ГлавнаяMy WebLinkО нас04-14-16 EMC Final Minutes 1 Minutes of the EMC 2 3 Date: April 14, 2016 4 Time: 4:00pm 5 Location: Old Jail Conference Room, 125 E. Court St. 6 7 Attendees: 8 Name Representation Susan Riley P At-Large Tom Shelley P Ithaca CAC Linda Spielman P Village of Dryden Ron Szymanski A Village of Freeville Roger Yonkin P At-Large Anna Kelles P Legislature Liaison Dooley Kiefer P Associate Member Jose Lozano P Associate Member Scott Doyle P EMC Coordinator 10 11 Guests in attendance: Lance Collins, Joel Malina, Irene Weiser, Sara Hess, Catherine Wagner, 12 Marie McRae, Joe Wilson, Ed Marx, Kathy Ruscue, Elmer Erving, Marie Terlizzi. 13 14 Call to Order– The meeting was called to order by Steve Nicholson at 4:04pm. 15 16 Privilege of Floor – None 17 18 Presentation: Geothermal Energy as a Path to Climate Neutrality – Dean Lance Collins 19 and Joel Malina 20 21 Brian introduced presenters and provided some background on Cornell committee’s work to 22 date. Joel Malina, VP for University Relations began discussion by outlining the range of options 23 that Cornell is investigating for addressing GHG reduction goals as well as campus power needs 24 in addition to helping others around region, state, and world advance technology that could help 25 address the same issues. Lance Collins, Dean of the College of Engineering, was then 26 introduced. Dean Collins discussed the concept of “deep geothermal” as a technology they are 27 investigating to reduce GHG emissions. He noted that effort for addressing GHG is a campus 28 wide effort involving key entities such as the Atkinson Center and those involved in energy, 29 environment, and economic development. All efforts are centered on the key issue of how we 30 collectively help create a sustainable world. He went on to note that the College of Engineering 31 has an energy institute to develop technologies for addressing energy demand needs. Dean 32 Collins stressed that this issue is quite beyond just a discussion of technology, and in fact 33 requires input from disciplines and professionals from across campus. This is evident in the 34 diverse senior leadership climate action group that has been formed to address how climate 35 change affects issues across campus. Dean Collins then went on to speak more directly about the 36 proposed energy strategy of deep geothermal. He stressed that this type of technology is not 37 inexpensive and has really not been implemented in the way that Cornell envisions anywhere. He 38 also referred to this concept as “Earth Source Heat”, a play on Lake Source Cooling. He 39 Name Representation Steve Bissen E Town of Dryden Kenny Christianson A At-Large John Dennis P Village of Lansing Brian Eden P Village of Cayuga Heights Bill Evans P Town of Danby Pegi Ficken A Town of Groton John Hertzler P Town of Ulysses Jim McGarry P At-Large Vladimir Micic P Town of Ithaca Steve Nicholson P Town of Caroline described traditional geothermal as being implemented in areas where it is tectonically 1 accessible. These are areas that have easier access than we do. 2-4km is more likely the type of 2 the deep, dry access that we would need to utilize. This would most likely require campus 3 transition from steam to much more efficient hot water heating systems. He reiterated that this is 4 a technology that is not widely available. He indicated that if this proved successful it could open 5 up geothermal energy to a much broader market option for thermal heating which accounts for a 6 third or half of the energy we currently use. Adding detail to the concept he indicated that hot 7 water would be injected into rock, a process referred to as “hydroshearing”, which increases 8 existing fissures in rock. This would be done in a region considerably below levels where 9 Marcellus Shale occurs. The water would then be pumped up and put through heat exchanger 10 and through heat distribution system. Campus currently runs hot steam. If this were pursued they 11 would have to transition to a hot-water distribution system. He compared campus to a “living 12 laboratory” where this technology could save energy while also helping to educate the student 13 base. He outlined that many faculty projects are currently examining the challenges associated 14 with this concept such as: how far down would we need to go?; And How would seismometers 15 be deployed to assess potential impacts? Dean Collins indicated that Earth and Atmospheric 16 Sciences (Geology) is uniquely housed under Engineering at Cornell, which could prove useful 17 in examining potential impacts. He said that Earth Source Heat is exciting, but they are not going 18 to rely solely on this technology for addressing GHG reduction. Development of this technology 19 will require passing of a series of “gates” and it may turn out that this is not feasible, so they are 20 currently examining other alternatives as well. They are very early in the process and a draft 21 report will come out September 1, 2016 outlining potential paths. Implementation of technology 22 not likely closer than a decade out. After this report is finalized, Cornell will then clarify path 23 forward. They would likely need to drill to get a sense of actual conditions and concerns that 24 may be related. Dean Collins then opened up for questions. Some of those questions included: 25 • Tom Shelley noted he’d like to see Cornell keep steam heating system. He asked if you 26 could utilize technology and still utilize a steam system? Response from Dean Collins – 27 maybe, but steam isn’t that efficient. 28 • John Dennis asked how much heat loss would occur with heat return? He noted concerns 29 over boring and leaks between layers and exposure to hydrogen sulfide. Suggested that 30 the team should look at casing longevity, double cases. New intelligent well casing 31 technology may help address this. Response from Dean Collins – insulated system 32 casings, some other systems have addressed this. Tony Ingraffea is an active member of 33 the team and he has starting looking at these issues and is involved in these discussions. 34 Discussion after this centered around the need to address issues to reduce methane leaks. 35 • Anna Kelles asked about what type of water would go through pipes? Response from 36 Dean Collins – This would likely be a very simple solution and they will be very clear on 37 what is proposed. Discussion resulted around differences between hydrofracking v. 38 shearing. Anna asked if there is any history of concern. Response was that this is a 39 relative unknown and something that needs a great deal of examination of the potential 40 impacts. They are currently referencing systems in Iceland and the impacts of drilling 41 and outreach associated with that. Anna noted that she thought the largest issues related 42 to this would be chemical use and potential seismic activity. 43 • Steve Nicholson asked if this heat source is uniform. Response from Dean Collins – 44 Resource is relatively accessible than in other parts of the state. Nothing like Iceland or 45 west coast. 46 • Marie Terlizzi asked about how much land would be disturbed and that this sounds a lot 1 like fracking. Response from Dean Collins– Two big differences between this and 2 fracking – 1) where doing it…far under Marcellus Shale, not releasing methane, not 3 going to use proprietary fluids, and 2) They don’t anticipate releasing added materials. \ 4 • Brian Eden then noted that other concerns would likely be NORM. 5 • Jose Lozano asked if the geology is well known at those depths. Response from Dean 6 Collins – some general knowledge, but need to drill to understand in greater detail. Rock 7 plays a significant role in this process. 8 • Jim McGarry asking the clarifying question, Water sent down, runs through rock 9 correct? Response from Dean Collins – yes, not complete closed loop. 10 • Bill Evans asked what is closest location where this has been tried? Response from Dean 11 Collins - Nowhere. 12 • Anna Kelles recommended a closed loop be utilized through methane pockets. 13 • Linda Spielman asked if there was any knowledge of the solubles acquired in the 14 process. Response from Dean Collins– rock conditions different in other areas like 15 Iceland. We have some knowledge, but much different process than existing geothermal 16 operations. 17 • Linda Spielman further asked if they were surveying other global geothermal work. 18 Response from Dean Collins – yes, looking at host of options, locations, corporations, in 19 the process of building those connections. 20 • Roger Yonkin noted that oil companies know what’s “down there”; are you planning on 21 access this type of information? Responses from Dean Collins – Currently using this 22 information, though need to obtain more site specific information. 23 24 Changes to Agenda and Approval of Minutes – Roger moves for approval of minutes, Jim 25 seconded. Minutes approved with minor changes. 26 27 Committee Reports and Member Questions 28 29 Energy – Brian Eden reported on the need to advance energy conservation in new downtown 30 development projects • Irene Weiser, also in attendance, was referenced as a key player on 31 advancing efforts to reduce need for added fossil fuel infrastructure • Geothermal Tax Credit is 32 not included in final state and federal budget, referenced the book Dark Money as a good source 33 for added information • Newfield moratorium considered for wind energy facilities • Given the 34 second fire at Cayuga Power Plant, further investment in the plant would be unwise for both 35 plant and ratepayers • Discussion of fires at Cayuga Power and sources • Hope to have 36 discussion of energy model for CU and Maplewood for a future meeting • Heatsmart is gearing 37 up for added program next year adjusting for policies out of sync for encouraging geothermal 38 39 Environmental Review – John discussed the fire at Cayuga Power, questions about how it 40 resulted and how first responders were put at risk due to lack of proper maintenance. Discussion 41 then resulted of Riesling (buyer of Cayuga Power) and their connection to Blackstone group and 42 history of buying stressed assets. John then discussed Cargill in relationship to adjacent creek 43 systems. Streams continue to have significant quantities of salt adjacent to Cargill • John then 44 discussed opportunities for Cornell research to assist in remediating coal ash landfill • DEC has 45 now responded to request for addressing issues related to landfill • Added discussion of Kite Hill 46 Slope project, Chainworks EIS and class II hazardous waste site. Anna indicated Chainworks 1 would be doing development in stages with clean up, great site for potential to redevelop and 2 clean up • April 22nd Black Oak EIS statement comments due • LaBella hired to address school 3 water testing issues locally. 4 5 Unique Natural Areas – Linda Spielman reported that the UNA committee did not meet this 6 month, and have not yet taken an observational walk through Sapsucker Woods. 7 8 Plastic Bags – No added meeting or report. 9 10 Executive Committee – Discussion regarding the Schyuler County EMC and the proposed 11 reduction of their roles – added discussed occurred regarding EMC bylaws 12 13 Staff Report – Scott Doyle reported on updates from the County Planning Department. 14 15 Irene then reported on resolution at Town of Caroline board meeting addressing opposition to the 16 West Dryden pipeline specifically titled “Resolution Supporting Alternatives to Natural Gas 17 Exploration”. The Caroline Town Board urges the PSC and NYSERDA to recognize that 18 expanding markets to natural gas runs in opposition to state and local goals of reducing GHG 19 emissions. PSC and NYSERDA should develop incentive for reducing energy needs. The 20 resolution passed at the Town Board by a vote of 4-1 21 22 Presentation: Citizen Science at the Local Level – Steve Penningroth 23 Steve Penningroth of the Community Science Institute (CSI) opened the discussion by outlining 24 background of CSI and their role of empowering citizens with information. CSI is certified for 25 testing both potable and non-potable water. He noted that CSI is predominately funded by local 26 governments at about 40%. Annual Budget is about $224K. He noted that volunteer monitoring 27 including Synoptic Chemical Sampling, red flag monitoring, and biological monitoring using 28 BMI (benthic microinvertebrates). Also, they have investigative locations that aren’t monitored 29 continuously. Synoptic testing is a certified test for about a dozen chemicals; red flag monitoring 30 partnerships for field test using tests for temp, pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, etc.; 31 Biological monitoring is monitoring that captures bentic macroinvertabrates. Steve then provided 32 the example of the CSI stream watch volunteer group that conducted studies of Trumansburg 33 Creek that captured average fecal coliform levels. Volunteers found an average of 52,700 34 Colonies/100ml of fecal coliform under base flows (allowed levels are 200 Colonies/100ml of 35 fecal coliform). He noted that the problem is the way DEC requires self-regulating of sewer 36 treatment plants is a major loop hole. Tom Shelley asked where failures in the plant were that 37 would create such high levels. Steve wasn’t sure, perhaps UV system failed or perhaps the way 38 the plant is managed. Jose Lozano indicated they have other potential priorities at play as the 39 plant is managed as a business. The plant is now in the process of being upgraded at $6.2M. 40 Anna Kelles asked if same system is being built. Steve was unsure as to what that upgrade 41 entailed. Steve went on to discuss 4H20 youth group monitors and then showed how data helped 42 confirm that Cayuga Lake was not impaired for pathogenic bacteria. DEC took data from CSI 43 and other resources and that information was effective in de-listing the Lake as impaired for this 44 purpose. Steve also discussed the Seneca Lake Pure Waters Association (SLPWA) and its 45 monitoring of tributaries including monitoring of Reeder Creek near Seneca Army Depot. 46 Dissolved Phosphorus was a hundred times higher in this system. Data showed contamination 1 was groundwater phosphorus. Possible contamination is from burning of munitions of Seneca 2 Army Depot. Jim asked if John Halfman of the Finger Lakes Institute has been involved in any 3 of this aspect. Steve said that he is more involved at the lake level. Tom then asked about 4 monitoring for radioactivity. Steve indicated they haven’t found anything. Steve then went on to 5 describe how Community Science differs from Citizen Science. Citizen Science is usually 6 conducted from federally funded peer reviewed work. Rather, Community Science is used to 7 manage local resources based on existing science first, hypothesis testing is secondary. Data 8 quality is good and is openly accessible. Local governments, private foundations, lab testing 9 funds help to fund Community Science. The benefit is much more empowering and results in 10 action. John Hertzler asked about the comparative lack of number of testing locations in Ulysses. 11 Steve indicated he felt there were quite a few testing locations he could talk to in greater depth. 12 He then discussed the range of groundwater/drinking water tests versus surface water tests. Brian 13 Eden then noted they tested for the Hillview Landfill and phosphorus testing and wanted to link 14 up those testing efforts with CSIs. 15 16 Wind Power FAQ Resolution – Brian Eden updated the group on efforts on the FAQ 17 document. The group discussed the great value in this document. Brian Eden moved the 18 resolution and Tom Shelley seconded. Dooley suggested a few minor, friendly comments. The 19 resolution passed unanimously. Brian then discussed the interest in talking more with the 20 Planning Department to support local government efforts in advancing greenhouse gas reduction 21 in our county. 22 23 Member Items – None 24 25 Adjournment -- The meeting adjourned at 5:55 PM. 26 27 Respectfully submitted, 28 29 Scott D. Doyle, Senior Planner 30 Tompkins County Planning Department 31 Approved by Council on 32