Western Sustainability and Pollution Prevention Network

Air emissions of dioxins have decreased by 90 percent since the 1980s

WASHINGTON – Today the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized its non-cancer science assessment for dioxins, which was last reviewed in the 1980s. Dioxins are toxic chemicals that naturally exist in the environment and can be released into the environment through forest fires, backyard burning of trash, certain industrial activities, and residue from past commercial burning of waste. Today’s findings show that generally, over a person’s lifetime, current exposure to dioxins does not pose a significant health risk.

Over the past two decades EPA has worked to reduce emissions from all of the major industrial sources of dioxins. As a result of efforts by EPA, state governments and industry, known and measurable air emissions of dioxins in the United States have been reduced by 90 percent from 1987 levels. The largest remaining source of dioxin emissions is backyard burning of household trash.

Most Americans have low-level exposure to dioxins. Non-cancer effects of exposure to large amounts of dioxin include chloracne, developmental and reproductive effects, damage to the immune system, interference with hormones, skin rashes, skin discoloration, excessive body hair, and possibly mild liver damage.

EPA has identified many known sources of dioxins. Working with other federal partners, such as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, EPA has taken steps to address dioxin. This includes supporting research on dioxin exposure and effects; assessing dioxin human health risks; measuring dioxin levels in the environment, our diet and in our bodies; and reducing exposure to dioxin.

The non-cancer health assessment for dioxin released today could be considered in a range of agency activities, from establishing cleanup levels at Superfund sites, to reviewing the dioxin drinking water standard as part of EPA’s regularly scheduled review process, to evaluating whether additional Clean Air Act limits on dioxin emissions are warranted.

More information on dioxin: http://www.epa.gov/dioxin/

New permit includes more protections for waterways, shaped by important public and stakeholder feedback

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing a new permit, in accordance with the Clean Water Act, that will provide streamlined permitting to thousands of construction operators, while protecting our nation’s waterways from discharges of polluted stormwater from construction sites. Stormwater discharges from construction sites can contain harmful pollutants, such as nutrients, that contaminate waters, increase drinking water treatment costs, and damage aquatic ecosystems. The new permit was shaped by important input from the public and stakeholders to ensure that it provides important protections for waterways, while also providing flexibility to operators.

The 2012 construction general permit (CGP) is required under the Clean Water Act and replaces the existing 2008 CGP, which expired on February 15, 2012. The new permit includes a number of enhanced protections for surface waters, including provisions to protect impaired and sensitive waters. Under the Clean Water Act, national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) permits are typically issued for a five-year period, after which time EPA generally issues revised permits based on updated information and requirements, as is the case with today’s announcement. NPDES permits control water pollution by including limits on the amount of pollutants that can be discharged into waterways by specific sources. The permit also provides new flexibilities for operators. For example, it allows for emergency projects (e.g., restoration following a flood or other natural disaster) to begin immediately without permit authorization from EPA, while still retaining full authority for EPA to ensure that the project proceeds in an environmentally responsible manner once it has commenced. The permit also enables operators of already permitted projects flexibility where compliance with a new permit requirement is economically impracticable.

The 2012 CGP updates include steps intended to limit erosion, minimize pollution sources, provide natural buffers or their equivalent around surface waters, and further restrict discharges to areas impaired by previous pollution discharge.

Many of the permit requirements implement new effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards for the construction and development industry that became effective on February 1, 2010, which include pollution control techniques to decrease erosion and sediment pollution.

The permit will be effective in areas where EPA is the permitting authority: Idaho, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Washington, D.C., and most U.S. territories and in Indian country lands.

EPA invited the public to comment on the draft permit. The agency also had a webcast to introduce owners and operators of construction sites, members of the public, and State or Tribal permitting authorities to the new requirements of the proposed CGP.

More information on the proposed construction general permit: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/cgp.cfm

If companies had to pay for the full environmental costs of their activities, they would have lost 41 cents out of every dollar earned in 2010 – and these costs are doubling every 14 years, according to a Trucost analysis for a KPMG report.

The environmental profit and loss-style analysis for 11 key sectors found the cost to global society of environmentally-sensitive corporate activities for food producers actually outweigh the sectors’ entire earnings, at a whopping $200 billion, and in five other sectors – electricity, industrial metals, mining, marine transport, and airlines – environmental costs could account for more than half their earnings.

In reality, these costs are not borne solely by companies but are passed on at least partially to end-users, KPMG said in the report, Expect the Unexpected: Building Business Value in a Changing World.

But it said the data gives an indicator not only of industries’ impact, but of the potential value at stake. And companies should expect to pay a rising proportion of these costs, posing a near-future financial risk, KPMG said.

Trucost says that environmental costs across the 11 sectors – which also include automobiles, beverages, chemicals, oil and gas, and telecommunications and internet – rose by 50 percent between 2002 and 2010, from US$566 billion to US$854 billion. It says the projected doubling of costs every 14 years is unlikely to be sustainable, even in the medium term.

Read the complete article at EnvironmentalLeader.com

A company looking to purchase an electric-powered delivery truck today will likely experience some sticker shock: Such a vehicle costs nearly $150,000, compared to about $50,000 for the same kind of truck with a standard internal-combustion engine.

But before long — perhaps surprisingly — it’s a purchase that should pay for itself. That’s the conclusion of a new MIT study showing that electric vehicles are not just environmentally friendly, but also have the potential to improve the bottom line for many kinds of businesses.

The study, conducted by researchers at MIT’s Center for Transportation and Logistics (CTL), finds that electric vehicles can cost 9 to 12 percent less to operate than trucks powered by diesel engines, when used to make deliveries on an everyday basis in big cities.

“There has to be a good business case if there is going to be more adoption of electric vehicles,” says Jarrod Goentzel, director of the Renewable Energy Delivery Project at CTL and one of four co-authors of the new study. “We think it’s already a viable economic model, and as battery costs continue to drop, the case will only get better.”

Another of the paper’s co-authors, Clayton Siegert, a 2009 graduate of the CTL’s master’s of engineering in logistics program and a member of the Renewable Energy Delivery Project, presented the results in January at the IEEE Power and Energy Society Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference, in Washington. The paper will be published in a volume of the conference’s proceedings. It originated in a thesis project by two researchers who received the master’s of engineering in logistics from CTL in 2011, Andre De Los Rios and Kristen Nordstrom.

Electric vehicles: A staple of the truck fleet?

The CTL study was conducted using data collected by the international office supplier Staples, as well as ISO New England, the nonprofit firm that runs New England’s electric power grid. Using that data, the researchers modeled the costs for a fleet of 250 delivery trucks, and examined alternate scenarios in which the whole fleet used one of three kinds of motors: purely electric engines, hybrid gas-electric engines and conventional diesel engines.

Based on the Staples data, the researchers modeled what would happen if the trucks in the fleet were driven 70 miles a day for 253 work days per year, with diesel gasoline costing $4 per gallon. Trucks with internal-combustion engines averaged 10.14 miles per gallon, compared to 11.56 miles per gallon for hybrid trucks, while the electric-only trucks averaged 0.8 kilowatt-hours per mile. Staples currently has 53 all-electric trucks, manufactured by Missouri-based Smith Electric Vehicles, in use in several American cities.

The study added one new component to the projections often made by industry fleet managers: The researchers looked at what would happen if the fleets of trucks were part of a vehicle-to-grid (V2G) system in which their batteries could be plugged into the electricity grid for 12 hours overnight, as an additional resource for providing reliable electricity to consumers. In such a setup, truck owners would be paid by utility firms for the power services they provide. V2G systems are currently being tested by multiple utility companies.

After running the numbers for various scenarios in which trucks are parked at slightly different times overnight, the MIT team found that businesses could earn roughly $900 to $1,400 per truck per year in V2G revenues in current energy markets, representing a reduction of 7 to 11 percent in vehicle operating costs. Firms would also save money on fuel, and on maintenance, because electric trucks induce less wear and tear on brakes.

All told, the operational cost per mile — the basic metric all fleet managers use — would drop from 75 cents per mile to 68 cents per mile when V2G-enabled electric trucks are substituted for internal-combustion trucks. Moreover, as Goentzel notes, “almost all these costs scale down to the individual vehicle.” Firms do not need fleets as big as 250 trucks to realize savings.

Michael Payette, director of fleet equipment at Staples, suggests that the MIT analysis corresponds with his firm’s results so far — although “it is still early in our post-deployment analysis,” he notes. In reviewing the performance of electric trucks, Payette adds, there have been “no real surprises from a reliability perspective, but I was surprised by the drivers’ acceptance, to the point where they do not ever want to drive a diesel [truck] again.”

In cities, ‘almost any truck you see is a candidate’

As Goentzel acknowledges, one limitation of the concept is that it only applies to urban truck fleets; electric vehicles do not have the range to make many kinds of rural or interstate deliveries. On the other hand, he notes, opportunities abound to use midsize electric trucks in cities.

“If you’re in an urban environment, almost any truck you see is a candidate,” Goentzel says. “If there’s a commercial truck in a city, it’s likely to be part of a fleet, whether it’s a service vehicle for a cable company, an electric utility truck, a mail package-delivery truck or part of a government fleet.”

And if the V2G concept is brought to market, commercial fleets would likely be among the first vehicles to be used, partly for logistical reasons: They would provide power resources that could be connected to the grid at regular times in the same locations.

“The initial opportunities for V2G are likely to be for fleets, because they can be managed and controlled,” Goentzel says. Knowing that, say, Staples would have 250 trucks plugged into the grid at certain overnight hours would help utilities smooth out the flow of electricity to consumers. That delivery would be harder to manage, he notes, if it depended on individual consumers plugging their autos into the grid at more random times. “There is some work to be done before the average person is able to plug in their car and get paid by the grid,” Goentzel acknowledges.

SOURCE: MIT News

Some of the water used worldwide for irrigation comes from renewable sources such as local precipitation, rivers, lakes and renewable groundwater. But some comes from non-renewable groundwater sources.

Because water supply for irrigation is so essential to the world’s food supply, it is important to quantify how much water comes from sustainable sources.

Yoshida Wada conducted a global assessment of how much water used for irrigation comes from non-sustainable groundwater sources. They used a global hydrological model to simulate the amount of water needed for optimal crop growth and the amount available from renewable sources. They combined this information with country-level data on groundwater use to estimate the amount of groundwater used for irrigation that comes from nonrenewable sources.

Their results show that about 20 percent, or 234 cubic kilometers per year (56 cubic miles per year), of the water used for irrigation worldwide in 2000 came from nonrenewable sources. The countries with the highest levels of nonrenewable groundwater use are India, Pakistan, the United States, Iran, China, Mexico and Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, worldwide, the use of groundwater from non-renewable sources more than tripled from 1960 to 2000.

As the United States transitions away from a primarily petroleum-based transportation industry, a number of different alternative fuel sources—ethanol, biodiesel, electricity and hydrogen—have each shown their own promise. Hoping to expand the pool even further, researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory have begun to investigate adding one more contender to the list of possible energy sources for light-duty cars and trucks: compressed natural gas (CNG).

Compressed natural gas is composed primarily of methane, which when compressed occupies less than one percent of the volume it occupies at standard pressure. CNG is typically stored in cylindrical tanks that would be carried onboard the vehicles it fuels.

Because the domestic production of natural gas has increased dramatically over the past 10 years, making a large number of the cars and light trucks currently on the road CNG-compatible would help to improve U.S. energy security.

“As a country, we don’t lack for natural gas deposits,” said Argonne mechanical engineer Thomas Wallner. “There are fewer obvious challenges with direct supply than with most other fuels.”

Natural gas currently comes primarily from deep underground rock structures, including shale. Recent improvements with hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” a controversial process that some critics claim can hurt the environment, have made it economical for natural gas companies to extract a greater supply of natural gas from unconventional sources.

Like gasoline, both the production and combustion of CNG release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. To be able to make an accurate comparison to gasoline, scientists and engineers will need to look at each stage of the fuel’s production and use, said Argonne environmental scientist Andrew Burnham.

Unlike gasoline, however, CNG markets are relatively insulated from geopolitical shocks, according to Wallner. “The price of CNG has been and will probably continue to be both cheaper and more stable over the long term than gasoline,” Wallner said.

CNG currently costs the equivalent of about $2 per gallon, roughly half that of current gasoline prices, according to Wallner.

In order for CNG to take hold, many more stations will need to offer it as an option, and the infrastructure for delivering and distributing the fuel around the country will have to be built up. There are currently fewer than 1,000 publically available CNG refueling stations in the United States, in comparison to nearly 200,000 gas stations.

Argonne already has the capability to help automotive industry leaders test and analyze CNG vehicles. In particular, Argonne’s Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation Model gives experts the ability to examine the greenhouse gas emissions of various fuels from “well-to-wheels,” involving each stage of production, distribution and combustion. “We have years of expertise working with industry to develop alternative-fuel vehicles as well as the tools necessary for the public to understand the impact of these vehicles on the environment,” said Argonne mechanical engineer Michael Duoba.

Although CNG vehicles emit fewer greenhouse gases than conventional automobiles as fuel is combusted, “upstream” challenges in production and distribution of CNG—particularly methane leakage — make it somewhat less attractive when it comes to preventing climate change.

“There are a lot of points in the life-cycle of the fuel where we still need better data,” Burnham said. “There are technological opportunities for us to capture the leaked natural gas and reduce greenhouse gas impacts.”

For heavy-duty applications, like city buses, CNG might have the potential to cut down emissions of particulate matter and nitrogen oxides, helping municipalities to meet more stringent EPA standards enacted in the past few years, according to Burnham.

In Wallner’s view, CNG vehicles—like plug-ins and diesel-powered automobiles—will serve the transportation needs of some, not all.

“It’s important to see each of these technologies as a part of the solution but not the entire solution,” Wallner said. “The more we invest in their development, the closer we’ll come to a portfolio that makes sense both economically and environmentally.”

Fuel economy of all new vehicles sold in the United States last month was at its highest mark ever, say researchers at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.

Average fuel economy of cars, light trucks, minivans and SUVs purchased in January was 23.0 miles per gallon, which ties the all-time monthly record set in March 2011. It is also up 4 percent (0.8 mpg) from December—the highest monthly increase since UMTRI researchers began tracking fuel economy in late 2007.

According to Michael Sivak, research professor and head of UMTRI’s Human Factors Group, average fuel economy of all new vehicles bought last month was up 0.5 mpg from a year ago and is now 2.5 mpg higher than four years ago in January 2008.

In addition to average fuel economy, Sivak and UMTRI colleague Brandon Schoettle issued their monthly update of their national Eco-Driving Index, which estimates the average monthly emissions generated by an individual U.S. driver. The EDI takes into account both vehicle fuel economy and distance driven—the latter relying on data that are published with a two-month lag.

During November 2011, the EDI stood at 0.86, up from 0.85 in October, but down from 0.87 in September. The index currently shows that emissions of greenhouse gases per driver of newly purchased vehicles are down 14 percent since October 2007.

SOURCE: University of Michigan

BETHESDA, Md., Feb. 15, 2012 /PR Newswire/ — Auto repair shops are playing a key role in protecting the environment with 96 percent reporting they recycle the scrap metal from automotive components, according to a study done by the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association (AAIA).

Shops are recycling the scrap metal from many auto parts, including alternators, brakes, engines and transmissions. The volume of material recycled annually in the United States includes 74 million metric tons of iron and steel, 4.7 million metric tons of aluminum and 1.8 million metric tons of copper, according to the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI).

‘Scrap metal recycling has an extremely positive impact on our environment,’ said Rich White, senior vice president, AAIA. ‘It conserves natural resources, reduces greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, saves energy and minimizes the amount of waste sent to landfills.’

According to ISRI, recycling one ton of steel conserves 2,500 lbs. of iron ore, 1,400 lbs. of coal and 120 lbs. of limestone, and the energy saved using recycled materials versus virgin materials is up to 58 percent for iron and steel, 92 percent for aluminum and 90 percent for copper. If the ferrous scrap that is recycled in the United States were put into rail cars, the train would stretch 11,349 miles, nearly halfway around the world.

In addition to recycling scrap metal, automotive aftermarket companies, including auto repair shops, manufacturers, distributors, retailers and jobbers, routinely recycle tires, batteries, used oil and oil filters, parts cleaning solvents, plastics, cardboard and paper, a/c refrigerant, dunnage and wood pallets.

The study is part of AAIA’s initiative to illustrate the automotive aftermarket industry’s widespread efforts on behalf of the environment. The information is presented in AAIA’s ‘Driving Toward a Cleaner Environment: The Automotive Aftermarket’s Green Story,’ in the short video, AAIA Green, and in a Green Snapshot. For more information, visitwww.aftermarket.org/green.

About AAIA
AAIA is a Bethesda, Md.-based association whose more than 23,000 member and affiliates manufacture, distribute and sell motor vehicle parts, accessories, service, tool, equipment, materials and supplies. Through its membership, AAIA represents more than 100,000 repair shops, parts stores and distribution outlets.

SOURCE Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association and Environmental Expert

EPA is releasing a technical manual for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) to provide states, producers, and the general public (1) general information on Clean Water Act and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program requirements for CAFOs, (2) information to explain CAFO permitting requirements under the Clean Water Act, and (3) technical information to help states and producers understand options for nutrient management planning.

It is EPA’s intent that this is a living document that will be updated periodically to incorporate new and emerging approaches to CAFO management, including those focused on manure reuse and recycling and use for energy generation.  Interested parties are encouraged to bring to EPA’s attention questions and suggestions concerning the content of this manual at any time. EPA will consider this input and update this document periodically to ensure that this manual is as helpful as possible.

For more information and to view a copy of the manual: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/caforule.

EPA budget supports President Obama’s vision of an America that is built to last

WASHINGTON – Today the Obama Administration proposed a FY 2013 budget of $8.344 billion for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This budget reflects a government-wide effort to reduce spending and find cost-savings, and is $105 million below the EPA’s enacted level for FY 2012. The FY 2013 budget is the result of EPA’s ongoing efforts to carefully consider potential cost savings and reductions while continuing its commitment to core environmental and health protections — safeguarding Americans from pollution in the air they breathe, the water they drink and the land where they build their communities.

“This budget is focused on fulfilling EPA’s core mission to protect health and the environment for millions of American families. It demonstrates fiscal responsibility, while still supporting clean air, healthy waters and innovative safeguards that are essential to an America built to last,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “It has taken hard work and difficult choices to reach this balanced approach, and while we had to make sacrifices, we have maintained our commitment to the core priorities of this agency and ensured the protections the American people expect and deserve.”

Key FY 2013 budget highlights include:

Supporting State Governments. The budget proposes $1.2 billion in categorical grants for states that are on the front lines implementing environmental statutes such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. The increases from FY 2012 levels include nearly $66 million for State and Tribal Air Quality Management grants, nearly $27 million for Pollution Control (Clean Water Act Section 106) grants, and about $29 million for the Tribal General Assistance Program.

Protecting America’s Waters. The proposal provides $2 billion for Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving funds (SRFs). This will allow the SRFs to finance over $6 billion in wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects annually. EPA will work to target assistance to small and underserved communities with limited ability to repay loans, while maintaining state program integrity.

Cleaning Up Contaminated Sites in Communities. The proposal includes $755 million in funding for the Superfund Cleanup program which maintains funding to support cleanup at hazardous waste sites that address emergencies (Superfund Emergency Response and Removal) at the nation’s highest priority sites (Superfund Remedial).

Investing in Cutting Edge Research. EPA’s proposed budget provides $576 million to support research and innovation. Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grants are funded at $81 million to conduct research in key areas such as hydraulic fracturing, potential endocrine disruptors, and green infrastructure. Building upon ongoing research and collaborating with the Department of Energy and the US Geological Survey, a total $14 million investment will begin to assess potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on air quality, water quality, and ecosystems. The EPA also will release an Interim Report on the Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources in 2012.

Ongoing Support to Economically and Environmentally Vital Water Bodies. To ensure the progress made during the past three years continues, EPA is proposing $300 million for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. Programs and projects will target the most significant environmental problems in the Great Lakes. About $73 million, which is a $15 million increase, will fund the Chesapeake Bay program’s continued implementation of the President’s Executive Order on Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration. Funding will support bay watershed states as they implement their plans to reduce nutrient and sediment pollution in an unprecedented effort to restore this economically important ecosystem.

Protecting Americans from Harmful Chemicals. EPA is proposing $68 million, an increase of $11 million from FY 2012, to reduce chemical risks, increase the pace of chemical hazard assessments, and provide the public with greater access to toxic chemical information. Funding will sustain the agency’s successes in managing the potential risks of new chemicals coming into the market and accelerating the progress to help ensure the safety of chemicals on the market that have not been tested for adverse human health and environmental impacts.

Next Generation Compliance. EPA’s budget proposal requests $36 million to support “Next Generation Compliance”, a new enforcement model designed to enhance EPA’s ability to detect violations that impact public health. The three components of this approach are: promoting electronic reporting by facilities, modifying data systems to implement electronic reporting, and deploying modern monitoring technology. This will work toward improved compliance and transparency, and more efficient processes that do not rely on paper-based reporting. And, create cost savings and efficiencies for EPA, states and industry.

Supporting the National Fuel Economy and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Standards Program. The budget contains a $10 million increase to the EPA’s National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory for certification and compliance testing programs and to evaluate new biofuels technologies. The national program of fuel economy and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) standards for light duty vehicles alone will save approximately 12 billion barrels of oil and prevent 6 billion metric tons of GHG emissions over the lifetime of the vehicles sold through model year 2025. These funds will improve testing methods for the agency’s renewable fuels program, and the GHG and fuel economy programs intended to reduce dependence on oil and save consumers money at the pump.

Reducing and Eliminating Programs. The budget includes $50 million in savings by eliminating several EPA programs that have either completed their goals or can be implemented through other federal or state efforts.

More information: http://www.epa.gov/budget