Bills aim to speed enviro-cleanups in New Jersey

New Jersey has more than 20,000 contaminated sites that have been waiting in line for years for required reviews by experts in the Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) site remediation program. With the state and the DEP facing yet another year of tighter budgets and shrinking staffs, the problem can only get worse.

What’s been the legacy of the bureaucratic logjam?

* Cleanups are not being performed.
* Contamination remains in place and possibly spreads.
* Properties abandoned or unused
* Owners who want to clean up sites grow more frustrated each day.

On the horizon, however, is an innovative approach that could speed up the development, review and implementation of remedial actions at many contaminated sites.

It’s being proposed by two environmental heavy-hitters, namely, the chairmen of the respective environmental committees in both houses of the state legislature– Senator Bob Smith and Assemblyman John F. McKeon.

If the legislation (S-1897/A-2962) can overcome objections already being raised by environmental groups and get signed into law, it should help to reinvigorate the state’s moribund remediation program. It also promises to generate a lot of new income opportunities for individuals and firms involved environmental cleanups.

How would it work?

The identical bills would establish a Licensed Site Professional program within the DEP. Among the requirements for obtaining a license, an applicant would be required to have:

– a bachelor’s degree or higher in natural, chemical or physical science, or an engineering degree;

– 10 years of continuous full time employment in the field of contaminated site remediation during which the person has been responsible for managing the remediation of the sites on which the applicant has worked;

– a minimum of 5,000 hours of experience over the past five years of work on contaminated sites within the State, and

– other professional certifications and training, plus evidence of financial responsibility

The DEP would license Licensed Site Professionals (LSP) and require all persons applying for approval to remediate a contaminated site to use the services of an LSP. The LSP would review and submit all necessary paperwork to the DEP, develop remedial plans, supervise the cleanup and certify that it is performed in conformance with DEP’s technical requirements.

The activities performed by the LSP presumably would free up DEP staff to perform an oversight role and speed up the entire process.

[NOTE: The legislation also creates a four-tier classification system for remediation sites and makes a number of other important changes to state’s environmental cleanup laws, including the Spill Act, ISRA and the Brownfield redevelopment program. If you are an environmental attorney or consultant involved in remedial cases, click on the bill number S-1897 to view the entire bill]The New Jersey legislation is based on a similar program in Massachusetts that has been operating for 15 years. In a May 19 presentation to the New Jersey Senate Environment Committee, officials associated with that program said they found themselves, in the early 1990s, with a backlog of 8,000 sites and not enough staff to review all the reports that were coming in.

So they decided to partially privatize their remediation program by establishing the Site Remediation Professional program. Owners of contaminated sites in Massachusetts must hire an LSP to manage the remediation. The LSP can select the cleanup methodology but must assure that it meets DEP cleanup standards.

The result? In the 15 years since the program began, the Massachusetts DEP has witnessed the cleanup of some 30,000 sites. That compares to 500 under the old program. To hear the entire committee testimony click here.

S-1897 is scheduled to be discussed (no vote anticipated) by the Senate Environment Committee at 1 p.m. on Monday, June 16 in Room 10 on the third floor of the State House Annex in Trenton.

If you’re interested in the proceedings but can’t get to Trenton, you’re not out of luck. The Legislature provides live (and archived) online feeds of all committee meetings.

Just log on to the Legislature’s website at: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/Default.asp Then select the link that says: “View or listen to live proceedings” and then click on “Senate Environment.”

MORE:
Massachusetts LSP Association
Massachusetts LSP licsensing board’s website
Property owner’s guide to hiring a LSP in Massachusetts
One New Jersey environmentalist’s opposition to LSP’s
Licensed Professionals To Review Brownfields We track all environmental legislation in New Jersey and Pennsylvania–from introduction to enactment–in our daily, paid-subscription newsletter, EnviroPolitics. FREE Trial Subscription

Bills aim to speed enviro-cleanups in New Jersey Read More »

Making waves in alternative energy

I found the article below, on the prospects of generating electricity from the power of ocean waves, to be quite fascinating. So much so, that I’ve reproduced the entire piece from The Economist.
————————————————————————————–
The coming wave
Jun 5th 2008
From The Economist print edition

Energy: Enthusiasm for renewable energy means wind turbines and solar panels are popping up all over the place. But what happened to wave power?

YOU only have to look at waves pounding a beach, inexorably wearing cliffs into rubble and pounding stones into sand, to appreciate the power of the ocean. As soaring oil prices and concern over climate change give added urgency to the search for new, renewable sources of energy, the sea is an obvious place to look. In theory the world’s electricity needs could be met with just a tiny fraction of the energy sloshing around in the oceans.

Alas, harnessing it has proved to be unexpectedly difficult. In recent years wind farms have sprouted on plains and hilltops, and solar panels have been sprinkled across rooftops and deserts. But where the technology of wind and solar power is established and steadily improving, that of wave power is still in its infancy. The world had to wait until October 2007 for the first commercial wave farm, consisting of three snakelike tubes undulating with the Atlantic swell off the coast of Portugal.

In December Pacific Gas & Electric, an American utility, signed an agreement to buy electricity from a wave farm that is to be built off the coast of California and is due to open in 2012. Across the world many other wave-power schemes are on the drawing board. The story of wave power, however, has been one of trials and tests followed by disappointment and delays. Of the many devices developed to capture wave energy, none has ever been deployed on a large scale. Given wave power’s potential, why has it been so hard to get the technology to work—and may things now be about to change?

The first patents for wave-power devices were issued in the 18th century. But nothing much happened until the mid-1970s, when the oil crisis inspired Stephen Salter, an engineer at the University of Edinburgh, in Scotland, to develop a wave generator known as Salter’s Duck. His design contained curved, floating canisters, each the size of a house, that would be strung together and then tethered to the ocean floor. As the canisters, known as Ducks, were tossed about by the waves, each one would rock back and forth. Hydraulics would convert the rocking motion to rotational motion, which would in turn drive a generator. A single Duck was calculated to be capable of generating 6 megawatts (MW) of electricity—enough to power around 4,000 homes. The plan was to install them in groups of several dozen.

Initial estimates put the cost of generating electricity in this way at nearly $1 per kilowatt hour (kWh), far more than nuclear power, the most expensive electricity at the time. But as Dr Salter and his team improved their design, they managed to bring the cost-per-kWh down to the cost of nuclear power. Even so, the research programme was shut down by the British government in 1982. The reasons for this were not made public, but it is widely believed to have happened after lobbying by the nuclear industry. In testimony to a House of Lords committee in 1988, Dr Salter said that an accurate evaluation of the potential of new energy sources would be possible only when “the control of renewable energy projects is completely removed from nuclear influences.”

Salter’s Duck never took to the seas, but it sparked interest in the idea of wave power and eventually helped to inspire other designs. One example is the Pelamis device, designed by some of Dr Salter’s former students, who now work at Pelamis Wave Power, a firm based in Scotland. Three such devices, each capable of generating up to 750kW, have been deployed off the coast of Portugal, and dozens more are due to be installed by 2009. There are also plans for installations off Orkney in Scotland and Cornwall in England.

Wave hello to Aquaboy (at the top of the article) and
(clockwise from top left) AWS Ocean Energy’s submerged
buoy; Limpet; Oyster; and Pelamis

As waves travel along the 140-metre length of the snakelike Pelamis, its hinged joints bend both up and down, and from side to side. This causes hydraulic rams at the joints to pump hydraulic fluid through turbines, turning generators to produce electricity. Pelamis generators present only a small cross-section to incoming waves, and absorb less and less energy as the waves get bigger. This might seem odd, but most of the time the devices will not be operating in stormy seas—and when a storm does occur, their survival is more important than their power output.

Oh buoy
The Aquabuoy, designed by Finavera Renewables of Vancouver, takes a different approach. (This is the device that Pacific Gas & Electric hopes to deploy off the California coast.) Each Aquabuoy is a tube, 25-metres long, that floats vertically in the water and is tethered to the sea floor. Its up-and-down bobbing motion is used to pressurise water stored in the tube below the surface. Once the pressure reaches a certain level, the water is released, spinning a turbine and generating electricity.

The design is deliberately simple, with few moving parts. In theory, at least, there is very little to go wrong. But a prototype device failed last year when it sprang a leak and its bilge-pump malfunctioned, causing it to sink just as it was due to be collected at the end of a trial. Finavera has not released the results of the trial, which was intended to measure the Aquabuoy’s power output, among other things. The company has said, however, that Aquabuoy will be profitable only if each device can generate at least 250kW, and that it has yet to reach this threshold.

Similar bobbing buoys are also being worked on by AWS Ocean Energy, based in Scotland, and Ocean Power Technologies, based in Pennington, New Jersey, among others. The AWS design is unusual because the buoys are entirely submerged; the Ocean Power device, called the PowerBuoy, is being tested off the coast of Spain by Iberdrola, a Spanish utility.

The Oyster, a wave-power device from Aquamarine Power, another Scottish firm, works in an entirely different way. It is an oscillating metal flap, 12 metres tall and 18 metres wide, installed close to shore. As the waves roll over it, the flap flexes backwards and forwards. This motion drives pistons that pump seawater at high pressure through a pipe to a hydroelectric generator. The generator is onshore, and can be connected to lots of Oyster devices, each of which is expected to generate up to 600kW. The idea is to make the parts that go in the sea simple and robust, and to keep the complicated and delicate bits out of the water. Testing of a prototype off the Orkney coast is due to start this summer.

The logical conclusion of this is to put everything onshore—and that is the idea behind the Limpet. It is the work of Wavegen, a Scottish firm which is a subsidiary of Voith Siemens Hydro, a German hydropower firm. A prototype has been in action on the island of Islay, off the Scottish coast, since 2000. The Limpet is a chamber that sits on the shoreline. The bottom of the chamber is open to the sea, and on top is a turbine that always spins in the same direction, regardless of the direction of the airflow through it.

As waves slam into the shore, water is pushed into the chamber and this in turn displaces the air, driving it through the turbine. As the water recedes, air is sucked back into the chamber, driving the same turbine again. The Limpet on Islay has three chambers which generate an average of 100kW between them, but larger devices could potentially generate three times this amount, according to Wavegen. Limpets may be built into harbour breakwaters in Scotland and Spain.

Dozens of wave-energy technologies are being developed around the world: ideas, in other words, are not what has held the field back. So what has? Tom Thorpe of Oxford Oceanics, a consultancy, blames several overlapping causes. For a start, wave energy has lagged behind wind and solar, because the technology is much younger and still faces some big technical obstacles. “This is a completely new energy technology, whereas wind and photovoltaics have been around for a long time—so they have been developed, rather than invented,” says Mr Thorpe.

The British government’s decision to shut its wave-energy research programme, which had been the world’s biggest during the 1970s, set the field back nearly two decades. Since Britain is particularly well placed to exploit wave energy (which is why so many wave-energy companies come from there), its decision not to pursue the technology affected wave-energy research everywhere, says Mr Thorpe. “If we couldn’t do it, who could?” he says.

Once interest in wave power revived earlier this decade, practical problems arose. A recurring problem, ironically enough, is that new devices underestimate the power of the sea, and are unable to withstand its assault. Installing wave-energy devices is also expensive; special vessels are needed to tow equipment out to sea, and it can be difficult to get hold of them. “Vessels that could potentially do the job are all booked up by companies collecting offshore oil,” says Trevor Whittaker, an engineer at Queen’s University in Belfast who has been part of both the Limpet and Oyster projects. “Wave-generator installation is forced to compete with the high prices the oil industry can pay.”

Another practical problem is the lack of infrastructure to connect wave-energy generators to the power grid. The cost of establishing this infrastructure makes small-scale wave-energy generation and testing unfeasible; but large-scale projects are hugely expensive. One way around this is to build a “Wave Hub”, like the one due to be installed off the coast of Cornwall in 2010 that will provide infrastructure to connect up wave-energy arrays for testing.
Expect flotations

But at last there are signs of change. Big utilities are taking the technology seriously, and are teaming up with wave-energy companies. Venture-capitalists are piling in too, as they look for new opportunities. Several wave-energy companies are thought to be planning stock market flotations in the coming months. Indeed, such is investors’ enthusiasm that Mr Thorpe worries that things might have gone too far. A big failure could tarnish the whole field, just as its prospects look more promising than ever.

Whether one wave-energy device will dominate, or different devices will suit different conditions, remains to be seen. But wave energy’s fortunes have changed. “We have to be prepared for some spectacular failures,” says Mr Thorpe, “but equally some spectacular successes.”
————————————————————————————-
To learn more about the Pennington, NJ-based company named in the article, click on Ocean Power Technologies.

Care to contribute to the discussion? Click on the “comment’ line below and add your opinion or share your links to other wave-energy sites or articles.

Making waves in alternative energy Read More »

Another coastal LNG facility bites the dust

2008 has not been a good year for companies proposing to develop liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities–on the east or west coasts.

News of the latest failure came on Friday when SES Terminal, a subsidiary of Tokyo-based Mitsubishi Corp., announced in a filing to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that it had given up plans to build an $800-million LNG terminal in Long Beach, CA. following significant local opposition and the suspension of an environmental review.

The terminal, a joint project with ConocoPhillips, would have provided California, which gets natural gas from in-state suppliers and via pipeline from Texas and other places, with an alternative source of the fuel.

According to the Los Angeles Times, project opponents raised safety concerns, “including the potential for a natural gas explosion that could kill hundreds of people and destroy much of the Long Beach waterfront.”

In April, New York Governor David Paterson rejected a plan by Broadwater to build a floating LNG terminal nine miles off the coast of Long Island. That project had drawn sustained opposition from fishermen and environmentalists in New York and Connecticut.
On March 31, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state of Delaware which, in a border dispute with New Jersey, opposed a proposal by Crown Landing LLC, a subsidiary of BP, to construct a LNG import facility in the Delaware River off Logan Township, NJ.

But, despite the string of losses, other LNG facility developers continue to seek approval.

Last month, Excalibur Energy (USA) Inc. , a 50/50 joint venture between Canadian Superior and Global LNG Inc., a Delaware company, announced it would seek approval for “Liberty Natural Gas.” This offloading operation, proposed to be stationed some 15 miles off Asbury Park, NJ, would transfer LNG from tankers and send the gas via 50 miles of offshore pipeline and eleven miles of onshore pipeline to a terminus in Linden, NJ.

Two other competing projects seeking approval in New Jersey are Safe Harbor Energy, which is proposed by the Atlantic Sea Island Group, and ExxonMobil’s BlueOcean Energy.

There even may be a flicker of life left in the Broadwater project. Its project manager announced on Friday that New York’s rejection will be appealed to the U.S. Commerce Department.

MORE:

Another coastal LNG facility bites the dust Read More »

Top environmental & political news: June 3-6

Every day, we select a few of the top environmental and political stories appearing in our newsletter, EnviroPolitics, and post them to our website for free public use.

Click the links below to view stories for New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York–and beyond– that appeared during the past week.

June 6 2008
June 5 2008
June 4 2008
June 3 2008

To receive free daily alerts when our Environmental & Political News page is updated, send a blank email to: eptopdailynews@aweber.com

Try EnviroPolitics Free for an entire month !

Top environmental & political news: June 3-6 Read More »

Top environmental & political news: May 27-30

Every day, we select a few of the top environmental and political stories appearing in our newsletter, EnviroPolitics, and post them to our website for free public use.

Click the links below to view stories for New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York–and beyond– that appeared during the past week.

May 27 2008

To receive free daily alerts when our Environmental & Political News page is updated, send a blank email to: eptopdailynews@aweber.com
Try EnviroPolitics Free for an entire month !

Top environmental & political news: May 27-30 Read More »

New Jersey’s narrowing carbon footprint

This unexpected news arrived today from the smart-growth group, New Jersey Future:

“New Jersey residents generally emit less greenhouses gases per person than the typical residents in the nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas.”

That took me by surprise, I must say.

The finding comes from a new report from the Brookings Institution.
In a press release, New Jersey Future explained:

“The report, titled Shrinking the Carbon Footprint of Metropolitan America, found that residents of the nation’s largest metro areas—which include 16 of New Jersey ’s 21 counties—have a smaller per-person carbon footprint than citizens in the nation as a whole. Although carbon emissions from urban centers continue to climb, the carbon footprint of someone living in a large metro area is 14 percent smaller than the average American’s and, in recent years, has expanded by only half as much.

“The academic researchers also found that regions with more compact development patterns and convenient access to rail transit offer a more energy- and carbon-efficient lifestyle than more sprawling, automobile-dependent areas.

“The 100 largest metros emit only 56 percent of the U.S. transportation and residential carbon emissions while housing 65 percent of the nation’s population and producing 76 percent of the nation’s economic output, the report found. “

NJ Future’s press release contains attachments from the Brookings Institute study with more detailed information regarding per capita carbon emissions by metropolitan area.

Here’s today’s New York Times story on the report.

New Jersey’s narrowing carbon footprint Read More »

Verified by MonsterInsights