Climate change mitigation policies can do more than just avert the potential long-term catastrophic consequences that will affect the entire world.  Climate policies can also have short-term benefits in the area of human health and agriculture.  These benefits were outlined in a recent article in the journal Science, by a group of scientists from around the world.  The research article highlighted the potential for mitigating near-term climate change effects, while simultaneously improving human health and agricultural yields.

The research focused on two primary pollutants, methane (CH4) and black carbon (BC), which contribute to climate change and have severe human health effects.  The reason for the analysis of these two pollutants is due to their potency and short-lived nature in the atmosphere.  When discussing climate change, pollutants are assigned a value which describes its global warming potential (GWP) compared to the standard value, which is Carbon Dioxide (CO2).  The GWP compares the amount of heat trapped by a certain mass of the gas to the amount of heat trapped by a similar mass of CO2.  The GWP is calculated over a certain time interval, typically 20, 100 or 500 years.  This is important to understand because CH4 has a GWP of 25 and BC 55, meaning they are 25 and 55 times more potent than CO2 respectively.

Black carbon is a product of burning fossil fuels or biomass such as wood, and can exacerbate a number of existing respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.  The small particles of BC also absorb radiation from the sun causing the atmosphere to warm and alter the patterns of rainfall.  Additionally, BC darkens ice and snow, reducing their reflectivity, thus enhancing the warming of the globe.  Methane is a colorless and extremely flammable gas, and, as indicated above, has a very high GWP value, making it very a potent greenhouse gas (GHG).  CH4 also plays a role in the formation of ground-level ozone, which has serious effects on both human and plant health.

The international research team evaluated approximately 400 control measures based on technologies assessed by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Laxenburg, Austria.  The climate change study focused on 14 measures that had the greatest potential climate benefit.  Each of the 14 strategies for reducing BC and CH4 would curb their releases and have significant health benefits.  The strategies considered by the researchers for reducing CH4 included capturing gas escaping from coal mines and oil and natural gas facilities, reducing leakage from long-distance pipelines, preventing emissions from city landfills, updating wastewater treatment plants, increasing the aeration in rice paddies, and limiting emissions from manure on cattle or other livestock farms.  The strategies analyzed for BC reductions included installing filters in diesel vehicles, restricting high-emitting vehicles from being on the road, upgrading cooking stoves and boilers to cleaner burning types, installing more energy efficient kilns for brick production, upgrading coke ovens and banning agricultural burning.

The results of the study showed a potential for reducing the number of premature deaths by approximately 700,000 and 4.7 million, which are the result of poor outdoor air quality.  Additionally, strategies that reduced the BC and CH4 showed the opportunity to increase crop yields by 135 million metric tons per year.  Reductions in both pollutants contribute to better crop health.  Lastly, by reducing the emissions of these two pollutants, the mean warming potential of the globe could be reduced by 0.5ºC (0.9º F).  The researchers concluded that implementing simple measures such as pollution control devices and regulating diesel trucks could prove to have significant health and environmental benefits.

2012 is already an historic year for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States public alike.  In early January, EPA released the comprehensive greenhouse gas (GHG) data, reported to them directly by large facilities, to the public.

EPA began collecting GHG data in response to the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 2764; Public Law 110–161), in which the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule (74 FR 56260) was issued.  The rule requires reporting of GHG data and other relevant information from numerous industrial sectors  including electricity generators, pulp and paper manufacturing, zinc production, and suppliers of natural gas and natural gas liquids to name a few.

EPA developed an online data publication tool that allows users to view GHG data in a variety of ways, including by location, facility, industrial sector, or state.  The default view allows the user to explore data from direct emitters such as power plants, refineries, and other large direct emissions sources. The development of this online system is part of EPA’s broader goal of providing U.S. citizens with critical public health information.  EPA plans to continually update the database in an effort to provide the most accurate data.

EPA collected data from over 6,700 facilities that directly emitted or supplied products that would emit GHGs if released or combusted.  The data showed that power plants represented the largest stationary source of direct emissions with 2,324 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (mmtCO2e), followed by petroleum refineries with emissions of 183 mmtCO2e.

The breakdown of individual pollutants showed carbon dioxide (CO₂) accounting for the largest share of direct GHG emissions with 95 percent, followed by methane (CH4) with 4 percent, and nitrous oxide (NOx) and fluorinated gases accounting for the remaining 1 percent.  There will be an additional 12 source categories that will be reporting their 2011 GHG emissions data to EPA in 2012.  For a complete list of those source categories, visit EPA’s website on GHGs here.

The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) regulations were finalized on Friday, August 20, 2010.  The rule is designed to regulate unconventional and conventional air toxics emitted from stationary engines that include formaldehyde, acrolein, acetaldehyde, methanol, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and particulate matter (PM), which are the product of fossil fuel combustion.  The health effects from exposure to these air toxics may produce a wide variety of health effects for people including irritation of the eyes, skin, and mucous membranes, respiratory illnesses, and central nervous system problems.

There are a several changes that were made from the proposed rule, including the exemption of existing combustion engines that are located at residential, commercial, or institutional facilities.  This means that institutions such as hospitals, which have emergency generators, are possibly exempt from this regulation.  An important determining factor in this rule is whether the source is classified as an area source or a major source.  According to the EPA, an area source is defined as having the potential to emit less than 10 tons annually of a single hazardous air pollutant (HAP) or less than 25 tons annually of any combination of HAP.  A major source is any facility that has the potential to emit more than 10 tons annually of an individual HAP or more than 25 tons of any combination of HAPs.  Most hospitals fall under the area source category, which have different regulatory implications.

There are also differences in the rule for NESHAP and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).  For the NESHAP regulations, existing emergency engines located at residential, institutional, or commercial area sources are not subject to this rule.  The only stipulation is that the emergency engine must meet the definition outlined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations 63, Subpart ZZZZ.  The majority of hospitals meet this requirement, and are not subject to this part of the regulation.

There are several exemptions for the NSPS portion of the RICE rule.  It is also important to note that there are differences in how an emergency engine is defined.  The engine can either be defined as a compression or spark ignition engine.  As defined by EPA, a compression engine is one that uses diesel fuel and achieves combustion by compressing the fuel.  Conversely, the spark ignition engine uses spark plugs to achieve combustion, and uses alternative fuel sources including natural gas, landfill gas, digester gas, propane, and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG).

Based on these definitions, a compression engine at an area source is subject to the NSPS RICE rule if  it was constructed (ordered) after July 11, 2005, and manufactured after April 1, 2006 (July 1, 2006 for fire pump engines), or modified or reconstructed after July 11, 2005.  If a hospital’s emergency engine was not constructed after this date, they are not subject to the regulations.

A similar exemption exists for the spark ignition engine for area sources, which excludes hospitals from regulation, if the engine was constructed (ordered) after June 12, 2006.  The primary reason for the exclusion of emergency engines in area sources is because EPA found that existing stationary emergency engines located at residential, commercial, and institutional facilities that are area sources were not included in the original Urban Air Toxics Strategy inventory and were not included in the listing of urban area sources.

Additional information on these new rules and regulations can be found on the EPA’s website and in the federal register.

The Healthier Hospitals Initiative (HHI) is an excellent example of how hospitals are beginning to realize that sustainable principles have a major role in the healthcare sector.  Created in May of 2010, HHI is a coalition of major health systems and organizations across the nation committed to improving sustainability and safety within the healthcare sector.

One of several goals outlined in the HHI is to provide health benefits for patients, staff and the community by reducing emissions and pollution that are linked to chronic respiratory diseases.  By taking the necessary steps to reduce emissions from health care facilities, hospitals are in effect actually practicing preventive health care.  The reduction of emissions passed to the surrounding community translates into healthier and more productive citizens.  This goal can be accomplished by focusing on the implementation of sustainable policies, including simply turning off lights in a room that is not occupied.  Additionally, the health care sector can leverage its purchasing power to reduce toxic chemicals and get manufactures and suppliers to respond with safer, cost effective alternatives.

Specific areas that can be targeted for sustainable reform are outlined in the agenda referred to as Healthier Hospitals Agenda.  It is a three step approach with the purpose of assisting healthcare facilities in the identification of areas in need of improvement and the incorporation of sustainable principles.  The three tenets to the agenda include improving environmental health and patient safety, reducing the overall consumption of natural resources, and the institutionalization of sustainability and safety.

The first component can be accomplished by engaging in Environmentally Preferred Purchasing (EPP), reduced chemical use, continuous search for alternative sustainable products, incorporate green building upgrades, and purchase and serve healthy food and foods made in sustainable ways.

The second part of the agenda targets the consumption of natural resources and can be implemented by reducing the overall consumption of energy, water, and raw materials.  Assessments of the different processes within the hospital can reveal potential cutbacks that do not affect patient safety or comfort.  Inventory management is an optimal way of achieving natural resource savings within a health care facility.  In addition, waste management and recycling programs can prove to be very cost effective and create a sense of pride and accomplishment among hospital staff.  The transition to renewable energy sources is the best way to truly incorporate the principles of sustainability, but it can be a very costly alternative to the conventional natural gas or coal.

Lastly, sustainability principles can be made an organizational priority with CEO-level support. The integration of sustainable concepts into all areas of the organization and its activities can prove to be very effective.  Leadership from the highest positions could provide the impetus for change throughout the entire facility.

Hospitals can be a better community partner in the communities where they provide health care services by being better stewards of the environment and reducing their consumption of natural resources.

The U.S. EPA had declared January as the National Radon Action Month, in an attempt to raise awareness about the dangers of radon gas in homes and businesses.  The agency is trying to promote awareness about the subject by educating citizens and encouraging them to take action to ensure the safety of their homes.  Radon gas is colorless and odorless, and has been found to be a leading cause of lung cancer among non-smokers.  Radon gas can seep into a home from underground and accumulate in high levels, subjecting the individual to exposure levels that can cause lung cancer.  It is estimated that around 21,000 people die from radon related lung cancer each year in the United States.  EPA has also estimated that over exposure to radon gas occurs in almost one out of every fifteen homes in the U.S.

Radon is a natural, radioactive gas that comes from the breakdown of uranium in soil, rock and water.  It can enter homes through cracks in the foundation or other openings such as holes or pipes.  Additionally, radon gas is not specific to one region of the country, it can be found in every state.  For these reasons, EPA has outlined a few simple steps homeowners can take to ensure their families are safe from radon gas exposure.  The first step includes testing your home, even those without a basement, for radon gas.  This can be done by acquiring an easy-to-use radon test kit that can be found at many home improvement or hardware stores.  Radon test kits can also be found on many websites.  An alternative to the do-it-yourself approach is to simply hire a professional who specializes in indoor air quality.  The EPA has recommended that radon levels above 4 Picocuries per Liter (pCi/L) be addressed immediately.  Many states maintain a radon contact list that provides names of professionals for homeowners to contact if a fix is required.

As part of EPA’s ongoing efforts to raise awareness about the seriousness of radon gas exposure, the Federal Radon Action Plan was announced at the National Healthy Homes Conference in June 2011.  Because of the seriousness of radon overexposure, numerous government agencies including EPA, General Services Administration and the Departments of Agriculture; Defense; Energy; Health and Human Services; Housing and Urban Development; Interior; and Veterans Affairs have teamed up to focus their efforts on radon reduction and mitigation in homes, schools and daycare facilities, as well as radon-resistant new construction.  More information on all radon related issues can be found at the EPA’s radon website.

The U.S EPA has recently published a feasibility study, or outline of the remedial options selected for the cleanup of the highly contaminated Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn, New York.  This is the latest development in the ongoing debate about how to proceed with the cleanup.  The Gowanus Canal was finally added to the Superfund’s National Priority List (NPL) in March 2010, which contains some of the country’s most hazardous waste sites.  The newly completed feasibility study evaluates the technologies that could be used to clean up the canal, and will be used to develop a cleanup plan for the Gowanus Canal.

The Gowanus Canal was built to allow access for industrial needs by bulkheading and dredging a tidal creek and wetland that had previously been fished for oysters.  After its completion in the 1860s, the canal quickly became one of the nation’s busiest industrial waterways, home to heavy industry including gas works, coal yards, cement makers, soap makers, tanneries, paint and ink factories, machine shops, chemical plants, and oil refineries.  It was also the repository of untreated industrial wastes, raw sewage, and surface water runoff for decades, causing it to become one of most polluted waterways in New York’s and the entire United States.  Although much of the industrial activity along the canal has stopped, high contaminant levels remain in the sediments.  Despite the ongoing pollution problems, some city dwellers currently use the Gowanus Canal for recreational purposes, such as canoeing and diving, while others catch fish for consumption.

Samples collected from the sediments in the Gowanus Canal have shown to be contaminated with a variety of pollutants, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile organic contaminants (VOCs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, and metals.  PAH concentrations were found to be as high as 45,000 mg/kg and the contamination was found to extend throughout the entire length of the canal.  Many of the detected contaminants are known carcinogens. The contaminated sediments pose an immediate risk to the fishery located just downstream of the canal in Gowanus Bay, as many of the local residents consume the fish that are caught.

The primary objective for the remedial action is to reduce the levels of toxicity of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and metals to acceptable ranges.  The options listed in the feasibility study include seven alternatives where the sediment layer at the bottom of the canal will be dredged and capped with a sand and gravel layer, an isolation layer, and an armor layer to protect from potential future contamination.  Additionally, several options for treatment and disposal of the sediment are outlined in the feasibility study.  Many options include ex situ (or off-site) treatment and disposal, such as at a landfill, which is a very easy practice, but not the most sustainable.  One option considers an on-site treatment and beneficial reuse of the sediment for various applications, a “green remediation” technique.  The EPA has published the document online, asking the public to submit comments and suggestions pertaining to the cleanup options.  The entire 108 page feasibility study can be found here.

The final strategy for long term ecosystem restoration of the Gulf Coast was released on December 5, 2011.  The strategy was announced by the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force at the 2011 State of the Gulf of Mexico Summit in Houston, TX.  The announcement was made by Lisa P. Jackson, EPA Administrator and Task Force Chair, along with Task Fore Co-Chair Garret Graves.  They were joined by numerous other Task Force members including Jane Lubchenco, administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); Nancy Sutley, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Chair; and Harris Sherman, USDA Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment.

The Task Force was established by President Barack Obama.  It is made up of representatives from the five Gulf States and 11 federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, White House Council on Environmental Quality, Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, Department of the Interior, Department of Justice, Department of Transportation, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Science and Technology Policy and White House Domestic Policy Council.

After 40 public meetings throughout the Gulf, the final strategy was developed.  The strategy was created by an unprecedented collaboration which includes input from states, tribes, federal agencies, local governments and thousands of involved citizens and organizations, a first for the Gulf restoration strategies.

The announcement included new initiatives, for example $50 million in assistance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service.  The money will be used to help agricultural producers improve water quality, increase water conservation and enhance wildlife habitat in the seven Gulf Coast river basins.

The Task Force seems to have been met with support from representatives of the Gulf region.
“The Task Force’s Strategy clearly recognizes the critical importance of the Gulf natural resources to our regional economy and workforce,” said Michael Hecht, President and CEO of Greater New Orleans, Inc. “In partnership with all Gulf Coast states and several federal agencies and with full input from key parties throughout the region the Task Force has detailed a specific list of coastal restoration priorities that protects the businesses and individual livelihoods along the coast and across the country, in the fishing, shipping, energy production and tourism industries, that are reliant upon a vital Gulf coast.”

According to the EPA news release, a few of the key priorities of this final strategy are as follows:
1) Stopping the Loss of Critical Wetlands, Sand Barriers and Beaches
The strategy recommends placing ecosystem restoration on an equal footing with historic uses such as navigation and flood damage reduction by approaching water resource management decisions in a far more comprehensive manner that will bypass harm to wetlands, barrier islands and beaches. The strategy also recommends implementation of several congressionally authorized projects in the Gulf that are intended to reverse the trend of wetlands loss.

2) Reducing the Flow of Excess Nutrients into the Gulf
The strategy calls for working in the Gulf and upstream in the Mississippi watershed to reduce the flow of excess nutrients into the Gulf by supporting state nutrient reduction frameworks, new nutrient reduction approaches, and targeted watershed work to reduce agricultural and urban sources of excess nutrients.

3) Enhancing Resiliency among Coastal Communities
The strategy calls for enhancing the quality of life of Gulf residents by working in partnership with the Gulf with coastal communities. The strategy specifically recommends working with each of the States to build the integrated capacity needed through effective coastal improvement plans to better secure the future of their coastal communities and to implement existing efforts underway.

To view the entire final strategy, click here.

The Keystone XL pipeline has found its way back into the news in recent days, as Congress is pushing for the approval of the necessary permit.  The pipeline’s first press coverage resulted from a massive protest, which included over 1000 demonstrators.  The protest ended with over 1000 arrests, including notable environmentalists such as Bill McKibben. The continuing debate, which posits economic growth against environmental protection, is the latest installment of the pipeline controversy.

The Keystone XL pipeline is a proposed expansion of the existing Keystone pipeline, which originates in Alberta, Canada. Beginning at the vast tract of land known as the Athabasca oil sands, the pipeline extends through North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma to the south.  An additional extension of the pipeline passes through Kansas and Missouri, with a final destination in Illinois.  The proposed 1,700-mile extension of the Keystone pipeline would extend to the Gulf Coast of Texas and Louisiana.

While construction jobs would be temporarily created, the environmental concerns of both the extraction of oil from the tar sands and the actual construction of the pipeline should be considered before any decisions are made.  As with any petroleum production project, oil (tar) sands operations can have severe adverse effects on the environment.  First, the initial mining process destroys the land by clearing trees and brush and by removing the layers of sand, clay, or gravel, disrupting the soil.  Secondly, a significant amount of water is needed to produce each volume unit of synthetic crude oil, which is pumped from the neighboring Athabasca River.  The water is often treated using subpar standards and then released back into the Athabasca and other rivers.  Third, air pollution from the heavy equipment used during the mining process releases substantial amounts of greenhouse gas emissions.  Additionally, the methods used to extract the oil sands are extremely energy intensive, using a considerable amount of natural gas just to produce a single barrel of crude oil.  Lastly, there are numerous amounts of heavy metals present in the oil sand such as vanadium, nickel, lead, cobalt, mercury, chromium, cadmium, arsenic, selenium, copper, manganese, iron and zinc.

Congress is pushing for the approval of the pipeline from President Obama in the coming weeks, as the debate over job creation and energy security continues to heat up. Relying on foreign oil from unstable Middle Eastern countries is one reason why Congress has become so vocal on the issue.  The Keystone XL pipeline could potentially be an obstacle to the development of renewable energy sources, another way to solve the energy security and independence issue.

Two oil leaks from deepwater drilling operations off the coast of Brazil have washed up on the beaches of Rio de Janeiro.  In early November, a deepwater oil rig owned by Chevron and operated by Transocean began leaking approximately 200-300 barrels of oil into the water each day.  The leaking is said to be a result of the difficult nature of extracting a newly discovered reserve of deepwater oil.  These reserves are referred to as “pre-salt,” because of the overlying salt deposits, estimated at over one-mile thick, which cover the ocean floor.  The oil reserves themselves are located over four miles deep which presents extraordinary technical challenges for the extraction process.  Brazilian environmental officials say Chevron has not been so forthcoming with the information related to how extensive the leak actually is.  It has been reported that Chevron actually intentionally provided inaccurate estimates of how much oil was leaking into the ocean.  This prompted the Brazilian government to suspend Chevron’s drilling operations off the coast, and file a $10.6 billion lawsuit against them and rig operator Transocean.

To make matters worse, a second oil spill from a Japanese oil rig occurred last week off the coast of Ilha Grande and Angra dos Reis in Brazil.  Even though this particular oil spill is smaller than the November Chevron spill, its effects are just are devastating, especially because it has reached the shores of Brazil.  Public health issues combined with effects the oil will have on the sensitive ecosystems have Brazilian governmental officials very concerned.  In response to the spill, the Brazilian government has imposed a $5.4 million fine on Modec, the oil rig operator.

These stories are eerily similar to the historical BP oil spill that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico last year.  As conventionally extracted reserves of fossil fuels are being depleted, the search for alternative sources through deepwater drilling is becoming a more common practice.

Significant fines were finally imposed on the Texas-based Pelican Refining Company LLC, for its major violations of the Clean Air Act at the Lake Charles, Louisiana plant.  December 12^th marked the final stage in the multi-year case, when Pelican LLC was sentenced to pay $12 million in criminal fines.  The $12 million fine will be broken down into two parts:  $10 million will be paid to the U.S EPA, while the remaining $2 million will go towards environmental projects within Louisiana.  In addition to the environmental violations, Pelican LLC was convicted on obstruction of justice charges for submitting falsified documents to Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ).

Pelican LLC admitted to numerous environmental violations of the Clean Air Act, which were initially discover in a 2006 inspection by the LDEQ.  The company had no budget designated to an environmental department or environmental manager.  Consequently, this lack of any environmental management resulted in pollution control technologies that did not function because the equipment was improperly installed, poorly maintained and almost never calibrated.  Because the equipment did not function properly, noxious emissions limits set by the Clean Air Act were exceeded, subjecting nearby residents to harmful levels of pollutants.  But perhaps the most appalling violation was the routine practice of using an emergency flare gun to re-light the flare tower at the refinery designed to burn off toxic gasses and provide for the safe combustion of potentially explosive chemicals.  This was routine because the pilot light was not functioning properly, resulting in employees taking turns trying to shoot the flare gun to relight the explosive gasses.

Pelican LLC was also found guilty of criminal obstruction of justice charges for providing false information to the LDEQ about pollution control devices and laboratory results regarding the testing of asphalt.  This resulted in the conviction of Mike LeBleu, the Pelican facilities former asphalt department manager, on negligent endangerment charges under the Clean Air Act.  Vice president of operations Byron Hamilton also pleaded guilty to similar charges, which could land him in prison for up to one year and cost him a total of $400,000 in fines.
The criminal investigation is being conducted by the EPA Criminal Investigation Division in Baton Rouge and the Louisiana State Police, with assistance from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality.  The case is being prosecuted by U.S. Attorney Stephanie Finley; Richard A. Udell, Senior Trial Attorney of the Environmental Crimes Section of the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the U.S. Department of Justice; and Trial Attorney Christopher Hale with the Environmental Crimes Section.