EPA's 40 CFR PART 98 New Rule May be Published this week

40 CFR Part 98 is the EPA's proposed rule making mandatory the reporting of Green House Gases. The Draft rule was published in April, has been making is appropriate rounds and public forums. Roumer has it that the new rule will be signed this week.

This will extend the regulatory reach of the Clean Air Act to include the reporting of  some green house gases.  A wide range of new industries will be required to begin gathering emissions data for reporting effective 1 January, 2010, in less than 4 months...

-Editor

Carbon Foot Print Calculator

[url=http://carbon-footprint-calculator.enviroduck-green.downloadsoftware4free.com]Carbon Footprint Calculator[/url] from [url=http://www.downloadsoftware4free.com]www.downloadsoftware4free.com[/url]

What is a Continuous Emissions Measurement System (CEMS)?

CEM systems were historically used as a tool to monitor flue gas for oxygen, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide to provide information for combustion control in industrial settings[1]. They are currently used as a means to comply with air emission standards such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Acid Rain Program[2], , other federal emission programs, or state permitted emission standards. Facilities employ the use of CEMS to continuously collect, record, and report the required emissions data.

A small sample of flue gas is extracted, by means of a pump, into the CEM system via a sample probe. Facilities that combust fossil fuels often use a dilution-extractive probe to dilute the sample with clean, dry air to a ratio typically between 50:1 to 200:1, but usually 100:1. Dilution is used because pure flue gas can be hot, wet, and with some pollutants, sticky. Once diluted to the appropriate ratio, the sample is transported through a sample line (typically referred to as an umbilical) to a system of gas conditioners. The sample is then filtered to remove particulate matter and dried, usually with a chiller, to remove moisture. Once conditioned, the sample enters a manifold from which individual analyzers may extract a sample. Gas analyzers employ various techniques to accurately measure concentrations. Some commonly used techniques include: infrared and ultraviolet adsorption, chemiluminescence, fluorescence, and beta ray absorption. After analysis, the gas exits the analyzer to a common manifold to all analyzers where it is vented out of doors. A Data Acquisition and Handling System (DAHS) receives the signal output from each analyzer in order to collect and record emissions data.

Accuracy of the system is demonstrated by several ways. An internal quality assurance check is achieved by daily introduction of a certified concentration of gas to the sample probe. The analyzer reading must be accurate to a certain percentage. The percent accuracy can vary, but most fall between 2.5% and 5%. In power stations affected by the Acid Rain Program, annual (or bi-annual) certification of the system must be performed by an independent firm. The firm would have an independent CEM system temporarily in place to collect emissions data in parallel with the plant CEMS. This testing is referred to as a Relative Accuracy Test Audit.


The Rest @ Wikipedia

California Air Board Releases New Verifying Body List

:On December 6, 2007, pursuant to the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, the Air Resources Board (ARB) approved the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions regulation. The regulation requires the mandatory reporting and verification of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Facilities subject to mandatory reporting will be required to have their greenhouse gas emissions verified beginning in 2010, for their 2009 reported emissions. Verification is optional in 2009 for 2008 reported emissions. Facilities will be subject to either annual or triennial verification. Only ARB accredited verification bodies may provide verification services for the purposes of mandatory greenhouse gas emissions reporting.

Verifier Accreditation:

ARB staff is implementing a GHG verification program with verifier training and accreditation elements. The individual verifier accreditation application form is available here:


Verifier Accreditation Application Form

Verification Body Accreditation Application Form

Please continue to submit your applications - No Current Deadline

Staff will screen applicants against criteria in the mandatory reporting regulation before approving applicants to take ARB-approved verifier training.

Due to the substantial interest by various stakeholders to participate in ARB-approved verifier training, ARB will prioritize verifier applicants admitted into the initial verification training.

This initial prioritization is to ensure that there are enough lead verifiers to allow verification bodies to start the verification body accreditation process.

In addition, ARB requires a number of sector specific verifiers to ensure that each sector has an adequate number of sector specific verifiers (Electricity Transactions, Refinery Specialist, and Cement Plant Specialist). ARB will be considering these priorities when selecting candidates for the initial ARB-approved verifier training for the following dates:


Training Dates
Session 1: Sacramento June 1st through 5th, 2009 (Refineries and Electricity Transaction Sectors)
Session 2: Sacramento June 8th through 12th, 2009 (Refineries and Cement Sectors)
Session 3: Los Angeles July 13th through 17th, 2009 (Refineries and Electricity Transaction Sectors)
Session 4: Los Angeles July 20th through 24th, 2009 (Refineries, and Electricity Transaction or Cement Sectors)

Session 5: Sacramento September 14th through 18th, 2009 (Refineries and Electricity Transaction Sectors) - registration now open for approved applicants
Session 6: Sacramento September 21st through 25th, 2009 (Refineries and Electricity Transaction Sectors)- registration now open for approved applicants
Session 7: Sacramento October 19th through 23rd, 2009) (Refineries and Electricity Transaction Sectors) - registration opens by 9-10-09
Session 8: Sacramento October 26th through 30th, 2009) (Cement and Electricity Transaction Sectors) - registration opens by 9-10-09

The 5-day training classes listed above are the only ARB-accreditation classes, and will be given by professional trainers from Future Perfect. If you want to be a verifier in California, you may only register for the above sessions. We currently have more applicants than available spots in the training classes. Please consider signing up for either of the September classes, so you guarantee your spot in an accreditation training session. The subsidized cost of the training class is approximately $1,700. When the subsidy runs out, the cost increases to $2,700. This class is for experienced consultants that intend to conduct verification services in California. This training is not for facility owners or operators. ARB will be providing information about verification for reporters/operators during the webinar on September 10, 2009. Pre-approved local air district staff will receive accreditation training beginning on October 5, 2009 in Diamond Bar.

For delegate that want to either retake the general exam or take/retake a sector exam, please register as soon as possible with Future Perfect. If you are retaking an exam, please send us an email (ghgverify@arb.ca.gov) for information about your score and exam. For delegates that register for the October training sessions, we will provide you with an opportunity to retake any exams in November. All other delegates must register to retake their exam(s) either in September or October, 2009.

For more information about the verifier accreditation process, you may click on the 'Accreditation Fact Sheet' link under local links. If you wish to receive email updates on verifier accreditation or the verification process, you may use the 'Join Email List' link under Local Links to sign up for the GHG verification list serve.

If you require a special accommodation or need this information in an alternate format or language, please contact ghgverify@arb.ca.gov or call 916-322-6349 as soon as possible. TTY/TDD/Speech to Speech users may dial 711 for the California Relay Service.

For questions regarding ARB's verifier accreditation or greenhouse gas verification process, please contact:
Rajinder Sahota, Manager, Climate Change Verification and Protocol Section, Phone: 916.323.8503.

Accredited Verifying Body List
Accredited Verifier List

The Rest @ the California Air Board

4 Steps to Personal Carbon Neutrality

Whether directly or indirectly, most modern activities release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. You add carbon emissions to the environment every time you drive a car, turn on a computer, or cook the family's dinner.

But can polluting emissions from one person really harm the planet? Multiply those emissions by the world's six-billion-strong population, and the result is a planet that is being ravaged by the effects of climate change. You can slow the melting of the polar ice caps and the rising of the oceans by going carbon neutral.

The idea behind carbon neutrality is simple - for every ton of carbon you release into the atmosphere, you purchase a ton's worth of carbon offsets.

A carbon offset is a credit purchased from a company that actively reduces the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.

Wind and solar farms, geothermal plants, and carbon sequestration projects all offer carbon offsets. These initiatives keep carbon dioxide out of the air, which in turn offsets the carbon you release into the air. So how can you offset your carbon emissions?

Step #1: Reduce your carbon emissions

You might be doing a good deed by going carbon neutral, but that good deed will cost you - carbon offsets can be pricey. By reducing your overall emissions now, you'll end up paying less for your carbon offsets. Focus on simple and cost-effective measures to reduce your emissions - use public transit, take the train instead of a plane, and buy energy efficient appliances.

Step #2: Decide just how neutral you want to be

Going completely carbon neutral can be expensive, so many people choose to offset only some of their activities. A business executive might choose to offset her plane travel. A family might decide to offset their home electricity use. And many brides are looking to offset the carbon emissions from their weddings. You might want to start your carbon neutral life by offsetting one of the leading causes of carbon emissions - car travel.

Step #3: Use a carbon calculator to determine your total carbon emissions

If you're looking to offset your carbon emissions, you'll need to know exactly how much pollution you produce. On the Internet, you'll find dozens of free-to-use carbon calculators. Some calculators are specific to one emission source - airplane or car travel, for instance. Other calculators help you figure out your daily carbon dioxide output. Each calculator gives you a different number; some calculators factor all polluting emissions into the equation, while others only consider carbon dioxide emissions.

Don't let the confusing selection of calculators put you off living a carbon neutral life. Just answer each question honestly and accurately, and use the final tally to purchase your carbon offsets.

Step #4: Purchase carbon offsets

You can find dozens of vendors selling carbon offsets online. But don't just sign on with the first vendor you come across - do your research first. The carbon offset market is largely unregulated, and price and quality can vary greatly from vendor to vendor. If you're not sure how to tell the environmental warriors from the scam artists, look for a seal of approval from an official organization or accredited group. All offset vendors should be part of the International Carbon Reduction and Offset Alliance (ICROA); this organization requires all members to follow rules and regulations under its “Code of Best Practice.” Also look for projects that meet the Gold Standard, the highest standard for carbon offsets recognized by World Wildlife Federation International and Greenpeace International.

Once you've purchased your carbon offsets, you can rest easy knowing that your daily activities are not harming the earth. But your work is not yet done. Once a year, review your emissions using a carbon calculator. With a new awareness of the state of the planet, you may find that you produced less CO2 than the year before. If so, you can purchase fewer carbon offsets next year - or you can choose to offset even more of your emissions. Either way, you're giving the planet a healthy future - and ensuring that you don't have to swim to work.
The Rest @ Earth Times

EPA Sends Draft CO2 Exemption Rule Change to OMB

I Neither agree nor disagree with the commentary below; Iam still reveiewing Marlo Lewis's calims, but the controversy illustrates the issues that will emerge soon, no matter what happens. In short, the EPA is about to declare four green house gases as air polutants. This will bring everyone who emmits 250 tons or CO2 a year under the regulation of under the Clean Air Act of 1978, which so far has been left to industrial air poluters in the past.


Marlo claims that the EPA sent a draft rule over to the Office of Management and Budget which will select 250,000 tons as the threshold for C02.


The reason for this, imho, is that this will cost the American economoy less, and might be more palatable.


....in any case, here is Marlo Lewi's post:


- Editor

Yesterday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent a draft proposed rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that would exempt small emitters of carbon dioxide (CO2) from Clean Air Act (CAA) pre-construction permitting requirement, Greenwire reports.

The proposed rule, as described in Greenwire, is blatantly illegal. It is a tacit admission that the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA set the stage for an economic disaster. It is additional evidence that Mass v. EPA was wrongly decided. It confirms CEI’s warning that the Court’s ruling imperils a core constitutional principle — the separation of powers.

In Mass. v. EPA, the Supreme Court, by a narrow 5-4 majority, decided that CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHG) are “air pollutants” within the meaning of CAA, and gave EPA three options: (1) issue a finding that GHG-related “air pollution” “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,” (2) issue a finding of no endangerment, or (3) provide a “reasonable explanation” why the agency cannot or will not exercise its discretion to make such a determination.

The Court further held that if EPA makes a finding of endangerment, then it has a duty, under CAA Sec. 202, to develop and adopt GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles.

EPA picked option (1), and last month, it sent OMB a draft proposed rule to establish GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles.

Although the Court majority asserted that an endangerment finding could not lead to “extreme measures” and would only require a cost-constrained adjustment of existing federal fuel-economy standards (see. p. 28 of the decision), in fact the endangerment finding will trigger a chain reaction throughout the CAA — a regulatory cascade potentially exceeding in cost, scope, and intrusiveness the Kyoto Protocol and many other GHG-control schemes Congress has never seen fit to pass.

For starters, establishing GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles will by definition make CO2 a CAA-regulated air pollutant. As such, CO2 would automatically be ”subject to regulation” under the Act’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) pre-construction permitting program. Under the CAA, any firm that plans to build a new “major” stationary source, or modify an existing major source in a way that would significantly increase emissions, must first obtain a PSD permit from EPA or a state environmental agency.

A PSD source is “major” if it is in one of 28 listed categories and has a potential to emit 100 tons per year (TPY) of an air pollutant, or if it is any other type of establishment and has a potential to emit 250 TPY.

And there’s the rub. Whereas only large industrial facilities have a potential to emit 250 TPY of air contaminants such as sulfur dioxide or particulate matter, an immense number and variety of entities – office buildings, hotels, big box stores, enclosed malls, small manufacturing firms, even commercial kitchens – have a potential to emit 250 TPY of CO2. A September 2008 report commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that 1.2 million buildings and facilities – most of them currently unregulated under the CAA – actually emit 250 TPY of CO2. All would be vulnerable to new PSD regulation, controls, paperwork, penalties, and litigation.

To obtain a PSD permit, firms must document their compliance with ”best available control technology” (BACT) standards. Even apart from any technology investments needed to comply with BACT, the PSD permitting process is costly and time-consuming. In a recent year, each permit on average cost $125,120 and 866 burden hours for a source to obtain, EPA estimates. No small business could operate subject to the PSD administrative burden.

The costs, uncertainties, and delays from applying PSD and BACT to CO2 would have a chilling effect on economic development and construction activity. It would turn the CAA into a gigantic Anti-Stimulus Package in a period of financial crisis and high unemployment. Definitely not something the Obama administration wants on its record in the 2010 election season.

EPA’s July 2008 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) outlined several administrative remedies to shield small entities from PSD requirements, all of doubtful legality. But if the Greenwire article is accurate, EPA is opting for the most brazenly illegal option of all. It proposes to revise, on its own authority, the PSD threshold from 250 TPY to 25,000 TPY.

Now friends, under the 1984 Supreme Court case of Chevron v. NRDC, EPA has considerable discretionary authority in interpreting the CAA where the statute is “silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue.” But there is nothing ambiguous about the number 250. No matter how you squint at the page, 250 is 100 times smaller than the threshold EPA proposes to put in its place.

According to Greenwire, Sierra Club’s David Bookbinder, a counsel for petitioners in Mass. v. EPA, “said the rule would also deflect claims from Republican lawmakers and industry groups that the Obama administration is seeking to regulate small emission sources such as doughnut shops, schools, and nursing homes.” But the Obama administration’s intent is not the issue. The issue is whether EPA, as a matter of law, must apply PSD requirements to doughnut shops, etc. once it starts regulating CO2 under Sec. 202.

Greenwire then quotes Bookbinder: “Putting this rule in place deflates a lot of political rhetoric about regulating CO2.” Well, I hope industry and the GOP are not so naive as to put their trust in an illegal rule. A rule that flouts clear statutory language of the CAA can provide no durable protection from the regulatory cascade that an endangerment finding and EPA adoption of motor vehicle GHG emission standards would unleash.

EPA’s proposed draft rule is a tacit admission of what CEI has said all along: EPA cannot regulate CO2 under the CAA without endangering the U.S. economy unless EPA plays lawmaker, amends the Act, and violates the separation of powers. When the Supreme Court handed down the Mass. v. EPA decision, it set the stage for a constitutional crisis.

Of course, the bigger constitutional crisis stemming from Mass. v. EPA is that we could end up with an energy suppression regime far more costly than Kyoto or Waxman-Markey, yet without the people’s elected representatives ever voting on it.

For the gory details, see my blog post on MasterResource.Org and my comment on EPA’s proposed endangerment finding.

by Marlo Lewis
September 02, 2009 @ 2:08 pm


The Rest @ OPen Market

EPA to Impose Cap Whether Bill Passess or Not

EPA Uses ‘Endangerment Finding’ Stick to Spur Climate Change Legislation

The Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to declare carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant in the upcoming months may help push climate-change legislation as top senators delay plans until late September to set new limits on carbon dioxide emissions, reports the San Francisco Chronicle. The House narrowly passed an energy and climate-change bill in June.

On Aug. 31, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said a formal “endangerment finding,” which would trigger federal regulations on greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act even if Congress doesn’t pass a final climate-change bill, probably would “happen in the next months,” reports the San Francisco Chronicle.

In April, the EPA proposed to regulate carbon dioxide along with five other greenhouse gases as pollutants that jeopardize public health and welfare.

If Congress fails to pass a climate change bill by the end of the year, the EPA is ready to mandate limits on carbon emissions, reports Reuters.

But for now, the fate of U.S. climate change legislation is in the hands of the Senate where several legislators including California Democrat Barbara Boxer, are making “tweaks” to the bill, reports Reuters.

There is speculation that Boxer might opt for a slightly higher goal for reducing carbon emissions such as 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, instead of the 17 percent in the House bill, and Senator John Kerry wants stronger controls to deter abusive financial market speculation on trading of pollution permits, reports Reuters.

In addition, there are a host of scenarios for deal-making among the senators that range from a lower target — 14 percent — for reducing emissions and more breaks for coal states to passing legislation already approved by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that requires utilities to generate 15 percent of their electricity by 2021 from renewable sources like solar and wind power, according to Reuters.

Outside of government discussions, some corporations are using scare tactics to influence consumers against a climate-change bill that significantly reduces carbon emissions.

As an example, San Antonio-based Valero Energy Corp. is posting signs at its gasoline stations warning customers about the projected price hike in fuel if the House-approved bill on carbon cap-and-trade becomes law, reports the Houston Chronicle.

Valero, the largest U.S. independent refining company, said its costs for carbon emissions would total $6 billion to $7 billion a year, depending on the auction costs of the permits, reports the Houston newspaper.


The Rest @ Environmental Leader