and regulation, but that has come into question. For most the thousands of chemicals we are exposed to every day, tools are needed to determine whether exposure even at extremely low levels is a cause for concern or if the chemicals can be metabolized to a more toxic form.
Out of thousands upon thousands of chemicals in commerce today, very few have been fully evaluated for potential health effects. Until recently when screening assays became available it was impossible. Scientists from EPA, NTP, and NCATS are now using screening assays to evaluate the potential health effects of thousands of chemicals to choose the ones to look at further to consider regulating. This screening uses automated methods that allow for a large number of chemicals to be rapidly evaluated for a specific type of biological activity.
However, the assays in current use do not incorporate chemical metabolism, so they would miss chemicals that are metabolized to a more toxic form in the body where impact could be magnified. The challenge announced by the EPA, “Transform Tox Testing Challenge: Innovating for Metabolism,” is designed to encourage the science community to find new ways to incorporate physiological levels of chemical metabolism into screening assays, using both prestige and modest cash awards. The winning screening tool will help regulators more accurately assess effects of chemicals and better identify the highest risk chemicals that regulating or eliminating will deliver the biggest impact to protect human health. This is how EPA gets things done in the modern age.
The goal of the current award is to generate both interest and results from the scientific community. Teams of scientists will compete in three stages for a total award of $1 million. The first stage, opened last week and will be closing April 8, 2016 seeks ideas for designs for a test that could be further developed. Up to ten submissions may receive a prize of $10,000 each and an invitation to continue on to the next stage.
The second stage requires a prototype that demonstrates the proposed idea in use. Up to five participants may be awarded up to $100,000 each and invited to participate in the final stage. The final stage requires a commercially viable method or technology for EPA and its partners to demonstrate and test. One participant will win the final prize of $400,000 for delivery of a method or device that can provide metabolic analysis to high speed screening assays. Good luck, we will all be winners if this succeeds.
Monday, January 11, 2016
Imidacloprid Found to Impact Bees
 |
| from USDA |
Last Wednesday, January 6th 2016 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in combination with Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency released their preliminary pollinator risk assessment for Imidacloprid, the active ingredient in Bayer’s Gaucho insecticide. The preliminary risk assessment was about honey bees and the potential role that Imidacloprid may have on honey bee colony collapse. The current preliminary risk assessment identified that a residue level for Imidacloprid of 25 parts per billion or greater poses risk to hives when the pesticide comes in contact with certain crops that attract pollinators- specifically cotton and citrus. The impact to hives include decreases in pollinators as well as less honey produced and may be a factor in the die off of honey bee hives that has been termed Colony Collapse Disorder.
In 2015, EPA proposed to prohibit the use of pesticides that are toxic to bees, including the neonicotinoids class (Imidacloprid is just one example), when crops are in bloom and bees are under contract for pollination services. The Agency temporarily halted the approval of new outdoor neonicotinoid pesticide uses until new bee data is submitted and pollinator risk assessments are complete in December 2016.
Recent studies at the University of Maryland published in the journal PLOS ONE, looked at the effects of Imidacloprid on honey bee colonies over a three-year period. They found that Imidacloprid does not significantly harm honey bee colonies at real-world dosage levels. However, the scientists believe that a synergistic combination of many factors is most likely to blame for bee colony declines including climate stress and malnutrition. With CCD at a crisis level, the Whitehouse has developed a National Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators and the EPA is no longer willing to tolerate any measurable impact on honey bees.
Imidacloprid is the most widely used insecticide in the world. Its use in the past has been unrestricted because it is very safe for humans, an order of magnitude safer than organophosphates, and a likely substitute. Imidacloprid is widely used by cotton producers and citrus growers. Insecticides in the neonicotinoid class are chemically derived from nicotine.
After examining the insecticide's use in all crops, the EPA's preliminary risk assessment concluded that bees are most at risk of exposure to damaging levels of the Imidacloprid from foliar and seed treatments in cotton fields and foliar applications in citrus fields. There is some dispute in the entomology science community as to the actual role of Imidacloprid in damaging bee colonies, but as stated above stopping Colony Collapse Disorder is one of the goals of the Administration.
Bees are used for the pollination of commercial crops. Pollination, the delivery of the male gamete of a plant to the female stigma of the same species of plant, is essential for fertilization and for the plant to produce seeds and fruit. Without pollination there would be no fruits, no vegetable and no seeds. Though, grasses, conifers, and many deciduous trees are wind-pollinated, most flowering plants need birds and insects for pollination. The vast majority of plants are pollinated by insects, and bees are responsible for the vast majority of pollination. Commercial agriculture uses honey bees raised to pollinate its crops. A Cornell University study estimates that the value of honey bee pollination in the United States is more than $14.6 billion annually.
During the winter of 2006-2007, a large number of bee colonies died out, losses at the impacted beekeeping operations were reported to be from 30% to 90%. While many of the colonies lost during this time period exhibited the symptoms from parasitic mites, many were lost, from unknown cause. The next winter, the number of impacted honey bee operations spread across the country. Honey bee colonies died out at even higher rates. The phenomenon was termed Colony Collapse Disorder.
No disease or cause was identified, the adult honey bees just seemed to disappear with very few dead bees found near the impacted colonies. The impacted colonies had low levels of parasitic mites and minimal evidence of wax moth or small hive beetle damage. The other active bee colonies did not steel the food reserves, instead they avoided the impacted hives. Often there was still a laying queen and a small cluster of newly emerged attendants present, but no adult bees.
Though the scientific literature has several mentions of honey bee disappearances—in the 1880s, the 1920s, and the 1960s, and the descriptions sound similar to Colony Collapse Disorder, there is no way to know if those colony collapses were caused by whatever is causing Colony Collapse Disorder, and there is no end in sight to the current crisis. Colony Collapse Disorder is spreading around the world, and we may end up with insufficient numbers of pollinators to fulfill the demands of our agricultural industry. In 2012, 31% of the U.S. honey bee colonies were wiped out. The year before that it was reported as 21% of colonies lost. These losses if they continue could have a catastrophic impact on agriculture. One third of all food eaten in the United States requires honey bee pollination.
With Colony Collapse Disorder perceived to be at a crisis level, the Whitehouse developed a National Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators in 2012. That strategy includes reducing honey bee colony losses during winter (overwintering mortality) to no more than 15% within 10 years. Thus, the EPA is no longer willing to tolerate any measurable impact on honey bees. There is a potential risk to pollinators with any insecticide.
The 60-day public comment period will begin upon publication in the Federal Register. EPA may revise the pollinator assessment based on comments received but plans to take action to reduce risks from the insecticide. The imidacloprid assessment is the first of four preliminary pollinator risk assessments for the neonicotinoid insecticides. Preliminary pollinator risk assessments for three other neonicotinoids, clothianidin, thiamethoxam, and dinotefuran, are scheduled to be released for public comment in December 2016.
Thursday, January 7, 2016
Water Well Problems- The Pressure Switch
If you have a private drinking water well sooner or later you will turn on the faucet and nothing will happen. There are a number of reasons why a well might suddenly stop producing water, but basically they all break down into equipment failure, electrical or power failure, depletion of the aquifer or other groundwater problems and failing well design and construction. There is one other possibility-that your pipes have frozen. First make sure you have power (no power, no water) and that it is not really, really cold. Pressure switch failure is one common cause of loss of water and other well problems, like a loss of pressure.
If you have the common drilled well with an immersion pump in the well and some equipment in the basement, the first thing you should do is go downstairs and take a look. Though I admit that it is hard to differentiate problems just looking at the equipment in the house, sometimes you can.
The components within the basement provide consistent water pressure to the fixtures in the house and turns on the pump to maintain a constant pressure. The pump moves water to the basement water pressure tank, inside the tank is an air bladder that becomes compressed as water is pumped into the tank. The pressure in the tank moves the water through the house pipes so that the pump does not have to run every time you open a faucet. The pressure tank typically maintains the water pressure between 40-60 psi (or sometimes 30-50 psi). The pressure is maintained in this range by a diaphragm-actuated electrical switch with standard contact that makes a connection to turn on the pump when the pressure falls below the lower pressure (the “cut in” pressure) set point and cuts off the power when the upper set point is reached . The set rang is always 20 psi (it can be adjusted slightly) but the actual range is preset when you buy a switch.
After the pressure drops below 40 psi, the diaphragm pops and the electrical contacts touch and the switch turns on the pump and the pressure in the tank increases. When the top pressure is reached the contact is broken. The most common pressure switch is made by Square D of the 9013 series. I think it was designed around 1950 give or take a few years, and can last a fairly long time, but lots of things can go wrong with it.
The pressure switch easily clogs and easily fails in high sediment water. You can buy a new switch for about $20 (installation extra and all the fittings and pressure gauge if you want to replace those could bring the price to about $120 ). If the pressure switch fails the pump will not turn on, or the pump may not turn off or the pump may run erratically. So if you have no water, you might want to do a quick check of your fuses or circuit breakers to make sure that the problem is not electrical. You would be surprised how often a well is struck by lightning or other short occurs in a well system. If the circuit breaker is popped (remember that a well runs on 240 volts and there are generally two switches toggled together) and you can restore water by flipping the switch(s) then you’re done, but sometimes the switch will pop again in a little while and that is typically an electrical problem or a short. Call a well driller.
Next check the pressure gauge on your pressure tank, Read it. If it is not showing a pressure of 40-60 psi (or 30-50 psi) that could be a sign that the pump is not turning on. The question is why. The pump could have failed, the well could be dry or not have enough water to operated (there is a cut off on the pump to protect it when the water level is low), the pressure switch could have failed to pop or the contacts could be corroded. We all hope the problem is the inexpensive and easy to fix pressure switch. First tap the gauge with the back of a screw driver (gently) and see if the gauge moves. The gauge can clog with sediment so can the pressure switch. Also, you might want to carefully take off the cover to the pressure switch-remember there is 240 volts in there and do not touch the contact or better yet cut the power first.
Look at the pressure switch. Do the contact look shinny and clean? If not the switch is likely your problem. You can pick up a new one at both Lowes and Home Depot as well as your rural supply. They are not difficult to change out, but remember to turn off the power and drain the pressure tank before you begin. If you are new to these things you might want to call a professional.
If the pressure is in the desired range (even after you tap the gauge), but you still have no water, it could be several things. The pressure tank could be water logged or you could have a frozen pipe or pipes. If it is not winter, then check the pressure on the pressure tank using a tire pressure gauge. Is it reading on the gauge in agreement with the tank gauge? Drain the water out of the pressure tank . You should hear a ping or if you left the cover off of the pressure switch you should see the diaphragm pop. If the electricity is on the pressure switch if it and the pump are both working should turn on the pump. The pump is the piece of equipment subject to the most wear and tear and often fails.
The components within the basement provide consistent water pressure to the fixtures in the house and turns on the pump to maintain a constant pressure. The pump moves water to the basement water pressure tank, inside the tank is an air bladder that becomes compressed as water is pumped into the tank. The pressure in the tank moves the water through the house pipes so that the pump does not have to run every time you open a faucet. The pressure tank typically maintains the water pressure between 40-60 psi (or sometimes 30-50 psi). The pressure is maintained in this range by a diaphragm-actuated electrical switch with standard contact that makes a connection to turn on the pump when the pressure falls below the lower pressure (the “cut in” pressure) set point and cuts off the power when the upper set point is reached . The set rang is always 20 psi (it can be adjusted slightly) but the actual range is preset when you buy a switch.
After the pressure drops below 40 psi, the diaphragm pops and the electrical contacts touch and the switch turns on the pump and the pressure in the tank increases. When the top pressure is reached the contact is broken. The most common pressure switch is made by Square D of the 9013 series. I think it was designed around 1950 give or take a few years, and can last a fairly long time, but lots of things can go wrong with it.
The pressure switch easily clogs and easily fails in high sediment water. You can buy a new switch for about $20 (installation extra and all the fittings and pressure gauge if you want to replace those could bring the price to about $120 ). If the pressure switch fails the pump will not turn on, or the pump may not turn off or the pump may run erratically. So if you have no water, you might want to do a quick check of your fuses or circuit breakers to make sure that the problem is not electrical. You would be surprised how often a well is struck by lightning or other short occurs in a well system. If the circuit breaker is popped (remember that a well runs on 240 volts and there are generally two switches toggled together) and you can restore water by flipping the switch(s) then you’re done, but sometimes the switch will pop again in a little while and that is typically an electrical problem or a short. Call a well driller.
Next check the pressure gauge on your pressure tank, Read it. If it is not showing a pressure of 40-60 psi (or 30-50 psi) that could be a sign that the pump is not turning on. The question is why. The pump could have failed, the well could be dry or not have enough water to operated (there is a cut off on the pump to protect it when the water level is low), the pressure switch could have failed to pop or the contacts could be corroded. We all hope the problem is the inexpensive and easy to fix pressure switch. First tap the gauge with the back of a screw driver (gently) and see if the gauge moves. The gauge can clog with sediment so can the pressure switch. Also, you might want to carefully take off the cover to the pressure switch-remember there is 240 volts in there and do not touch the contact or better yet cut the power first.
Look at the pressure switch. Do the contact look shinny and clean? If not the switch is likely your problem. You can pick up a new one at both Lowes and Home Depot as well as your rural supply. They are not difficult to change out, but remember to turn off the power and drain the pressure tank before you begin. If you are new to these things you might want to call a professional.
If the pressure is in the desired range (even after you tap the gauge), but you still have no water, it could be several things. The pressure tank could be water logged or you could have a frozen pipe or pipes. If it is not winter, then check the pressure on the pressure tank using a tire pressure gauge. Is it reading on the gauge in agreement with the tank gauge? Drain the water out of the pressure tank . You should hear a ping or if you left the cover off of the pressure switch you should see the diaphragm pop. If the electricity is on the pressure switch if it and the pump are both working should turn on the pump. The pump is the piece of equipment subject to the most wear and tear and often fails.
Monday, January 4, 2016
Massive Gas Leak in California
On October 23, 2015 Southern California Gas crews discovered a massive leak in one of their natural gas storage wells at its Aliso Canyon storage field near Porter Ranch, California northwest of Los Angeles. Since October, the gas has been spilling out of a former oil field-turned-storage site at an initial rate of 44,000 kilograms per hour. To put that in perspective that is believed to be equal to roughly a quarter of the state's total methane emissions. Due to the fumes and smell permeating the area far 2,258 people have been placed in temporary housing and another 3,168 are in the process of finding temporary housing. Residents (and their attorneys- this is a prosperous area) have complained of inadequate accommodations and delays in finding temporary housing.
The leak is expected to be fixed by late February or early March according to information from Southern California Gas. To fix the problem, the gas company has drilled a relief well nearby. One of the challenges in drilling this relief well is to find a seven-inch pipe several thousands of feet below ground – while avoiding others nearby pipes. Using active magnetic ranging technology to target the drilling, Southern California Gas was able to identify the underground location of the leaking well, and is moving forward to connect the relief well to the leaking well. They believe that the two wells will intersect about 8,500 feet below ground. After they intercept the well they will pump heavy fluids and drilling mud into the bottom of the leaking well to stop the flow of gas up from its source, the reservoir. Once the flow of gas has been stopped, they will pump cement into the well to permanently seal the leak.
Natural gas is comprised mainly of methane, often 90% or more. Methane is an odorless and colorless gas that would not be noticed without odorants, in the form of mercaptans that are added so leaks can be detected. These odorants are not toxic at the levels found in the Porter Ranch community, but the odors have resulted in nausea, headaches and nosebleeds. Other constituents in the gas also have health impacts, such as benzene, although they have not been measured at levels that are considered a health issue.
Methane is the primary component of the natural gas being released from this leak. Methane in its gas form is an asphyxiant, which in high concentrations may displace oxygen especially in confined spaces. Decreased oxygen can cause suffocation and loss of consciousness. It can also cause headache, dizziness, weakness, nausea, vomiting, and loss of coordination. Skin contact with liquid methane can cause frostbite. Methane is also a major greenhouse gas and absorbs heat in the atmosphere, reflecting some of the absorbed heat back to the surface of the earth. Methane emissions represent approximately 10 % of all greenhouse gas emission in the United States. Methane is about 20-25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in absorbing and keeping heat in the atmosphere. It stays in the atmosphere for approximately 9 to 15 years.
According to the U.S. EPA, methane is the second most prevalent greenhouse gas and accounted for about 10% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Methane is emitted by natural sources such as wetlands and the breakdown of organic material, as well as human activities such as leakage from natural gas systems and the raising of livestock. According to data collected by the California Air Resources Board, the well is currently leaking about 30,000 kilograms per hour down from a high of almost 58,000 kilograms an hour recorded in late November. The rate of methane released into the atmosphere should continue to fall.
The California Air Resources Board (ARB) has determined that some activated carbon/charcoal HVAC filters, plug-in air purifiers and in-line HVAC air cleaners should be effective in reducing indoor odors associated with the leak making it possible for residents who choose to stay in their homes. The agency is currently reviewing a range of models and has so far listed two plug-in models and one in-line HAVC model on its website. Southern California Gas is currently providing activated carbon/charcoal filters and plug-in air purifiers to residents of Porter Ranch, and are awaiting a new shipment of the in-line HVAC air cleaners from the manufacturer.
Natural processes in soil and chemical reactions in the atmosphere help remove methane from the atmosphere so methane's lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than carbon dioxide (CO2). Still, methane is more efficient at trapping radiation than CO2. Pound for pound, looking at climate impact potential methane is believed to be more than 25 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2 over a 100-year period. Combining this relationship with the monitoring data from the California Air Resources Board, from the date of the leak through the estimated time that the leak will be stopped, the well will have released the equivalent of about 3 million metric tonnes of CO2 or about 4%-5% of total U.S. annual methane emissions. That is a significant impact for the State and nation for a failure to maintain equipment to prevent failure.
Historically, state laws have only stressed safety, reliability and affordability of service whenever implementing new rules and procedures for natural gas storage and distribution regulations. New laws now require the California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC) to work with natural gas distribution companies to determine the “most technologically feasible and cost-effective” strategies to avoid, reduce, and repair leaks as reasonably possible after discovery consistent with existing safety regulations and climate change goals. This does not allow the gas distribution companies to price into their gas fees the costs of planned preventive maintenance and system replacement program to avoid leaks.
To ensure the best use of ratepayers’ funds, gas distribution companies have to determine whether to appropriate infrastructure funds towards strategically replacing the sections of pipe its engineering studies have found to have a greater likelihood of leaking or towards addressing leaks that its experts have examined and deemed to be non-hazardous. In trying to keep ratepayers costs of gas low nationwide, we have failed to maintain the infrastructure, to stay ahead of well, equipment and pipe failure. We wait for failure before we fix it that is the wrong approach it allows the number of unrepaired, non-hazardous leaks to accumulate over the years and for wells and pipes to deteriorate to the point of failure before replacement. There will always be mistakes, components that appeared to still had some life in them that failed. All the costs of failure need to be weighed against the consequences of getting every last day of use out of a pipe or well. Prices for gas will need to go up so that distribution companies can maintain and replace the gas infrastructure before it fails, doing otherwise is unacceptable.
Update Note: In February Southern California Gas was able to temporarily stop the flow of gas while efforts continue to permanently seal the well.
The leak is expected to be fixed by late February or early March according to information from Southern California Gas. To fix the problem, the gas company has drilled a relief well nearby. One of the challenges in drilling this relief well is to find a seven-inch pipe several thousands of feet below ground – while avoiding others nearby pipes. Using active magnetic ranging technology to target the drilling, Southern California Gas was able to identify the underground location of the leaking well, and is moving forward to connect the relief well to the leaking well. They believe that the two wells will intersect about 8,500 feet below ground. After they intercept the well they will pump heavy fluids and drilling mud into the bottom of the leaking well to stop the flow of gas up from its source, the reservoir. Once the flow of gas has been stopped, they will pump cement into the well to permanently seal the leak.
Natural gas is comprised mainly of methane, often 90% or more. Methane is an odorless and colorless gas that would not be noticed without odorants, in the form of mercaptans that are added so leaks can be detected. These odorants are not toxic at the levels found in the Porter Ranch community, but the odors have resulted in nausea, headaches and nosebleeds. Other constituents in the gas also have health impacts, such as benzene, although they have not been measured at levels that are considered a health issue.
Methane is the primary component of the natural gas being released from this leak. Methane in its gas form is an asphyxiant, which in high concentrations may displace oxygen especially in confined spaces. Decreased oxygen can cause suffocation and loss of consciousness. It can also cause headache, dizziness, weakness, nausea, vomiting, and loss of coordination. Skin contact with liquid methane can cause frostbite. Methane is also a major greenhouse gas and absorbs heat in the atmosphere, reflecting some of the absorbed heat back to the surface of the earth. Methane emissions represent approximately 10 % of all greenhouse gas emission in the United States. Methane is about 20-25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in absorbing and keeping heat in the atmosphere. It stays in the atmosphere for approximately 9 to 15 years.
According to the U.S. EPA, methane is the second most prevalent greenhouse gas and accounted for about 10% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Methane is emitted by natural sources such as wetlands and the breakdown of organic material, as well as human activities such as leakage from natural gas systems and the raising of livestock. According to data collected by the California Air Resources Board, the well is currently leaking about 30,000 kilograms per hour down from a high of almost 58,000 kilograms an hour recorded in late November. The rate of methane released into the atmosphere should continue to fall.
The California Air Resources Board (ARB) has determined that some activated carbon/charcoal HVAC filters, plug-in air purifiers and in-line HVAC air cleaners should be effective in reducing indoor odors associated with the leak making it possible for residents who choose to stay in their homes. The agency is currently reviewing a range of models and has so far listed two plug-in models and one in-line HAVC model on its website. Southern California Gas is currently providing activated carbon/charcoal filters and plug-in air purifiers to residents of Porter Ranch, and are awaiting a new shipment of the in-line HVAC air cleaners from the manufacturer.
Historically, state laws have only stressed safety, reliability and affordability of service whenever implementing new rules and procedures for natural gas storage and distribution regulations. New laws now require the California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC) to work with natural gas distribution companies to determine the “most technologically feasible and cost-effective” strategies to avoid, reduce, and repair leaks as reasonably possible after discovery consistent with existing safety regulations and climate change goals. This does not allow the gas distribution companies to price into their gas fees the costs of planned preventive maintenance and system replacement program to avoid leaks.
To ensure the best use of ratepayers’ funds, gas distribution companies have to determine whether to appropriate infrastructure funds towards strategically replacing the sections of pipe its engineering studies have found to have a greater likelihood of leaking or towards addressing leaks that its experts have examined and deemed to be non-hazardous. In trying to keep ratepayers costs of gas low nationwide, we have failed to maintain the infrastructure, to stay ahead of well, equipment and pipe failure. We wait for failure before we fix it that is the wrong approach it allows the number of unrepaired, non-hazardous leaks to accumulate over the years and for wells and pipes to deteriorate to the point of failure before replacement. There will always be mistakes, components that appeared to still had some life in them that failed. All the costs of failure need to be weighed against the consequences of getting every last day of use out of a pipe or well. Prices for gas will need to go up so that distribution companies can maintain and replace the gas infrastructure before it fails, doing otherwise is unacceptable.
Update Note: In February Southern California Gas was able to temporarily stop the flow of gas while efforts continue to permanently seal the well.
Thursday, December 31, 2015
Rivers, Lakes and the Carbon Cycle
 |
| my backyard |
The Earth’s carbon cycle is determined by physical, chemical, and biological processes that occur in and among the atmosphere, the biosphere, and the geosphere. Understanding how these processes interact on our planet and projecting their future effects on climate requires complex computer models that are used to track carbon at regional and continental scales, and predict impact. These computer models are commonly known as Terrestrial Biosphere Models (climate models).
Current estimates of the accumulation of carbon in natural environments indicate that forest and other terrestrial ecosystems have annual net gains in storing carbon — a beneficial effect for reducing greenhouse gases and is encouraged in government policies, regulation and funding. However, even though all of life and most processes involving carbon movement in the environment require water, the climate models have not included the earth’s aquatic ecosystems, the lakes, reservoirs, streams, rivers and estuaries in the calculations and have overlooked and underestimated the importance of aquatic ecosystems in the carbon cycle. This has impaired the ability of the climate models to accurately predict the future climate.
Accurate accounting of carbon storage and flux is essential to understand the role that natural ecosystems can play in regional, national, and global carbon cycles. However, current modeling approaches for estimating net ecosystem assume that carbon is converted to terrestrial storage terms only, there is no adequate accounting of aquatic carbon processes. These aquatic carbon processes include downstream carbon transport, lake and reservoir sedimentation, and CO2 emission. Recent studies indicate that downstream export of carbon through rivers, carbon burial in lakes and reservoirs, and carbon emissions across water surfaces are large enough to alter the calculated capacity of soils and biomass to store carbon and impacts our understanding of the relationship of CO2 and climate.
Inland waters provide habitat for aquatic organisms; are sources of human drinking water; and integrate, transport, and process carbon across continents. Estimates of the accumulation of carbon in terrestrial environments suggest that agricultural and forest ecosystems have annual net gains in carbon storage. These ecosystems are considered by the climate models sinks of atmospheric carbon dioxide. However, none of these estimates have considered the loss of carbon to and also through aquatic environments at the national or continental scale. The USGS and University of Washington scientists show that aquatic ecosystems in the mainland United States export over 100 teragrams of carbon (TgC) per year, highlighting the need to attribute the sources of aquatic carbon more accurately, and assert that inland waters play an important role in global CO2 accounting. (When did saving the world become accounting?)
This analysis represents only a snapshot of a dynamic environment that is continuously processing carbon. We need to develop a model framework that couples the biogeochemical processing of inorganic carbon and organic carbon in soils to the movement of water through soils to inland waters to better understand and quantify the terrestrial carbon sources to inland waters. There are few direct measurements of the carbon-based greenhouse gases in freshwater ecosystems, particularly methane which is emerging as a significant contributor. Also, large uncertainty remains for calculations of lake and reservoir sedimentation and the impacts of physical processes that affect the distribution of sediments along lake and reservoir beds.
We are changing and restructuring our economy and nation to reduce the anthropogenic contribution of our country to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere based on these climate models and we have forgotten to adequately include our water ecology in the calculations. The scientists found that removal of carbon by inland waters within the United States is substantial at the national scale and needs to be considered.
Monday, December 28, 2015
Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 Becomes Law
Earlier this month the House passed the bill, the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015. On Friday, December 22nd before congress left town, the Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent. The new law bans tiny beads of plastic known as microbeads that have been added as abrasives to beauty and health products like exfoliating facial scrubs and toothpaste. Under the law, companies will have to stop using beads in their products by July 2017.
In 2009 an Australian study found the majority of facial cleansers, many tooth pastes, hand creams, body wash contained exfoliating beads made of polyethylene. These bits of polyethylene plastic ranging in size from roughly 5μm to 1mm do not biodegrade out in nature. Microbeads are used in hundreds of products including cosmetics, sunscreen, body wash, toothpaste, skincare, and industrial and household cleaning products, and are too small to be captured by wastewater treatment plants filtration systems that were not designed to address such small contaminants. So, these microplastics beads flow down the drain and through waste water treatment plant and end up in our rivers, bays and oceans, where they may become a hazard to marine life. The polyethylene beads float and their scrubbing surfaces pick up contaminants which are consumed by marine life.
A study from the State University of New York at Fredonia confirmed that microplastics beads pass through waste water treatment systems into the Great Lakes introducing the possibility that microplastics are in the source water supplies for the drinking water systems. Though many plastics are buoyant and float, many other factors play a role in the “life cycle” of a piece of plastic in the ocean, lake or river. Sinking may occur due to the accumulation of biological material on the surface of the beads, and plastics may eventually settle into sediments, but we really do not know. The microplastics beads fouled with biological material may be eaten by marine life, the biofilm consumed, and the remaining undigested plastic packaged into fecal matter.
Scientists now believe that microplastics are consumed by marine life and can cause cellular necrosis, inflammation and lacerations in the digestive tracts of fish. Additionally, microplastics can pick up and accumulated chemical contaminants on their surfaces including priority pollutants under the US EPA Clean Water Act. This mixture of plastic and chemicals can accumulate in animals that eat them causing liver toxicity and disruption in the endocrine system, and possibly contributing to the intersexed fish that have appeared in rivers.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been leading efforts on this issue, recently discovering a high concentration in the Great Lakes. NOAA is working in partnership with the University of Washington Tacoma to standardized methods for collecting samples of microplastics from sediment, sand, and surface water so the problem can be fully quantified. While it seems likely that nearly all of the plastic that has ever been released to the waters of the earth remains as polymers, very little or any plastic fully degrades in the earth’s water environments, without systematic and effective ways to sample we cannot know for sure. Estimates of macro- and microplastics in the oceans, made by scientists and environmental groups are highly uncertain due to the lack of consistent, verified sampling and analytical methods.
It is difficult to determine or even reasonably estimate how large an impact microplastics bead might have on the environment. They can either be a source of pollutants or a location where pollutants can adhere and concentrate for the oceans, lakes and rivers and it was not even know how much is manufactured. Little was also known about the chemical composition and rates of leaching of integral plastic components in seawater and freshwater so it is impossible to estimate whether the plasticizers or flame retardants used in the manufacture of polyethylene will be released to the earth’s waters.However, the extensive damage from the ubiquitous microbeads was becoming obvious. Since 2012, when researchers found high concentrations of microbeads in the great lakes, environmentalists and scientists have campaigned to ban them.There are lots of concerns and possible impact from microbeads and it is clear that they should not have been allowed to be used so widely without a fate and transport study.
Now, manufacture of rinse off cosmetic products that contains intentionally-added plastic microbeads is banned beginning on July 1, 2017, and all such products containing microbeads must be removed from interstate commerce, by July 1, 2018. A simple one page bill and congress got it done.
In 2009 an Australian study found the majority of facial cleansers, many tooth pastes, hand creams, body wash contained exfoliating beads made of polyethylene. These bits of polyethylene plastic ranging in size from roughly 5μm to 1mm do not biodegrade out in nature. Microbeads are used in hundreds of products including cosmetics, sunscreen, body wash, toothpaste, skincare, and industrial and household cleaning products, and are too small to be captured by wastewater treatment plants filtration systems that were not designed to address such small contaminants. So, these microplastics beads flow down the drain and through waste water treatment plant and end up in our rivers, bays and oceans, where they may become a hazard to marine life. The polyethylene beads float and their scrubbing surfaces pick up contaminants which are consumed by marine life.
A study from the State University of New York at Fredonia confirmed that microplastics beads pass through waste water treatment systems into the Great Lakes introducing the possibility that microplastics are in the source water supplies for the drinking water systems. Though many plastics are buoyant and float, many other factors play a role in the “life cycle” of a piece of plastic in the ocean, lake or river. Sinking may occur due to the accumulation of biological material on the surface of the beads, and plastics may eventually settle into sediments, but we really do not know. The microplastics beads fouled with biological material may be eaten by marine life, the biofilm consumed, and the remaining undigested plastic packaged into fecal matter.
Scientists now believe that microplastics are consumed by marine life and can cause cellular necrosis, inflammation and lacerations in the digestive tracts of fish. Additionally, microplastics can pick up and accumulated chemical contaminants on their surfaces including priority pollutants under the US EPA Clean Water Act. This mixture of plastic and chemicals can accumulate in animals that eat them causing liver toxicity and disruption in the endocrine system, and possibly contributing to the intersexed fish that have appeared in rivers.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been leading efforts on this issue, recently discovering a high concentration in the Great Lakes. NOAA is working in partnership with the University of Washington Tacoma to standardized methods for collecting samples of microplastics from sediment, sand, and surface water so the problem can be fully quantified. While it seems likely that nearly all of the plastic that has ever been released to the waters of the earth remains as polymers, very little or any plastic fully degrades in the earth’s water environments, without systematic and effective ways to sample we cannot know for sure. Estimates of macro- and microplastics in the oceans, made by scientists and environmental groups are highly uncertain due to the lack of consistent, verified sampling and analytical methods.
It is difficult to determine or even reasonably estimate how large an impact microplastics bead might have on the environment. They can either be a source of pollutants or a location where pollutants can adhere and concentrate for the oceans, lakes and rivers and it was not even know how much is manufactured. Little was also known about the chemical composition and rates of leaching of integral plastic components in seawater and freshwater so it is impossible to estimate whether the plasticizers or flame retardants used in the manufacture of polyethylene will be released to the earth’s waters.However, the extensive damage from the ubiquitous microbeads was becoming obvious. Since 2012, when researchers found high concentrations of microbeads in the great lakes, environmentalists and scientists have campaigned to ban them.There are lots of concerns and possible impact from microbeads and it is clear that they should not have been allowed to be used so widely without a fate and transport study.
Now, manufacture of rinse off cosmetic products that contains intentionally-added plastic microbeads is banned beginning on July 1, 2017, and all such products containing microbeads must be removed from interstate commerce, by July 1, 2018. A simple one page bill and congress got it done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)