Category: Uncategorized

Perhaps we’ll be enjoying these scenes for a long time yet…

Are concerns over man-made global warming (i.e., anthropogenic global climate change) overblown? So says this January 27 opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal online, written by sixteen eminent physical scientists. They argue that predictive computer models have exaggerated the potential effects of continued emissions of carbon dioxide, and point to the documented halt (or pause, depending on your perspective) in rising global temperatures over the last decade or so as evidence supporting their position.

Not to be outdone, the UK Daily Mail waded into the global warming debate with two seemingly contradictory articles: First, theorizing that global cooling, not warming, may be a more immediate concern on the global temperature front, based on solar energy cycles – and then, on the same day, reporting that the British government’s national risk assessment on climate change warns that increasing temperatures will lead to “major increases in flooding, heatwaves and water shortages that could kill thousands of people a year.”

What should we make of the current state of anthropogenic climate change science?
Continue reading “Global warming worries? Just, relax…”

SPCC requirements apply to fuel and oil storage tanks…

By November 10 of this year, all regulated facilities storing more than 1,320 gallons of oil or fuel in above ground tanks and containers must comply with recently amended federal requirements for development and implementation of written Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans. If you have existing SPCC Plans for your facilities, you should review them to make sure that they meet the amended rule (40 CFR part 112). If a plan has not been prepared, it should be completed and in use by the November deadline. Note that these federal requirements may be in addition to State regulations governing above ground fuel storage tanks.
Continue reading “Your SPCC Plan – Is it up-to-date?”

(A little snow in the picture to alleviate the Florida August heat…)

The initial notification date for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) from boilers at area sources (40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJJJ) is September 17, 2011. By that date, owners or operators of existing, regulated boilers must complete and submit the Initial Notification of Applicability to the appropriate authority (EPA or State environmental agency).

The rule applies to industrial, institutional and commercial boilers located at “area” sources that burn solid fossil fuels, biomass or liquid fuels – e.g., coal, wood, or oil – if not already regulated under another NESHAP standard. An area source is one with the potential to emit less than 10 tons per year of any one Hazardous Air Pollutant and less than 25 tons per year of total HAPs.

Requirements for work practices or the management standard practice of a tune-up must be met by March 21, 2012. Existing sources subject to emissions limits or an energy assessment requirement must comply by March 21, 2014. Emission standards, applicable to existing coal-fired boilers, include Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards for mercury and carbon monoxide and Generally Achievable Control Technology (GACT) limits for particulate matter.

Here’s a general guidance on how to comply:  http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/boiler/imptools/area_sm_biz_compli_guide_appx.pdf

Here’s more on the boiler MACT rules: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/boiler/boilerpg.html. A copy of the area source rule can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/boiler/fr21mr11a.pdf.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants more information on commercial chemicals from chemical manufacturers.  Published on August 16, 2011, the EPA’s new Chemical Data Reporting rule (CDR) requires more frequent reporting of critical information on a larger number of chemicals and requires the submission of new and updated information regarding:

• potential chemical exposures,
• current production volume,
• manufacturing site-related data, and
• processing and use.

The rule limits opportunities for confidentiality claims.  It also requires that the information be submitted via the Internet, using EPA’s electronic reporting tool, e-CDRweb (which will be accessible through the EPA Central Data Exchange, or CDX). The new reporting requirements will take effect in the next data submission period, from February 1 to June 30, 2012.

Get more information and reporting instructions here (http://www.epa.gov/iur/pubs/guidance/aboutsub.html).

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued final Clean Air Act standards for boilers and certain incinerators to reduce toxic air emissions, including mercury and soot. The rule establishes hazardous air pollutant emission standards for new and existing industrial, commercial and institutional boilers and process heaters located at major and area (minor) sources of toxic air pollutants, as well as commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators.  The final rule was signed on February 21.

EPA proposed these rules in April 2010, after a rulemaking period that began in 2007 when a federal court vacated a previous proposal for industry specific standards. Based on substantial public input that was received after the April 2010 proposal, EPA has made extensive revisions to the rules proposed at that time.

EPA estimates that the boiler rules will affect about 200,000 units located at large (major) and small (area) sources of hazardous air pollutant emissions across the country. The types of boilers covered by the new standards include:

• Boilers and process heaters at major sources of hazardous or toxic air pollutants, such as refineries, chemical plants, and other industrial facilities, that burn natural gas, fuel oil, coal, biomass or other gases. EPA has further identified some 15 (!) subcategories of regulated boilers and process heaters at major sources.
• Boilers located at area sources of toxic air emissions, including other industrial facilities, universities, hospitals, hotels and commercial buildings that burn fuel oil, coal or biomass. While these units constitute the far greater number of sources, they are responsible for a relatively small amount of the toxic air emissions addressed by the rule.

Continue reading “Finally! Air emissions standards for boilers and incinerators”

…but fishermen might still have cause for concern:

A flurry of protests followed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s notice on August 24 that it would accept comments on a petition requesting that it ban lead in bullets and shot, as well as in fishing tackle (e.g., lead sinkers). As quickly as the clamor rose, it subsided, when EPA today denied the part of the petition calling for a ban on the production and distribution of lead hunting ammunition. The EPA letter explaining its denial can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/sect21.html.

EPA determined that the agency could not act on the requested ban on lead ammunition because it does not have the legal authority to regulate this type of product under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) – and stated that it is not seeking such authority.
Continue reading “EPA to ban lead bullets!… err, maybe not…”

On July 29, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) denied 10 petitions challenging its 2009 determination that

• climate change is real,
• it is occurring due to emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities, and
• it threatens human health and the environment.

EPA’s decision rejected claims that climate science cannot be trusted and that collusion (dare we say, a “conspiracy”?) among members of leading research bodies to suppress conflicting data and hide errors or gaps in their own research invalidates the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Having given “months of serious consideration” to the petitions and to the state of climate change science, EPA found no evidence to support these claims. In fact, EPA has determined that climate science is credible, compelling, and growing stronger!

EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson blamed the petitions on “defenders of the status quo [who] will try to slow our efforts to get America running on clean energy,” and called on petitioners “to join the vast majority of the American people who want to see more green jobs, more clean energy innovation and an end to the oil addiction that pollutes our planet and jeopardizes our national security.”

The basic assertions by the petitioners and EPA responses follow.
Continue reading “Scoffing at skeptics…”

The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has confirmed that employers will be required to notify their workers of all hexavalent chromium exposures, effective June 15, 2010. Previously, OSHA’s Hexavalent Chromium standard required workers be notified only when they experienced exposures exceeding the permissible exposure limit.

Occupational exposures to hexavalent chromium can occur among workers operating chrome plating baths, of course, as well as when handling pigments, spray paints and coatings containing chromates and welding or cutting metals containing chromium (e.g., stainless steel).

More information on protecting workers from exposure to this chemical can be found on OSHA’s Safety and Health Topics page on Hexavalent Chromium.