A Legislative Service Agency of the Pennsylvania General Assembly

The Chairman’s CornerSen. Scott E. Hutchinson, Chairman

(continued on page 8)

February 2014Vol. 15, No. 2

Published Monthly

CJC

oint LegislativeAir and WaterPollution Control and

onservation

ommittee

In This Issue…The Chairman’s Corner .................................p. 1

Notes From the Director ..............................p. 2

Research Briefs .........................................p. 3-6

Where to Put All Our Nuclear Waste? Whither Act 13? PA Carbon Dioxide Reduction Opportunities Wood Stoves, Heaters Get an EPA Look-See

On the Horizon .............................................p. 7

Committee Chronicles .................................p. 7

ENVIRONMENTAL SYNOPSIS

As we know all too well, it’s the time of year that folks are using alternative heating sources - if they have them.

Some people may be reluctant to do so, however, because of uncertainty over whether adding another fuel source will save them any money, or just be another way to spend more money on fuel. With the cold temperatures and snow and ice we have been experiencing, uncertain eco-nomic conditions and high fuel prices, an alternative may be an option worth examining.

With that in mind, the Penn State Cooperative Extension Service, part of the College of Agricultural Sciences, recently took a look at the cost factors related to a switch to wood heat. The Cooperative Extension study analyzed the use of two wood fuel alterna-tives: cordwood for a high-efficiency wood stove and wood pellets for a pellet stove.

The study endeavored to find a common measurement that could be used to see what savings – if any – could be obtained from switch-ing to wood heat. The study pointed out that because cordwood is sold by the cord, pellets by the bag or ton, natural gas by the therm, fuel oil by the gallon and electricity by the kilowatt-hour (KWH), find-ing a way to determine real savings could be problematic.

To try to use a common measure so that apples were compared to apples, the study came up with using the cost per gigajoule (GJ) of useful heat. A GJ is about the same as a million BTUs, according to the study. Without trying to be too technical, first the study figured out how many GJs of heat there are in a cord, ton, gallon, therm or KWH of fuel. Then, it factored in the efficiency of the stove, boiler or heater being used. The study believes that this gives one a true picture of how much one can save if one were to switch from one heating fuel to another.

One other variable that the study had to factor in was that while the U.S. Department of Energy publishes average regional prices

for natural gas and heating oil, it does not for cordwood. The study instead looked up advertised prices for firewood (by the cord, cut, split and delivered) in a PA newspaper over the past 20 years to come up with a representative price for cordwood.

ENVIRONMENTAL SYNOPSIS / FEBRUARY 2014 / P. 2

CRAIG D. BROOKS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTORNOTES FROM THE DIRECTOR

__________________________________________________A variety of regulatory and legislative

possibilities are in the wind regarding federal oversight of drilling and production of oil and

natural gas on federal lands __________________________________________________

According to the 2014 environmental outlook from the Department of the Interior, the first big ticket item on the agenda for the up-

coming year is updating the Bureau of Land Manage-ment’s (BLM) regulations for drilling and production of oil and natural gas on federal lands, with a primary focus on hydraulic fracturing.

The BLM has suggested that regulations on oil and gas need to be updated because revisions have not been introduced in decades despite rapid changes in drilling technologies and techniques. The most recent upsurge is hydraulic fracturing – the pumping of water, sand and chemicals into the ground creating fractures through which oil and gas can flow.

State officials and industry representatives have argued that a federal rule is unnecessary, given the fact that states regulate federal lands as well as other lands within their borders. According to BLM, the fed-eral rule would concede authority to the states wherever state regula-tions meet federal stan-dards, but it remains to be seen how demanding the standards would be and how easily or extensively the concessions to the states would be made.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is very close to issuing a final guidance on the regula-tion of hydraulic fracturing when diesel fuel is used in the fracking fluid. That guidance, to be issued under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, would ap-ply regulations to the Underground Injection Control Program and was sent to the Office of Management and Budget in September 2013. Industry representa-tives have indicated that the use of diesel fuel can be avoided in the fracking fluids and therefore, the toxic compounds found in diesel fuel such as benzene, tolu-ene and xylenes would not be of concern.

Coming along in the federal regulation process, EPA is continuing to study the suggested risks posed by hydraulic fracturing to drinking water. The EPA study is not a regulatory action, but more like a “do-over” that will allow a fresh analysis of the possible hazards of fracking. It is scheduled to be released in a draft form in late 2014.

The EPA has also said that it will propose tech-nology-based standards in 2014 for pre-treatment of water going from shale gas wells to publically owned treatment facilities. In several states, such water dis-posal has already stopped, reducing the impact of any standards.

Federal lawmakers may also take action on frac-turing. The House passed bills in November 2013 to accelerate permitting of oil and gas drilling and to specify that the federal government would not regu-late hydraulic fracturing with the states that already

regulate the practice. The prospects of such legislation gaining trac-tion is predicted to be slow and states and local governments will con-tinue to look at ways to

oversee regulations of oil and gas activities.

Recent years have seen only a few necessary revisions to such regulations and there is no reason to suggest that the pattern would change in 2014. Instead, industry and environmental groups have indi-cated that states should establish regulations rather than react to reports of pollution with a patchwork of regulatory changes. Many of them may not be nec-essary or effective.

Since December 2013, municipalities in Penn-sylvania have had the ability to regulate oil and gas drilling through zoning requirements, which gives local authorities jurisdiction over drilling practices in their communities.

ENVIRONMENTAL SYNOPSIS / FEBRUARY 2014 / P. 3

Each month, the committee’s staff researches and prepares a number of “briefs” on several topics relevant to the Joint Conservation

Committee’s mission. Very often, these briefs include references to reports

and further research on the topics so that readers may pursue issues on their own.

Please Note: The information and opinions expressed in the Research Brief articles do not necessarily represent the opinions or positions of the Joint Legislative Air and Water Pollution Control and Conservation Committee, nor those of the

Pennsylvania General Assembly.

RESEARCH BRIEFSEconomic Impact of Processing Nuclear Waste in South Carolina-- Tony M. Guerrieri, Research Analyst

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Savan-nah River Site (SRS), located on nearly 310 square miles in southwestern South Carolina,

was built in the 1950s to produce materials that were needed to manufacture nuclear weapons. In the late 1980s, production by the site’s five aging reactors slowed and eventually stopped as they were moth-balled. The business of production at the SRS turned to the cleanup of high-level waste during the 1990s.

The promise of jobs and economic prosperity high-light a report commissioned by the Savannah River Site Community Reuse Organization (SRSCRO). The report suggests that the federal site would be a good spot to deposit the nation’s spent nuclear fuel (SNF) for recy-cling, research and other uses. However, the report, “Comprehensive Fuel Cycle Research Study”, empha-sizes that storing and reprocessing the nation’s SNF at the SRS would require widespread public support to be successful.

The nation’s SNF inventory – nearly 68,000 tons – was to be buried in a deep repository in Nevada’s Yucca Mountain - until the project was abandoned. That decision left in limbo the fate of a growing inven-tory of SNF from the nation’s 104 commercial power reactors. Currently, federal agencies are considering consolidated, interim storage of the nation’s high-level nuclear waste until a better solution can be found.

Consolidated storage at the SRS would start with the SNF currently in South Carolina and Georgia (over 6,600 tons) and, if successful, could expand to include the remainder of the 20,000 tons of spent fuel in the Southeastern U.S., the report said. Subsequent phases – if pursued – would broaden the effort to include Vir-ginia and the Northeastern states, which together have slightly more than 20,000 tons of SNF.

In addition to storing the radioactive material, SRS might also be a suitable venue to explore reprocessing of SNF. Without a reprocessing facility, the report sug-gests that a storage site would not provide significant economic benefits. According to the report, a repro-cessing facility capable of handling between 800 and 1,000 tons per year could create almost 1,700 jobs with a $239 million annual economic impact. Reprocessed SNF would be turned into stable radioactive glass logs (a process known as vitrification) more suitable for long-term storage.

While storage and reprocessing would generate jobs and economic benefits, it would also create risks that would have to be considered. The report said community involvement should be focused on address-ing the risks, both perceived and real, associated with fuel cycle activities – including the risks of radioactive material release and possible acts of terrorism.

_______________________________________________What South Carolina does with the Savannah River site may provide some guidance for the rest of the nation in regard to spent nuclear

fuel_______________________________________________

Transportation is a key area of concern to the gen-eral public. For example, thousands of shipments of SNF initially could be trucked across the nation’s high-ways for storage at SRS. Conversely, the community needs to fully evaluate and understand the substantial benefits that the community will realize, primarily in the form of new skilled jobs and incremental economic benefits.

The report also noted that the DOE has called for “consent-based” siting of nuclear waste facilities. That means encouraging communities to volunteer to be considered to host a nuclear waste management facility while also allowing for the waste management organization to approach communities that it believes can meet the siting requirements.

ENVIRONMENTAL SYNOPSIS / FEBRUARY 2014 / P. 4

The report highlighted the DOE’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico as a success story and potential model. According to the report, the WIPP benefitted from an increasingly sup-portive host community, and a state that was willing to participate in discussions with the host community and DOE, adding that such support was in stark contrast to Yucca Mountain, which was ultimately killed by techni-cal problems, legal challenges and political opposition from the state.

The report concludes that its economic model shows there are substantial economic benefits – jobs, tax revenue and additional compensation – to siting a reprocessing facility in the region. The report is not a formal proposal but was designed to provide regional leaders with information to determine what role the area might play in nuclear waste solutions.

The SRSCRO is an economic development orga-nization charged with developing and implementing a comprehensive strategy to diversify the economy of the five-county SRS region of South Carolina and Geor-gia. The report is part of a campaign by the SRSCRO to gauge state and community interest in recycling waste from commercial nuclear power plants.

The report, “Comprehensive Fuel Cycle Research Study”, is available at: http://www.srscro.org/com-munity-issues/comprehensive-fuel-cycle-research-study/.

2014 Drilling Outlook-- Craig D. Brooks, Executive Director

Pennsylvania has asked the state Supreme Court to reconsider its recent ruling that key components of Act 13, which revised the

state’s oil and gas law, are unconstitutional. In its De-cember 2013 ruling, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the state’s preemption of local government authority to regulate oil and gas development through land use and zoning rules under Act 13 violates the En-vironmental Rights Amendment of the state constitu-tion because it fails to balance the government’s duties to develop the economy and protect the environment.

It is the position of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Public Utility Commission (PUC) in their January 2014 application for reconsideration, that after announcing the balancing test to be used under the Environmental Rights Act, the court went on to reach conclusions that have no support in the trial record. According to the filing, “In announcing a never before employed balancing test against which the constitutional validity of a law is to

be judged, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court made its own sweeping factual findings regarding impact of Act 13, none of which finds any support in the sparse and uneven factual record that was made before Common-wealth Court.”

The filing goes on to say, “The Supreme Court’s de-cision is a stunning departure from the historical prac-tice of that Court, and the unrestrained venture into a fact-finding role that the Court always has insisted is not its proper place in the judicial system.”

_______________________________________________The PA Department of Environmental

Protection and the Public Utility Commission have laid out their objections in seeking

reconsideration of the PA Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the constitutionality of

Act 13_______________________________________________

The state agencies have requested that the case be remanded to the Commonwealth Court for devel-opment of facts, application of the new “balancing” standards to the facts as found by the lower court, and a final determination about the constitutionality of Act 13 based on the Commonwealth Court record and findings.

The request cited a number of statements in the Supreme Court decision that the agencies say may warrant further investigation, including statements that:

Exploitation of the Marcellus Shale Formation will produce detrimental effects on the environment and on present and future generations that may rival the environmental impacts of coal extraction.

The new legal regimen under Act 13 substantially diminishes natural and aesthetic values of the local environment.

The Legislature has “sanctioned a direct and harmful degradation of the environmental quality of life in these communities and zoning districts.”

The act permits development with an immediate and disruptive effect on how PA residents live.

According to DEP and the PUC, “Fundamental fair-ness to a co-equal branch of government as well as adherence to the court’s proceedings and established precedent, mandates that the commission and the department be afforded a reasonable opportunity to represent evidence before any judicial proclamation is made about whether Act 13 satisfies the newly man-dated balancing test.”

ENVIRONMENTAL SYNOPSIS / FEBRUARY 2014 / P. 5

Pennsylvania Poised to Meet Future Carbon Dioxide Standards-- Tony M. Guerrieri, Research Analyst

As the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) moves forward with new emissions standards for new and existing power plants,

many states are wondering how they will comply. A report by the World Resources Institute (WRI) exam-ines the policies and pathways Pennsylvania can use to cost-effectively meet or even exceed future power plant emissions standards.

The WRI report, “Power Sector Opportunities for Reducing Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Pennsylvania”, suggests that the Keystone state is in a good position to achieve these more rigorous national carbon pollu-tion standards. The report says Pennsylvania will do so by reducing its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions 21 per-cent below 2011 levels by 2020 through a combination of current state policies and improved use of existing infrastructure.

______________________________________________A new report is optimistic about

Pennsylvania’s prospectsto reduce its carbon dioxide emissions to meet more rigorous national standards by

2020______________________________________________

Between 2005 and 2011, CO2 emissions from Pennsylvania power plants declined by 10 percent. Ac-cording to the report, this is mostly because coal-fired generation in the state fell 18 percent, while electricity from natural gas and renewable sources more than doubled. However, coal still comprised the largest share of in-state power generation in 2011 (44 percent), while nuclear and natural gas sources comprised 33 percent and 18 percent, respectively.

Due in large part to retirement of the state’s aging coal plants, Pennsylvania’s power plant CO2 emissions are expected to decrease by around nine percent by 2020 compared to 2011 levels. As of 2012, 26 coal generators (with a 3,845 megawatt capacity or 23 per-cent of existing coal capacity) in the state were slated for retirement, while more than 3,552 megawatts of renewable capacity was in the regional construction queue.

States have considerable flexibility in how they comply with the EPA’s forthcoming power plant emis-sions standards.

The WRI report found that Pennsylvania could use the following tools to reduce its power sector CO2 emissions:

Meeting alternative energy targets. Pennsylva-nia’s existing alternative energy standard, passed in 2008, requires eight percent of the state’s electricity to come from renewables by 2021. By meeting this requirement with new, in-state renewable generation, Pennsylvania can reduce its CO2 emissions by four percent below 2011 levels by 2020.

Meeting energy efficiency targets. Pennsylvania already has an efficiency standard that requires utili-ties to implement programs that help customers save energy at their homes and businesses. Meeting this standard can reduce Pennsylvania’s CO2 emissions by 11 percent below 2011 levels by 2020.

Using more combined heat and power (CHP) at commercial and industrial sites. Businesses like universities, hospitals, industrial manufacturers, and others can save energy by installing combined heat and power (CHP) systems, which generate electricity more efficiently than the average power plant. Pennsylvania is currently using less than one-third of its CHP poten-tial of 10.5 gigawatts. Increasing the use of CHP by only 26 percent could reduce CO2 emissions by three percent below 2011 levels by 2020.

Using more gas. Pennsylvania’s most efficient natural gas plants – combined cycle (NGCC) units – generated much less electricity than they were capable of producing in 2011. Running existing NGCC plants at 75 percent capacity can reduce CO2 emissions by three percent below 2011 levels by 2020.

Increasing existing coal plant efficiency. Existing coal plants could save energy by upgrading equipment and making other operational improvements. Increas-ing efficiency of the existing coal-fired power plant fleet by 2.5 percent would reduce Pennsylvania’s emissions by two percent in 2020 compared to 2011.

To comply with the state’s energy efficiency re-source standard (EERS), utilities have already imple-mented a wide range of programs that help custom-ers save energy and money, including high-efficiency appliance programs, low-income home audits, and load management services for commercial and industrial facilities. The analysis suggests that continuing the program after its current phase ends in 2016 will be cost effective for the state’s customers.

According to a study conducted for the Pennsyl-vania Public Utility Commission, continuing the elec-tric efficiency program will be very cost effective for Pennsylvania ratepayers, with the potential to achieve $5 billion to $10 billion in net benefits over a 10-year

ENVIRONMENTAL SYNOPSIS / FEBRUARY 2014 / P. 6

period starting in 2013.The WRI analysis suggests that strengthening the

EERS and renewable portfolio standard, along with increasing CHP capacity, could propel Pennsylvania to meet ambitious standards and lower emissions by 34 percent (below 2011 levels) by 2020 and 63 percent by 2030.

The Pennsylvania report is one of a series of 10 state profiles the WRI issued in 2013. The WRI analy-sis, “Power Sector Opportunities for Reducing Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Pennsylvania”, is available at: http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/power_sec-tor_opportunities_for_reducing_carbon_dioxide_emissions_pennsylvania.pdf.

EPA Proposes Revised Standards for New Wood Stoves, Heaters-- Craig D. Brooks, Executive Director

Proposed standards for new wood stoves and heaters would require the next generation of appliances to be 80 percent cleaner than

those in use today and would yield billions of dollars in annual public health and economic benefits, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The proposed rule would apply to new wood stoves, outdoor and indoor wood-fired boilers, newly manufactured adjustable rate wood stoves, pellet stoves, wood fired hydronic heaters, forced-air furnac-es, masonry wood heaters and previously unregulated single burn rate stoves.

EPA’s proposal would phase in emissions limits over five years to allow manufacturers to adapt emis-sion control technologies into their products.

The agency also will accept public comment on whether to phase in the new emissions limits in three steps over eight years.

The proposed rule was developed after EPA con-ducted its review of existing new source performance standards (NSPS) under the Clean Air Act’s Section 111, which requires the agency to review existing stan-dards every eight years. The agency hadn’t updated the emissions limits since they were originally issued in 1988.

EPA concurred with a number of stakeholders that it was time for a revision, and that the current body of evidence justifies an update of the standards to capture improvements in performance of such heat-ing units and to expand the NSPS to include additional wood-burning heating devices.

According to EPA, the public health and economic benefits from the emissions limits are estimated at be-tween $1.8 billion and $4.2 billion annually, with compli-ance costs estimated at $15.7 million.

This means between $118 and $267 in benefits would be generated from every dollar spent on compli-ance.

Non-economic benefits include reductions of 33,000 tons of carbon monoxide, reductions of 3,200 tons of volatile organic compounds, reduced exposure to hazardous air pollutants including formaldehyde and benzene, and reductions of black carbon emissions.

Additionally, the proposed rule adds International Organization for Standardization-accredited laboratories and certifying bodies to increase the types of ways appliances can be tested for compliance with the new emissions limits. Increasing the number of laboratories and certifying bodies was one of the key recommenda-tions of the Small Business Advocacy Review panel that was convened in 2010 for input on the rulemaking.

______________________________________________New emissions standards are in the works

from the Environmental Protection Agency for wood stoves and heaters

_______________________________________________

There are some exempted products. The proposed rule would not apply to fireplaces, fire pits, pizza ovens, barbeques and chimineas, according to EPA.

Existing new source performance standards for new wood heaters were issued in 1988 and focused on adjustable burn rate heaters. The EPA amended the standards in 1998 but didn’t change the emissions limits from the original rule.

Industry and environmental groups are welcoming the long overdue standards and are looking forward to a significant public comment period. The groups have said that they will continue to work with EPA to deliver reliable emissions reductions but are still cautious about the current laboratory tests the agency uses to measure emissions reductions.

The Pellet Fuels Institute, which makes wood pellet fuel often used in stoves and boilers, also says it wel-comes the release of the new proposed rule and looks forward to submitting comments on the regulation.

Additional information on the regulation is avail-able at: http://www2.epa.gov/residential-wood-heaters/proposed-new-source-performance-stan-dards-residential-wood-heaters.

ENVIRONMENTAL SYNOPSIS / JANUARY 2014 / P. 7

A LOOK AT UPCOMING EVENTS

No events are scheduled at this time.

Check the Committee website at http://jcc.legis.state.pa.us for events that may be added to the schedule.

A REVIEW OF SOME MEMORABLE COMMITTEE

EVENTS

ON THE HORIZON . . .

COMMITTEE CHRONICLES . . .On December 9, 2013, the Joint Legislative Air and Water Pollution Control and Conservation Committee’s Environmental Issues Forum featured a presentation by analyst and researcher Eric Jespersen (pictured at left), who has an extensive background in water data planning and management.

Jespersen’s presentation was entitled “Water is the Keystone – Regarding the State Water Plan / Act 220.” As the day’s audience (pictured at lower left) heard, the program focused on the history and appropriateness of the mapping

data that describes Pennsylvania’s surface water resources, and examined how technologies do and will affect the creation, analysis and use of the data. The Act 220 mandates for recurring planning and for a comprehensive database were highlighted.

Following the presentation, Jespersen discussed water quality issues with committee Chairman Sen. Scott E. Hutchinson (photo at right).

Jespersen’s PowerPoint presentation is available on the committee website at http://jcc.legis.state.pa.us (go to “Newsletters and Reports”).

ENVIRONMENTAL SYNOPSIS / FEBRUARY 2014 / P. 8

How toContact

The JointConservation Committee

Phone: 717-787-7570 Fax: 717-772-3836

Location: Rm. 408, Finance Bldg.

Internet Website: http://jcc.legis.state.pa.us

Mail: Joint Conservation CommitteePA House of RepresentativesP.O. Box 202254Harrisburg, PA 17120-2254

CJC

oint LegislativeAir and WaterPollution Control and

onservation

ommittee

Printed on Recycled Paper

Keep in mind that the focus of the study was to try to determine if wood heat for a home pays off or not, so any results are aimed at answering that question. The study also noted that its findings were based on the use of newer, high efficiency wood and pellet stoves, not inefficient fireplaces or older stove models that sent much of the heat produced up the chimney.

What the study found was that cordwood was the least expensive heating fuel for Pennsylvanians, as it has been for the past 20 years. Cordwood came in at just under $10 per useful GJ, while natural gas was at around $13, and electricity and fuel oil were both over $35. The study also stated that wood fuel prices were “pretty sta-ble over time”, particularly as compared to the volatility of oil and natural gas prices.

The study then examined savings from switching to wood from each of fuel oil, natural gas and electricity. It listed those savings using three possibilities: cutting your own cordwood, buying cordwood delivered, or using wood pellets. The basic findings were that in each case, there were substantial savings to be had in switch-ing to wood – particularly in a switch from fuel oil or electricity – and that the savings would grow as the price per gallon, therm or KWH grew. According to the study, the biggest savings would come from cutting your own cordwood, and the smallest from pellets, although the savings were significant for all three wood alternatives.

_________________________________________________________________________To play around with the numbers in the study, visit

Penn State Extension’s interactive “Energy Selector” at http://extension.psu.edu/energy/energy-use/making-decisions/

comparison-charts______________________________________

For more general information, visit Penn State Extension’s Renewable and Alternative Energy website at

http://extension.psu.edu/natural-resources/energyand click on “Energy Use and Efficiency”

_______________________________________________________________________

On a cautionary note, keep in mind that all savings were based on averages, which may vary depending on where you live. Also, the study pointed out some “non-monetary” costs associated with wood, such as:

the labor involved (cutting and splitting the wood, loading the stove, starting the fire, cleaning out ashes);

dirt, bark and ashes being tracked around the house; and the attention required for tasks like checking the fire and adding fuel as need-

ed, compared to the usual automatic supply feeds of oil and gas.

On the other hand, wood and pellet stoves are often toasty, attractive gathering spots in one’s home, especially if one is coming in from the cold after shoveling or the like. And, points out the study, wood heat is renewable.

The study provides an interesting perspective and if you check out the websites above, you can learn more and work with the numbers if you wish. That may be a worthwhile activity the next time you’re hunkered down waiting out the next ice or snow storm. Keep warm!