This interim final rule became effective immediately. In the same issue of the Federal Register, EPA proposed to defer the reporting date for the data by three years. Specifically, EPA is proposing to defer direct emitter reporting of inputs to emission equations for calendar years through 2012 until March 31, 2014. This proposal would not change any other requirements of the reporting rule.
IATA Update – What’s New for 2011?
Each year, the International Air Transportation Association (IATA) updates and revises the regulations for the transportation of dangerous goods (hazardous materials) by air. If you offer dangerous goods for transportation by air, you must follow the new regulations by January 1. A large number of significant changes are being implemented in the 2011 IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations (DGR).
At this live webcast, you will learn:
- Changes in the regulations for consumer commodities– new marking and shipping paper entries
- New test authorized to determine classification and packing group of corrosives
- Changes in the classification criteria for magnetized materials
- Revisions to the classification of environmentally hazardous substances, marine pollutants, and aquatic pollutants
- Phase in of new packing instructions for Class 3 flammable liquids, Class 4 flammable solids, Class 5 oxidizers/organic peroxides, Class 8 corrosives, Class 9 miscellaneous, and Division 6
- New entries on the IATA List of Dangerous Goods and new special provisions
- New marking requirements for net quantities, limited quantities, environmentally hazardous substances, and orientation arrows
Columbia, South Carolina RCRA and DOT Training
Advertising Opportunities Available
Environmental Resource Center is making a limited number of advertising positions available in the Safety Tip of the Week™, the Environmental Tip of the Week™, and the Reg of the Day™.
EPA to Address Residual Risk for Two NESHAPs
EPA plans to describe how it will address the residual risk and technology reviews conducted for two national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP)—Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating, Chromium Anodizing, and Steel Pickling.
The NESHAPs also address provisions related to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. This action, which is planned to be published in the next year, will finalize changes to correct editorial errors, make clarifications, and address issues with implementation.
Hazardous Waste Land Disposal Restrictions to be Revised for m-Cumenyl Methylcarbamate
EPA is considering revising the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) treatment standards for the hazardous waste m-cumenyl methylcarbamate (EPA hazardous waste code P202). There is no analytical standard available with which to measure compliance with the current LDR treatment standards; which are expressed as numeric concentration limits that must be met before the waste can be land disposed. An analytical standard is a standard reference material that is used to calibrate analytical instruments in order to confirm detection and quantification of a hazardous waste.
EPA is considering providing alternative LDR treatment standards for wastewater and nonwastewater forms of m-cumenyl methylcarbamate, which are expressed as a required method of treatment, thus eliminating the need for analytical testing to determine if the numeric concentration limits have been met. By doing so, this hazardous waste constituent would not be classified as an underlying hazardous constituent (UHC) that requires treatment in wastes that display the characteristic of ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and/or toxicity.
NESHAP and NSPS for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry to be Clarified
EPA is clarifying provisions of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and correcting a minor error in the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry. These rules were published in the Federal Register on September 9, 2010 and took effect on November 8, 2010.
The final rule NESHAP amendments were unclear concerning compliance dates for some sources, and did not make clear that emission limits currently in effect for existing sources remain in effect until the compliance date of the new emission standards. EPA said that the agency also omitted text in one column in Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.1343(b). In the NSPS EPA inadvertently omitted a required rule reference in the incorporation by reference provision. The Agency plans to clarify the compliance dates, emissions limits, and correct the two minor errors within the next 12 months.
NESHAPs for Group I Polymers and Resins Residual Risk and Technology Review
EPA plans to address the residual risk and publish a technology review (RTR) for Group I Polymers and Resins (P&R I). The proposal for this action was signed on September 14, 2010 and the final rule must be signed before June 30, 2011. P&R I covers nine source categories that produce elastomers. Final RTR decisions have already been made for four of the source categories. For the other five source categories EPA proposed that the current Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards provide ample margin of safety and that there have been no advancements in technologies. EPA proposed to eliminate exemptions for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. Finally, EPA proposed new standards for significant emission points not previously regulated at five of the nine source categories.
New York DEC Adopts Emergency Rulemaking to Address EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule and Final PM-2.5 Requirements
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) announced the emergency adoption of revisions to the state regulation implementing the Clean Air Act’s New Source Review (NSR) program.
The revisions conform to federal rules and include regulations for fine particulate matter (PM-2.5) and greenhouse gases (GHGs) as required by federal law. Failure to implement these revisions would have adverse impacts on public health and the general welfare of the state and requires the adoption of an emergency rule by the DEC.
The EPA published its Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule in order to address impacts of GHGs becoming subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act (CAA) as of January 2, 2011.
The revised GHG regulations will shield smaller sources from regulations that are aimed at larger, more significant sources. With this revised regulation, smaller sources in New York such as schools, auto-body garages, churches, multi-family residential buildings or dwellings, warehouses, shopping centers, restaurants, and other small commercial facilities will not be subject to the federal regulation of GHGs beginning January 2, 2011.
Ohio Adopts Emergency Rules Implementing GHG Rules
These rules will enable Ohio businesses to operate without additional federal red tape and regulations.
“Although I believe that Congress, and not U.S. EPA, should be developing a strategy to control greenhouse gases, Congress has not yet successfully addressed this issue,” Strickland said. “Ohio businesses have expressed their concern about this issue and how it could impact the speed at which they can complete projects and create jobs. As U.S. EPA continues to aggressively move down a regulatory pathway, Ohio must act quickly to make sure that, come January 2, Ohio EPA’s regulations pertaining to emissions of greenhouse gases do not negatively affect Ohio’s employers. As Ohio recovers from this national recession, our businesses must not be subjected to overly burdensome regulatory requirements.”
Beginning January 2, 2011, states are required by U.S. EPA to begin permitting GHG emissions from “major sources” of GHGs. Ohio’s emergency rules will provide certainty to the business community by restricting Ohio’s GHG regulatory requirements to only those large sources covered by U.S. EPA’s regulations. There has been significant support from Ohio businesses for the immediate implementation of these emergency rules before January 2 when the federal regulations take effect.
These rules will assure that permitting requirements in Ohio apply only to those GHG sources which must have permits under the U.S. EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule and do not apply to hundreds or thousands of small GHG sources in Ohio. U.S. EPA has adopted “tailoring” rules that raise the major source threshold for GHGs. Raising the threshold to the higher levels means that only the largest sources of GHGs will be subject to permitting requirements. The emergency rules raise the emission levels that would trigger permitting to the same levels as those adopted by the federal government. Without these emergency rules, it would not be sufficiently clear which emission thresholds triggered the need for GHG permitting.
Without these types of rules, millions of GHG sources across the country would fall within the major source category and be required to apply for and obtain major source permits under the CAA whenever they would want to build, expand and operate. That would include small apartment buildings, retail complexes, fast food restaurants, and other small businesses.
“Ohio is moving forward with emergency rules to give Ohio businesses certainty that the State will not have more stringent requirements than the federal government regarding greenhouse gas emission permitting,” said Ohio EPA Director Chris Korleski. “Many in the business community support this action and have requested these rules so that their business development plans will not be hindered.”
Emergency rules must be adopted before the end of the year to ensure that state regulations are no more stringent than federal rules. Emergency rules are valid for 90 days.
New Law Requiring Improved Energy Efficiency for Light Bulbs Begins January 1, 2011
A new federal law will start saving consumers money by improving the energy efficiency standard for incandescent light bulbs sold in California on or after January 1, 2011.
The standard—Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA)—will save California consumers money with new bulbs that offer the same amount of light while using less power. Passed by Congress and signed by President George W. Bush, EISA created new energy efficiency standards for light bulbs. The law is designed to reduce energy use and associated pollution and make the United States less dependent on foreign sources of energy. While the country will adopt this standard on January 1, 2012, California was given authority to implement the national standards one year earlier to avoid the sale of 10.5 million inefficient 100-watt bulbs in 2011 which would cost consumers $35.6 million in higher electricity bills.
Reducing energy use in California also results in improved environmental quality by avoiding the construction of new power plants and air pollution from burning fossil fuels.
The standard in California states that a 100-watt bulb manufactured on or after January 1, 2011 must use 28% less energy (i.e., a 100-watt bulb may not use more than 72 watts). The new 72-watt replacement bulb will provide the same amount of light (i.e., lumens), use less power, and cost less to operate.
New lighting technology has become more efficient than old-fashioned incandescent bulbs. Approximately 90% of the electricity used by traditional incandescent bulbs is wasted as heat instead of visible light. Replacing traditional incandescent light bulbs with more efficient halogen, compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL), or light-emitting diode (LED) bulbs will save consumers money while still offering same amount of light.
The new standard is technology neutral and allows consumers to choose among a variety of high-performance products for their replacement lighting. Additionally, it does not affect the existing supply of incandescent light bulbs stocked in retail stores or incandescent light bulbs already in use.
This standard builds on the California Energy Commission’s long and successful reputation of saving consumers money though energy efficiency standards. Since 1978, California’s appliance and building efficiency standards have saved more than $56 billion in electricity and natural gas costs.
Draft Public Health Goal for Hexavalent Chromium
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) released for public comment a revised draft public health goal (PHG) for hexavalent chromium in drinking water.
The revised draft proposes a PHG of 0.02 parts per billion (ppb) for hexavalent chromium, which is also known as chromium 6. A PHG is the level of a chemical contaminant in drinking water that does not pose a significant health risk. It is not a regulatory level for cleanup of groundwater or surface water contamination.
“When finalized, the public health goal will give California a solid scientific basis for a health-protective drinking water standard for chromium 6,” said OEHHA Director Dr. Joan Denton. “We expect the goal will be the first in the nation for this contaminant.”
The new document revises an earlier draft issued in August 2009 that proposed a PHG of 0.06 ppb. OEHHA, which is part of the California EPA, made changes in response to both public comments and an external scientific peer review of the earlier draft that was coordinated by the University of California.
New research has documented that young children and other sensitive populations are more susceptible than the general population to health risks from exposure to carcinogens. The changes were recommended by the peer review and reflect OEHHA’s new guidelines for early-in-life exposures, which acknowledge this susceptibility. The PHG will serve as guidance for the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) in developing the nation’s first drinking water standard specifically for chromium 6. Current federal and state standards exist for total chromium, which includes both chromium 6 and less-toxic chromium 3.
The draft PHG is based on an estimated one in one million lifetime cancer risk level. This means that for every million people who drink tap water with that level of chromium 6 each day for 70 years, it is expected there would be one additional case of cancer from exposure to chromium 6.
The PHG is not meant to be the maximum safe level of chromium 6 in drinking water. It represents a stringent health-protective goal that CDPH will use to develop an enforceable regulatory standard for chromium 6 in drinking water. The standard will be set as close to the PHG as is economically and technically feasible.
Chromium 6 occurs naturally in some drinking water. The metal is also used in industrial applications and has entered some water supplies due to past waste-disposal practices.
OEHHA will accept written comments on the draft until 5 p.m. on January 30, 2011.
OEHHA will review all comments and make any appropriate revisions before finalizing the PHG.
Where Does the Money from Penalties Go?
California just distributed over $1 million in settlement funds which will go to community colleges and a state clean air fund as a result of settlements with over 58 companies that violated clean air laws. California law requires that companies doing business in the state meet clean air standards and routinely check to make sure their equipment complies with California Air Resources Board (ARB) rules.
The California Air Pollution Control Fund will receive just over $1 million for projects and research to improve California’s air quality. Over $76,000 will go to the Peralta college district to fund emissions education classes conducted by participating California community colleges around the state.
The funds come from settlements for the following violations:
- Sold uncertified hybrid engines for in use transit buses ($50,000), ISE Corporation of Poway, California
- Offered for sale and sold non-California certified vehicles ($50,000), Tiffany Coachworks of Corona, California
- Sold generators without the required emission control catalysts ($204,000), Robin America of Wood Dale, Illinois
- Sold uncertified tractors and windrower engines ($77,000), AGCO Corporation of Duluth, Georgia
- Modified and sold new 2010 Chevrolet Camaros for use or registration in California ($12,500), Hendrick Automotive Group of Charlotte, North Carolina
- Sold catalytic converters that were no longer for sale in the state of California ($125,000), O’Reilly Auto Parts of Springfield, Missouri
Fifty-six other companies settled for a total of $629,306 for failure to:
- Properly inspect their diesel vehicles, as required by California law; and/or,
- Properly affix emissions labels on engines; and/or,
- Register and submit transport refrigeration unit facility reports.
Computers and TVs Must be Recycled Starting January 1 in New Jersey
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner Bob Martin recently reminded New Jersey residents that old TVs, computers, and computer monitors—items known collectively as electronic waste, or e-waste—must be recycled as of the beginning of the New Year, as required by the Electronic Waste Management Act.
“We expect a smooth transition thanks to the work of municipalities, counties and manufacturers who have been cooperating closely with the DEP to coordinate their efforts,” Commissioner Martin said. “Everyone has been working hard to make sure residents will have ample opportunities for recycling their electronic waste.”
The Electronic Waste Management Act bans the disposal of televisions and all personal or portable computers—including desktop, notebook and laptop computers, as well as computer monitors—in the regular waste stream beginning January 1, 2011. Manufacturers of these devices will now be funding the collection of e-waste so that it is free for consumers.
The new law means residents can no longer put TVs, computers, and monitors out on the curb for pickup under regular solid waste collection programs. Many residents will have to take these items to a drop-off point, such as a county or municipal solid waste collection center or a participating electronics retail store. Some municipalities already conduct special curbside pickup programs for recycling of e-waste and are expected to continue doing this.
All 21 counties and many municipalities already have e-waste recycling programs in place. These include special collection events and drop-off points. Best Buy stores and community-based service programs, most notably Goodwill Industries and the Salvation Army, also accept these materials. In many cases, manufacturers will simply pick up the cost of operating these existing programs.
Residents should contact their county solid waste agency or municipal recycling coordinator for e-waste recycling options currently available in their communities. These options will continue to grow in the coming year. The DEP also is compiling a resource list to assist residents in finding collection points.
“We still have some work to do,” Commissioner Martin said. “Over the next several months, the Electronic Waste Management Act will help us fill in gaps to ensure that all covered waste is recycled and that everyone has convenient options. Equally important, this law raises public awareness about the importance of recycling these materials.”
Electronic waste makes up about 2% of the solid waste disposed in New Jersey. Because of the high consumer demand for new technologies, electronic waste is also growing two to three times faster than any other component of the solid waste stream, according to federal EPA. TVs, computers, and computer monitors contain lead, mercury, cadmium, and other toxins. Cathode Ray Tubes, or CRTs, in particular contain large amounts of lead that is used to shield consumers from radiation.
The DEP estimates that the program will prevent 50 million pounds of electronic waste from being sent to solid waste facilities during its first year. The law also contains strict provisions to ensure that, once collected, the materials are recycled properly and in accordance with state and federal laws. Manufacturers must ensure that these devices are not exported for disposal in a manner that poses a risk to public health or the environment.
Manufacturers must be properly registered with the DEP and participating in the program in order to sell covered devices in New Jersey. Most manufacturers have already registered and full compliance is expected.
The DEP is currently developing rules establishing methodologies for determining market shares for television manufacturers and return shares based on weight for other covered electronic devices for the purposes of apportioning responsibility for program costs among manufacturers. The development of these rules does not affect the ongoing establishment of collection programs.
The Electronic Waste Management Act does not cover cell phones, DVD players, VCRs, game consoles, or other electronic devices, although some retailers and service organizations provide opportunities for recycling these items.
Approximately half of the states in the U.S. have mandatory consumer electronics recycling laws.
EPA Issues National Guidance to Address Proper Maintenance, Removal, and Disposal of PCB-Containing Fluorescent Lights
The guidance, part of EPA’s ongoing efforts to address potential PCB exposures in schools, is based on evidence that the older ballasts contain PCBs that can leak when the ballasts fail, leading to elevated levels of PCBs in the air of schools that should not represent an immediate threat but could pose health concerns if they persist over time.
Polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, are man-made chemicals that persist in the environment and were widely used in construction materials and electrical products prior to 1978. PCBs can affect the immune system, reproductive system, nervous system, and endocrine system and are potentially cancer causing if they build up in the body over long periods of time.
“As we continue to learn more about the potential risks of PCBs in older buildings, EPA will work closely with schools and local officials to ensure the safety of students and teachers,” said EPA Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Steve Owens. “This guidance on safely addressing the risks from PCB-containing light fixtures is part of EPA’s ongoing efforts to protect the health of our children and provide them with safe, healthy learning environments.”
Until the late 1970s, PCBs were commonly used as insulators in electrical equipment because they have a high tolerance for heat, do not easily burn, and are non-explosive. EPA banned the processing and distribution in commerce of PCBs in 1979 pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) due to their toxic effects. However, uses of older PCB-containing ballasts were allowed to continue, provided that the ballasts had not failed and the PCBs were not leaking.
EPA believes many schools built in the U.S. before 1979 have light ballasts containing PCBs. A recent pilot study of three schools in New York City found that many light ballasts in the schools contained PCBs and had also failed, causing the PCBs to leak and contributing to increased levels in the air that school children breathe. EPA regional offices have also worked with school officials to address leaking PCBs in light ballasts in schools in Oregon, North Dakota, and Massachusetts.
Given their widespread use before they were banned, if a school was built before 1979 or has not had a complete lighting retrofit since 1979, the fluorescent light ballasts probably contain PCBs. Although intact, functioning ballasts do not pose a health threat, these lighting ballasts will all fail in time. For that reason, EPA recommends older PCB-containing lighting ballasts should be removed, whether as part of a previously scheduled lighting retrofit program or a stand-alone project.
Schools that have older ballasts should examine them to see if they have failed or if PCB leaks are present. If a light ballast is leaking PCBs, federal law requires the immediate removal and disposal of the PCB-containing ballasts and disposal of any PCB-contaminated materials at an EPA approved facility.
To prevent exposure if leaking ballasts are discovered, school personnel should wear protective clothing, including chemically resistant gloves, boots, and disposable overalls while surveying the ballasts. Replacement of leaking ballasts should be performed in a well-ventilated area, or supplemental ventilation or respiratory protection should be provided to reduce the potential for breathing in fumes.
While replacing lighting ballasts requires an upfront investment, there are state, federal, and private funding programs available to potentially provide funding. In addition, replacing older ballasts with newer lighting fixtures will result in energy savings that will increase energy efficiency in schools and likely pay for itself in less than seven years, depending upon hours of operation and local energy costs.
EPA has also developed information on how to properly handle and dispose of PCB-containing fluorescent light ballasts and properly retrofit lighting fixtures to remove potential PCB hazards.
In September 2009, EPA issued guidance to communities about potential PCB contamination in the caulk of pre-1978 buildings. EPA also announced additional research into the potential for PCBs in caulk to get into the air. Research on that and other issues related to PCB exposures is ongoing.
EPA Improves Guidance for Compact Fluorescent Light Bulb Cleanups
EPA has updated its guidance on how to properly clean up a broken compact fluorescent lamp ). Included with the guidance is a new consumer brochure with CFL recycling and cleanup tips. EPA encourages Americans to use CFLs for residential lighting to save energy and prevent GHG emissions that lead to global climate change.
CFLs contain a small amount of mercury sealed within the glass tubing. When a CFL breaks, some of the mercury is released as vapor and may pose potential health risks.
How Sweet It Is: Saccharin Removed from Hazardous Waste and Substances Listings
Labeled a potentially cancer-causing substance in the 1980s, and later cleared through scientific reevaluation in the 1990s, EPA has now deemed fit to remove it from the list of potential human carcinogens. Therefore, it is no longer a U-list hazardous waste nor is it a CERCLA hazardous substance. However, it may still remain subject to state regulations.
Use of Systematic Project Planning Under a Triad Approach for Site Assessment and Cleanup
EPA is making available a new technical publication which is intended for environmental practitioners engaged in the investigation, design, remediation, and closure or reuse of contaminated sites. Systematic Project Planning (SPP) is a rigorous project planning process that lays a scientifically defensible foundation for proposed project activities. The bulletin discusses important considerations and contingencies that need to be addressed, and key activities to be performed during SPP at hazardous-waste sites. It guides the reader to think about SPP from early assessment, to evolving to a mature conceptual site model, to looking ahead at site re-use; and emphasizes up-front effort. Included are references where you can find tools and more detailed technical guidance.
Michigan DNRE Obtains Guilty Plea in Cass County Aquatic Pesticide Application Case
Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE) officials have announced that an Indiana man has pled guilty to one count of illegal use of an aquatic pesticide in Cass County Court.
Jim Donahoe, owner of Aquatic Weed Control of Syracuse, Indiana, was arrested November 24 on six misdemeanor counts of violating aquatic nuisance control regulations under the Michigan’s Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act.
An investigation by DNRE Environmental Investigation Section Detective/Sergeant William Ford revealed that Donahoe illegally applied an aquatic pesticide to multiple sites on Long and Coverdale lakes in Cass County in June 2010. According to the investigation, Donahoe violated the state’s aquatic nuisance control statute, requiring he obtain aquatic pesticide application permits for proposed treatment areas, request necessary amendments to the permits, and properly post the areas treated with the pesticide.
As part of a plea agreement, Donahoe pled guilty to one count of illegal aquatic pesticide application in exchange for dismissal of the remaining five counts. The guilty plea carries a fine of $450.
“With very few exceptions, a permit is required to apply aquatic pesticides for the control of certain nuisance or invasive plant species. Unregulated use of aquatic pesticides could have negative environmental and/or health effects for lake residents and other lake users,” said DNRE Aquatic Nuisance Control Program Analyst Lisa Huberty. “Reports from the public of illegal aquatic pesticide use are taken seriously, and we are pleased to have successfully closed this investigation.”
Washington Industries Say Regulatory Permits are Reasonable, Staff are Helpful
More than 90% said Ecology staff members are helpful and professional.
That’s the bottom line of Ecology’s telephone interviews with 1,253 people across the state. It is the fifth time since 2002 that Ecology has hired the U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Statistics Service to conduct the rigorous third-party survey of people and businesses that have applied for environmental permits from the agency.
Permit applicants were asked how satisfied they are with Ecology’s customer service, whether the permitting process is clear and predictable, and whether the permits are reasonable. Ecology uses the survey results to target improvements in its permitting processes.
Ecology Director Ted Sturdevant said, “The 2010 customer survey serves as a reminder to me that Ecology staff are dedicated to serving the public as well as protecting Washington’s environment, communities and human health. Every day, I see or hear examples of the good work our staff do in working with citizens to sustain the quality of life that makes Washington a great place to live and work. That’s what our environmental permits are about—environmental and human and economic health of our state.”
He added, “What our customers in the regulated community told us is especially uplifting in light of the difficult time that so many business are having and the staff and budget reductions that Ecology and other public agencies are experiencing.”
Agricultural Statistics Service surveyors personally interviewed a wide range of people who hold or have applied for Ecology environmental permits. The survey had a 78% response rate.
Examples are farmers and others who burn agricultural debris outdoors, operators of facilities requiring air quality permits, businesses and others needing water pollution discharge permits or approval of a project affecting water quality, people applying biosolids on the ground, applicants or holders of water rights, operators of Ecology-inspected dams, major manufacturing facilities, and facilities that manage or store hazardous waste.
For maximum candor, the confidentiality of individual responses is safeguarded by the Agricultural Statistics Service. Ecology managers are briefed by surveyors, but they don’t learn how specific individuals or businesses responded to the questions.
Here is a sampling of customer comments noted by the surveyors:
“Quite honestly, they were so easy to work with, very professional, did what they should have done; I gained faith in the government process working with DOE.”
“(Ecology should) recognize the difference between a large entity and a small business. A square peg doesn’t fit all holes; one size doesn’t fit all.”
“It would be more convenient if the reporting process could be electronic.” (Note: this refers to a type of permit in which Ecology hasn’t been able to automate required reporting. Most, but not all, Ecology permit holders can report electronically.)
Clay Mining Company Referred to Attorney General for Missouri Clean Water Law Violations
The Missouri Department of Natural Resources has referred the case against a Monroe County clay mining company to the Missouri Attorney General’s Office for violations of the Missouri Clean Water Law.
The department referred the case against the Joe Gilliam Mining Company to the Attorney General alleging numerous violations of the Missouri Clean Water Law that occurred at the clay mine and loading area, located northwest of the Route U and U.S. Highway 24 intersection near Paris.
The company’s state permit expired in July 2009, and the company has failed to apply for renewal or termination of that permit. While operating under the previous permit, the company failed to submit required annual reports and fees.
Due to the chronic nature of these violations, the department has referred this matter directly to the Missouri State Attorney General’s Office.
Missouri’s Clean Water Law exists to protect human health and the environment, and the department is responsible for enforcing the law and regulations. The department’s enforcement actions help protect public health and the environment by requiring facilities to maintain compliance with the standards set out in the law.
The department’s main goal in any enforcement action is to work with a facility to successfully achieve compliance with the standards and then ensure it has the tools to remain in compliance. As part of that process, penalties may be used to ensure future compliance by removing the economic benefit of continued noncompliance.
Crocs to Pay $230,000 for Making Pesticide Claims
Crocs, Inc., has agreed to remove language on product packaging and pay $230,000 to resolve cases involving unsubstantiated antimicrobial claims for several types of its shoes.
“EPA will take action to protect the public against companies making unverified public health claims,” said Jim Martin, EPA’s regional administrator in Denver, Colorado. “Unless these products are registered with EPA, consumers have little or no information about whether such claims are accurate.”
The case involves several styles of Crocs shoes that included unsubstantiated health claims on product packaging in violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (). The company also made similar claims in advertisements and on their website. Crocs has agreed to stop making such claims and has cooperated fully with EPA enforcement staff. EPA’s authority to assess penalties in these settlements stems from FIFRA, which requires that companies register pesticide products with EPA before making claims about their ability to control germs or pathogens.
“Whether they involve shoes or other common household products, EPA takes these unsubstantiated public health claims seriously.”
The Agency will not register a pesticide until it has been tested to show that it will not pose an unreasonable risk when used according to the label directions. Consumers should be careful to look for the EPA registration number on product labels and follow label directions for use.
Environmental News Links
Trivia Question of the Week
This year, the earth’s population will reach:
a. 5 billion
b. 6 billion
c. 7 billion
d. 8.5 billion
