EPA issues Final Rule for regulating formaldehyde emissions

Six years after the passage of the Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products Act of 2010 (42 U.S.C. 2697), the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued its final rule implementing the Act (Final Rule). The Final Rule—based on the formaldehyde regulation released by the California Air Resources Board (with which EPA collaborated in formulating the Final Rule)—seeks to reduce exposure to formaldehyde vapors by establishing emission standards and labeling requirements for certain wood products.

Final rule seeks to reduce exposure to formaldehyde vapors by establishing emission standards and labeling requirements for certain wood products.

Formaldehyde is a chemical that is commonly used in wood glue for furniture and flooring. Some studies have linked formaldehyde to nasopharyngeal cancer, eye irritation, and respiratory problems, while other studies have raised questions about the chemical’s potential role in causing asthma and allergic conditions, particularly among children.

In 2008, in response to these health concerns, California became the first US jurisdiction to issue emission limits on formaldehyde in building materials and furniture used in homes. Two years later, the US Congress enacted the Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products Act, which added Title VI to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This Act directed EPA to issue regulations implementing the Act.

The Final Rule sets formaldehyde emission standards applicable to hardwood plywood, medium-density fiberboard and particleboard, and finished goods containing these products that are sold, supplied, offered for sale, imported into, or manufactured in the United States. To show that they are in compliance with the emission standards, within one year, these products will need to be labeled as TSCA Title VI compliant. Furthermore, the Final Rule establishes an EPA TSCA Title VI Third-Party Certification Program to ensure that composite wood panel producers comply with the emission limits. Under this program, Third-Party Certifiers (TPCs) will regularly inspect composite wood panel producers and conduct emissions tests. TPCs who wish to participate in the program must apply to EPA for approval and receive program recognition before certifying products.

Products that contain de minimis amounts of composite wood products (defined as products containing 144 square inches or less of regulated composite wood products) are exempt from the labeling requirements.

Some small businesses have argued that the rule’s testing, labeling, and record-keeping requirements will disproportionally impact smaller firms that aren’t equipped to handle additional costs.

Making water quality data more transparent: Lessons from an annual water quality report

 

A few weeks ago, I received my water bill in the mail, right on schedule. But this time, it came with a glossy pamphlet containing the annual water quality report. Normally I just toss it into the trash unread. It’s full of small print and lots of numbers, and I was never that concerned about our water quality.

I live in the NC mountains, where the water comes from “pristine mountain springs and streams”. And having grown up in New Orleans— spending 21 years drinking water from the polluted tail end of the Mississippi River— I figured any damage was already done. (But that New Orleans water sure was tasty!)

This time, though, I actually read the entire report. I’d heard about recent water issues in Flint, MI, and other cities, and I do have children who drink the water here. So I looked at this City of Asheville water quality report in detail, and here’s what I discovered.

The report contains a lot of rather informative text about how the City of Asheville treats its water and what possible risks could be present from various contaminants. The centerpiece of the report is a table that lists detected substances in the water. In 2015, 13 substances were detected out of 150 substances sampled for, and those 13 were “well within safe levels”. That sounded good.  But then I started looking at the report and wondering about certain things…

Let’s start with lead. The report has this:

City of Asheville water quality report- lead measurements

City of Asheville’s 2015 Water Quality Report: Lead, ppb

The “Highest Level Allowed” (the maximum contaminant level, or MCL) is 15 parts per billion (ppb). I did some searching and found a good article explaining lead sampling in water. If over 10% of tests come back over that level of 15 ppb, then the water utility must warn residents.

Asheville seems to have passed this test (only one sample exceeded the action level). However, the article mentioned above also describes how the tests for Flint, MI had possible problems because the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality threw out two samples.  With those samples included, the number of samples over the limit would have exceeded 10%, and water customers would have received a much earlier warning of possible lead issues.

So, back to Asheville. Were any samples thrown out— and if so, why? That information is not in the report.

Let’s take one more example: hexavalent chromium. Here is the City of Asheville report:

City of Asheville water quality report- hexavalent chromium measurements

City of Asheville’s 2015 Water Quality Report: Hexavalent Chromium, ppb

So, the average hexavalent chromium level in the water is 0.05 ppb. But there is no action level given, and the EPA definition text says nothing about any possible side effects. Through more searching, I learned that although hexavalent chromium is a carcinogen, the US EPA does not have a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for this compound.

California has a public health goal of 0.02 ppb, but North Carolina has a public health goal of 0.07 ppb. So, how would I interpret the Asheville value of 0.05 that falls in the middle of those two numbers? At least the report provides the detected range (ND – 0.08), so the maximum level in any sample was only a bit higher than the 0.07 level.

These two examples are not meant to disparage Asheville’s Annual Water Quality Report— it is a great way to deliver some basic information to water users. But for motivated water users, the report will lead to other questions— to answer these questions would require more context or a deeper dive into the actual data. Also, while I’m personally fairly tech-savvy and scientifically literate, many water users may lack the numerical and verbal literacy skills needed to understand the report.

For some closing thoughts:

  • How can water utilities make their sample data more transparent and available to users who want to take the “deeper dive”? How can users learn about sampling processes and decisions made— for example, “were any lead samples rejected, and why?”
  • How do users evaluate risks from compounds without EPA maximum contaminant levels, especially when states and regulators have conflicting levels?
  • How do water utilities present trend information and changes in water quality procedures over time? The 2015 report only shows data from that year. I dug up some older reports and found that hexavalent chromium was not detected at all in 2014. So what caused the detects in 2015? Also, lead was sampled at 100 sites in 2014, but only 50 sites in 2015.  Why was the number of samples cut in half?
  • How do you balance presenting too much information to the public (causing information overload) with presenting too little (causing users to be uninformed about quality issues)? Is there a way to show key information, but let users drill down into actual sampling data results for further details?
  • As a follow up to that last question— if you allow public access to sampling data, how do you ensure customers can interpret that data correctly, if those customers lack knowledge of sampling processes and any statistical techniques used?
  • Can the power of the internet be harnessed to distribute this data and make it understandable to customers? Are there tools that customers can use to explore the data on their own and see key findings and trends? I could not find anything online for Asheville.
  • Finally, given that a certain level of technical understanding is needed to read the Annual Report and explore any actual data— do we need a neutral party to serve as interpreter and interlocutor for the public when dealing with water utilities? Who would play that role?

Other Locus contributors will explore some of these issues in future posts.  In the meantime, please share your own thoughts and ideas in the comments section below.

 

Locus employee Todd Pierce

About guest blogger— Dr. Todd Pierce, Locus Technologies

Dr. Pierce manages a team of programmers tasked with development and implementation of Locus’ EIM application, which lets users manage their environmental data in the cloud using Software-as-a-Service technology. Dr. Pierce is also directly responsible for research and development of Locus’ GIS (geographic information systems) and visualization tools for mapping analytical and subsurface data.

EPA plans to regulate carbon emissions from aircraft

The US Environmental Protection Agency on Monday announced plans to limit carbon emissions from aircraft.

The EPA issued a final scientific assessment that concluded that carbon emissions from aircraft endanger public health and welfare, a legal prerequisite the agency must take before regulating those emissions.

EPA officials said last year when first proposing the aircraft scientific assessment that any regulation would be implemented in coordination with the International Civil Aviation Organization, a branch of the United Nations, which is drafting a global standard for airline carbon emissions.

Emissions from aircraft represent about 2% of total global carbon emissions, and the U.S. is the largest contributor to global aviation greenhouse gasses, according to federal data. The EPA said aircraft are the third-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. transportation sector, accounting for about 3% of such emissions in the country.

EPA has already set effective GHG standards for cars and trucks. EPA anticipates moving forward on standards that would be at least as stringent as ICAO’s standards.

Military and small piston-engine planes often used for recreational purposes would be exempt from the new regulation. Excluding these two categories, the EPA’s scientific finding applies to 89% of all U.S. aircraft carbon emissions.

Airlines for America, the trade association representing U.S. airlines and air cargo carriers, said it commends the EPA’s action because it is working within the coming international framework.

In 2009 the International Air Transport Association, a global trade group, agreed to achieve carbon-neutral growth by 2020, meaning any future growth in air travel wouldn’t produce a net increase in carbon emissions.

Then, from 2020 through 2050, the industry aims to reduce its 2005 emission levels by half, largely through the use of sustainable fuels. The effort to use sustainable fuels has already started, and manufacturers and airlines support of alternative fuels is high.

Carbon management.

EPA to regulate aircraft emissions.

To that end, the US biofuels leader, Amyris, Inc. and oil company Total have partnered to develop an alternative aviation jet fuel made with a sustainably-sourced hydrocarbon using Amyris’s proprietary synthetic biology platform. In 2014, Amyris received industry acceptance and regulatory approval for renewable jet fuel in key U.S., European and Brazilian markets. The New York Times writes that Amyris renewable jet fuel “holds the elusive promise of better energy security, reduced carbon emissions, and lower fuel costs. Amyris’ jet fuel can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 80 percent compared with petroleum fuels, when compared unmixed to petroleum fuels on a one-to-one basis, according to Amyris. Renewable fuels like Amyris farnesane ‘would help reduce the carbon footprint of commercial aviation,’ the Federal Aviation Administration said.”

Amyris announced that, on May 29, 2016, Cathay Pacific commenced a two-year program of flights from Toulouse to Hong Kong using Amyris renewable jet fuel.  The initial 12-hour flight was the longest flight using a renewable jet fuel to date, further underpinning the ‘drop-in’ characteristics of Amyris Biojet fuels. Cathay took delivery of a new Airbus A350-900 that flew from the Airbus facility in Toulouse, France, to Hong Kong using a 10% biofuel jet blend provided by Amyris with the commercial and industrial support of Total S.A. The combination of the new airplane’s improvements in fuel efficiency (about 25% better than current aircraft) and the fuel’s properties resulted in an estimated 30% reduction in CO2 emissions according to Cathay when compared to comparable flights in recent-generation aircraft using fossil fuels.

Why SaaS multitenancy is key to successful and sustainable EHS management

A recently published survey by a research analyst firm indicates that 90 percent of EHS software applications installed today are single-tenant on customer premises or single-tenant, vendor hosted.  Only 10 percent are multitenant, vendor-hosted. In other words, most of the vendors in the EH&S space do not run a single version of their software maintained at one location. Instead, they run multiple copies at a single or multiple locations, with the high likelihood that these multiple copies are not alike, but instead represent multiple versions or contain specific customizations for individual customers. This model is crushing their growth and scalability potential.

Locus delivers EHS+S SaaS solutions as highly scalable, Software as a Service (SaaS) application and platform services on a multitenant technology architecture. Multitenancy is an architectural approach that allows Locus to operate a single application instance for multiple organizations, treating all customers as separate tenants who run in virtual isolation from each other. Customers can use and customize an application as though they each have a separate instance, yet their data and customizations remain secure and insulated from the activities of all other tenants. Locus multitenant services run on a single stack of hardware and software, which is comprised of commercially available hardware and a  combination of proprietary and commercially available software. As a result, Locus can spread the cost of delivering EHS SaaS services across user base, which lowers the cost for each customer. Also, because Locus does not have to manage thousands of distinct applications with their business logic and database schemas, we believe that we can scale our business faster than traditional software vendors. Moreover, we can focus our resources on building new functionality to deliver to customer base as a whole rather than on maintaining an infrastructure to support each of their distinct applications.

Multitenancy also allows for faster bug and security fixes, automatic software updates and the ability to deploy major releases and frequent, incremental improvements to Locus’ services, benefiting the entire user community. Our services are optimized to run on specific databases and operating systems using the tools and platforms best suited to serve customers rather than on-premise software that must be written to the different hardware, operating systems and database platforms existing within a customer’s unique systems environment. Locus developers build and support solutions and features on a single code base on our chosen technology platform. Locus efforts are focused on improving and enhancing the features, functionality, performance, availability and security of existing service offerings as well as developing new features, functionality, and services.

Locus customers and third-party developers can create apps rapidly because of the ease of use of Locus Platform and the benefits of a multitenant platform. Locus provides the capability for business users to configure applications easily to suit their specific needs.

Also, Locus multitenant cloud platform makes it possible to use a remarkably small number of servers as efficiently as possible. When organizations move business applications to Locus, they can significantly reduce their energy use and carbon footprints compared to traditional on-premises or single-tenant or ASP solutions

Locus built and maintains a multitenant application architecture that has been designed to enable service to scale securely, reliably and cost effectively. Locus’ multitenant application architecture maintains the integrity and separation of customer data while still permitting all customers to use the same application functionality simultaneously.

Both Locus and its data centers providers hold independent  AICPA SOC1 (SSAE16)  and SOC2 certification.