The Double-Damned EPA, at it again

[AZRedhawk44]

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/10/20/remaining-lead-smelter-usa-closing/

Say goodbye to lead based ammo in the US.

Say goodbye to your favorite rifle's accuracy since the density of similar length bullets won't match previous loadings.


Where will lead for projectiles come from in the future, if at all?

[zxcvbob]

Where will lead for projectiles come from in the future, if at all?

You stay out of my garage!  (especially that row of 5 gallon buckets over there against the wall that weigh 400# each)

[Brad Johnson]

Where will lead for projectiles come from in the future, if at all?

Considering the majority of lead comes from foreign sources, probably about the same places as we're getting it now.

Brad

[French G.]

Ammo will still be there. Just another metal to add to the not made here list. Nickel for Pious batteries, cadmium, tungsten, the list is endless.

[roo_ster]

The EPA still deserves to be damned.

[RevDisk]

So, in order to save the environment, we'll need to ship lead to some other country, process it, ship it BACK to the US, and then actually use it. Adding thousands of miles of movement, expense, energy usage, CO2 emissions, etc.

I'm curious how much shutting down a lead smelter has damaged the environment compared to keeping them open.

[Ben]

So, in order to save the environment, we'll need to ship lead to some other country, process it, ship it BACK to the US, and then actually use it. Adding thousands of miles of movement, expense, energy usage, CO2 emissions, etc.

I'm curious how much shutting down a lead smelter has damaged the environment compared to keeping them open.

NIMBY, yo.

[Viking]

So, in order to save the environment, we'll need to ship lead to some other country, process it, ship it BACK to the US, and then actually use it. Adding thousands of miles of movement, expense, energy usage, CO2 emissions, etc.

I'm curious how much shutting down a lead smelter has damaged the environment compared to keeping them open.

No logic, only feels.

[HankB]

So, in order to save the environment, we'll need to ship lead to some other country, process it, ship it BACK to the US, and then actually use it. Adding thousands of miles of movement, expense, energy usage, CO2 emissions, etc.

I'm curious how much shutting down a lead smelter has damaged the environment compared to keeping them open.

How much you want to bet some EPA rulemaking bureaucrats have stock in shipping companies with specialties of transporting lead ore and bulk metal?

[Scout26]

Thanks Barak !!!!


(BTW this is a side effect of his "Kill Coal" policy.)

[charby]

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_54400025-2940-5b3f-b753-6e931e596cac.html

Old news about the plant shutting down back in 2010.

So what you are saying is that you are cool with the byproducts of burning fossil fuels spewing into the atmosphere? I'm not talking about CO2, but nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide. Scrubbers reduce those amounts by 90%, scrubbers are as simple as injecting urea into the in the stack.

I personally don't want the US to look like China does now with the lack of environmental controls.

[charby]

speaking of China, looks like a great place to live! 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/14/beijing-smog-continues-media-action

[Ben]

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_54400025-2940-5b3f-b753-6e931e596cac.html

Old news about the plant shutting down back in 2010.

So what you are saying is that you are cool with the byproducts of burning fossil fuels spewing into the atmosphere? I'm not talking about CO2, but nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide. Scrubbers reduce those amounts by 90%, scrubbers are as simple as injecting urea into the in the stack.

I personally don't want the US to look like China does now with the lack of environmental controls.

The problem that the enviros don't get is that if it's done here, it does have some controls. When it's prohibited here, the demand is still there, and the increased production goes to places where there is little or no control. There's a lot of "out of sight, out of mind" going on with the NGOs that petition the EPA for this kind of stuff. Just like with "clean" electric cars that get juiced up from coal electricity, and are run on extremely HAZMAT powerplants.

[Gewehr98]

Outsourced, like Dell tech support.

Our demand for lead won't change.

Hell, bullets aren't even the biggest consumer.

Car batteries.  You aren't going to substitute another non-toxic heavy metal like bismuth in those. 

[Balog]

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_54400025-2940-5b3f-b753-6e931e596cac.html

Old news about the plant shutting down back in 2010.

So what you are saying is that you are cool with the byproducts of burning fossil fuels spewing into the atmosphere? I'm not talking about CO2, but nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide. Scrubbers reduce those amounts by 90%, scrubbers are as simple as injecting urea into the in the stack.

I personally don't want the US to look like China does now with the lack of environmental controls.

This won't change that, just relocate it and make it worse. Also, it's a false choice to say "Either we can run all the coal plants / lead smelters etc out of business or we can be exactly like China!!!!"

[charby]

This won't change that, just relocate it and make it worse. Also, it's a false choice to say "Either we can run all the coal plants / lead smelters etc out of business or we can be exactly like China!!!!"

Well if the smelters/coal burners upgraded their equipment over time they wouldn't be in this pickle after the grandfathering ended. Its not like they were told this yesterday, its been going since 1970. That was before you and I were born.

[Balog]

Well if the smelters/coal burners upgraded their equipment over time they wouldn't be in this pickle after the grandfathering ended. Its not like they were told this yesterday, its been going since 1970. That was before you and I were born.

Given the expense of reaching unreasonable standards, even amortized over many years it's not possible to achieve standards set at an unrealistic level.

[charby]

Given the expense of reaching unreasonable standards, even amortized over many years it's not possible to achieve standards set at an unrealistic level.

How is it unrealistic when the technology has been there for years to meet those levels? Political moves have grandfathered a lot of industries to be exempt for years, now the proverbial chickens have come home to roost. These industries knew damn well that that day was going to come, so they ran for maximum profit until that day, then they shutter their business.

Chickens have also come home to roost for municipal owned utilities also, they played the grandfather card for many years also.

[Balog]

1. That's an assumption on your part.
2. It still doesn't change the fact that this will greatly increase the level of pollution put into the atmosphere, just relocating it.

[charby]

1. That's an assumption on your part.
2. It still doesn't change the fact that this will greatly increase the level of pollution put into the atmosphere, just relocating it.

What is an assumption on my part?

Also pollutants in coal have always been there, just contained in the coal in the earth. Burning it releases it, scrubbers capture it and hopefully the effluent is contained in some sort of stable storage area or processed into something inert and landfilled. Perhaps landfilled back into abandoned mines where the coal (or whatever) was mined.

[roo_ster]

How is it unrealistic when the technology has been there for years to meet those levels? Political moves have grandfathered a lot of industries to be exempt for years, now the proverbial chickens have come home to roost. These industries knew damn well that that day was going to come, so they ran for maximum profit until that day, then they shutter their business.

Chickens have also come home to roost for municipal owned utilities also, they played the grandfather card for many years also.

If one were to put but a little thought into that, one might come to the realization that unrealistic higher standards led to zero improvements over that time...whereas locally-imposed, more reasonable standards would have reduced the total output of pollutants over that same time.  And ended up with a going concern at the end of that period of time.

The way things worked out, we got maximum pollution over that time span and all jobs lost in the USA at the end.  And even more pollution to produce the same amount of lead in China, by Chinese workers.  Thank you EPA. 

Thinking beyond immediate effects, for the long term, with an understanding of human nature is sorely lacking in our gov't.  Best to limit what is done at higher levels.

[Scout26]

1.  These aren't "old requirements". These are new unreasonable and unobtainable standards imposed by the Obama administrations "War on Coal/Carbon"

"We limit the amount of toxic chemicals like mercury and sulfur and arsenic in our air or our water, but power plants can still dump unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into the air for free," Obama said.

"That's not right. That's not safe. And it needs to stop."

Obama said he had directed the Environmental Protection Agency to craft new emissions rules for thousands of power plants, the bulk of which burn coal and which account for roughly one-third of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/25/us-usa-climate-obama-idUSBRE95O0G120130625

2.  And it is a false choice, it's actually a bad choice.  Smelt lead here where we have better pollution controls (not "Perfect") or smelt lead in China where there are NO pollution controls.  The fact is, the world economy demands lead.  While lead is "bad" for humans/life (depending on the compound), it has no impact on the planet (since it came from the planet).    For Example:  Chlorine is deadly poisonous to humans, yet we ingest quite a bit each day in the form of NaCl (salt) and almost every water system in the US adds it to the water supply that we drink.

3.  While there will be pollution as long as there are humans there will not be ZERO pollution.  Did this plant make pollution.  Yes.  But as a very wise man once pointed out.  "It's the dose that makes the poision."   The Obama EPA has made perfect the enemy of better, and as a result has actually made things worse in several ways.  To include the "problem" they were trying to solve.   

[charby]

1.  These aren't "old requirements". These are new unreasonable and unobtainable standards imposed by the Obama administrations "War on Coal/Carbon"
 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/25/us-usa-climate-obama-idUSBRE95O0G120130625

2.  And it is a false choice, it's actually a bad choice.  Smelt lead here where we have better pollution controls (not "Perfect") or smelt lead in China where there are NO pollution controls.  The fact is, the world economy demands lead.  While lead is "bad" for humans/life (depending on the compound), it has no impact on the planet (since it came from the planet).    For Example:  Chlorine is deadly poisonous to humans, yet we ingest quite a bit each day in the form of NaCl (salt) and almost every water system in the US adds it to the water supply that we drink.

3.  While there will be pollution as long as there are humans there will not be ZERO pollution.  Did this plant make pollution.  Yes.  But as a very wise man once pointed out.  "It's the dose that makes the poision."   The Obama EPA has made perfect the enemy of better, and as a result has actually made things worse in several ways.  To include the "problem" they were trying to solve.   

While the <insert toxin> was in the earth is was in stasis, and out of harms way. Mine it, release it and process it, it becomes harmful to living organisms. Not saying that we shouldn't mine/process/release but perhaps trying to control the consequences a little better. Remember the average human only lives for 77 years, do we want to make our impact last for eons to follow?

[AZRedhawk44]

Charby, the point you're failing to address here is that demand = X.

Demand will always equal X.

The EPA has no effect whatsoever on demand.  Cannot, will not, ever change it.

So when supply consists of A (US sourced lead) and B (foreign sourced lead), and A + B will always sum to X... when A gets smaller then B has to get bigger.

And when all the pollution from B has zero to maybe 10% emissions controls, and you try to run A from 75% to 99% emissions controls, the net result is that you shut down all the plants producing A and the B plants just process more ore.  The net sum is all lead is produced at zero to 10% emission controls rather than losing your influence on the A portion that is producing at 75% controls.

Until the other smelting countries get their standards near ours, all we do is hurt the net emissions game by setting our standards so high they are not economically feasible.

[MechAg94]

What is an assumption on my part?

Also pollutants in coal have always been there, just contained in the coal in the earth. Burning it releases it, scrubbers capture it and hopefully the effluent is contained in some sort of stable storage area or processed into something inert and landfilled. Perhaps landfilled back into abandoned mines where the coal (or whatever) was mined.

I would say the implied assumption is that they knew what current emissions regulations would be 30 or 40 years ago.  That isn't true at all.  The regs have been steadily creeping up for years and years.  In addition, there are a 1000 different federal regulations that require monitoring one little thing or another that all take time, paperwork, and money to track and document even if they are nonexistent or meaningless.  

I did all the enivronmental reporting for the air permit at a chemical plant for 4 or 5 years as part of my job.  We had probably 10 or 12 different reports each year that were due.  Two were due twice a year.  If there was some basic consolidation, it coud probably all have been reported in about 2 reports with 1 having the bulk of the reporting.  They have this stupid emissions and cap and trade program for NOx emissoins.  Our company has never traded NOx credits, but I still had to spend a day filling out forms and send in a stupid report saying so.  I forgot about the CO2 reporting the EPA added a few years ago.  Can they combine this into a previous report?  NO!  It has to have an entirely new reporting system with its own formulas, regs, and online reporting website.  They also included regulations for metering and analysis of each fuel gas stream that cost more money.  I was just lucky that site didn't have its own water outfall or stormwater permits to deal with.  That is another can of worms.  

If you ask me, I would say a lot of environmental limits are a good thing.  Most companies would not willingly spend money on environmental controls if it wasn't required.  I just think it could be set up a lot better.  I guess part of the problem is that auditors and enforcers generally have no idea how the chemical plants work, so it becomes an issue of documenting that you followed your permit with a paper trail and maintaining that for years.