-- Scotts Contracting - StLouis Renewable Energy

Search This Blog

3.27.2011

Plain English Guide-Clean Air Act

Reducing Toxic Air Pollutants

Toxic air pollutants, or air toxics, are known to cause or are suspected of causing cancer, birth defects, reproduction problems, and other serious illnesses. Exposure to certain levels of some toxic air pollutants can cause difficulty in breathing, nausea or other illnesses. Exposure to certain toxic pollutants can even cause death.

Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxics (PBTs)

PBTs such as mercury and DDT last for a long time in the environment with little change in their structure or toxic effects. This means that a persistent toxic chemical transported in the wind can be just as toxic 10,000 miles away as it was at the smokestack from which it was released. Some PBTs, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), have been found in remote parts of the Arctic, far away from the industrial sources that produce them.

Some of the PBTs that move through the air are deposited into water bodies and are concentrate up through the food chain, harming fish-eating animals and people. Small fish may consume plants that live in water contaminated by PBTs, which are absorbed into plant tissues. Big fish eat smaller fish and as the PBTs pass up the food chain, their levels go up. So a large fish consumed by people may have a much higher concentration of PBTs in its tissues than the simple plant first absorbing the PBTs. PBTs can concentrate in big fish to levels thousands of times the levels found in the contaminated water.

Over 2000 U.S. water bodies are covered by fish consumption advisories, warning people not to eat the fish because of contamination with chemicals, usually PBTs. Those compounds have been linked to illnesses such as cancer, birth defects, and nervous system disorders.

The 1990 Clean Air Act gave EPA the authority to reduce PBT levels by requiring pollution sources to install control devices or change production methods.

Some toxic air pollutants are of concern because they degrade slowly or not at all, as in the case of metals such as mercury or lead. These persistent air toxics can remain in the environment for a long time and can be transported great distances. Toxic air pollutants, like mercury or polychlorinated biphenyls, deposited onto soil or into lakes and streams persist and bioaccumulate in the environment. They can affect living systems and food chains, and eventually affect people when they eat contaminated food. This can be particularly important for American Indians or other communities where cultural practices or subsistence life styles are prevalent.

The majority of air toxics come from manmade sources, such as factory smokestack emissions and motor vehicle exhaust.

Gasoline also contains air toxics. When you put fuel in your car, gases escape and form a vapor. You can smell these vapors when you refuel your vehicle.

When cars and trucks burn gasoline, toxic air pollutants are emitted from the tailpipe. Those air toxics are combustion products-chemicals that are produced when gasoline is burned. EPA is working with industries to develop cleaner-burning fuels and more efficient engines, and is taking steps to make sure that pollution control devices installed in motor vehicles work properly. EPA has issued requirements that are leading to cleaner-burning diesel engines, reducing releases of particle pollution and air toxics.

Air toxics are also released from industrial sources, such as chemical factories, refineries, and incinerators, and even from small industrial and commercial sources, such as dry cleaners and printing shops. Under the 1990 Clean Air Act, EPA has regulated both large and small sources of air toxics, but has mainly focused efforts on larger sources.

Before the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, EPA regulated air toxics one chemical at a time. This approach did not work well. Between 1970 and 1990, EPA established regulations for only seven pollutants. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments took a completely different approach to reducing toxic air pollutants. The Amendments required EPA to identify categories of industrial sources for 187 listed toxic air pollutants and to take steps to reduce pollution by requiring sources to install controls or change production processes. It makes good sense to regulate by categories of industries rather than one pollutant at a time, since many individual sources release more than one toxic chemical. Developing controls and process changes for industrial source categories can result in major reductions in releases of multiple pollutants at one time.

EPA has published regulations covering a wide range of industrial categories, including chemical plants, incinerators, dry cleaners, and manufacturers of wood furniture. Harmful air toxics from large industrial sources, such as chemical plants, petroleum refineries, and paper mills, have been reduced by nearly 70 percent. These regulations mostly apply to large, so-called "major" sources and also to some smaller sources known as "area" sources. In most cases, EPA does not prescribe a specific control technology, but sets a performance level based on a technology or other practices already used by the better-controlled and lower emitting sources in an industry. EPA works to develop regulations that give companies as much flexibility as possible in deciding how they reduce their toxic air emissions-as long as the companies meet the levels required in the regulations.

The 1990 Clean Air Act requires EPA to first set regulations using a technology-based or performance-based approach to reduce toxic emissions from industrial sources. After EPA sets the technology-based regulations, the Act requires EPA to evaluate any remaining ("residual") risks, and decide whether it is necessary to control the source further. That assessment of remaining risk was initiated in the year 2000 for some of the industries covered by the technology-based standards.

Chemical Emergencies

The 1984 chemical disaster that resulted in thousands of deaths in Bhopal, India, inspired sections of the 1990 Clean Air Act that require factories and other businesses to develop plans to prevent accidental releases of highly toxic chemicals.

The 1990 Act also established the Chemical Safety Board, an independent agency that investigates and reports on accidental releases of toxic chemicals from industrial facilities. The Board operates much like the National Transportation Safety Board, the agency that investigates airplane and train crashes. The Chemical Safety Board assembles the information necessary to determine how and why an accident involving toxic chemicals happened. The goal is to apply understanding of accidents to prevent other accidents involving toxic chemicals.

Air Toxics and Risk

The Clean Air Act requires a number of studies to help EPA better characterize risks to human health and the environment from air toxics. Those studies provide information for rulemaking and support national and local efforts to address risks through pollution prevention and other voluntary programs. Among these risk reduction initiatives are:

  • The Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy includes local and community-based initiatives to reduce local toxic air emissions. The primary goal of the strategy is to reduce public health risks from both indoor and outdoor sources of toxic air pollutants. More information can be found at www.epa.gov/ttn/atw.
  • The Great Waters Program incorporates activities to investigate and reduce the deposition of toxic air pollutants to the "Great Waters," which include the Chesapeake Bay, Lake Champlain, the Great Lakes, National Estuary Program areas, and National Estuarine Research Reserves. To learn more, visit www.epa.gov/glnpo.
  • Initiatives targeting emission reductions of persistent bioaccumulative toxics (PBTs) like mercury, DDT (a pesticide banned in the United States), and dioxins.

 



--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com


Why are Obama and Salazar pushing a massive expansion of coal production?

Why are Obama and Salazar pushing a massive expansion of coal production?
March 26, 2011

Powder River Basin Distribution Legend Low Res

This weekend’s question may have no good answer.

On Tuesday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced plans to auction off 758 million tons of coal in Wyoming over the next few months. Then on Friday, the Bureau of Land Management explained they will be selling off another 1.6 billion tons of coal at a future date.

Salazar claims coal could play a role in the “clean energy future,” but that isn’t true, of course — except in an alternative universe where CO2 has a high and rising price and carbon capture and storage pans out — neither of which seems likely even if Obama weren’t now indifferent to serious climate action (see Harvard: “Realistic” first-generation CCS costs a whopping $150 per ton of CO2 — 20 cents per kWh! and Studyfind leaks from CO2 stored deep underground could contaminate drinking water).

The coal represents a staggering amount of future CO2 emissions, as Wild Earth Guardians, Sierra Club, and Defenders of Wildlife explain:

When burned, the coal threatens to release more than 3.9 billion tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide, equal to the annual emissions from 300 coal-fired power plants, further cementing the United States as a leading contributor to climate disruption … Salazar’s announcement is a stark contrast to his call for clean energy. Interior, for example, touted that in 2010, 4,000 megawatts of renewable energy development were authorized. And in today’s press conference, Secretary Salazar announced Interior’s intent to authorize more than 12,000 megawatts of renewable energy by the end of next year … Yet in opening the door for 2.35 billion tons of coal mining, Salazar’s announcement effectively enables more than 300,000 megawatts of coal-fired energy — 30 times more dirty energy development than renewable energy.

Carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere from coal combustion lasts a long, long, long time (see Fossil CO2 impacts will outlast Stonehenge and nuclear waste). And that’s a major reason unrestricted burning of coal is just bad for humans (see Life-cycle study: Accounting for total harm from coal would add “close to 17.8¢/kWh of electricity generated” and A stunning year in climate science reveals that human civilization is on the precipice).

So this decision just makes no sense, though Grist offers one explanation for cynics: Obama administration can’t wait to sell China all the coal it can burn.

This decision certainly eviscerates Salazar’s green street cred that he had developed by aggressively pushing renewable energy on public lands. It fits into an emerging pattern with offshore drilling and the continued embrace of uber-expensive nuclear power and the abandonment of any effort to pass serious climate legislation that suggests perhaps Obama really doesn’t get it at all. If so, it’s time for people like science advisor John Holdren to contemplate resigning and moving on to a job where he can do more good — like leading a national effort of scientists to inform the public about the extreme dangers of burning all that coal.

What do you think? Why are Obama and Salazar pushing a massive expansion of coal production?      Burning The Future - Coal In America  Factors Affecting Mercury Emissions From Coal Fired Combustors       Methane emissions from gassy coals in storage silos

Snow on Roof-Opportunity to Check Insulation Level

This last snow we received yesterday is the perfect opportunity to see if your attic is properly insulated.
Take a look at the Roof of your Home. -Lack of Snow on your Roof is a sure indication that it was melted by the Heat as it rises from the Interior of your House into the Attic Area.
    • Does the Snow cover the whole roof?
    • Are there places where the snow melts first? (not caused by the Suns Rays)
    • Is there Snow on the Garage Roof but not on the House Roof?
    • Does your Neighbors House have Snow on their Roof- but-Your Roof Doesn't?
Any or All the above may mean that:
    1. Lack of Insulation In the Attic
    2. Air Infiltration from the Interior of the House into the Attic Area
    3. Uninsulated Heating Ducts inside the Attic
Scotts Contracting can Inspect your Attic for Proper:
  1. Insulation Levels
  2. Adequate Ventilation
  3. Uninsulated Heating Ducts
  4. Air Infiltration
  5. and other areas that are causing your Home to Lose Energy
Email scottscontracting@gmail.com and Scotty will provide a Free Estimate to Fix any of the Above Issues on your Home. I will also provide a Cost Saving Analysis that will provide a ROI on your Investment.
Weatherization ! - Rule of Thumb: For Every $1 Spent on Weatherization- You will save $2 or More on your Homes Energy Bills

Additional Green Blog Posts:Energy Star Home Improvement Tips ,Insulation and Thermal Performance ,Which Kind Of Insulation Is Best? ,Radiant Barriers for your Attic,Insulating Roofs, Walls, and Floors, Roof and Attic Ventilation

Email scottscontracting@gmail.com and Scotty will provide a Free Green Estimate to Fix any of the Above Issues on your Home.


--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

3.26.2011

Tea Party Valiantly Protects Bank of America From ...

Tea Party Valiantly Protects Bank of America From "Big Government" OK, so maybe Bank of America regularly screws over the citizens of St. Louis and the rest of the United States. You can see examples of that here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. But they've got the word "America" in their title, so they must be extremely patriotic, right? Tragically, from what I'm reading on tea party blogs, it must be extremely difficult for Bank of America to survive in this era of Big Government oppression. For example, after BOA and their other corporate buddies crashed the American economy in 2008, BOA only received a $45 billion dollar bailout. And, on top of that, they've had to pay zero dollars in federal taxes while their executives eeked by with only $6 to $30 million dollar salaries! With oppressive big government action like that, it's totally understandable that the St. Louis tea party is now working hard to protect the nearly defenseless (aside from billions of dollars) bank from protesters who remind the public of BOA's actions and challenge them on their unjust foreclosure practices. Thank goodness the tea party is out there protecting the most vulnerable citizens of all: multibillion dollar companies who regularly distort the free market by infusing the political system with blood money. St. Louis Activist Hub: Tea Party Valiantly Protects Bank of America From ...: "OK, so maybe Bank of America regularly screws over the citizens of St. Louis and the rest of the United States. You can see examples of tha..."

Connect with Scotts Contracting

FB FB Twitter LinkedIn Blog Blog Blog Blog Pinterest