Spill Containment Blog

Spill Containment Blog

Spill Containment and Spill Cleanup Solutions

Alpha Natural Resources Agrees To $27.5 Million Fine For Violations

by

Large oil spill.

Alpha Natural Resources, one of the country’s largest producers of thermal coal, agreed to a $27.5 million fine along with an additional $200 million used to clean up their coal plants and mines throughout the Appalachian region. The company is accused of polluting streams, rivers, tributaries and waterways with coal ash and other byproducts on numerous occasions.

The settlement includes the largest fine ever imposed for water pollution violations. Water pollution is a serious problem, and the recent incident involving the chemical spill in West Virginia’s Elk River has reinforced the importance of holding companies accountable for their actions. Although the Elk River spill has since been cleaned up, the state continues to suffer from lower tourism as a result of the incident.

According to officials with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Alpha Natural Resources and over a dozen of its subsidiaries violated water pollution limits an estimated 6,000 times between 2006 and 2013. The lawsuit claims the coal-producing company drained heavy metals, toxins and chemicals into 800 pipes which led directly to nearby water sources. The good news is that none of the 6,000 violations were believed to have contaminated drinking water.

Most of the allegations against Alpha Natural Resources include the company’s failure to properly maintain functional wastewater treatment facilities. Rather than treating their coal byproducts, they simply drained it into nearby streams, rivers and tributaries. Some of the pollutants Alpha Natural Resources is believed to have released into nearby water sources include aluminum, selenium, iron and manganese.

It’s likely West Virginia’s chemical spill prompted the EPA to take a more aggressive approach towards the protection of our nation’s waterways. Allowing companies to continue to violating water permits without consequence sends the wrong message. And in this case, Alpha Natural Resources had a mind-blowing 6,000 violations in just a 7-year period.

“The unprecedented size of the civil penalty in this settlement sends a strong deterrent message to others in this industry that such egregious violations of the nation’s Clean Water Act will not be tolerated,” said Robert G. Dreher, acting assistant attorney general for the U.S. Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division.

It’s also important to note that the lawsuit placed against Alpha Natural Resources was civil, not criminal. Along with the $27.5 million fine and the additional $200 required to clean up their act, the company must install wastewater treatment facilities at its 79 coal mines and 25 coal plants in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia.

Keep Your Workplace Clean With a Cigarette Receptacle

by

Cigarette butts.

According to the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), approximately 18.1% of U.S. population smokes cigarettes. While numbers have steadily declined over the past 60 years (43% of Americans smoked in the 1940s), there’s still a large chunk of the population who smokes. Business owners should acknowledge this fact and provide their employees with a safe place to put out their cigarettes.

AbsorbentsOnline.com has the perfect solution for cigarette butts: outdoor cigarette receptacles. These receptacles offer workers a quick and convenient way to put out their cigarettes after they are finished smoking. It’s not uncommon for workers to simply toss their cigarette butts on the ground, assuming someone else will come along to clean it up. It’s this type of attitude, however, that leads to dirty workplace.

Outdoor cigarette receptacles feature a long, narrow neck that restricts oxygen to the contents inside. Once the cigarette butt is placed into the top, it falls down inside where the lack of oxygen forces the cherry out; thus, quickly stopping the smoke. Not only does this minimize secondhand smoke around the workplace, but it also reduces the chance of a fire.

Each time someone tosses a cigarette butt on the ground or out the car window, there’s a chance it could start a fire. This risk is increased around workplaces which store or handle flammable chemicals. Workers here must use extra caution to ensure their cigarette butts are safely put out to protect the well-being of all employees.

Not-So-Fun Facts About Tobacco Cigarette Litter

  • 1.69 billion pounds of cigarette butts end up as waste each year.
  • Cigarette butts are oftentimes found in beaches, streams, river, oceans, national parks, and city highways.
  • They are the number one most commonly found item at the beach.
  • Contain traces of chemicals such as benzoapyrene, aresenic, acetone, lead, formaldehyde, toulene, butane, cadmium, ammonia and benzene.
  • Wind, rain and mother nature scatter littered cigarette butts into water systems.

I know what you’re probably thinking: why can’t I use a basic ashtray? Well, there’s certainly nothing stopping you from using ashtrays around your workplace, but outdoor cigarette receptacles are designed with a focus on aesthetics. For instance, the decorative receptacles look like a stylish stone or marble column and are available in black, beige and gray. From afar, they look like part of a building, but upon closer inspection you’ll see they are fully functional cigarette butt receptacles.

Are New Pesticide Regulations On The Horizon?

by

Tractor spraying agricultural landThe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed new changes to the country’s Agricultural Worker Protection Standard (WPS) in an effort to reduce agricultural workers’ exposure to toxic pesticides. There are around a dozen specific changes introduced, all of which are designed to protect farmers and other agricultural workers who handle pesticide-covered products on a daily basis.

According to Amy Liebman of the Migrant Clinicians Network, approximately 10,000-20,000 agricultural workers suffer from acute pesticide poisoning each year. While most cases are minor and leave no lasting health effects, others are more severe, resulting in neurological disorders, immune dysfunction, birth defects, and even cancer. The EPA hopes to turn these numbers in the opposite direction by incorporating a serious of changes in the current WPS.

“What we don’t know is the exact total number of occupational incidences involving pesticides. These incidences lead to sick days, lost wages, medical bills and absences at school. What we have found is that the most common types of incidents can be prevented with changes to our current worker protection standard,” said Jim Jones, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.

Under the new WPS revisions, farmers must create larger buffer zones surrounding the area where pesticides are used. Farm workers must then stay out of the buffer zone to reduce their exposure. Other changes proposed in the new EPA WPS revision include improved record keeping, on-going training for farm workers, and a minimum age requirement of 16 for handling certain types of chemical-based pesticides.

If these revisions go through, the biggest change will be the 25-100 foot buffer zone surrounding pesticide applications. In addition to creating this buffer zone, farm workers must place signs in a clear, visible areas to notify others that pesticide is present.

Like most major changes suggested by the EPA, there’s a 90-day period where the public is free to comment about it. Currently, there seems to be mixed reviews among farm workers regarding these changes. Some workers feel like the EPA is doing a good the right thing by adding regulations to create a safer working environment for the agricultural industry, while others believe it’s too little, too late.

So, when can you expect to see these changes enacted by the EPA? There’s still no official word, but Jim Jones stated that he plans to have them in effect by the end of the year.

How do you feel about the new EPA regulations on pesticide use?

EPA Issues New Restrictions on Sulfur Emissions In Gasoline

by

Pumping gasolineOn Monday, officials with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a new rule that would place restrictions on sulfur emissions in gasoline. This is one step in a larger plan for creating a cleaner environment, but not everyone is thrilled with the EPA’s decision to reduce sulfur emissions.

The recently proposed EPA rule is designed to cut about 2/3 of sulfur emissions from gasoline by 2017. Sulfur, as most auto junkies are well aware of, messes with vehicles’ ability to remove toxins and impurities before releasing them through the exhaust; therefore, cars running on “high-sulfur” gasoline are releasing a significantly higher amount of pollutants than cars running on “low-sulfur ” gasoline.

Vehicles are designed to remove pollutants using a device known as a catalytic converter. Unfortunately sulfur interferes with the catalytic converter so it’s no longer able to filter out such pollutants. By reducing the amount of sulfur in gas, vehicles will be able to remove more pollutants — at least that’s the theory behind the new EPA rule.

The EPA claims the new rule will prevent 20,000 deaths and over 50,000 cases of respiratory illness in children by the year 2030.

“This rule is all pain and no gain. This winter’s cold snap underscores just how vulnerable American families and businesses are to any increases in energy costs, and yet the administration is moving forward to raise prices at the pump,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton.

Most lawmakers and U.S. citizens are in favor of the EPA’s new rule restricting the amount of sulfur emissions in gasoline; however, petrol companies have a different view. They believe the new rule will result in higher gas prices, which means less business for them. We already live in an age where people struggle to fill up their pump due to high costs and a struggling economy. Placing an even greater financial burden on drivers could make things worse.

The EPA responded to these allegations by saying the new rule would only raise gas by less than a penny per gallon. Petrol companies, on the other hand, claim it will raise prices by $.05 to $.10 cents per gallon.

The truth is that we really don’t know how the EPA’s new sulfur emissions rule will affect gas prices, and we probably won’t find out until it actually goes through in 2017. However, you can check back with our blog here for all of the latest news and developments surrounding the EPA’s rule on sulfur emissions.

How do you feel about the EPA’s new sulfur emissions rule?

The True Cost of Slip-and-Fall Accidents In The Workplace

by

Hundred dollar billsSlip-and-fall accidents can place a serious financial burden on a company. When a worker falls and suffers an injury while on the job, the company is responsible for paying his or her medical bills along with lost wages through Workers’ Compensation. This alone can cost businesses a good chunk of cash, but this is really just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the true cost of slip-and-fall accidents in the workplace.

This week, we’re going to take a closer look at this problem and revealing some of the many ways accidents such as this impact a businesses’ finances.

Slip-and-Fall Statistics

To put the problem of slip-and-fall accidents into perspective, a 2007 published by the insurance company Liberty Mutual found that same-level falls (not elevated) were the second most common type of injury in the workplace, costing businesses an estimated $6.6 billion. This is a shocking statistic that should serve as a real eye-opener to companies dealing with slip-and-fall accidents.

The National Safety Council (NSC) also performed a study which suggests the annual costs of medical bills and Workers’ Compensation associated with slip-and-fall accidents in the workplace is roughly $70 billion annually.

How Slip-and-Fall Accidents Impact a Business:

  • Lowers overall morale in the workplace.
  • Leaves the company vulnerable to OSHA fines, lawsuits and other legal action.
  • Raises the cost of Workers’ Compensation.
  • Company must invest additional time, money and resources into finding a replacement for the injured worker.
  • Equipment is oftentimes broken or damaged as a result of slip-and-fall accidents.
  • Lowers productivity.
  • Forces company to perform renovations or modifications in an effort to reduce such accidents.

Preventing Slip-and-Fall Accidents

The first step towards preventing slip-and-fall accidents is to identify “high risk” areas within the workplace. This may include areas around forklifts where oil frequently leaks, building entrances, stairs, damaged floors, etc. With these areas properly identified, business owners can then work to fix the underlying problem.

The area where forklifts are stored, for instance, could likely benefit from the use of absorbent mats. If any oil happens to leak from one of the forklifts, the absorbent mat will soak it up rather than allowing it to spill on the floor. You could also use these mats around entrances where rainwater frequently develops.

What precautions do you take to prevent slip-and-fall accidents in the workplace?

EPA’s Solvent-Contaminated Wipes Rule: What You Should Know

by

Oily wipe and toolDo you frequently use washcloths or rags to wipe up oil, lubricants or other solvents in your workplace? If so, you’ll want to familiarize yourself with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) rule regarding solvent-contaminated wipes. It outlines the best practices for dealing with solvent-contaminated wipes, without negatively impacting human health or the environment.

Whether your workplace uses a single rag or dozens on a regular basis, it’s a good idea to follow the standards set forth in the EPA’s new rule.

What is a solvent-contaminated wipe?

Wipes containing one or more of the following chemicals are considered to be “solvent-contaminated”

  • Acetone
  • Isobutyl alcohol
  • Benzene
  • Methanol
  • n-Butanol
  • Methyl ethyl ketone
  • Chlorobenzene
  • Methyl isobutyl ketone
  • Creosols
  • Methylene chloride
  • Cyclohexanone
  • Tetrachloroethylene
  • 1,2-Dichlorobenzene
  • Toluene
  • Ethyl acetate
  • 1,1,2- Trichloroethane
  • Ethyl benzene
  • Trichloroethylene (*For reusable wipes only.)
  • 2-Ethoxyethanol
  • Xylenes

What’s The Purpose of The New Rule?

The purpose of the new EPA solvent-contaminated wipe rule is simple: to reduce the chance of environmental and/or human health problems related to rags, towels, wipes, mats, pads, and washcloths soaked with solvent chemicals. Since this rule was created by the EPA, it affects all companies in the U.S. With that said, some states may have their own rules and regulations regarding solvent-contaminated wipes.

Of course, a side benefit that comes from the new EPA solvent contaminated wipes rule is the cost savings it has on companies and employers. The EPA estimates that LQG facilities will save over $30,000 and SQG facilities will save over $,4000 per year thanks to the new rule.

Proper Storage of Solvent-Contaminated Wipes

One of the key points of the new rule involves proper storage of solvent-contaminated wipes. If a company uses a wipe containing one or more of the previously mentioned chemicals, they must designate a closed container specifically for storing them. The container must be liquid proof, have a tight-fitting lid, and labeled: “Excluded solvent-contaminated wipes.”

“Wipes must be accumulated, stored, and transported in non-leaking, closed containers,” said the EPA.

Move ‘Em Out!

Under this new EPA rule, all solvent-contaminated wipes must be disposed within 180 days. Companies are free to store solvent-contaminated wipes on site for up to 180 days, at which point they must be properly disposed by a professional waste removal business.

Note: the new EPA rule went into effect on January 31st, 2014.

Feel free to visit the EPA’s official website for more information including FAQs about the new solvent-contaminated wipes rule. While most of the rule focuses on storage and handling, there are some other elements that are worth noting.

Toxic Coal Ash Pollutes N. Carolina River

by

Pile of ashIt seems like we were just talking about the massive West Virginia chemical spill the other day. Now, however, there’s news of yet another chemical spill. This time involving an estimated 50,000-82,000 tons of toxic coal ash leaking from a Duke Energy power plant and spilling into nearby river.

The power plant where the incident had occurred was actually shut down. It wasn’t until a security guard performing a routine check of the premises noticed the leak and contacted authorities. Duke Energy sent hundreds of officials to the site in an effort to contain the leak. According to the latest reports, though, workers have not successfully plugged the leak, meaning there’s potential for even further coal ash spilling into the public’s water sources.

Duke Energy issued a response to the public saying they were working around the clock to try and fix the leak.

“We are exploring multiple options to permanently and safely seal the broken stormwater pipe that has released ash into the river. Flow to the river significantly decreased throughout the day Tuesday. It fluctuated a bit earlier today but has been very low this afternoon,” said Charlie Gates, senior vice president of the generating fleet.

While the size and scope of this chemical leak is yet to be determined, early reports suggest an estimated 50,000-82,000 tons of coal ash along with 27 million gallons of contaminated water. The end result is a murky toxic sludge that has both residents and city officials concerned. Some of the toxic chemicals believed to be present in the toxic sludge include lead, mercury, arsenic and selenium — all of which you do not want to find in your tap water.

The small town of Danville, North Carolina is placed at the highest risk for water contamination due to this recent spill. The toxic coal ash sludge leaked into the Dan River, which the town uses for its municipal water system. Preliminary tests show the water is still safe for human consumption. “We’ve done some testing, and it’s been verified that there is none of the heavy metals coming downstream,” said David Stiles, specialist at the Danville Water Treatment Plant.

Of course, residents remain dubious over claims their water is safe to drink.  City officials have taken steps to both filter and redirect water, but with such a large quantity of toxic sludge seeping into the town’s water, some people here are resorting to bottled water.

Tips For a More Environmentally Friendly and Green Workplace

by

Green recycle symbolThere are several advantages to creating a green, environmentally friendly workplace: it reduces overhead costs, boosts employee morale, and it opens the doors to an entirely new client audience.

There’s a growing trend with consumers only purchasing products and services from environmentally friendly companies; therefore, going green in your workplace could attract new customers and ultimately more sales.

You don’t have to far to find big name companies who take a green approach to their business. Coca-Cola’s World of Coke received a gold rating by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) for its water efficiency, energy efficiency, and the use of recycled materials.

Here are some of the key energy-efficient features of the World of Coke:

  • 20% of the building is made from recycle or easily renewable materials, such as bamboo and recycled rubber.
  • 90% of the debris and waste left behind from the World of Coke’s construction was salvaged or recycled.
  • Features a reflective roof to reduce heat.
  • Improved air quality through low VOC pain and carpeting.
  • 30% more energy efficient Georgia state law mandates.
  • All faucets feature low-flow technology to reduce unnecessary water output.

Of course, Coca-Cola is just one of the many companies taking a proactive approach towards their energy usage and the impact they have on the environment. There are hundreds of other companies out there following in their footsteps. And with more and more consumers looking to spend their money on products from green companies, this is a trend that will likely continue in the years to come.

Tips To Create a Green Workplace

If you’re looking to create a greener workplace, you should first perform an energy audit. Find out exactly how much water, electricity and gas you are using. Most company owners simply cut a check to the utility companies without analyzing their energy usage. Unless you know how much energy your workplace uses each and every month, you can expect to make any major improvements. It’s not a bad idea to make a note of your workplace’s energy usage each month, as this will give you an idea of whether you are using more or less the following month.

Follow these tips to create a greener workplace:

  • Upgrade your lighting to energy-efficient bulbs such as LED, HPS or HID.
  • Bring in natural lighting through windows and sun roofs.
  • Cover drains to prevent unwanted chemical runoff in storm water systems.
  • Install low-flow faucets and high-efficiency (HE) toilets.
  • Encourage the use of recycled material.

You can also find more tips in our previous post on creating an eco-friendly workplace.

Who Pays For Employees’ Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)?

by

Dollar bill origami shirt

Dollar costs of PPE

Personal protective equipment (abbreviated PPE) is the collective term used to describe equipment worn by employees to reduce the chance of injury and illness. Some of the most commonly used types of PPE include rubber gloves, safety goggles, hardhats, earplugs, ventilation masks, respirators and welding helmets.

The official Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) website states the following in regards to PPE:

“All personal protective equipment should be of safe design and construction, and should be maintained in a clean and reliable fashion. It should fit well and be comfortable to wear, encouraging worker use. If the personal protective equipment does not fit properly, it can make the difference between being safely covered or dangerously exposed. “

After reading through the OSHA’s standards on PPE, you might be wondering who is responsible for footing the bill. After all, purchasing all of the previously mentioned equipment for dozens or even hundreds of employees can cost a pretty penny. So, does the employer pay for PPE or is the employee responsible for buying their own the PPE?

Employers Must Purchase Their Employees’ PPE

Yep, employers are now required to purchase their their employees’ PPE. On May 15, 2008, a new OSHA rule went into effect which requires employers to foot the bill for PPE. Before this time, it was up the employer whether or not they wanted to pay for PPE. The OSHA deemed that because it was a necessity for creating a safe workplace, employers should be responsible for buying their employees’ PPE.

The good news is that employers can write off PPE as a business expense on their taxes.

Can Employees Buy Their Own Personal Protective Equipment?

Technically, employees can still purchase their own PPE, but their employer is responsible for reimbursing the cost. It’s not uncommon for employers to hand out a list of PPE to their new employees, asking them to purchase the items on their own time. This is done to make the process of finding fitted items more easily. For instance, it’s obviously easier for an employee to purchase his or her boots rather than their employer. As long the employee keeps a receipt, they are entitled to reimbursement from their employer.

Note: if an employee buys their own PPE, the employer is responsible for checking to make sure it’s OSHA-compliant and falls within the standards set forth by the organization.

If you want to learn more, read our post about the different Levels of Protection For Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).

EPA Seeks To Limit Carbon Emissions From Coal-Burning Plants

by

Emissions from a power plantLast month, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a new rule which would limit the carbon pollution of new coal-burning power plants. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy announced the proposed rule in Q4, 2013. However, it took officials several months to finalize the rule before making it available to the public. You can now access and view the new carbon emission rule proposed by the EPA at www.federalregister.gov.

What’s The Scoop?

The newly proposed bill requires all new coal-burning power plants to limit their carbon dioxide emissions to 1,110 pounds per megawatt-hour. According to some estimates, the average U.S. coal-burning power plant emits roughly 1,700 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour, which is a substantial amount more than the limit proposed in the rule.

But the EPA rule doesn’t end with coal-burning power plants. Depending on their size, new natural gas power plants in the U.S. must limit their carbon dioxide emissions to 1,000-1,100 pounds per megawatt-hour.

It’s important to note that the proposed rule would only affect new coal-burning and natural gas power plants in the U.S. Any pre-existing plants in operation may continue to operate without limiting their carbon dioxide emissions. A coal-burning power plant that emits 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour may continue to do so, assuming it’s already operational. If the bill passes, however, all future coal-burning and natural gas power plants must follow these guidelines.

The EPA is accepting comments from industry workers and the public about the newly proposed rule until March 5 2014.

Why Some People Aren’t Backing The EPA’s Rule

If passed, the EPA rule would make it increasingly difficult for new coal-burning power plants to be built in the U.S. In order to legally operate under the new rule, coal-burning power plants must capture 20-40% of their carbon emissions and store it underground. This process, known as carbon capture and storage (CCS) is still in development and not ready for widespread use.

Some people are also concerned how the new rule will affect the coal industry in the U.S. By placing more restrictions on coal plants, it’s bound to have a negative impact on the number of jobs.

Senator John Barrasso said the following in regards to the EPA’s proposed rule:

“The EPA just announced another regulation that will increase poverty in coal country. In addition to contradicting current law, this new regulation will put more Americans out of work and make it even harder for people to provide for their families.”

How do you feel about the new EPA rule? Let us know in the comments section below!