|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changing the Chesapeake - An
Overview
- by Jude Horton
 There are few memories that remain the same from
generation to generation. I reminisce about the glorious sun
filled childhood days spent at the Bay - listening to music from
the distant jukebox, the smell of hotdogs grilling nearby, and exploring
the shoreline for tiny shells, colorful rocks and interesting
creatures. Unfortunately, my children and future generations may
not have the same opportunity.
Beginning in 1976, a landmark seven year study was commissioned
to explore the decline of the Chesapeake Bay. As a result of
these findings, the Chesapeake
Bay Program was
created and the Bay became the first estuary ever targeted by
Congress for protection and restoration. Throughout the years
there have been many agreements and amendments concerning the
clean up and protection of the Chesapeake Bay.
In a letter
addressed to the Secretary of Natural Resources, the Honorable L.
Preston Bryant, dated December 29, 2009, EPA Region III Regional
Administrator Shawn Garvin, acknowledges the May 2009 Executive
Order 13508: Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration,
and clearly outlines what is being done to save the Bay. Six
states - Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, Virginia and
West Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia are all
affected by this ruling. The current agreement calls for reductions
in nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads to achieve acceptable
levels, stating that the necessary nutrient and sediment controls
must be installed by 2025, and a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
established by the end of 2010. In order to accomplish these
goals, the Bay Program partners are laying the foundation for
improvements in water quality by preparing comprehensive
Watershed Implementation Plans and two-year milestones.
EPA expectations under TMDL are as follows - the affected states
and the district are to:
- Provide specific
timelines for enhancing programs and implementing controls
to reduce pollution
- Identify gaps in current
programs that must be addressed to meet pollution limits -
by November 2010
- Divide their allocated
pollution loads on a local level (thus making
municipalities, counties, watershed organizations and
conservation districts accountable for meeting their water
quality goals.) - by 2011
- Anticipate any land use
changes and the population growth in coming decades and offset
any increased loads from these sources.
It is all about accountability. From the beginning, the
EPA will clearly state their expectations, establish quantifiable
measures and hold each state and the district accountable for
their progress. This progress will be readily accessible to
the public via the internet. The EPA has also made clear its
willingness to "take any, or all, of a variety of actions or
'consequences'" should the states or district not meet the
EPA's expectations, such as:
- Expanding the NPDES
permit coverage to currently unregulated sources
- Objecting to NPDES
permits and increasing program oversight
- Requiring net
improvement offsets
- Establishing a finer
scale wasteload and load allocations
- Requiring additional
reductions of loadings from point sources
- Increasing and targeting
federal enforcement and compliance assurance in the
watershed
- Conditioning or
redirecting EPA grants
- Federal promulgation of
local nutrient water quality standards
If these steps are taken as outlined, the EPA estimates that we
can attain approximately 60% of the required reductions by the
year 2017.
The EPA has set forth some very aggressive goals. We recognize
that we have some very large hurdles to jump, but we are up to
the challenge. Please contact Alternative Environmental Solutions
if we can assist with any NPDES permitting or stormwater needs
that may arise.
Email
the author of this article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proposed Pennsylvania Stormwater
Regulation Amendments
-by Bridget Shadler
 On August 29, 2009, the Environmental Quality Board
(EQB) proposed amendments to 25 Pa. Code Chapter 102-Erosion and
Sediment Control and Stormwater Management. The primary changes
include: the enhanced requirements related to agriculture, the
additional of definitions and clarifications, Chapter 93
anti-degradation implementation requirements, codification of
post- construction stormwater management (PCSM) requirements,
inclusion of a permit by rule (PBR) option, and requirements for
riparian buffers in exceptional value watersheds and when using
the PBR option. The reasons for the changes are that although the
current regulations control accelerated erosion and prevent
sediment pollution, the new regulations will help to protect the
surface waters of Pennsylvania from sediment and stormwater
pollution. The new regulations will also help to minimize the
accelerated erosion and sedimentation that occur after
construction.
The enhanced requirements related to agriculture address not only
plowing and tilling but will now also include "animal heavy
use areas". These areas will now have to develop and
implement an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that minimizes
accelerated erosion and sedimentation. The new regulations will
also make revisions to existing language and clarify definitions,
plan requirements, Chapter 93 anti- degradation requirements,
permitting, and Site stabilization.
These changes will also incorporate updated Federal requirements,
specifically the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program. The Chapter 102 amendments in 2000 included the
first phase, "Phase I", of these NPDES requirements.
The new regulations will now include the second phase,
"Phase II", of the Federal requirements. The proposed
changes will also include NPDES permit fees and update other
non-NPDES permits that may be required.
Other changes will address the permanent change to the surface of
the land which results from earth disturbance activities during
construction. The PCSM requirements are in response to the need
for enhanced water quality protection as well as long term
stormwater management. These new changes are driven by the
Federal NPDES stormwater construction requirements. The new
regulations will also help to protect exceptional value (EV)
water bodies by requiring all projects that are located along or
within 150-feet of an EV river, stream, et cetera to create
riparian buffers. This will help to prevent pollution both during
and after any type of earth disturbance. It will also provide
natural and long term sustainability for water quality and
aquatic resources.
One of the last changes will address the permit by rule option.
This is a new permitting option for low impact, low risk projects
that will incorporate riparian buffers into their projects. This
will help to balance environmental protection for Pennsylvania's
waters with the predictability in permitting for the applicant.
This article is just an overview of the proposed changes;
however, more information can be found here. For help solving all of your stormwater issues,
please contact Alternative Environmental Solutions. We will be
happy to craft a solution to your challenges.
Email
the author of this article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Storage Tank Update: What
You Need to Know about Recent Amendments to Chapter 245
- by Daryl Valley
 In the spring of 2009, Pennsylvania's Environmental
Quality Board (EQB), the independent board that considers and
adopts the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's
[PADEP's, "the Department's"] regulations and
amendments to existing regulations, prepared several proposed
changes to Pennsylvania's Chapter 245 regulations, related to
storage tanks and related regulatory programs. The proposed
amendments went into effect upon their publication in the
Pennsylvania Bulletin in December 2009. These amendments include
the following changes:
- Amendments
to §245.422(e) regarding upgrades to existing underground
storage tank (UST) systems. This amendment includes a change
clarifying that some form of under dispenser containment is
required when a facility replaces a product dispenser, and
this dispenser replacement meets the definition of a major
modification (as defined in §245.1).
- Amendments
to §245.435(b), which concern the retention of documents
associated with former (removed) tank systems, cathodic
protection records, and documentation associated with
storage tank operator training. Owners/operators of
applicable facilities are now required to retain current
temporary records in several areas for at least one year
after a tank system has been removed from operation or
otherwise closed. This records requirement includes the
retaining of records for the last two cathodic protection
surveys/evaluations and the last three cathodic protection
system inspection checks for each 60-day test period. This
amendment [in §245.435(b) (ix)] also requires the
maintenance of records related to the newly proposed
operator training requirements, including verification of
operator training, a current list of operators and related
information, and written instructions/procedures for Class C
operators.
- A
new section (§245.436) containing requirements for the
training of operators of facilities that contain
regulated/permitted storage tanks. The most significant of
the Chapter 245 modifications concerns UST operator
training, which has been added to comply with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's 2007 guidelines for
operator training and a portion of the federal Energy Policy
Act of 2005. This new requirement defines three classes of
operator (Class A, Class B, and Class C) and describes their
required level of general training. All facilities in
Pennsylvania that contain registered USTs are required to
designate Class A, B, and/or C operators by August 8, 2012.
Class A operators, who have the primary responsibility to
oversee, operate, and maintain a facility's UST system(s),
are able to supervise Class B and C operators. Class C
operators are intended to be the first responders to a
storage tank-related emergency (e.g., alarms or other signs
of a spill, release, or other emergency). The Department's
training requirements are listed in §245.436(c). Companies
or individuals already certified by PADEP as licensed tank
installers and/or inspectors are generally excluded from the
noted training requirements of §245.436(c), unless otherwise
required by the Department.
Many of our clients and colleagues operate storage tank
facilities and may be subject to the described Chapter 245
amendments. If you have questions in regards to compliance with
these regulatory amendments, please call us at (888) 844-2371. We
would be happy to answer your questions on this and other
matters.
Email
the author of this article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Founder of Today's Most
Energy Efficient and Influential Lighting Design
- by Dereck Garner
 In today's economy many companies are educating
themselves on alternative technologies which consume less energy.
With increased costs of energy, deregulation of energy rates at
the present, and the impact of increased energy usage to the
environment, in the sense of carbon emissions, it seems that
companies must reduce energy to stay financially and
environmentally competitive. It has been estimated that
commercial lighting consumes approximately 30% of today's
electricity. Many companies understand that lighting is a
significant energy consumer and one of the easiest ways to cut
energy costs.
When I think of the most influential scientist for the creation
of light bulb, my initial thought is not Thomas Edison, but
Nikola Tesla. (bio) Tesla introduced many genius concepts in the
1800's, including the transmission of wireless energy, using
magnetic wave packets, which was shown to be effective at
transmitting signals over a distance of 30 miles. These ideas and
concepts were coupled with phosphorescent lamps at the time to
produce an electromagnetic induction lamp. By inducing or transmitting
energy through a glass tube rather than conducting energy by the
transmittal of wired electrodes or filaments, Tesla was able to
demonstrate a lamp with tremendous efficiency. Edison's design,
while lighting up the world as we know it today, lacked a key
principal - efficiency, which will ultimately lead to his designs
demise in the 21st century. Tesla realized that fluorescent
transition metals (phosphors) degrade significantly slower during
excitation through wireless energy sources. Traditional lighting
sources, Edison's design, burn or heat up through resistance of
metals within the bulb, which leads the bulb to fail quickly.
Nikola Tesla's electromagnetic design did not garner the success
of Edison's design in the 1800's, but may very well achieve the
fame and success he wished for in this century. Tesla's induction
lamp design has since been improved upon and has been
reintroduced to the lighting market. This old lighting technology
has been made new again and seems to be one of the best kept secrets
of energy efficient lighting. While there are new players in the
energy efficient lighting market such as Light Emitting Diodes
(LEDs), it seems that Tesla's concept will supersede current
lighting sources which conduct energy for illumination. His improved
lighting design is impacting today's economy by reducing energy
greater than 50% and saving those savvy business owners 5 to 10
times in maintenance costs.
Alternative Environmental Solutions (AES) has realized the
significant benefits of Tesla's induction lighting design and the
influence it will have on our current and future economy. We have
introduced the magnetic induction lamp to those looking for a
competitive edge by reducing electricity and lighting
maintenance. The tremendous attributes of the magnetic induction
lamp are spreading quickly. Tesla's magnetic induction lamp is
widely becoming known as one of the most influential lighting
solutions, and AES is proud to be a partner in the distribution
of this revolutionizing old/new and improved technology.
For a free initial consultation about your application, please
call or email
Dereck Garner at (888) 844-2371.
Email
the author of this article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seeking Employment?
- By Brian J. Beahan, P.G., CHMM, President
 We are always interested in speaking with qualified
professionals to join our team. We appreciate your referrals of
business and now are seeking your referrals for qualified
environmental and geologic consulting professionals. If you know
of anyone who is seeking a change and a challenging new direction
in their career, where creativity and solutions-oriented thinking
really make a difference, please pass on our contact information.
Find
out more....
|
|
|
Our customers have approached us with problems, we've
understood what needed to be done and we've provided appropriate
solutions. Our mission statement, indeed our company as a whole, is
centered on meeting this objective. May we put our quality,
client-centered environmental solutions to work for you too?
On behalf of the staff of Alternative Environmental
Solutions, Inc., I invite you to experience the value we add to
your business.
Sincerely,
Brian J. Beahan
Alternative Environmental Solutions
email: aes1@altenv.com
phone: 717-517-5000
fax: 717-517-5004
web: http://www.altenv.com
|
