Do You Comply?

This is all bad.

The problem is, that politicians and bureaucrats look upon themselves as Gods. They think that they can snap their fingers, pass a law or regulation, and everything will just fall into place.

The fact of the matter is, that these regulations cripple companies and actually hurt the environment in many cases. Laws and regulations are passed faster than the chemists can come up with formulas that comply. Manufacturers aren't sitting on "green" formulations and simply waiting for the laws to be put in place..........they take years of R&D.

How do they hurt the environment?

When laws are passed to force manufacturers into compliance, the result, many times, is a product that may be "green", but it is substandard to the original. So now we've got an environmentally safer product, but instead of lasting 10-15 years, it lasts 3-5 years. So now we're refinishing every 3-5 years..........this involves mining, producing, transporting, packaging, and everything else that goes into bringing a product from raw material to application to the substrate. Is this saving the planet?

Of course, I suppose in the end, the very same bureaucrats that create these convoluted laws and consider themselves stewards of the planet, will be clapping themselves on the back and saying, " Well look what we've done, not only are we saving the planet, but look at the jobs we've created."

All they've really managed to do, is make the entire cost of doing business more complicated, and much more expensive. Unfortunately, whether it's a loaf of bread or a gallon of paint, it's always the end user that pays the price.

If you want proof, just go shopping for anything that has regulations attached to it. The list gets longer by the day.

My sentiments exactly.

When I was in NC, I worked for a coating/laminating company. We used predominantly solvent-based adhesives and coatings. Anything having ethyl acetate, MEK or alcohol, we vented right to the atmosphere from the ovens. As long as they were not on the HAPs list, we could do that.

I'm now in Ohio and, to be in compliance with the EPA, we incinerate all VOCs with our RTO which has >=95% combustion efficiency.

I think that this is a great step, and we should be cool for a good number of years, right? Wrong! They are already pushing for >=98%. Why? They must have some reason for their existence. Oh, and of course, because they can.

I think both of you are being misled by the anti-regulations liberals. There are reasons why environmental issues are regulated. Your statement "Anything having ethyl acetate, MEK or alcohol, we vented right to the atmosphere from the ovens" shows a prime example of why regulations are necessary. The VOC's emitted by the plant in NC contribute to ground level ozone and other issues.

Being a regulator, I understand the science and reasoning behind the regulations (I work in air quality). Here is Indiana's 25th Anniversary State of the Environment. It will inform you on what regulations have done to protect the environment and the health of the public. Because of regulations, Indiana is now meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Without regulations, we would have the black cloud and smog laden cities that we had prior to the Clean Air Act. You can use Google image search to find many.

One step that most people don't know about in the rule making process is the cost justification. For example, Ozone regulations are designed to protect the public from increased food costs (ozone is damaging to plants), and increased health care costs (ozone causes asthma attacks and other issues).

This is a scientific forum. Please take a few minutes to get a basic knowledge of the subject before speaking. Here is a great starter: EPA Rulemaking Process

To get back on topic, I have helped companies with their "green" initiatives. When companies can reduce their permits and resources used per gidget, it is great for the environment and for the share holder's pocket book. Some initiatives are trial and error in order to find out if it works for the culture in that business. Without management and employee support, the initiatives will always fail to achieve their potential. You can look at examples here.

I personally am willing as a customer to spend a little more for an environmentally friendly product (I do my research before purchasing as some claim to be enviro but really are not). For examply, Aveno "Natual" body wash contains Styrene which is a VOC and a HAP.

I am personally willing to spend zero extra for something some fool calls 'green'.

You seem to believe you are the only ones (regulators) who understand? Come on, that is a bit arrogant!

One of the problems with the EPA (and state agencies) today - kissing liberal, green political backside. Same for the military trying to go green on fuel - expensive and will amount to zero in the end with present technology.

Huh, government sites telling us what a great job they are doing. No surprise there.

This is a scientific forum. Please take a few minutes to get a basic knowledge of the subject before speaking. Here is a great starter: EPA Rulemaking Process

We should go to a government site to learn about science?

Here are some other interesting links.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/26/epa-abuses-the-permit-process-for-an-icebreaker/

http://www.pacificlegal.org/page.aspx?pid=1567

It appears that the EPA may also be on the take.

http://earthjustice.org/news/press/2007/court-shuts-down-epa-attempt-to-exempt-plywood-plants-from-toxic-air-pollution-limits

http://baconsrebellion.com/2011/04/14/epa-rules-will-hurt-virginia/

There are plenty of links out there.

I know, I know................everything the government and it's agencies do is good for us. We just need to comply.

Sorry, too much evidence to the contrary............................unless of course, you get all of your information from taxpayer funded, state run sites.

Of course we need regulations. Having them arbitrarily decided, and imposed, by agencies that have no congressional oversite, or any oversite for that matter, is a classic case of government overstepping it's bounds.

My rant was mostly directed at those that don't do some non-Fox News research to find the truth behind the story. Also, reporters constantly get environmental issues wrong because of the technical aspects of it.

Here is my breakdown of your links.

Link 1) I agree with EPA. Do you realize how much oil an icebreaker uses? Do you realize that there are no pollution controls on that icebreaker? Not that I know the exact numbers or even an estimate, but it is a diesel fired engine without an emission controls. HAHA, this was started by Fox news! Go figure! The issue was that the icebreaker did not go through PSD and BACT as required by the CAA. The icebreaker is a support ship for the oil rig. From what I see, EPA didn't shut them down. It is just adjusting the permit to meet the requirements. These things happen with these large permits. Sometimes the source misses a unit or underestimates the unit's significance, and the permit writer doesn't question it because of the political pressure to issue the permit (oil industry always involves the politicians). That is what the appeals process is for.

Link 2) Have you seen how the coal industry is working in the Appalachian Mountains? They take mining "scrap" and fill in the valleys with it which makes it a waste land with runoff problems.

Link 3) Environmental regulations are based off of risk analysis. I have not been trained in risk analysis as I am not a rule writer. What I do know is our water is still at impaired levels even though most of the large mercury sources have been regulated out of being large emitters. The last large emitters left are the coal fired power plants.

Link 4) I am not going to go into the ghg discussion.

I do question the basis for our rules when they seem extreme. Once I get into the science and math of the basis for the rule, I tend to agree with the basis for the rule. Once into the rule itself, that is when all the political stuff gets pulled in and the rule watered down to meet someone's agenda.

My last note, the skeptics give us government employees to much credit! We get paid less than our counter parts and have to deal with the uninformed general public. We don't have the energy or the time to be involved in some big conspiracy. Well, there go both of my breaks for the two posts! So much for getting away from my desk today. I will check in tomorrow for a laugh to see what other funny Fox News stories you can provide.

Right - and now because of high gas prices and upcoming elections it sounds like drilling everywhere gets almost priority treatment. Won't do a thing for gas prices but may help in the election.

Getting news from either extreme is useless - The green side is every bit as bad a Fox.

Getting news from a talk radio show is admitting one is brain dead.

I didn't realize that the link was from fox. Are you saying that the article is false?

Are you saying that denying access to an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil due to the exhaust emissions from some ships is good policy?

Here's a link from the left:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/04/shell-no-beaufort-sea-dri_n_818319.html

I guess we'll just have to disagree.

Clean air and water is important to everyone....................it's not going to mean much if we reach a point where that's all that we have.

I can agree to disagree to an extent. I am not a greeny nor am I a Tea Partiest. I believe in doing what we can as technology improves. There is way to much detail to go into on here. Most of the Technical Support documents that go with air permits are hundreds of pages long to explain these things. Give it a few more months, then look up the Shell case on the EPA website. I am sure they will be issuing them a permit from the appeal. At least that is how we deal with appeals in Indiana. The permit title that we use is "Appeal Resolution". I read the Appeals on the review board website. I would have said slap a catalytic converter on the icebreaker and call it BACT (Best Available Control Technology). I can't believe the company gave up over this little hickup and after spending millions of dollars. Although, they have been making billions of dollars in profit the past few years. I guess millions is nothing when you have billions in profit.

"Clean air and water is important to everyone....................it's not going to mean much if we reach a point where that's all that we have." I totally agree with this statement! Although, I don't think we will ever get to that point because science and risk analysis and our rule making process won't allow it.

I know there is a lot of technical detail. I guess my problem is in the fact that the EPA, all by themselves, have the power to make these decisions. I don't think that any one agency should have that kind of power.

The greenies are finding their way into these agencies, and are driven by a naive and dangerous way of thinking, in which the way to ween ourselves from fossil fuel, is to simply stop production. The answers will come................they cannot be forced or mandated.

As far as profits go, lets take a look at the profits that the government rakes in. This is straight cash..................it involves no risk or investment on the part of the government, and does not include the taxes that the oil companies also pay.

This is per gallon:

http://www.commonsensejunction.com/notes/gas-tax-rate.html

Some more interesting numbers.

http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2011/04/27/gas-prices-and-industry-earnings-a-few-things-to-think-about/

Just an FYI. That gas tax rate is wrong for Indiana. We pay $0.17 and 5%. So at 3.999 (current price per gallon) we pay $0.353. Who knows (and I doubt) if it all goes to roadways like it is supposed to. Then again, Indiana has been building new interstates without federal funding (I-69 project between Columbus and Evansville) and not maintaining the interstates that we have.

I can't talk about other agencies (federal or state), but IDEM (Indiana Dept of Environmental Management) uses all of the fees and fines to give grants, revolving fund loans, and for site remediation. We don't have enough funds so grants were cut for the past couple of years. Also, we don't have enough funds to loan to all of these CSO (combined sewer overflow) communities to separate out the storm water and protect our water ways.

IMHO, those greenies just have a stricter risk scale than I or you do. Some of them think if it has a 1 in 1,000,000 risk of harm, then it should be regulated out of existance (those are the extremists). I think if it has a 1 in 1,000 risk of harm or a worse risk of harm, then it should be regulated to reduce that risk to a reasonable level (1 in 1,000,000 is reasonable to me).

I think we're, (just about), on the same page. My original rant was centered on the coatings industry, and not necessarily intended to be completely across the board. In my experience, the government will typically start off with something that may be a good idea. The problem is, they can't leave it alone, they have to keep tweaking it until it becomes a nightmare for industry and manufacturing...............i.e. They keep moving the goal posts.

I also get very frustrated with the hypocrisy that exists within the US government. I pointed out the fact that that the EPA had shut down Shell because of the emissions from the ships.

Check this out...............this morning I'm reading an article in Popular Science, touting the use of the Heli-torch for back burning. This is essentially the use of napalm for brush burning.............it is used extensively by the US Forest Service and the BLM. Guess where it is primarily used?.............................Ready for this.....................Alaska!!!!!

Here is the Heli-Torch at work: Can you blame me for getting a little angry sometimes?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1kpobfCgAk

Do you suppose that napalm could effect wildlife? Get into streams and groundwater?

Where is the EPA?

I'm not saying that I'm against back burning, but, while this is completely sanctioned activity, the EPA and other agencies are off shutting down some industry because some snail or slug might be harmed.

I hadn't read about that one before, but it doesn't surprise me. Alaska is its own creature. How else would Sarah Palin ever be able to be elected as Governor?! <rhetorical>

We all get to voice our opinions during the public comment period of larger projects and most rules. Most people don't exercise it. Others do and look like idiots because they are stating "odor" issues which are controlled at the local level or have no understanding of environmental rules and science. Few that do actually cause change in the rule or permit based on facts, rules, court cases, and science (links to peer reviewed studies required). Or even sometimes, politician interference. With enough public outcry, politicians can be swayed.

I am just as guilty at the agitation leading to posts on both sides of the fence. Some saying we aren't doing enough that complain all of the time. Well, don't buy or build a house next to a -insert industrial activity here-. Others saying we are doing way to much and throwing our work back in our faces even though the fine is what is required by conservative Indiana law. Both are very frustrating.

There is no winning..........particularly in a job like yours. That's why common sense is so critical...........................and seems to be lacking in a lot of areas of government.

So I take it I can't put you down for 100,000 carbon credits.

No, thank you.

_{Don't even get me started on that scam!!!!}

Again, I agree! Carbon credits are worthless without Cap-and-Trade. And, I agree that let's not get started on ghg's.

Supporting note: the NOX cap-and-trade program called CAIR (Clean Air Interstate Rule) has been very effective at reducing Indiana's NOX emissions. All of Indiana is currently meeting the NAAQS. I am not saying the program is perfect or even ideal. It is time consuming and challenging to verify that the reduction in emissions has actually occurred and will occur for the next five years.

http://www.lafayette-online.com/business/2009/04/cap-trade-bill-analysis