Avoidance of Shifting the Risk Burden to Other Areas or Media Sample Clauses

Avoidance of Shifting the Risk Burden to Other Areas or Media. IV. Legal Basis for the Project
Sample 1Sample 2
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Avoidance of Shifting the Risk Burden to Other Areas or Media. The project is consistent with Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice. It will not result in disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. It is possible that changes to the City’s water treatment could cause lead levels to rise temporarily for all City residents. However, this project is designed to ensure that lead levels in drinking water will continue to be minimized. Moreover, even if lead levels were to rise and the LSL sampling and replacement requirements suspended pending treatment modifications, the project incorporates numerous safeguards, as described above, to protect against any disproportionately high lead levels and adverse health effects to any City residents, including minority or low-income populations. In fact, taken as a whole, the terms and requirements of the SDWA variance which will be used to implement this project, combined with the multimedia impacts of the LCSP, will provide enhanced protection to minority and low-income populations from health risks caused by potential exposures to lead from multiple sources in the City.
Sample 1
Avoidance of Shifting the Risk Burden to Other Areas or Media. The design and remote location of the MRF will protect worker safety and ensure that no one will be subjected to unjust or disproportionate environmental impacts. All Autoliv workers are required to receive extensive safety and explosive training. The processing of all pyrotechnic material will be incorporated into the MRF’s standard operating procedures. All new waste materials will be approved before processing to ensure that no safety risks or unwanted environmental impacts are present. Autoliv’s pyrotechnic expertise and operating record demonstrate the ability to safely and effectively process these materials. The risk burden shifted to the Metals Recovery Facility will not be greater than current operations for the following reasons: The need to transport waste pyrotechnic material off-site to the permitted OB/OD unit will be minimized. The public and other non-Autoliv employees will not be exposed to the risks associated with transportation, loading and unloading of pyrotechnics for off-site transport. This increases public safety. Waste pyrotechnic materials will be processed more regularly, thereby reducing the risk associated with the storage of large quantities of pyrotechnic materials. In addition, all workers will have extensive explosive handling and safety training. Industrial hygiene samples will be completed to insure worker safety. The proposed feed system is designed to prevent propagation of pyrotechnic materials, thus protecting workers and equipment. Processing capabilities, desensitizing agents, limitations, etc. will be strictly defined. By controlling the feed rates and quantities processed, the risk of processing waste pyrotechnics in the Metals Recovery Furnace will be significantly reduced. All processing will be completed as remotely as possible to minimize worker exposure. The risk burden to the environment and general public will be reduced because all emissions will be directed through the air pollution control train before being released to the environment. Current open burning operations allow for no emission controls. Implementing best management handling training, housekeeping and engineering design practices will minimize the risk of fires and explosions. The increased use of the MRF will allow Autoliv to treat its waste in a more environmentally sound manner than what previously exists. No shifting of the risk burden will occur from one media to another.
Sample 1
Avoidance of Shifting the Risk Burden to Other Areas or Media. The emission reductions anticipated from this innovative process are believed to be true pollution reductions and not merely moving it to another media. As indicated in the comparative emissions data above, the greatest reductions are in NOX, SO2, VOCs, and Particulates. The reduced NOX is a function of NOX control technology in the Gas Boiler. VOCs are converted to energy and the particulates are captured and added to the bed solids as additional sodium carbonate. Some of the sulfur compounds could be purged to the mill wastewater treatment system for assimilation. No significant impact to water quality is anticipated. An area of concern is the potential risk of failure of the gasification technology and the subsequent construction of a recovery boiler. During this construction period the smelters would be operated to maintain production at the mill. This time period could very possibly run past the MACT II compliance date. There then is a risk that total emissions over the project period would exceed emissions if the project were not pursued and conventional technology was put into place by the compliance date. The following table shows emissions in total tons for a set period of time during the project under differing scenarios as described. Table 3 Comparison of Emissions in Tons Jan. 1, 2001 to Mar. 31, 2006 Gasification Successful With XL Failure of Gasification Replace with a Recovery Boiler MACT II Final Dec. 2000 Recovery Boiler Without Project XL MACT II Final May 2002 Recovery Boiler Without Project XL NOx 000 000 000 717 SO2 27 61 60 62 CO 12474 32625 18157 27578 CO2 509569 493513 554570 514079 VOC 2700 7077 3876 5955 PM 724 1884 1065 1599 The first column of emissions data are the total emissions estimated if the project goes as planned. The second column reflects estimated emissions should the project fail and a recovery boiler needs to be built, during which time the smelters would continue to operate. The third column is an estimate of the emissions if gasification technology is not pursued and the MACT II promulgation date is December 2000. The fourth column of data shows total emissions if we do not pursue gasification technology and the MACT II promulgation date is May 2002. The conclusions which can be drawn from this data are as follows: 1) a successful gasification technology implementation has much lower tons of emissions than the other scenarios; 2) the worst case additional pollutant burden would be the difference between column 2 ...
Sample 1
Avoidance of Shifting the Risk Burden to Other Areas or Media. The emission reductions anticipated from this innovative process are believed to be true pollution reductions and not merely a movement of contaminants to another media. As indicated in the comparative emissions data in Tables 1 and 2 in Section III.A, the greatest reductions are in NOX, SO2, VOCs, CO and Particulates. The reduction in NOX is a function of NOX control technology in the gasification system boiler. Georgia-Pacific intends to utilize low-NOX burners for both natural gas and product gas. VOCs are converted to energy and the particulates are captured and added to the bed solids as additional sodium carbonate. Some of the sulfur compounds could be purged to the Mill wastewater treatment system for assimilation. No significant impact to water quality is anticipated. An area of concern is the potential risk of failure of the black liquor gasification system and the subsequent construction of a recovery boiler. During this construction period the smelters would be operated to maintain production at the Mill. This time period could very possibly run past the MACT II compliance date. There then is a risk that total emissions over the project period would exceed emissions if the project were not pursued and conventional technology was put into place by the compliance date. The following relative time line and data table will help clarify the project schedule and its potential effect on overall project emissions. Table 4 shows emissions in total tons for a set period of time during the project under four different scenarios. Relative Project Time Line Detailed Engineering and Gasifier Construction (~2 years) Commissioning (~1 year) MACT II Performance Testing (180 days) Failure Contingency - Construct Conventional Recovery Boiler (~3 years) DOE Agreement signed Start-up - no later than 3 years after DOE agreement Gasifier in Compliance or Deemed a failure Recovery Boiler in Compliance Table 4 Comparison of Different Project Scenarios Potential Total Project Emissions in tons from Jan.1, 2001 to March 01, 2007 Pollutant Gasification Project Successful Gasification Fails Replace w/Recovery Boiler Boiler Startup 2007 MACT II Final Dec. 2000 No Project XL Recovery Boiler Startup 2003 Recovery Boiler Startup 2005 NOx 402 828 759 869 SO2 30 66 71 75 CO 14461 34867 20389 30956 CO2 608812 632229 685370 665004 VOC 3127 7546 4334 6659 PM 770 2023 1203 1806 The first column shows the total emissions estimated if the gasification project is successful. The second ...
Sample 1
Avoidance of Shifting the Risk Burden to Other Areas or Media. The project is consistent with Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice. It will not result in disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. It is possible that changes to the City’s water treatment could cause lead levels to rise temporarily for all City residents. However, this project is designed to ensure that lead levels in drinking water will continue to be minimized. Moreover, even if lead levels were to rise and
Sample 1
Avoidance of Shifting the Risk Burden to Other Areas or Media. The emission reductions anticipated from this innovative process are believed to be true pollution reductions and not merely moving it to another media. As indicated in the comparative emissions data above, the greatest reductions are in NOX, SO2, VOCs, and Particulates. The reduced NOX is a function of NOX control technology in the Gas Boiler. VOCs are converted to energy and the particulates are captured and added to the bed solids as additional sodium carbonate. Some of the sulfur compounds could be purged to the mill wastewater treatment system for assimilation. No significant impact to water quality is anticipated. Another area of concern is that of Environmental Justice (EJ). The two criteria reviewed to determine if the project area is an EJ area are, 1) Does the area of concern exceed the State average for minority?, and 2) Does the area of concern exceed the state average for poverty?. The Virginia Minority Average is 27.09%, compared to a project area Minority Average of 18.9%. The Virginia Poverty Average is 12.25%, compared to a project area Poverty Average of 5.0%. Both are well below state averages. This is not considered an Environmental Justice community.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Avoidance of Shifting the Risk Burden to Other Areas or Media. NBC’s project will have no negative impact, and no adverse shifts in loadings across media. NBC’s current pretreatment program requirements to protect worker health and safety will remain in place.
Sample 1
Avoidance of Shifting the Risk Burden to Other Areas or Media. The emission reductions anticipated from this innovative process are believed to be true pollution reductions and not merely a movement of contaminants to another media. As indicated in the comparative emissions data in Tables 1 and 2 in Section III.A, the greatest reductions are in NOX, SO2, VOCs, CO and Particulates. The reduction in NOX is a function of NOX control technology in the gasification system boiler. Georgia-Pacific intends to utilize low-NOX burners for both natural gas and product gas. VOCs are converted to energy and the particulates are captured and added to the bed solids as additional sodium carbonate. Some of the sulfur compounds could be purged to the Mill wastewater treatment system for assimilation. No significant impact to water quality is anticipated. An area of concern is the potential risk of failure of the black liquor gasification system and the subsequent construction of a recovery boiler. During this construction period the smelters would be operated to maintain production at the Mill. This time period could very possibly run past the MACT II compliance date. There then is a risk that total emissions over the project period would exceed emissions if the project were not pursued and conventional technology was put into place by the compliance date. The following relative time line and data table will help clarify the project schedule and its potential effect on overall project emissions. Table 4 shows emissions in total tons for a set period of time during the project under four different scenarios.
Sample 1

Related to Avoidance of Shifting the Risk Burden to Other Areas or Media

  • WORK STOPPAGES AND LOCKOUTS 4.1 During the term of this Agreement there shall be no strikes, picketing, work stoppages, slowdowns or other disruptive activity for any reason by the Union, its applicable Local Union or by any employee, and there shall be no lockout by the Contractor. Failure of any Union, Local Union or employee to cross any picket line established at the Project site is a violation of this Article. Any damages resulting from any violation of this Agreement will be paid by the violating party.

  • PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND VIDEO SURVEILLANCE SERVICES OR EQUIPMENT To the extent applicable, Supplier certifies that during the term of this Contract it will comply with applicable requirements of 2 C.F.R. § 200.216.

  • STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS The Union agrees during the term of this Agreement there will be no slowdown or strike, stoppage of work or refusal to work or to continue to work. The Employer agrees that during the term of this Agreement there will be no lockout.

  • NO STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS 5.01 The Union agrees there will be no strikes and the Employer agrees there will be no lockouts during the term of this Agreement. The term "strike" and "lockout" shall bear the meaning given them in the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

  • Contractor to Pay All Taxes Except for any applicable California sales and use taxes charged by Contractor to City, Contractor shall pay all taxes, including possessory interest taxes levied upon or as a result of this Agreement, or the Services delivered pursuant hereto. Contractor shall remit to the State of California any sales or use taxes paid by City to Contractor under this Agreement. Contractor agrees to promptly provide information requested by the City to verify Contractor’s compliance with any State requirements for reporting sales and use tax paid by City under this Agreement.

  • Modification of the Small Generating Facility The Interconnection Customer must receive written authorization from the NYISO and Connecting Transmission Owner before making any change to the Small Generating Facility that may have a material impact on the safety or reliability of the New York State Transmission System or the Distribution System. Such authorization shall not be unreasonably withheld. Modifications shall be done in accordance with Good Utility Practice. If the Interconnection Customer makes such modification without the prior written authorization of the NYISO and Connecting Transmission Owner, the Connecting Transmission Owner shall have the right to temporarily disconnect the Small Generating Facility. If disconnected, the Small Generating Facility will not be reconnected until the unauthorized modifications are authorized or removed.

  • Access Toll Connecting Trunk Group Architecture 9.2.1 If CBB chooses to subtend a Verizon access Tandem, CBB’s NPA/NXX must be assigned by CBB to subtend the same Verizon access Tandem that a Verizon NPA/NXX serving the same Rate Center Area subtends as identified in the LERG.

  • Modifications or Additions to Master Agreement As used in this document, Contract (whether capitalized or not) will, unless the context requires otherwise, mean this document and all incorporated Exhibits, which set forth the entire understanding of the Parties and supersede any and all prior agreements. This Contract may only be modified or amended upon mutual written agreement by the Parties. If amendments are made to the Master Agreement, the Contractor shall: 1) notify the Department of such amendments; and 2) provided the Department is amenable to incorporating the amendments into this Contract, enter into a written amendment with the Department reflecting the addition of such amendments to this Contract. In addition to Section 2.2.1 of the Master Agreement and any additional language within the Contract regarding delivery, the Parties agree that Inside Delivery for Customers under this ACS may be further negotiated prior to purchases under this ACS. Inside Delivery rates can be found under the Terms and Conditions page: xxxxx://xxxxxx.xxx.xx.xxx/purchase/spg/awards/2091523109Can.htm All Exhibits attached or listed below are incorporated in their entirety into, and will form part of, this Contract. Exhibit A and Exhibit B, modify or supplement the terms and conditions of the Master Agreement. In the event of a conflict, the following order of precedence will apply:

  • CERTIFICATION OF NO ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIALS OR WORK 8.1 The Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that no asbestos containing materials or work is included within the scope of the Work. The Contractor shall take whatever measures it deems necessary to insure that all employees, suppliers, fabricators, material men, subcontractors, or their assigns, comply with this requirement.

  • RIGHT OF ALLOTTEE TO USE COMMON AREAS AND FACILITIES SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF TOTAL MAINTENANCE CHARGES The Allottee hereby agrees to purchase the [Apartment/Plot] on the specific understanding that is/her right to the use of Common Areas shall be subject to timely payment of total maintenance charges, as determined and thereafter billed by the maintenance agency appointed or the association of allottees (or the maintenance agency appointed by it) and performance by the Allottee of all his/her obligations in respect of the terms and conditions specified by the maintenance agency or the association of allottees from time to time.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!