A few years ago, an engineer working for a“friend’s plant” chose to replace their evaporative condenser with an adiabatic condenser. On the surface, the choice seemed like a good idea since adiabatic condensers often provide higher heat rejection with lower water and electricity usage. The condenser was purchased and installed, but all was not well. When not carefully considered, replacing equipment or control programs can have unforeseen consequences such as negative impacts on operational safety.
In this real life example the author examines what information would have made a big difference and significant savings had the right questions been asked.
Click to read this article and others written for those in industries using ammonia refrigeration.
SCS Engineers periodically prepares Technical Bulletins to highlight items of interest to our clients and friends. Our most recent SCS Bulletin summarizes the amendments addressing the updates to the Final Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) Rule that the EPA published in the Federal Register on July 30, 2018, and which takes effect on August 29, 2018. The link above will take you directly to the summary.
SCS will continually update coverage of this Rule on our website. We welcome you to use our staff resources for guidance or to answer questions.
In an increasingly complex regulatory world, Remote Monitoring and Control (RMC) systems provide the tools necessary to improve safety, increase efficiency and make the right decisions quickly. Beyond capturing and storing data, these systems can sort through mountains of data, identify what’s important and deliver meaningful information to operators in real time or as needed.
Some of the added benefits of using RMC systems include:
Read the Waste Today article – click here. Learn more about Remote Monitoring and Control here.
This paper, presented at A&WMA’s 111th Annual Conference details the Tier 4 process and the potential issues that have arisen from conducting a Tier 4. This paper also assesses potential Tier 4 sites, exceedance reporting, wind monitoring, additional SEM equipment requirements, penetration monitoring, notification and reporting requirements, and impacts on solid waste landfills that will use the Tier 4 SEM procedure for delaying GCCS requirements. This paper reviews the changes between the draft NSPS and the final version of the new NSPS that was promulgated.
Click to read or share the paper, and learn about the authors.
The industry standard SP001 is incorporated into many Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans is now updated. How does it affect your facility’s SPCC Plan?
The Steel Tank Institute (STI) recently released an updated version of SP001 – Standard for the Inspection of Aboveground Storage Tanks. This document is the industry standard used in most SPCC Plans for inspection guidelines and integrity testing for shop-fabricated aboveground storage tanks. In a typical SPCC Plan prepared by SCS Engineers, your monthly and annual inspection forms, and tank integrity testing frequency requirements are based on the criteria provided in SP001.
No. We recommend incorporating the updated inspection forms during your next SPCC Plan Amendment or 5-year renewal.
The inspection criteria have been simplified, and more flexibility is allowed with the revised inspection forms. This will help make your inspection process easier and of higher quality.
Need help sorting out the details of the revised standard, or have an SPCC Plan that needs amending or is due for a 5-year review? Contact , and we will help you stay on top of your SPCC needs with offices nationwide.
Coauthors: Denise Wessels and Amber Fidler.
SCS Engineers SPCC specialists in Pennsylvania.
It might feel like the July 1 deadline is far away, but it is time to start preparing to report your releases of toxic materials. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) indicates that printing and related industries are subject to this report. It is an important part of your environmental compliance strategy if you have a facility with at least 10 full-time equivalent employees in a covered NAICS code that exceeded a reporting threshold in the previous calendar year. Reporting releases of toxic materials on an annual basis is one aspect of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).
Read the article with steps to your report for printing and related industries.
Consolidated List of Chemicals Subject to the Emergency Planning and Community Right To Know Act (EPCRA), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA) and Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act
Modeling for a Worst Case Release and the Alternative Release Scenario – not so mysterious after all. Lee Pyle explains it to you in her recent article in the RETA Breeze. Lee is SCS Engineers National Expert on Industrial Risk Management Plans and Process Safety Management.
All of us with over 10,000 pounds of ammonia in our plant system are well aware of the EPA Risk Management Program Hazard Assessment requirements (40 CFR Part 68.20). When the EPA inspector shows up, we hand them the manual and cross our fingers that they understand what they are reading and pray they do not ask a question.
Do not fret; chances are that the inspector at your plant is probably not much more fluent in dispersion modeling than you are. Much debate occurs over how long it would take to stop a release, but you do not want to get into a debate with an EPA inspector.
Read, share, or print Unmasking the Mystery of the Worst Case Release and the Alternative Release Scenario here. Happy Modeling!
Secondary containment is a basic engineering control to prevent a chemical or oil spill. There are misconceptions, though, regarding secondary containment requirements. In terms of oil-based storage, these misconceptions can lead to not enough containment capacity, significantly more containment capacity than necessary, or simply not providing the right level of containment when containers are grouped.
Chris Jimieson of SCS Engineers explains the five most common misperceptions and advises you how to keep your facility in compliance.
Read the article by clicking here.
A look at the confusion stemming from regulatory uncertainty of new rules limiting air emissions from municipal solid waste landfills by David Greene, P.E., SCS Engineers – Asheville, NC.
The landfill industry continues to work with EPA Administration to get a longer-term stay to work out needed NSPS/EG rule changes. At this time, industry representatives are hopeful both these related goals can be achieved.
While the new NSPS/EG rules became effective back in 2016, the concerns with the rules raised at the time still remain unresolved. Despite this, we can expect resolution though it may take some time to fix. The fog should be lifting, yielding changes that are expected to be more workable for both the landfill industry and state/local regulators. In the meantime, stay tuned and stay informed.
Read the full article with links to the NSPS/EG update in a recently published SCS Technical Bulletin.
SCS Engineers periodically prepares Technical Bulletins to highlight items of interest to our clients and friends who have signed up to receive them. Our most recent SCS Bulletin summarizes the new rules which took effect on October 28, 2016, with compliance obligations under the NSPS Subpart XXX rule beginning November 28, 2016. Originally, states and local air jurisdictions were to submit their proposed EG rules by May 30, 2017; however, there have been some delays in this process, which we condense and detail in this Bulletin. SCS will continually update coverage of this Rule on our website.
Corporate Headquarters
3900 Kilroy Airport Way Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90806
Telephone
1 (800) 767-4727
1 (562) 427-0805 | FAX
Contact Us
