Forum
ask questions, discuss topics, solve problems
Active Threads
- 1-23 of 23
The U.S. EPA has identified 584 coal ash ponds in 35 states across the country, with the largest number in Indiana, Kentucky, Iowa and Ohio.
The EPA collected the list from information provided from electric utilities in the wake of a coal ash spill last December at the Tennessee Valley Authority´s Kingston Fossil Plant in Harriman, Tenn.
Environmentalists said the information supports their belief that more stringent regulation of the coal ash ponds is necessary. They would like to see coal ash regulated as a hazardous waste.
However, industry groups, including the Edison Electric Institute, say regulation of coal ash as a nonhazardous waste combined with possibly more stringent safety regulations for the dams would protect the public without discouraging the beneficial reuse of coal ash in building materials.
I am just wondering how various operations deliver safety training to their employees (videos, computer-aided training, classroom training, give them a book to read, on-the-job, outsourced, etc.)
Where I am, there is a combination of videos, computer-aided training and on-the-job training for most safety tasks not regulated on the state or Federal level (such as asbestos or lead-based paint).
I haven't seen a posting in regards to the SPCC amendments:
---------
On November 5, 2009, the EPA Administrator signed a notice amending certain requirements of the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule in order to address additional areas of regulatory reform that have been raised by the regulated community. The November 2009 amendments revise the December 2008 amendments as a result of EPA's review of comments and consideration of all relevant facts. EPA is either taking no action or providing minor technical corrections on the majority of the December 2008 provisions. However, this action modifies the December 2008 rule by removing the provisions to: exclude farms and oil production facilities from the loading/unloading rack requirements; exempt produced water containers at an oil production facility; and provide alternative qualified facilities eligibility criteria for an oil production facility.
Additionally, because of the uncertainty surrounding the final amendments to the December 5, 2008, rule and the delay of the effective date, EPA will propose to extend the compliance date.
This rule is effective January 14, 2010
Did anyone listen to NPR today?
A listener wrote in to point out a "major factual error" in a story about the precautions that Santas are taking to prevent the spread of swine flu during the holiday season. One of the measures is to sanitize their hands and encourage children to do so as well.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120583700
NPR should be aware, as all children know, wrote the listener, that there is only one Santa Claus.
I stole the title from "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me."
What did you think about the republicans' boycott of the senate Environmental and Public Works Committee?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120066031
- Topic last edited December 4, 2009 by Cindy Findley, ehsg Moderator
, tagged Health & Safety, Monitoring & TestingI work mainly in the Coal Power Industry. Recently, a client posted the question below on the PRB Coal Users Group Website (www.prbcoals.com). This question may be best answered by this group.
"I've been asked to benchmark non-coal industries that are high in the OSHA NEP explosive dust list (sugar, flour, magnesium) to see what precautions and housekeeping upgrades they are pursuing to address the OSHA NEP explosive dust issue. Has any one looked into what other industries are doing that we could possibly learn from?"
I assume a handful of companies in non-coal industries are focusing on an overall improvement in their Dust Management Program through employee education and system upgrades following a professional plant assessment. However; I feel a majority of companies in the non-coal industries have done very little to address their combustible dust hazards.
Any input would be greatly appreciated?
Thank you,
Justin Clift Calling it the “first step in an aggressive regulatory agenda” for the Obama administration, acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Jordan Barab announced a proposed rule to align OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard (hazcom standard) with provisions of the United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). The rule was published in the Sept. 30 Federal Register.
Just suppose you work for ZKW Trading. How would you dispose of 31,993 pounds of CRTs?
__________________
EPA today ordered Monterey Park, Calif.-based ZKW Trading to submit a management plan for approximately 31,993 pounds of cathode ray tubes that were illegally shipped to, and later returned from, Hong Kong, China -- a violation of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
"The EPA is ordering ZKW Trading to submit a plan detailing how it will ensure that thousands of pounds of CRTs are managed in an environmentally sound manner," said Jeff Scott, director of Waste Programs for the EPA’s Pacific Southwest region. "Electronic recyclers, freight forwarders, and shipping brokers must obey federal regulations for exporting electronics or else face possible legal action."
In June 2009, ZKW Trading reportedly consigned 38 pallets of cathode ray tubes – listing the cargo as plastic scrap – for shipment to Hong Kong, where it was rejected by Hong Kong customs authorities. In July, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection informed the EPA of the return of ZKW’s shipments back to the United States.
ZKW Trading now has 30 days to remove its cargo, and forty-five days to submit a plan to the EPA detailing how it will reuse, recycle, or discard the CRT’s or face fines of up to $37,500 per day of noncompliance for each violation.
New regulations took effect in January 2007 requiring exporters shipping CRTs to another country for recycling to notify the EPA and receive written consent from the receiving country before shipments can be made.
- Topic last edited January 19, 2012 by Kelly Hall
What's your opinion?
Those in favor of a carbon tax include Caterpillar and FedEx. However, globally, shippers prefer a cap-and-trade program.
While it is commonly know that safety plays a large part of everyday work, who does the Safety Professional actually report to? The natural answer is that safety is everyones responsibility, so it should be the area supervisor. This is something I cannot endorse. I believe that in order for the Safety Professional to be able to completely perform his/her job, this person should only be held accountable to the President of the company. This empowers the Safety Pro to make the command decisions when needed, although it may cause a disruption in production. In the event that the Safety Pro has to report to the Production Supervisor, they are more likely to be hesitant to make a decision for fear of "retribution". This is a common practice.
The entire reason for having a Safety Pro on your staff is to identify the areas which could cause an employee to sustain an injury, and to help enact proactive measures preventing such. There are a lot of companies out there who have a Safety Pro on staff just to meet their contractual obligations or to reduce premiums because they "show" an effort at injury prevention, this is basically smoke and mirrors for better words.
There are many companies that actually believe safety is not important, until it's important. Such as when there is a serious accident or OSHA shows up. Then the company relies on the Safety Professional to "get them out of trouble". How fair is this practice to the Safety Professional?
- NTSB Employees Banned from Talking on Phone While Behind the Wheel
The National Transportation Safety Board has prohibited its employees from using any wireless device while driving on the job.NTSB Chairwoman Deborah Hersman said Tuesday the new restriction applies whether the device is "hands free" or not. The action appears to make NTSB the first federal agency to adopt an outright ban of wireless devices while its employees are driving on official business, USA Today reported.
In recent years, the safety board has issued several recommendations to state and federal agencies calling for restrictions on wireless devices for motor-vehicle drivers and train operators.
"Our own investigations have confirmed what safety researchers know," Hersman said. "Using a telephone or other electronic device while driving, even with a hands-free kit, significantly increases the risk of an accident. ... We must lead by example."
Seven states plus the District of Columbia ban the use of handheld cellphones while driving, but drivers in those jurisdictions are permitted to use hands-free devices.
I have several jobsites that are overseen by both a Construction Manager (CM) and a General Contractor (GC).
Any thoughts or relevant case law that instructs who is accountable for ensuring visitors are issued PPE (CM or GC)?
Good article on CSR from Environmental Leader
The economic recession has not put an end to corporate citizenship. Based on current economic conditions, 15 percent of companies are increasing their research and development for new sustainable products; 11 percent are increasing corporate citizenship marketing and communications; and 10 percent are increasing local and/or domestic sourcing or manufacturing, according to a new study from the Hitachi Foundation and the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship.
The study finds that about 54 percent of U.S. senior executives believe corporate citizenship is even more important in a recession with 54 percent now communicating with employees about it and 39 percent talking with stakeholders.
Another finding reveals a majority of U.S. companies are not making major changes in their corporate citizenship practices. Of those who made changes, 38 percent reduced philanthropy/giving, 27 percent increased layoffs, and 19 percent reduced R&D for sustainable products.
The study, Weathering the Storm: The State of Corporate Citizenship, also finds that large companies are responding to the recession much differently than small companies. For example, large companies significantly increased their investments and involvement in citizenship activities, but they were also more likely to lay people off. Small firms had minimal layoffs but they significantly decreased attention to other aspects of citizenship, such as volunteering or philanthropy.
The study also indicates that environmental sustainability efforts continue to grow during the recession. Twenty-nine percent of business leaders say their companies support environmental issues through their community investment strategy, which is a 10 percent increase since 2007.
Sustainability is now seen as a major business driver with 52 percent of companies (65 percent of large companies) designing and offering sustainable products or services, about 72 percent of American companies (85 percent of large) reducing costs through improved materials efficiency, and 58 percent (60 percent of large) manufacturing or sourcing domestically/locally.
In addition, 59 percent of large companies offer energy-efficient products and another 59 percent provide customers with more information about social and environmental impacts of their products and services.
sustainableproductsAmong large companies, 63 percent have goals and objectives around environmental responsibility, 58 percent measure the business impact of their environmental initiatives, and 47 percent report having environmental performance goals for individual managers.
This latest study supports the 2009 Greening of Corporate America Report, which found that twice as many companies see sustainability as centrally oriented to their business operations, including the sale of “green” products or services, as compared to 2006.
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/09/23/csr-investments-up-despite-economy/
- Topic last edited January 19, 2012 by Cindy Findley, ehsg Moderator , tagged Air & Climate, Energy & Renewables, Environmental Management, Monitoring & Testing
On January 1, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will, for the first time, require large emitters of heat-trapping emissions to begin collecting greenhouse gas (GHG) data under a new reporting system. This new program will cover approximately 85 percent of the nation’s GHG emissions and apply to roughly 10,000 facilities.
“This is a major step forward in our effort to address the greenhouse gases polluting our skies,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “For the first time, we begin collecting data from the largest facilities in this country, ones that account for approximately 85 percent of the total U.S. emissions. The American public, and industry itself, will finally gain critically important knowledge and with this information we can determine how best to reduce those emissions.”
EPA’s new reporting system will provide a better understanding of where GHGs are coming from and will guide development of the best possible policies and programs to reduce emissions. The data will also allow businesses to track their own emissions, compare them to similar facilities, and provide assistance in identifying cost effective ways to reduce emissions in the future. This comprehensive, nationwide emissions data will help in the fight against climate change.
Greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, are produced by burning fossil fuels and through industrial and biological processes. Fossil fuel and industrial GHG suppliers, motor vehicle and engine manufacturers, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2 equivalent per year will be required to report GHG emissions data to EPA annually. This threshold is equivalent to about the annual GHG emissions from 4,600 passenger vehicles.
The first annual reports for the largest emitting facilities, covering calendar year 2010, will be submitted to EPA in 2011. Vehicle and engine manufacturers outside of the light-duty sector will begin phasing in GHG reporting with model year 2011. Some source categories included in the proposed rule are still under review.
More information on the new reporting system and reporting requirements: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html
The Board of Directors of the National Recycling Coalition, Inc. (NRC) announced that the membership vote on the proposed combination of NRC and Keep America Beautiful, Inc. (KAB) has fallen short of the two-thirds majority required to approve the proposal.Accordingly the NRC'S Board wants to merge with KAB but the popular vote said "no".
What are your thoughts?
Updating OSHA Personal Protective Equipment Standards Based on National Consensus Standards
ACTION: Final rule for 29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, and 1918
BACKGROUND: While OSHA has updated some of its Section 6(a) standards through notice and comment rulemaking, the vast majority have not been updated since they were originally adopted. Some of the consensus standards "incorporated by reference" were issued over 60 years ago. Most of the referenced consensus documents have been either superseded by later versions or withdrawn by the issuing Standards Development Organization (SDO). Many are no longer in print or available to the public through the issuing SDO. These outdated standards do not reflect advances in technologies that have changed workplace safety over the last 30 years. The OSHA versions also have not been updated to address new equipment and machinery that have become available since they were originally promulgated.
SUMMARY: OSHA is issuing this final rule to revise the personal protective equipment (PPE) sections of its general industry, shipyard employment, longshoring, and marine terminals standards regarding requirements for eye- and face-protective devices, head protection, and foot protection. OSHA is updating the references in its regulations to recognize more recent editions of the applicable national consensus standards, and is deleting editions of the national consensus standards that PPE must meet if purchased before a specified date. In addition, OSHA is amending its provision that requires safety shoes to comply with a specific American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard, and a provision that requires filter lenses and plates in eye-protective equipment to meet a test for transmission of radiant energy specified by another ANSI standard. In amending these paragraphs, OSHA will require this safety equipment to comply with the applicable PPE design provisions. These revisions are a continuation of OSHA's effort to update or remove references to specific consensus and industry standards located throughout its standards.
DATES: This final rule will become effective on October 9, 2009.
This information came from http://www.FederalRegister.com
Ten states were announced as finalists Tuesday in the 2009 America's Transportation Awards competition and will now compete for the People's Choice Award and Grand Prize.
The awards competition was launched in 2008 by AAA, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to recognize the most outstanding transportation projects in the country.
A panel of judges this year evaluated 50 projects from 33 states in three categories: "On Time," "On Budget," and "Innovative Management." During four regional competitions, 22 winning projects were selected. The top 10 projects competing for national prizes had scored the highest number overall points during the judging.
The America's Transportation Awards Grand Prize will be determined by independent judging and will be presented at the AASHTO Annual Meeting on Oct. 25 in Palm Desert, CA. The top 10 projects will also compete for the People's Choice Award, which will decided by popular vote. Online voting is now underway at www.americastransportationaward.org and goes through Oct. 23.
"These projects show that states are being accountable for every dollar they receive from the taxpayers," said John Horsley, AASHTO executive director. "They are using the smartest technology in their projects, and they are investing in their communities by reducing congestion, protecting the environment, and enhancing safety. In these tough economic times, the value of rapid and efficient highway construction gets magnified even more."
The top 10 projects will be profiled in the AASHTO Journal during the next five weeks. They are:
- Maryland Department of Transportation: MD 32 at Burntwoods Road Project
- Delaware Department of Transportation: I-95 Mainline Widening Project
- Minnesota Department of Transportation: I-35W Minneapolis Bridge Replacement Project
- Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development: Front Street Natchitoches Restoration Project
- North Carolina Department of Transportation: Clayton Bypass Project
- New York State Department of Transportation: I-86 Interchange Project
- California Department of Transportation: Fix I-5 Sacramento Project
- Nebraska Department of Roads: Yankton Bridge Project
- Michigan Department of Transportation: M-115 Clare County Improvement Project
- Florida Department of Transportation: 95 Express Miami Project
Last year, the first America's Transportation Award Grand Prize went to Virginia and Maryland for constructing the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, which spans the Potomac River on Interstate 95 south of Washington.
After 55,500 online votes were cast, the People's Choice Award in 2008 was presented to Mississippi for the Bay St. Louis Bridge reconstruction near Biloxi. The original structure was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.
Learn more about the projects and the competition at www.americastransportationaward.org.
- Topic last edited January 19, 2012 by Marcel Kaal
Marcel Kaal, environmental Consultant at Pincvision (www.pincvision.com) will be speaking on battery compliance at the ICBR in Geneva, Switserland on 17 September - For the program of the congress see http://www.icm.ch/pdf/brochure_icbr09.pdf
- Topic posted September 8, 2009 by Dr. Saraf , tagged Energy & Renewables, Health & Safety, Waste & Recycling
Because of their dependability and long effective lifespan, lithium ion rechargeable batteries are used in almost all modern electronic gadgets – cell phones, laptops, digital cameras, power tools, video games, PDA, household devices, e-bikes, security lighting, iPods, and automobiles. As the electronic market grows, it is evident that the lithium battery market will grow exponentially!
In rare cases, lithium batteries can catch fire – often in dramatic ways.
Lithium battery fires are not a common place occurrence. Based on my survey, it appears roughly 1-10 lithium batteries per million battery population catch fire.
Why Does a Lithium Battery Burn?
A lithium battery consists of two lithium foils sandwiching a polymer electrolyte – usually a porous thin film enclosing a liquid or gelled electrolyte. The various types of lithium batteries vary in size and shape but are identical in construction and generally differ in cathode material and polymer solid electrolyte.
During normal usage, the lithium ions flow from the anode to the cathode (generally a mixed metal electrode) through a polymer matrix filled with electrolyte. The polymer electrolyte thickness is of the order of microns i.e. paper thin.
Although the exact failure mechanism will vary for individual cases, I’ll explain general principles behind lithium battery fires.
Anode and cathode materials of a battery can spontaneously react – it is this natural chemical potential that is exploited to make a battery work. In a battery, we control the spontaneous reaction by introducing a separating medium termed electrolyte.
If one were to remove the separating medium, anode-cathode materials can spontaneously react and generate a lot of heat. This excessive heat in turn can lead to (a) evaporation and possible ignition of the electrolyte; or (b) generation of flammable vapor due to side-reactions, decomposition products, or metal-catalyzed reactions. Thus the hydrocarbons from polymer electrolyte are serving as the “fuel”.
There has always been incentives to purchase energy-efficient appliances. I don't see people opening their wallets to purchase high ticket items when there may not be a need. Appliances are usuallly replaced during a remodel or when something breaks.
I think this is a waste of resources.
EPA is proposing to revise the voluntary test method for determining stack gas velocity taking into account the velocity decay near the stack or duct walls. When the method was originally developed, it addressed only sources where the flow measurements were made in locations with circular cross-sections.
The proposed revised test method addresses flow measurement locations with both circular and rectangular cross-sections. The proposed revisions also include changes that increase the accuracy of the method and simplify its application. The primary users of the proposed method are likely to be owners and operators of utility units subject to Acid Rain.
Waste Management Recycle America, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Waste Management, has announced a partnership with portable power solution provider iGo to increase domestic electronics recycling and reduce landfill waste. Through this partnership, WM Recycle America will provide environmentally certified recycling services for iGo electronic waste.
Here’s how it works. Through the “iGo Recycles” consumer electronics and charger recycling program, iGo customers can mail back their used products, which WM Recycle America will process to recover valuable components for reuse.
WM Recycle America, an ISO Certified partner, recycles this material in conjunction with the Basel Action Network (BAN) Electronics Recycler’s Pledge of True Stewardship to process all hazardous materials domestically, to protect workers’ health and to track e-waste throughout the recycling chain.
Do you know of other companies that are helping consumers recycle?
EPA's proposed revisions on May 6, 2009, to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants present significant challenges to the portland cement industry by establishing a new lower maximum achievable control technology (MACT) floor that would require additional controls and monitoring not widely implemented on existing cement kilns. Should the methods utilized by EPA to amend the PC MACT become common in other MACT regulations, other U.S. industrial facilities will be subject to MACT requirements.
EPA's revised approach to setting MACT floor would likely present compliance challenges to any industry, but particularly for mercury, THC, and HCI emissions from cement kilns. Throughout the cement industry, emissions of these pollutants are rarely actively controlled and there is limited mitigation potential available through good operating practices. In other words, the emissions of these pollutants are directly related to their concentration in the kiln feed, which is fundamentally tied to the economic viability of a given cement plant.
EPA chose not to establish kiln subcategories based on raw material HAP content, arguing specifically that in the case of mercury, there was not a distinct breakpoint for establishing separate subcategories based on the mercury content of lime feed. Therefore, the MACT floor is not established by source with good operating practices, kiln technology, or controls currently demonstrated throughout the industry, but rather the HAP concentration of the raw materials readily available to their site.
