Author: admin

The USEPA has new NESHAP regulations for metal fabrication and finishing facilities that include a July 25, 2011 deadline for initial notification AND compliance with the rule.  This rule only applies to facilities at area sources (less than 10 tons/yr of a single hazardous air pollutant (HAP) or less than 25 tons/yr of total combination of HAPs) where the primary activity of the facility is in one of the following nine categories and meets the following criteria:

Electrical and Electronic Equipment Finishing Operations, including motor and generator manufacture; and electrical machinery, equipment, and supplies not elsewhere classified (NEC); (2) Fabricated Metal Products NEC; (3) Fabricated Plate Work (Boiler Shops); (4) Fabricated Structural Metal Manufacturing; (5) Heating Equipment, except Electric; (6) Industrial Machinery and Equipment Finishing Operations, including construction machinery manufacturing; oil and gas field machinery manufacturing; and pumps and pumping equipment manufacturing); (7) Iron and Steel Forging; (8) Primary Metal Products Manufacturing; and (9) Valves and Pipe Fittings NEC

AND -The facility uses or has emissions of the following metal HAPs (MFHAP): cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel.  This does not include processes that use materials with less than 0.1% in weight of cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), lead (Pb), or nickel (Ni) and less than 1.0% of manganese (Mn) as reported on the Material Safety Data Sheet for that material.

Sources that commenced construction of their facility on or after April 3, 2008 are considered to be new sources and are required to be in full compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 63 subpart XXXXXX by July 23, 2008 or upon initial startup, whichever is later.  Existing sources (commenced construction before April 3, 2008) have until July 25, 2011 to be in compliance.

U.S. EPA prepared applicability flowcharts, example Initial Notification forms, frequently asked questions and other guidance to help industries understand and comply with the rule. For these materials, visit: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/6x/6xpg.html

View the rule for more information regarding applicability at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/area/fr23jy08.pdf

 

What’s it going to take to substantially ramp up the amount of renewables in the electricity system? There are many nerdy discussions of that question on the interwebs, but lemme try to talk about it in reasonably non-nerdy language.

There’s a certain amount of demand for electricity that is steady and reliable. Above that, there are fluctuating “peaks” of demand each day, usually evening, when everyone gets home and starts watching TV and running the dishwasher, or in hot areas, the afternoon. For that steady core of demand, we have “baseload” power plants — in the majority of cases, large coal or nuclear plants. Once they’re built they’re pretty cheap to operate and you can run them around the clock. In nerd speak, they have a high “capacity factor.” However, they’re not well suited to ramping up and down in response to short-term fluctuations. (It takes days to turn a nuke plant off and back on.) To supply power during the fluctuating peaks, we have, appropriately enough, “peaker” plants, which can be turned on and off quickly. (Nerd speak: they’re “dispatch able.”) Generally speaking, these are natural-gas plants, which are smaller and easier to cycle, though the power is somewhat more expensive.

So you’ve got your baseload plants and your peaker plants. The fundamental problem with renewables, according to conventional wisdom, is that they are neither. They are variable and intermittent, with low capacity factors, so they can’t satisfy baseload demand. But the wind and sun are not dispatch able, so they can’t reliably satisfy peak demand either. They are an unholy mutt, a square peg for a system with two round holes.

In the U.S., already so resistant to change, the reaction has been to say, “Bummer, renewables can’t do much, woulda been nice.” When I was in Germany recently, though, the reaction among folks I talked to was, “Yes, that is a problem. We are going to solve it!” They don’t see it as the reason they can’t integrate lots of renewables. They see it as what has to be done to integrate lots of renewables. The dispute is between the Merkel government, which wants 80 percent renewables by 2050, and the Green Party, which wants 100 percent by 2030.

So, how would one go about solving the problem?

Read the answer at Grist

Chemical reporting, sanitary sewer overflow and lead paint are among the regulatory areas in which the Environmental Protection Agency plans to make changes this year, according to its regulatory review plan.

The Obama administration published regulatory reviews by 30 agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy, last week. The White House said that the reports, prepared to comply with the president’s January order on reducing red tape, identified billions of dollars in savings.

In the EPA’s report (pdf), the agency lays out 31 regulatory reviews as priority activities.

Sixteen of these items are categorized as “early actions”. The EPA says this means that “the Agency intends to take a specific step which could lead to modifying, streamlining, expanding, or repealing a regulation or related program during the 2011 calendar year.”

The other 15 reviews are longer-term actions, meaning that the agency intends to review those regulations and determine whether revisions are needed.

Read the 16 early actions at Environmental Leader

New labels will identify cars with least air pollution and fuel use

(PHILADELPHIA – June 1, 2011) New fuel economy labels unveiled by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today at the Mid-Atlantic AAA Office  in Wilmington, Del. will provide shoppers of model year 2013 cars and trucks with comprehensive fuel efficiency information.

“The new labels will help consumers be smart buyers who know which cars will save them money and leave the smallest footprint on the environment,” said EPA mid-Atlantic Regional Administrator Shawn M. Garvin. Garvin was joined by Delaware’s Environmental Secretary Collin O’Mara, and representatives of the Clean Air Council and Mid-Atlantic AAA.

The new window stickers will have information about a vehicle’s estimated fuel costs, savings, and impact on the environment.

Although automakers may voluntarily adopt the new labels for model year 2012 vehicles, all model year 2013 passenger cars and trucks will feature the improved fuel economy labels.  The requirement applies to all conventional gasoline-powered and “next generation” cars, such as plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles.

For the first time, fuel economy labels will compare energy use and cost between new-technology cars that use electricity and conventional cars that are gasoline-powered, including estimates on how much consumers will save or spend on fuel over the next five years.

The labels will also contain easy-to-read ratings of how a model compares to all other models for smog emissions and emissions of pollution that contribute to climate change.  For electric-powered cars, the labels will indicate how much electricity it takes to drive 100 miles, as well as information on the driving range and recharging time frame.

Also new, a QR code will be on the label to allow smartphone users to scan the label and get even more information with model comparison and vehicle specific energy use.  The smartphone application will allow consumers to calculate specific information tailored to their own driving distances and behaviors to get more precise estimates of their own expected fuel costs and savings.

Consumers can get more information on the new label at: http://fueleconomy.gov/label

http://www.epa.gov/carlabel

The U.S. Department of Energy today announced the release of five case studies from a series spotlighting some of the most innovative projects funded under the Department’s BetterBuildings program. BetterBuildings is a national program that is working to transform the marketplace for energy efficiency upgrades in homes, businesses, and institutions. More than 40 state and local governments and partnering organizations received over $500 million to lay the foundation for a sustainable energy efficiency market in the United States. The case studies released today will help program administrators and their partners develop and optimize energy efficiency programs to help consumers and businesses save money and reduce their energy use by making affordable energy-saving improvements.

The first five BetterBuildings case studies represent a significant first step by the program to share best practices, effective tools, and data about the performance of energy efficiency approaches. These case studies will be used as blueprints for future energy efficiency programs, and will help achieve DOE’s goal of providing energy efficiency upgrades to one million homes by 2013. The release comes as a follow-up to the first What’s Working in Residential Energy Efficiency Upgrade ProgramsConference that took place in Washington, D.C. last week.

Full story

 

Within the environmental community, there is widespread acceptance of the Ehrlich equation that establishes the relationship among four factors: population (P), affluence (A), technology (T), and environmental impact (I).  The relationships are expressed in the famous Ehrlich impact equation: I=PxAxT (published in The Population Bomb by Paul and Anne Ehrlich).  Many consider this equation immutable, and believe there is no way to break its iron grip on humanity.  As any of the three independent variables grows, environmental impact increases.

How do we break the grip of this equation on the future of humankind?  How do we rewrite the equation for a sustainable future?

One huge challenge to the global industrial system is to move the T (call it T1) from the numerator to the denominator (now call it T2).  Renewable, recyclable materials fit the category, as does renewable energy.  As technologies transition from T1 that belong in the numerator to T2 in the denominator, the equation changes to: I=(PxAxT1)/T2

and impacts (I) are reduced.

As T2 displaces T1, the future looks very different.

But, what about the capital “A” for affluence?  It suggests that affluence is an end in itself, satisfying unlimited “wants,” rather than “needs”.  What if we converted “A” to “a”, signifying affluence to be a means to an end, and not the end in itself? Then the equation would read: I = (PxaxT1)/T2 .
And what if societal changes and priorities allowed happiness to increase without more and more affluence?  Then the equation, over time, could evolve to: I=(PxaxT1)/T2

More happiness with less stuff, all made sustainably.
Now we have the impact equation for a sustainable future.
When I talk about this on the speaking circuit, this explanation always gets a big reaction – audiences love the idea of more happiness, less stuff.  So why do we find ourselves in the mess than we’re in, environmentally and socially speaking?  How will we find our way out of it?

Read the complete article at Environmental Leader