EPA’s endangerment findings on greenhouse gas

As expected, EPA will be announcing today its final endangerment findings that greenhouse gas is harmful to public health. This is a followup to  recent Supreme Court ruling that directed EPA to make a determination on the public health impact of greenhouse gas.

This ruling gives EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gas under the Clean Air Act.

Public relations firms for the environment?

I did a webinar on air permitting with BLR (Business and Legal Reports) two days ago. It was very well attended. I talked about the steps one needs to take to obtain a permit. One of the steps may involve public hearings. I spoke about how important it is to have good community relations with one’s neighbors and how the lack of it may hinder the permit applicant during public hearings.

At the Q and A session following my presentation, someone asked if it would be a good idea to hire a public relations firm to let the neighbors know what goes on inside the plant. My answer to the question was an emphatic NO.

It is always better to have someone knowledgeable about your operation to tell your neighbors about what you do. Someone who is actually involved in making your products. That is much better than hiring a spin doctor with a degree in French Literature to explain your manufacturing process to the public. (My apologies to those of you who have degrees in French Literature.)

Slick does not always work.

In fact, sincerity and knowledge trump slick every time.

New directions from the Obama EPA – Part 2

The Obama EPA is getting tough with some state agencies. For example, on September 8, 2009, EPA Region 6 proposed to disapprove key aspects of the Texas clean-air permitting program. It has been reported that EPA is not happy with Texas. National Journal reported that EPA “ordered Texas and West Virginia to get tougher on polluters.”

 On another front, EPA is moving to develop new regulations to control ash ponds owned by coal-fired power plants. The impetus comes from the collapse of TVA’s ash pond retaining wall in December 2008 that sent tons of coal ash into the waterways and people’s homes. EPA issued a statement that said “current regulations, which were issued in 1982, have not kept pace with changes that have occurred in the electric power industry over the past three decades.”

 EPA is also looking into regulating the emission of mercury from the nation’s 500 coal fired power plants. It will take the form of a mercury control plan.

On the water side, EPA has teamed up with the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Interior to clean up the Chesapeake Bay.  This was in response to President Obama’s May 12 , 2009 Executive Order 13508 to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. A draft report was issued on September 3, 2009 and it addresses some very thorny issues of land runoffs from farms, industrial animal facilities and urban centers.  All of these issues are highly charged politically and EPA is considering new regulations and more enforcement in these areas.

Global warming – is it a hoax?

Ever since I posted articles on the topic of greenhouse gas, I have been receiving some pretty interesting emails. I have responded to some here and I have also deleted some because they were more like rants than comments.

 One reader who used a manual typewriter and mailed in his letter (rant) to my editor at Pollution Engineering claimed that global warming is all but a hoax perpetuated by Al Gore and the liberals. Another said that the Supreme Court was made up of a “bunch of stupid lawyers” and that the scientists at EPA sold out to their political masters. I can go on but I won’t.

Here is the real scoop as I can best figure out. 

Several years ago, a number of states filed a lawsuit against the Bush EPA for failing to regulate CO2 emissions from cars. The Bush EPA’s position was that it did not have the authority to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act. The Appellate Court in Washington DC sided with EPA. The states appealed the case to the Supreme Court.

The landmark Supreme Court case (Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. No. 05–1120) was decided on April 2, 2007.

Here is what the court said:

CO2 is an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act because §7602(g) of the Act defines “air pollutant” as “any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical . . . substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air . . . .”  The Court told EPA that since CO2 is a pollutant, the Clean Air Act requires EPA to regulate it IF it finds that CO2 impacts “public health and welfare”.

The Court reminded the Bush EPA that the purpose of the Clean Air Act as mandated by Congress is to “protect and enhance the quality of Nation’s air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population.” The law further defines the term “effects on welfare” to include “effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, and climate…..”

So EPA’s responsibility and obligation under the Act are quite clear.

For those inclined on conspiracies who claim that the Clean Air Act, the Supreme Court and EPA are part of a liberal conspiracy to dream up climate change as a hoax on humanity, I only need to remind them that the Clean Air Act was signed into law in 1990 by a Republican President – George H.W. Bush. He could have vetoed it but he didn’t. Majority of the justices on the Supreme Court that ruled on this case were appointed by Republican presidents. Even the Bush EPA admitted that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It just didn’t want to regulate it.

So what is now before the EPA is very simple. If it finds that CO2 endangers “public health and welfare”, it has no choice but to regulate it. It is the law of the land as demanded by the Clean Air Act and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court.

By the way – for those of you who may be impressed by pedigree: The U.S. National Academy of Science believes in global warming too! It is asking for quicker response to deal with the problem. Perhaps it is part of the conspiracy too?

I seriously doubt it.

A reminder about SPCC

Here is a reminder that the Spill Prevention and Control Countermeasure (SPCC) plan is applicable to “owners and operators” of onshore and offshore facilities that exceed the threshold of 1320 gallons of oil. 40 CFR 112.3(a) is very clear on that. What that means is that if you are not the owner or operator of a unit that contains oil, you do not need to count that oil against the threshold.

For example, if you have transformer stations that hold hundreds of gallons of oil within your facility boundary and yet you have no operational control or ownership of the transformers (the local utility owns them), you do not have to count the transformer fluid.

The simple questions to ask are: ”Do I have access to these tranformers?” , “Do I own them?” and “Am I responsible for making sure they work and maintaining them?” If the answer is no, you are neither the owner nor operator.

Many facilities make the mistake of including the oil in these transformers towards the 1320 threshold and end up preparing an SPCC when they don’t really need to.

The problem with “percentage”

One of the readers of my columns in Pollution Engineering dismissed the significance of climate change by citing that CO2 only makes up 0.006 percent of the atmosphere. The flaw with such argument is that the ecosystem can react to a seemingly small percentage increase in pollutants globally.

Take the phenomenon of El Niño as an example. El Niño can be caused by a very small increase in the surface temperature of parts of the ocean. As we know, it could lead to unusual floodings and droughts in parts of the world.

CO2 is not a toxic pollutant like dioxin or PCB. But a small increase of CO2 in the atmosphere can have dire consequences that will upset the ecological balance and the weather pattern. As my earlier “bullet in the head” example shows, it is not the weight of the bullet that kills the person. It is the introduction and placement of the bullet. 

Another reader wrote to me and told me that CO2 is NOT a pollutant. Well – he is wrong. The US Supreme Court has ruled that CO2 is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act and it directed EPA to determine if this pollutant poses a threat to human health. The court also told EPA that if the agency determines that CO2 endangers human health, then it must regulate it as mandated by the Clean Air Act. 

It was because of this Supreme Court ruling that EPA conducted its draft greenhouse gas endangerment study. The comment period for this draft has expired and we are awaiting EPA’s final findings.

Cap-and-trade 101 revisited

I write a column for the Pollution Engineering magazine every two months. My August 2009 column was posted on my blog here. Apparently I touched a raw nerve out there with some of my readers. And that’s a good thing. Here is what one reader wrote to me in an emal:

“You end your What is Cap-and-Trade article in the current Pollution Engineering with the question… Why should carbon emission control be treated any differently?  My answer… BECAUSE CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT OF CONSEQUENCE. 

At less than 400 ppm, CO2 is merely a trace component in the atmosphere and constitutes only about 4% of greenhouse gases.  Human-emitted CO2 is only 3% to 4% of total atmospheric CO2 and the remainder comes from natural sources (and, incidentally, produces lots of vegetation).  Human-emitted CO2, therefore, is at most less than 0.0016 of greenhouse gases.  To suppose that tweaking that figure down some with cap-and-trade could possibly affect the Earth’s climate is an obvious absurdity.  Something like 90% or more of the greenhouse effect is cause by water vapor.  Furthermore, the effect of CO2 is logarithmic—i.e., as quantity increases, the greenhouse effect gradually levels off. ”

The same reader followed up with another email a day later:

“Could you go to the next step and tell me what is erroneous in my 2nd paragraph?”

My email reply to him follows:

“For one thing, EPA’s proposed endangerment document is backed up by 171 pages of technical references. I don’t see any technical references to back up your claims.

 

The whole discussion on climate change is about ecological balance. Most scientists will tell you that it does not take much to tip the balance one way or the other. An increase of CO2 from 250 ppm to 400 ppm in the atmosphere could have dire consequences, according to many scientists.

 

Your argument for dismissal of the climate change issue is somewhat akin to the defendant who tells the judge that yes your honor, I did put a bullet in his head but that’s only 0.0003 percent of his total body weight. Don’t think his honor will buy that.”

Anyone else wants to chime in? Your comments are welcome. You can comment here or go to the original blog and post yoru comment there.

You want me to do what?

Many companies have purchase policies that require their employees to purchase goods and services from the lowest bidder. These policies work well with paper clips and most commodities. But they don’t really work well when it comes to the selection of hazardous waste disposal sites and consultants.

The superfund law carries joint and several liability. What that means is that if you ship your hazardous wastes to a treatment storage and disposal facility (TSDF) that turns into a Superfund site, your company can be held liable for the ENTIRE cleanup cost of the contaminated site.  It is important that you do due diligence before you ship your wastes out. Do not simply pick the lowest cost TSDF or the lowest cost transporter. This is where you tell your purchasing department that you may not want to go with the low bidder.

The same holds true with the selection of consultants. When you choose a consultant to apply for a permit for you, make sure that consultant or the firm has a demonstrated good working relationship with the permitting agency. There are consultants out there who hold themselves to be superior to the permit writers and that attitude often is not well hidden. Beware of consultants who submit a “low ball” bid just to “get their feet in the door”. These lowest bid consultants will inudate you with change orders as soon as the ink dries on the purchase order.  Here is an article on how to select your consultants.

Why you should do an environmental audit before leasing a place

If your company is thinkingof leasing a facility, you should always do a baseline environmental audit of the place. What you want to do is to identify any pre-existing environmental contamination at the site before you occupy it. There are many consultants who are qualified to do Phase I and Phase II environmental assessment.  Once you have identified any pre-existing contamination, you include the findings in your lease so that when you return the site to the landlord, you will only need to return it at the baseline condition.

This is the best (and possibly) only defense you have against a landlord who falsely claims that the property (previously contaminated by the tenant before you) you have been occupying for the past ten years was pristine when you moved in.

That’s what happened to a large corporation in California. It moved into a facility without doing a baseline environmental assessment. The manager there was trying to save $20,000. When it completed its lease ten years later, the landlord claimed that the company had contaminated his pristine property and demanded that it be cleaned up. As it turned, it was a previous tenant that had dumped toxic solvents into an underground tank that subsequently leaked. Without the defense of a baseline assessment, the company had to remove the leaking underground storage tank and clean up the soil contamination. It also had to remove some asbestos containing material from the site. The total cleanup cost to the company was close to $600,000. 

All of this could have been avoided if the company had spent $20,000 ten years earlier.

That was one happy landlord. He saved $600,000!

To our readers

Do you have an environmental topic that you would like me to discuss here?

Are you looking for a solution to an environmental issue at your facility? 

You can post a question/comment here or email me in private. If we post your issue here, it will be in a generic form. Your identity will not be revealed without your permission.