OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
August 12, 1993
EPA-SAB-EEC-LTR-93-013
Honorable Caroi M. Browner
Administrator
U,S, Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Review of the Global Climate Change Engineering Research and Development
(R&D) Program
Dear Ms. Browner:
We are pleased to transmit this letter report containing findings and
recommendations of the Global Climate Change Engineering Research Subcommittee
(GCCERS, also referred to as "the Subcommittee") of the Science Advisory Board's
(SAB's) Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC). This review was conducted on
May 26 and 27, 1993 at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Air and
Energy Engineering Research Laboratory (AEERL), Office of Research and
Development (ORD) at Research Triangle Park, NC. The GCCERS received
presentations and briefings and discussed the Agency's draft report entitled Global
Climste Change Engineering R&D Program, dated April 1993. The draft document
reviewed by the SAB's GCCERS was prepared by AEERL's Global Warming Control
Branch of the Global Emissions and Control Division.
Summary
The Subcommittee was charged to evaluate AEERL's present and proposed
future approach to global climate change engineering research in terms of their
rationality, scientific soundness, rigor and practicality.
The Subcommittee found the existing Global Climate Change Engineering R&D
Program to be rational, scientifically sound, practical and supportive of EPA's role, and
that the individual projects were appropriate to the capabilities of the laboratory and
the qualifications of its personnel. The existing focus on increasing point sources of
methane emissions, and on sources controllable by engineering solutions is
recommended for expanded emphasis and development
-------
The Subcommittee also mads recommendations for further development of the
Globa! Emissions Data Base (GloED), inventories on methane emissions from natural
gas and coal industries, efforts toward coalbed methane recovery, demonstration of
fuel cells for control of waste methane emissions, studies on conversion of biomass to
energy, production of transportation fuel, and a systematic prioritization of risks in
developing research opportunities for any expanded future program.
Finally, the Subcommittee strongly recommends that the engineering thrust of
the program be recognized as a necessary element of the overall global change
research in ORD and the other global change activities of OPPE and in the Office of
Air and Radiation (OAR).
Charge to the Subcommittee:
The review was requested by ORD's Office of Environmental Engineering and
Technology Demonstration (OEETD). The charge, provided in a memo from Mr.
Frank Princiotta to Dr. K. Jack Kooyoomjian of the SAB Staff, dated April 30, 1993,
can be condensed to: 1) Is the EPA/QRD/AEERL present approach to global climate
change engineering research rational, scientifically sound, rigorous and practical, and
are its projects reasonable and scientifically sound?; and, 2) Are the AEERL proposed
expanded program and strategic directions reasonable, scientifically sound, and
promising in terms of potential for significant contribution? Specific areas reviewed
were; "greenhouse" gas (GHG) emissions, methane mitigation, biomass utilization and
strategic directions for future research. We are also providing advice for broad-
ranging coordination and leadership roles for the Agency in this admittedly complex
and uncertain area of globa! climate change.
General Comments;
The AEERL staffs exemplary preparation for this review is acknowledged. The
AEERL has demonstrated, both in the past and during this Research-in-Progress
Review, its ability to select practical research opportunities, to be innovative, and to
forge productive partnerships in promoting commercial use of research results.
The Subcommittee found that the existing Global Climate Change Engineering
R&D Program is scientifically sound and supportive of EPA's rote, and that the
individual projects are appropriate in terms of the laboratory capabilities and personnel
qualifications. AEERL has established a program with an important niche, which has
already made significant contributions to global climate engineering research despite
essentially limited financial resources.
-------
Although the current projects are of high quality, the diversity of funding sources
and associated constraints have resulted in a less than sufficient framework and
decision-making structure to otherwise facilitate integrated management and direction
in a more organized and consistent manner. As a consequence, the program has
evolved more from a series of opportunistic projects based upon available funding
sources than from an integrated and focussed research agenda. At a minimum, the
future program should be structured to systematically define highest priority needs not
being addressed by others, and should include integrated projects to responsively
address these needs. Such a systematic approach must start with the definition of the
users of the results such as atmospheric scientists and policy makers, followed by an
evaluation of the needs of those users, and resulting in a program agenda capable of
providing the necessary supporting information.
A unifying theme already established by the current AEERL program that
needs better emphasis and development includes a focus on the increasing point
sources of methane emissions, and on other sources controllable by engineering
solutions. If emissions mitigation proves to be an important strategy, the role of EPA
as a catalyst for application of engineering solutions (e.g., mitigation) is very important
and should be sustained. Such a focus may lead to new discoveries, and may enable
the Agency to beneficially expand its expertise for evaluation and analysis of
advanced concepts. However, to realize this potential more fully, the AEERL will
require substantially enhanced resources, including some which may have to be
acquired by nurturing strategic alliances with other agencies and with industrial
collaborations.
Development of Greenhouse Gas {GHG} Data Base:
Recent trends in atmospheric methane may be influenced by relative decreases
of emissions from agricultural sources and increasing emissions from energy
generation and waste disposal. This change in the nature of anthropogenic sources
may uncouple causes of past increases of methane accumulation during the last
century from causes of future increases. If this premise is correct, it is conceivable
that the slowing of the current atmospheric concentration trend may reverse as energy
generation and waste disposal sources continue to expand. Therefore, the
Subcommittee endorses the AEERL focus on the identification and characterization of
key anthropogenic sources of methane, such as coal mines, landfills, and other waste
disposal and natural gas sources, since these sources may control future
concentrations of atmospheric methane. Moreover, economic considerations aside,
these anthropogenic sources are in principle controllable and can provide energy as a
bonus, whereas the management of agricultural sources is more difficult The effort
-------
on determining global emissions, preparing inventories and developing mitigation
methods should be continued.
Global Emissions Data Base (GloED) Framework;
Further development of the GloED data base framework is encouraged by the
Subcommittee, since it provides a potentially useful foundation for developing an
emission data storage and presentation tool for global pollutants that may affect
climate. However, the QloED framework is currently structured to attempt to satisfy an
extremely broad audience, and there is a consequent diffusion of utility. Two distinct
GloED user groups are likely; policy analysts and scientists. They have quite different
needs and expectations from a centralized data base. The AEERL should attempt to
define the specific needs of these user groups. The present version of GloED seems
most appropriate as a tool for policy analysts (once the procedures for accounting and
displaying data uncertainties and quality assurance procedures have been applied as
discussed below,} For usage of a GloED data base by scientists, such as to provide
inputs for use in atmospheric chemistry modeling, the data base will need to have
much finer spatiai resolution, a temporal component, a much greater ability to perform
statistical manipulations, and other functions. The specific requirement for these user
groups must be defined after consultation with these groups.
The Subcommittee also recommends that the GloED project needs to be
reinforced with a formal Quality Assurance (QA) Plan that carefully documents the
data sources and methodology used to derive the estimates of data values (e.g.,
when multiple references or multiple values are used, the methodology for evaluating
the quality and reliability of the data, the procedures for checking data entry, etc.), and
how data are selected and used in the data base, A relational database management
system should also be associated with this product, and should not only be portable to
other PC platforms, but possibly also extended to work stations as well While the
Subcommittee agrees that the existing GloED system can be brought to completion as
an initial release, the explicit incorporation of information on uncertainties and data
quality prior to the release of GloED is essential. The central objective is to represent
existing Information at a level of certainty and reliability commensurate with the
inherent quality of the data, and not to provide a false sense of high precision or
accuracy. Another task that should be completed before release is systematic data
examination and verification {i.e., ensure that the numbers obtained from the literature
accurately reflect the numbers from the source).
-------
Methane Emissions from Natural Gas and Coal Industries and Coalbed Methane
Recovery;
The Subcommittee supports the examination of methane emissions from the
coal and natural gas industries, and commends the AEERL staff for its interactions
with other agencies, organizations, and private industry, such as the Department of
Energy (DOE), the Gas Research Institute, and Amoco Production Company. The
proposal to expand the study of emissions from underground and surface coal mines
to efforts to measuring emissions from abandoned, underground coal mines for an
improved global methane emissions estimation may be important and should be
encouraged.
The emissions data now being collected from operating, open-pit and
underground coal mines, and from natural gas production, transmission, and
distribution systems, appear to be reliable. The Subcommittee believes that the
scientific approach for this data-gathering effort is reasonable and sound, and agrees
with the current focus of collecting these data, given present estimates of the apparent
magnitude of methane emissions from these sources Therefore, this effort is an
appropriate initiative for the Agency and one that could be enhanced by a closer
collaboration with the U.S. Bureau of Mines, DOE, and private industry, thereby taking
advantage of an opportunity to correlate methane emissions according to coal rank
and type of deposit.
The Subcommittee understands that the AEERL intends to continue with the
demonstration of Amoco's technology for methane mitigation and utilization, although it
is unclear whether Amoco really needs or wants such assistance. Therefore, the
Subcommittee questions whether participating in this demonstration is a particularly
fruitful approach, since Amoco may be intending to separately demonstrate the
technology for commercial reasons. Accordingly, the following recommendations are
provided relative to methane mitigation and utilization:
a) The Agency {through the AEERL and other ORD researchers), should
focus on a systematic program to gather information on existing and
potential technologies available throughout the world for recovery and
use of methane from coal mines;
, b) these technologies should be reviewed for technical and economic
efficacy in order to allow them to be incorporated later into the planned
Global Technology Database (GloTECH);
-------
c) the Agency should view itself as a catalyst to stimulate other agencies,
organizations and private industry to perform supportive R&D; and
e) the Agency's role should be one of environmental conscience advocate
for such R&D, as well as for potential future applications of the resultant
technology. This role should encourage development of actual
technology, rather than simply providing a technology information transfer
function.
The Subcommittee also understands that the AEERL intends to continue
measuring methane emissions from the natural gas industry, with special efforts to
develop better methodology for measuring steady and unsteady conditions. Such
efforts can facilitate estimation of both domestic and global methane emissions from
the natural gas industry, and could be supportive of a new initiative on mitigation and
utilization of methane leaks from the production, transmission, and distribution of
natural gas. In this regard, the Subcommittee also encourages the Agency to
examine the findings of the chemical industry relative to fugitive emission control.
Development of "Greenhouse" Gas (GHG) Data Base for Waste Management
Facilities;
The initial focus of the GHG emissions data base on methane from landfills,
waste treatment, and livestock waste is appropriate and has been productive, It is
rationally addressing an existing and growing issue in waste management areas that
is amenable to engineering analysis and control. Hence, it presents potential
opportunities for early delivery of a tangible product useful on both local and possibly
global horizons. Moreover, continued linkages to other initiatives elsewhere within the
international community [e.g., the Intergovernmental Pane! on Climate Change (IPCC),
the International Solid Waste Association (ISWA), the International Energy Agency
(IEA)] can be complementary and enhance development of reliable data and
information.
The credibility of individual sources of information, the causative-agents and
factors influencing spatial and temporal characteristics of emissions, as well as
precision and accuracy of data, must be established before transfer to the user
community can be accomplished. Simple deveiopment of generic emission and
activity factors may not suffice if dynamical causative agents and influencing factors
are not appropriately addressed and taken into account for either predictive or policy
purposes. Some current emission estimate (e.g., landfill gas) may be in need of
-------
further refinement and qualification before being delivered for use in policy, scientific,
or engineering decisions.
Demonstration of Fuel Cells for Recovery of Energy and Control of Waste
Methane Emissions:
The fuel cell mitigation program is intended to demonstrate the feasibility of
using this technology on a commercial scale to produce electricity from landfill and
anaerobic digester gas. A major research issue is gas cleaning before fuel cell use.
With regard to this research program, the Subcommittee concludes that:
a) The research focus is reasonable iri terms of opportunity to affect
reductions in methane emissions;
b) the stated objective to reduce methane emissions and to recover energy
in an environmentally acceptable manner is technically achievable;
c) emphasis on clean-up of the waste gases is reasonable, although more
attention should be given to means and costs of managing byproducts,
system design, sequencing of unit processes and operations, and
considering the effect of waste gas quantity and quality on the utilization
system and the implications of the presumed worst-case waste gas
scenario; and
d) options considered for utilization of gas should not be limited to fuel cells,
and other methods should be conceived for comparison in terms of
implementation and associated cost-effectiveness.
Development of Global Emissions Inventories for Tropospheric Ozone
Precursors:
Since the research on tropospheric ozone precursors has just begun and no
results were presented, it is not possible to evaluate current progress. If this program
is to continue, the Subcommittee recommends that the potential users of the
generated data should be identified and their data needs defined first, since they are
likely to be different than the principal users of the data bases on methane. In
addition, the Subcommittee believes that the effects of biomass burning and resultant
aerosols could be ah additional element for this program. However, because of its
breadth and potential implications, the Subcommittee also recommends that this
program be scheduled for review in any overall evaluation of EPA's global climate
7
-------
change program, and receive further evaluation after one or two years to assess
actual progress and "relevance.
Conversion of Biomass to Energy:
The initial focus of the AEERL biomass utilization program has been the
selection and evaluation of promising approaches for the high efficiency production of
electricity in small-scale systems (i.e., 0.5 to 5.0 MW). Specific systems that have
been investigated include an integrated gasifier/gas turbine system (Cratech and
Vermont/GE) and a combustion system (ENERGEQ) integrated with a gas turbine. In
addition, an innovative energy conversion technology project will be initiated with the
Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) to convert or
replace an existing energy system at a Department of Defense (DOD) installation to
utilize biomass, although a technology has not yet been .identified for this project
The Subcommittee believes that targeting small-scale high efficiency systems is
a reasonable program for AEERL to undertake. With the increased restrictions on
landfllling of certain biomass materials, these systems may be more marketable for
generation of electricity than larger-scale systems. Based on information provided to
the Subcommittee, the projects undertaken have enjoyed extensive partnerships, and
support for FY 93 will largely be as a result of the SERDP/DOD funding and
resources. This search for complementary support from other agencies is
commendable and should be continued.
Present research should result in findings that enable decisions to be made
regarding broad deployment of the selected approaches to generate electricity from
biomass. The Subcommittee suggests that AEERL undertake a more systematic
evaluation of the available technologies. This evaluation should determine the
technical barriers and challenges associated with various system components, the
consequences of system design process variations, the requisites for high pressures
(up to 20 atm), the relative advantages and disadvantages of the operation,
maintenance and safety requirements of these systems compared to other types of
systems, and the fundamental issue of whether gasifiers actually represent a viable
process replacement option.
AEERL should also investigate and evaluate the likelihood of converting
existing energy generating systems in order to utilize biomass as fuel and associated
technical challenges involved. The SERDP project will clearly involve some of this
evaluation, but the Subcommittee would like to encourage the implementation of this
process prior to the selection of further demonstration projects. In addition, for the
8
-------
selected DQD technology, an evaluation of available technologies may enable better
identification and understanding of the comparative limitations and applicability of the
selected technology at other sites.
Production of Transportation Fuel:
The major emphasis of the transportation fuel project has been on the
Hydrocarb process, originally conceptualized by the Brookhaven National Laboratory.
Preliminary economic assessment and process optimization analysis are considered
an appropriate first -step in the evaluation of this process, and have been used to
demonstrate the favorable economics of an ideal process. However, the AEERL
should also consider the economic and ecological perspectives within which the
process will be used. For example, the Subcommittee suggests a more thorough
examination of water use, biomass and fuel transportation, and other ecological
impacts associated with the implementation of large-scale utilization systems and
biomass plantations which may make the economics and intended global climate
benefits less attractive.
The development of this technology is a high risk program, despite potentially
high payoffs for (GHG) mitigation. The technology is complex. It involves integration
of state-of-the-art chemical processes for a heterogeneous feedstock. Many of the
necessary process components have either not been developed or have never been
used or integrated in this manner. For example, there are uncertainties regarding
performance of such items as high temperature heat exchangers, high temperature
filters, high pressure hydrogasification, catalyst performance, etc. Therefore, the
Subcommittee strongly suggests a systematic examination of the performance
limitations of process components in light of the practicality of utilizing a relatively
heterogeneous feed stock, and the potential technical challenges and Implementation
barriers also identified in previous peer reviews. Moreover, since the program
required for development will be extensive and resource intensive, additional funding
and support will be required, and the Subcommittee recommends active solicitation of
a collaborative effort with SERDP, DOE and, in particular, NREL (National Renewable
Energy Laboratory in Golden, CO), since development of utilization technologies for
renewable fuels such as biomass is part of its mission,
Research Opportunities for an Expanded Future Program:
The Subcommittee commends the AEERL staff and management for an
excellent job in identifying targets of opportunity and in leveraging the EPA initiatives
with activities supported by other government, as well as private, sources. However,
9
-------
before embarking on an expansion of the existing program, the Subcommittee
believes there should first be a systematic strategic planning exercise for this gas
emissions mitigation research. The central focus must be risk reduction - performing
a systematic assessment of sources of greatest uncertainties; it is here that EPA can
make the greatest contribution to reduction of risks of potential global change within
the context of mitigation activities. This review should explicitly consider the
approaches to identifying and comparing options used in previous systematic
assessments. (Two noteworthy sources are the National Academy of Sciences (NA$)
report on "Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming" and the Office of Technology
Assessment (OTA) report entitled "Changing by Degrees.") Consideration of options
should extend beyond the technical potential and engineering aspects of a technology
to an examination of practicality.
In this strategic planning activity, careful attention should be given to identifying
mitigation possibilities under different conditions, especially in the international arena.
This would be responsive to the often-stated priorities of the Agency's Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation (OPPE), and can position the Agency in a proactive rote of
identifying and developing or facilitating technologies that can be transferred to other
countries for mitigation of their contribution to the global climate change problem. A
key consideration here are issues of economy and practical implications of scale. For
example, a biomass energy facility might be practical and feasible for deployment at
one scale in a developing country, and be totally impractical in another. The EPA
uniquely can contribute to these issues, and toward greater understanding of the
environmental constraints and costs of these gas emission mitigation technologies.
The Subcommittee recommends extensive use of systematic sensitivity
analysis. The systematic examination of uncertainties, discussed previously, should
incorporate sensitivity analyses in both the planning and implementation phases of the
research activities. Extensive use of sensitivity analyses can highlight areas of
greatest uncertainty, consequent research needs, and the relative importance of
various methodologies or policy options,
The Subcommittee is concerned that an active inter-agency coordinating group
on gas emissions mitigation research was not in existence. The EPA has taken on
the mission of being the lead agency for the gas emissions mitigation aspects of
potential global climate change. There is an opportunity for EPA to take the lead role
in ensuring that its programs are compatible and complementary with activities in other
agencies. This is likely to gain growing importance as DOE and 'DOD activities
focusing on gas emissions mitigation and global climate change issues accelerate,
10
-------
and do so with the advantage of much greater resources than are currently available
to the EPA program.
The Subcommittee believes that, contingent on the outcome of a systematic
risk reduction assessment, if additional resources are provided to support the gas
emission mitigation program, they should be directed toward enhancement of existing
activities in data base development, methane utilization, and biomass energy, rather
than initiating new activities. An exception, in regard to additional funding
commitments, is the development of the GloTECH data base, i.e., extending GloED to
a system that allows greater examination of the utility of various technologies for
mitigating "greenhouse" gas emissions. The Subcommittee generally recommends
that AEERL not embark on new projects until an adequate review of needs is
completed and a global climate mitigation engineering research strategy has been
developed. Until then, the Subcommittee favors more fully developing the program
already initiated,
The comments and recommendations included in this SAB letter report are
meant to improve and refine an already productive research program. We appreciate
the opportunity to conduct this review, and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Dr, Raymond C'. Loehr, Chair
Executive Committee
Science Advisory Board
Mr, Richard A. Conway, Chair
Environmental Engineering Committee
Science Advisory Board
Dr. Frederick G, Pohland/^hair
Global Climate Change Engineering Research
Subcommittee
Environmental Engineering Committee
Science Advisory Board
11
-------
NOTICE
This report has been prepared as part of the activities of the Science Advisory
Board, a public advisory group providing extramural scientific information and advice
to the Administrator and other officials of the Environmental Protection Agency. The
Board is structured to provide a balanced, expert assessment of scientific matters
related to problems facing the Agency. This report has not been reviewed for
approval by the Agency; hence, the comments in this report do not necessarily
represent the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency or of other
federal agencies. Any mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
ABSTRACT
The Global Climate Change Engineering Research Subcommittee of the
Environmental Engineering Committee of the Science Advisory Board has prepared
this Setter report on its May 26 and 27, 1993 discussions and review of the draft
document entitled "Global Climate Change Engineering Research and Development
(R&D) Program," dated April 1993,
The Subcommittee was charged to evaluate the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Office of Research and Development (ORD), Air and Energy
Engineering Research Laboratory (AEERL) present and proposed future approach to
global climate change engineering research in terms of their rationality, scientific
soundness, rigor and practicality.
The Subcommittee found the existing Global Climate Change Engineering R&D,
Program to be rational, scientifically sound, practical and supportive of EPA's role, and
that the individual projects were appropriate to the capabilities of the laboratory and
the qualifications of its personnel. The existing focus on increasing point sources of
methane emissions, and on sources controllable by engineering solutions is
recommended for expanded emphasis and development.
The Subcommittee also made recommendations for further development of the
Global Emissions Data Base (GloED), inventories on methane emissions from natural
gas and coal industries, efforts toward coalbed methane recovery, demonstration of
fuel cells for control of waste methane emissions, studies on conversion of biomass to
energy, production of transportation fuel, and a systematic prioritization of risks in
developing research opportunities for any expanded future program.
Key Words: Global Climate, Global Climate Change, Global Climate Mitigation, Global
Climate Change Engineering Research
-------
Science Advisory Board
Global Climate Change Engineering Research Subcommittee
Environmental Engineering Committee
Chair
Dr. Frederick G. Pohland, Weidlein Chair of Environmental Engineering, Department
of Civil Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
Vice-Chair
Dr. William Randall Seeker, Senior Vice-President, Energy & Environmental
Research Corporation, Irvine, CA
Members and Consultants
Dr. Corale L. Brierley, Principal, Vista Tech Partnership, Ltd., Salt Lake City, UT
Mr. Richard A. Conway, Senior Corporate Fellow, Union Carbide Corporation, So.
Charleston, WV
Dr, Robert Coppock, Director of the 2050 Project, World Resources Institute,
Washington, DC ,
Dr. Mark A. Harwell, Rosenstiel School of Marine and-Atmospheric Science,
University of Miami, Miami, FL
Dr. M.A.K. Khaiil, Professor and Director, Global Change Research Center, Oregon
Graduate institute of Science and Technology, Beaverton, OR
Dr. Jo Ann Lighty, Assistant Professor, University of Utah, Department of Chemical
and Fuels Engineering, Salt Lake City, UT
Dr. Walter M. Shaub, President CORRE, inc. (Corporation on Resource Recovery
and the Environment), Reston, VA
Science Advisory Board Staff
Dr. K. Jack Kooyoomjlan, Designated Federal Official, U.S. EPA, Science Advisory
Board (A101F), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460
Mrs. Dorothy M, Clark, Staff Secretary, Environmental Engineering Committee, U.S.
EPA, Science Advisory Board (A101F), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC
20460
in
-------
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Deputy Administrator
Assistant Administrators
EPA Regional Administrators
EPA Laboratory Directors
Science Advisor to the Administrator
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Office of Research and Development (ORD)
Director, Center for Environmental Research Information (CERI)
Director, Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology Demonstration
(OEETD)
Director, Office of Monitoring, Modeling and Quality Assurance (OMMSQA)
Director, Office of Technology Transfer and Regulatory Support (OTTRS)
EPA Headquarters Library
EPA Regional Libraries
EPA Laboratory Libraries
------- |