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

In less than a year into its new administration, the Obama White House and its EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson have already made quite an imprint on the environmental regulatory landscape.

During his first month in office, President Obama directed EPA to review the action taken by the previous administration in prohibiting California from regulating automobile carbon dioxide emissions. This directive followed the Supreme Court’s ruling under Massachusetts v EPA that carbon dioxide is an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act and that EPA must regulate it if it is found to cause harm to public health and welfare.

EPA promptly issued a draft endangerment study on April 14, 2009 proposing that CO2 and other greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare. On July 1, 2009, EPA reversed the Bush administration’s decision and allowed California to regulate CO2 from tail pipes.

The Obama EPA is tackling the greenhouse gas issues on two fronts. It is working with Congress to develop new cap-and-trade laws to reduce greenhouse gas while developing its own regulations under the Clean Air Act to regulate it.

On September 30, 2009, Lisa Jackson announced that EPA is proposing new regulation under the Clean Air Act to curb greenhouse gas from industries that emit more than 25,000 tons of CO2 per year. This would bring many plants under the new regulation if it becomes final.

The Obama EPA has also dropped a Bush plan to exempt some 3,500 facilities from reporting chemical releases under the Toxic release Inventory. You can expect to see a few more rule reversals in the future.

EPA gets ready to regulate greenhouse gas

On September 30, 2009, EPA announced a proposal that is focused on large facilities emitting over 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases a year. These facilities would be required to obtain permits that would demonstrate they are using the best practices and technologies to minimize GHG emissions.

The rule proposes new thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) that define when Clean Air Act (CAA) permits under the New Source Review (NSR) and title V operating permits programs would be required for new or existing industrial facilities.  Click here for a copy of EPA’s fact sheet on this latest regulatory proposal.

The NSR will trigger the need for PSD (Prevention of Significant Deterioration) permits for new source or major modification in attainment areas.

Some observers have noted that this EPA step is a strategic move to motivate industries to lobby the Senate for a Climate Change Bill. Many in industry would prefer to be regulated under a new Climate Change Bill than under the Clean Air Act.

Just exactly what is “used oil”?

Used oil is defined as any petroleum-based or synthetic oil that has been USED. When you use oil, impurities or contaminants such as dirt, metal scrapings, water or other chemicals can get mixed in with the oil. such impurities may make your oil less effective as a lubricant for example.

Some examples of used oil are engine oil, transmission fluid, refrigeration oil, compressor oils, metal working fluids and oils, laminating oils, electrical insulating oil, industrial process oils, etc. Waste oil is not used oil. Oil that has been spilled is not classified as used oil because it has not been used for its original purpose.

You should recycle your used oil by re-conditioning, re-refining or burning it for energy recovery. EPA has specific management standards that you should comply with if you handle used oil in your business. You should label all containers and tanks as “Used Oil”. Keep these containers in good condition. You are not permitted to store used oil in lagoons, pits or surface impoundment.

If your used oil is mixed with hazardous waste, you may have to dispose of the mixture as hazardous waste. So make sure you store your used oil away from other hazardous wastes.

Always check with your state agencies because they may have more stringent used oil regulations.

Resist the temptation ……don’t do it!

Has this ever  happened to you?

After you tell your VP of production that he cannot install his new equipment because he has to get a pre-construction permit first, he tells you that it is unacceptable and he threatens to call the state senator or the governor. He wants to “bypass” this lengthy permitting process because customers are clamoring for his products. He has orders to fill. He has to make his numbers. 

Situations like this happen a lot more frequently than you think. The production folks somehow get the idea that the sole purpose of the regulatory agency is to assist them in meeting their production quotas. To the contrary, the agency people are there to implement state and federal laws that say you cannot install any new air emission sources without first getting a pre-construction permit. That’s the law of the land.

If your VP calls up the governor’s office and tries to do an end run on the permitting process, two things will likely happen. First, he will get turned down.  The governor’s office will most likely tell your VP to pay an extra fee to get on the “fast permitting track”. Most agencies have that program. He will still have to wait and get his construction permit.

Second, you will have made an enemy in the permit writer once he  finds out that you try to bypass him. Put yourself in the permit writer’s shoes. How would you feel if some one goes over your head to your boss?

The best way to get a permit in a timely manner is to be upfront with the agency. Provide everything the agency needs to process your permit in a timely manner. Try to do it right the first time. Do not play cat-and-mouse game with the permit writer. Be courteous. Be professional. Remember – the permit is simply doing his job – just like you are. He is not your enemy. But if you treat him like one, he will become one. 

On last point. If you hire a consultant to get a permit for you, make sure that the consultant has a good working relationship with the agency and your consultant gets along with the permit writer. You do NOT want an arrogant  consultant representing you before the agency.

When do you need an air permit?

This is a question asked by many people in industry. In almost every state, you are required to obtain a state operating permit if you have an air emission source unlessthat source is specifically exempt by state regulations. An emission source would be any equipment or facility that is capable of emitting air contaminants to the atmosphere.

Different states have different exemptions. For example, in Illinois you are exempt from getting an air permit if your coating operation uses less than 5000 gallons of coating material including thinners (Illinois Title 35, subtitle B, chapter I, section 201.146(g)). If you have a print shop and you use less than 750 gallons of paint a year, you are exempt as well.

In southern California, the Air Quality Management District (AQMD)’s Rule 219 lists all the emission sources that are exempt from getting an air permit. For example, Rule 219(h) exempts printing operations that emit less than 3 lbs of VOC per day or 66 lbs of VOC per calendar month.

By the way, in every state and under the Clean Air Act, you must obtain a construction permit before you are allowed to install any air emission sources.  Sometime they call it a pre-construction permit. If you have purchased a new piece of equipment that is an emission source, you are not allowed to bolt it to the ground or wire it up. You can unwrap it and have it sit on the shop floor while you are waiting for your construction permit to be approved. Many companies have been fined by EPA for installing equipment without a construction permit. The agency may even order you to uninstall the emission source and pay a fine and apply for a construction permit.

This is often a bone of contention between the environmental staff (you) and production staff (them). The production folks may take 3 years to decide on a new piece of equipment. Once they have purchased it, they want to install it and run it right away. This is where you say to them: “No, you can’t do that. We have to apply for a construction permit first and that may take a month or two.”  If they were smart, they would have told you about the new equipment a month earlier before they take delivery of it so that you could start the permitting process.

That would be the ideal situation.

If you need the construction permit in a big hurry, you can pay the agency a fee to get on the “fast track”.

Surviving in lean times for environmental managers

I came across an excellent articleon this topic written by my friend Richard MacLean. It was published in the 2009 summer issue of The Environmental Quality Management Journal. Richard touched on a number of corporate staff reduction issues and offered some common sense recommendations. It is a must read for all environmental managers.

The best part of his article was hisCase Study. Here is a recap. A corporate EHS director was facing an order from senior management to cut staff by 25% across the board. The across the board cut is a somewhat cowardly way of doing it as Richard intimated and I fully concur. The director – with Richard’s help – was able to make a case for a LARGER budget to an influential corporate attorney and garnered her support. She went to bat for the director before the management board and needless to say there was a happy ending.

As someone who has worked in the corporate world for many years, I can attest to the wisdom in the approach described in the Case Study. As an environmental manager, you ALWAYS want to have the corporate legal department on your side. ALWAYS.

It is really not that hard to do even though you may not have a Harvard law degree. Why? Because environmental managers deal with liability every day. Attorneys understand liability. Senior management fear liability. So if you have those attroneys on your side, senior management will start to fear you too.

To be successful, you have to do your homework and be MORE knowledgable about environmental issues than your attorney colleagues. That’s not too hard to do either because many corporate attorneys are not environmental attorneys. But they do know liability! It is their job to minimize corporate liability. So get to know these folks. Do not be afraid of them. Do not let them treat you like a “janitor in a suit”. Take them to the plants. Keep them updated on any on-going environmental issues.

When you are traveling with them, stay at the SAME expensive hotels as they do. Hell – If that hotel is good enough for them, it is good enough for you. The reason you must stay at the same hotel is that it will give you more time to offer them environmental advice. Some call it bonding. That was my excuse and my boss (a vice president) never once questioned my expensive hotel bills. Take them out to expensive dinners on your expense account. They love that. A side note: First year law school teaches law students how to spot expensive restaurants in any town.

In more ways than one, survival in the corporate world is like jungle survival. If you look and act weak, you will be eaten or cut. Try to maintain a certain level of mystique about your work. The Vice President of Manufacturing does not need to know or understand everything you do. No more than you need to know in excruciating details how he makes his widget. All he has to know is that you are helping his plants stay in compliance or save money AND you are the go-to person when something bad happens with the environmental agencies or when he needs an environmental permit in a hurry.

A true story: A newly promoted vice president once asked me to give him an engineering book on waste water treatment design because he wanted to be an expert on it overnight. Those were his exact words and he was a fool. And he did make a fool of himself the next day at the management board meeting. He had one of those MBA degrees.

On a slightly political note: My friend Richard stated in his article that “the George W. Bush era only deepened the assumption that environmental concerns were “under control” and represented a low business priority”. There are no truer words written than those. But then Richard ended his otherwise excellent article by saying that the (regulatory) “demands will only become more difficult in the future, especially if the Obama administration fulfills its promise to enact additional environmental mandates.”

Well – could it be that the Obama administration is simply trying to reverse 8 long years of neglect and delusion? What do you think, readers?

Emergency Planning Notification

Under Section 302 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (also know as SARA Title III),  any facility that has more than the Threshold Planning Quantity (TPQ) of an extremely hazardous substance must notify the Local Emergency Planning Committee (the fire department in most cases).

The list of Extremely Hazardous Sustances (EHS) and the corresponding TPQs can be found in Appendix A of 40 CFR355 .

Note that the TPQ always refer to the pure chemical form. So if you have a mixture that has 33% sulfuric acid in it and the TPQ for sulfuric acid is 1000 pounds, you will reach the TPQ when you have 3000 pounds of that mixture.

This poses an interesting question for large car dealerships and construction equipment lots. Let’s say each car or tuck on the lot has a battery with a 10 pounds mixture of 33% sulfuric acid in it. If the dealership has more than 300 cars on the lot, it will have exceeded the 1000 pounds TPQ limit for the 33% acid mixture. It must then notify the LEPC in accordance with Section 302 of SARA Title III. See EPA letter.

By the way, SARA is not the name of a girl. It stands for Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. When Congress reauthorized the Superfund law in 1986, it put EPCRA into Title III of the reauthorization act. Hence the term: SARA Title III. It is the same thing as EPCRA.

Satellite Accumulation Points

40 CFR 262.34(c) allows hazardous waste generators to accumulate waste in a 55-gallon container at or near the place of generation. This is known as the satellite accumulation point (SAP) Once the container is full, the generator has 3 days to move it to the central storage area – at which time the usual (90 days or 180 days) accumulation time starts. By the way, you cannot store waste in a SAP for longer than one year in California.

While it is permissble to have more than one SAP if you generate wastes at different locations, it is illegal for waste generator to move waste from one  SAP to another. Doing so would defeat the purpose of having SAPs in the first place – reduce frequencies of waste movement within the plant.

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.