The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) directs EPA to publish a list of contaminants (referred to as the Contaminant Candidate List, or CCL) to assist in priority-setting efforts. SDWA also directs the Agency to select five or more contaminants from the current CCL and determine whether to regulate these contaminants with a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR).
EPA further reduces human health risks by studying the presence of selected unregulated contaminants in drinking water every five years. EPA then determines whether to regulate the unregulated contaminants. On October 20, 2014, the agency released preliminary determinations to regulate strontium and not to regulate dimethoate, 1,3-dinitrobenzene, terbufos, and terbufos sulfone. However, the agency is not making a final regulatory determination for strontium at this time. The agency based its decision to delay a final determination for strontium on public comments received and plans to further evaluate scientific information that became available after publication of the preliminary regulatory determinations. By delaying action, the agency says that it will be able to use the best available science to conduct additional scientific analyses to determine if there is a need to develop a national drinking water regulation for strontium.
Hazardous Waste Generator Improvement Rule
In the first major modification to the hazardous waste regulations in over 10 years, EPA plans to modify and reorganize the hazardous waste generator rule. When adopted, the rule will provide greater flexibility in how hazardous waste is managed and close important gaps in the regulations.
Attend Environmental Resource Center’s live, online session to learn:
- New requirements for documenting hazardous waste determinations
- Revised requirements for when and how to submit the Notification of Generator Status form to EPA
- How to take advantage of the episodic generation exclusion to avoid reclassification to a larger generator status
- Definitions of important new terms – “Very Small Quantity Generator” and “Central Accumulation Area”
- How to mark containers, tanks, and containment buildings with new information required at central accumulation areas and satellites
- New conditions under which containers can be left open at satellite accumulation areas
- Updated time and volume limits for satellite accumulation areas
- New documentation requirements for contingency plans and biennial reports
- New requirements for shipping hazardous waste from a VSQG to another facility owned by the same organization
New Exclusions for Solvent Recycling and Hazardous Secondary Materials
EPA’s new final rule on the definition of solid waste creates new opportunities for waste recycling outside the scope of the full hazardous waste regulations. This rule, which went into effect on July 13, 2015, streamlines the regulatory burden for wastes that are legitimately recycled.
The first of the two exclusions is an exclusion from the definition of solid waste for high-value solvents transferred from one manufacturer to another for the purpose of extending the useful life of the original solvent by keeping the materials in commerce to reproduce a commercial grade of the original solvent product.
The second, and more wide reaching of the two exclusions, is a revision of the existing hazardous secondary material recycling exclusion. This exclusion allows you to recycle, or send off-site for recycling, virtually any hazardous secondary material. Provided you meet the terms of the exclusion, the material will no longer be hazardous waste.
Learn how to take advantage of these exclusions at Environmental Resource Center’s live webcast on January 15 where you will learn:
- Which of your materials qualify under the new exclusions
- What qualifies as a hazardous secondary material
- Which solvents can be remanufactured, and which cannot
- What is a tolling agreement
- What is legitimate recycling
- Generator storage requirements
- What documentation you must maintain
- Requirements for off-site shipments
- Training and emergency planning requirements
- If it is acceptable for the recycler to be outside the US
Cary HAZWOPER Refresher and DOT/IATA Training
Columbia RCRA and DOT Training
Indianapolis RCRA, DOT, and IATA/IMO Training
California State Water Board Adopts Strategy to Optimize Resource Management of Storm Water
The State Water Resources Control Board recently adopted an innovative statewide Storm Water Strategy that advances storm water management in California as a resource for present and future water needs.
Historically, unmanaged storm water runoff has been viewed as a threat to human life and property, and as a significant source of water quality pollution. The Storm Water Strategy promotes the value of storm water for multiple benefits such as groundwater replenishment and habitat improvement.
“The drought, and the specter of more frequent droughts due to climate change, requires us to dramatically rethink how we manage storm water in California,” said State Water Board Chair Felicia Marcus. “Storm water should no longer be viewed as a nuisance, but instead embraced as an immediate and future water resource. With the right planning to capture it rather than shunting it away, local communities can improve local flood control, water quality, and water supply, including groundwater recharge, while contributing to urban greening—all of which will benefit current and future generations of Californians.”
The California Water Boards support local partnerships and collaboration to identify effective ways to further integrate watershed management, multiple-benefit solutions, and source control for storm water management efficiency and effectiveness.
Washington State Releases Draft Rule to Cap Carbon Pollution
A proposed rule would set Washington’s first-ever limits on carbon pollution, acting to help slow climate change and limit projected effects on our state’s coastal communities, agricultural industries, and drinking water supplies.
After working with industry, local governments, environmentalists, and the public to gain input on how to limit carbon pollution, the Washington Department of Ecology is now sharing details of the clean air rule.
Greenhouse gases (GHG), also referred to as carbon pollution, are the primary cause of climate change. About 60% of Washington’s GHGs would be covered under the proposed rule that would first set a maximum limit on these emissions and then gradually reduce them over time.
In addition to gradually reducing their carbon pollution, organizations could obtain credits from other participants and carbon markets, or fund projects that reduce carbon pollution.
“It’s important that we act now to protect our water supplies, infrastructure, and economy for future generations,” said Ecology Director Maia Bellon. “I’m a big believer in partnerships and now is the time for industry and the environmental community to collaborate with us on the best approach.”
Ecology’s proposed rule comes on the heels of the international summit of world leaders to address climate change. Gov. Jay Inslee, along with other state leaders, attended the conference where over 190 countries agreed to ward off the impacts of climate change and signed an accord committing to reduce carbon pollution as soon as possible.
“Cities and counties across our state are taking action now to protect their transportation systems, water supplies and homes from climate change damage,” said Sarah Rees, Ecology’s climate change policy lead. “Now’s the time for the state to do its part.”
Washington’s economy, environment and way of life are threatened by diminishing snowpack, increased flooding and sea level rise.
“This is only one piece of the puzzle,” said Rees. “We need to put multiple strategies in place. The science is telling us that what was projected years ago is happening today and we need to act now to protect our environment and economy for future generations.”
NPDES Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System General Permit Remand
EPA is proposing changes to the regulations governing small municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permits to respond to a remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Environmental Defense Center, et al. v. EPA, 344 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2003). In that decision, the court determined that the regulations for providing coverage under small MS4 general permits did not provide for adequate public notice and opportunity to request a hearing. The court also found EPA failed to require permitting authority review of the best management practices (BMPs) to be used at a particular MS4 to ensure that pollutants in the discharge from their systems is reduced to the "maximum extent practicable". EPA's proposal revises the small MS4 regulations to ensure that the permitting authority determines the adequacy of BMPs and other requirements and provides public notice and the opportunity to request a public hearing on the requirements for each MS4. The proposal would not establish any new substantive requirements for small MS4s. Comments must be received on or before 21 March 2016. POC is Greg Schaner, Office of Wastewater Management, Water Permits Division (M4203), EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; phone: 202-564-0721; email:
Con-way Freight to Pay $42,900 for Hazardous Waste Violations
The community around a Cranston, Rhode Island, freight service center that stores damaged containers of products that may contain hazardous chemicals will be safer as the result of a settlement between the company and the EPA.
Con-way Freight has agreed to pay a penalty of $42,900 to settle EPA claims that it allegedly violated hazardous waste laws at its facility at 15 Southern Industrial Road in Cranston.
“This agreement brings this company into compliance with the law and brings the community an added measure of safety.”
Con-way stores containers of products that have been damaged during transit. These containers must then be managed in a manner that prevents the wastes from being released to the environment.
Con-way has since corrected its alleged violations.
Utah DEQ Releases Annual Environmental Report for 2015
This end-of-year report provides a comprehensive look at agency activities and initiatives that protected and enhanced the quality of Utah’s environment in 2015.
“Our employees work tirelessly to improve the lives of all Utahns and safeguard Utah’s air, land, and water to support human health, a vibrant economy, and our unsurpassed quality of life,” said Alan Matheson, executive director at DEQ. “This year’s report provides a synopsis of what we do every day to ensure the health and wellbeing of the people of Utah.”
The report highlights DEQ successes the past year that included:
- Air quality research projects funded by the legislature to improve scientific understanding the complex conditions that lead to elevated pollution levels during Utah’s winter inversions and summertime ozone episodes.
- Water quality financing and assistance over nearly seven years that helped Coalville break ground on a state-of-the-art wastewater treatment plant in 2015.
- Funding of $576,000 for drinking-water system master plans and engineering studies, and another $14.6 million for 14 drinking-water construction projects that ensure safe, clean drinking water for Utah residents.
- Distribution of 700 free radon test kits in local hospitals through DEQ’s newborn radon program to protect infants and their families from the dangers of radon gas, an indoor threat that is present in unhealthy levels in one in three Utah homes.
- Oversight of the detection and removal of unexploded ordnances in areas with increased urban development near Camp Williams.
“One of the defining characteristics of Utah is our stewardship ethic—a drive to leave the world better for those who follow,” says Matheson. “We at DEQ share that drive and pledge to continue our work to create a cleaner, healthier, more prosperous Utah.”
EPA Releases the First of Four Preliminary Risk Assessments for Insecticides Potentially Harmful to Bees
The EPA announced a preliminary pollinator risk assessment for the neonicotinoid insecticide, imidacloprid, which shows a threat to some pollinators. EPA’s assessment, prepared in collaboration with California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation, indicates that imidacloprid potentially poses risk to hives when the pesticide comes in contact with certain crops that attract pollinators.
“Delivering on the President’s National Pollinator Strategy means EPA is committed not only to protecting bees and reversing bee loss, but for the first time assessing the health of the colony for the neonicotinoid pesticides,” said Jim Jones Assistant Administrator of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “Using science as our guide, this preliminary assessment reflects our collaboration with the State of California and Canada to assess the results of the most recent testing required by EPA.”
The preliminary risk assessment identified a residue level for imidacloprid of 25 ppb, which sets a threshold above which effects on pollinator hives are likely to be seen, and at that level and below which effects are unlikely. These effects include decreases in pollinators as well as less honey produced. .
For example, data show that citrus and cotton may have residues of the pesticide in pollen and nectar above the threshold level. Other crops such as corn and leafy vegetables either do not produce nectar or have residues below the EPA identified level. Additional data is being generated on these and other crops to help EPA evaluate whether imidacloprid poses a risk to hives.
The imidacloprid assessment is the first of four preliminary pollinator risk assessments for the neonicotinoid insecticides. Preliminary pollinator risk assessments for three other neonicotinoids, clothianidin, thiamethoxam, and dinotefuran, are scheduled to be released for public comment in December 2016.
A preliminary risk assessment of all ecological effects for imidacloprid, including a revised pollinator assessment and impacts on other species such as aquatic and terrestrial animals and plants will also be released in December 2016.
In addition to working with California, EPA coordinated efforts with Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency. Canada’s Imidacloprid pollinator-only assessment—also released recently—reaches the same preliminary conclusions as EPA’s report.
The 60-day public comment period will begin upon publication in the Federal Register. After the comment period ends, EPA may revise the pollinator assessment based on comments received and, if necessary, take action to reduce risks from the insecticide.
In 2015, EPA proposed to prohibit the use of pesticides that are toxic to bees, including the neonicotinoids, when crops are in bloom and bees are under contract for pollination services. The Agency temporarily halted the approval of new outdoor neonicotinoid pesticide uses until new bee data is submitted and pollinator risk assessments are complete.
EPA is also planning to hold a webinar on the imidacloprid assessment in early February.
Aliso Canyon Natural Gas Leak
On January 6, 2016, California Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. issued a proclamation that declares the situation at Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility leak an emergency, and details ongoing efforts to stop the leak. The order directs further actions the State will take to protect public health and safety, outlines the steps California is taking to address this emergency, and highlights the coordinated effort across state, local, and federal agencies to resolve the situation.
The State of California has regulatory authority over intrastate natural gas storage facilities in California, including the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility, and has established an incident command structure, including a physical post on-site at Aliso Canyon to better coordinate the local, state and federal information sharing.
The U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is working closely with the State of California to provide technical assistance and support to state and local regulatory agencies, including the California Public Utility Commission, related to their response and oversight activities. PHMSA's pipeline safety and technical experts have been on-site at the incident command and participate in daily operational briefings with state regulators, the Southern California Gas Company, and other federal agencies, including the EPA. PHMSA will continue to provide technical support to assist California and will provide additional details on this webpage as the response effort moves forward.
Strategic Materials Inc. Fined $17,200 for Violating Air Quality and Wetlands Regulations
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has assessed a $17,200 penalty on Strategic Materials, Inc. of Houston, Texas, which operates a glass recycling facility at Kenwood Circle in Franklin, for violating state air pollution control and wetland protection regulations.
Strategic Materials holds an air quality permit issued by MassDEP, which establishes emission limits and operating requirements for the glass bottle-crushing facility. Inspections conducted by MassDEP staff in 2014 identified violations of both the permit and the Wetlands Protection Act regulations.
The air quality violations included causing a condition of air pollution due to odor, generating excessive dust, failing to cover stock piles of crushed glass, and failing to monitor operations. Some of the air quality violations are repeat violations of a previous order issued in 2011, which included a penalty of $12,000.
Wetlands Protection Act violations included dredging a detention basin within the 100-foot buffer zone to Bordering Vegetated Wetlands (BVW) without obtaining an Order of Conditions authorizing the alteration. The BVW is located within the protected zone aquifer recharge area for the Town of Franklin's drinking water wells.
"Processing recyclable materials in compliance with environmental regulations without creating excessive dust and odor is achievable and critical in protecting public health and our natural resources," said Mary Jude Pigsley, director of MassDEP's Central Regional Office in Worcester.
Complaint Filed Against Volkswagen, Audi, and Porsche for Alleged Clean Air Act Violations
The complaint alleges that nearly 600,000 diesel engine vehicles had illegal defeat devices installed that impair their emission control systems and cause emissions to exceed EPA’s standards, resulting in harmful air pollution.
“With today’s filing, we take an important step to protect public health by seeking to hold Volkswagen accountable for any unlawful air pollution, setting us on a path to resolution,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for enforcement and compliance assurance at EPA. “So far, recall discussions with the company have not produced an acceptable way forward. These discussions will continue in parallel with the federal court action.”
“Car manufacturers that fail to properly certify their cars and that defeat emission control systems breach the public trust, endanger public health and disadvantage competitors,” said Assistant Attorney General John C. Cruden for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “The United States will pursue all appropriate remedies against Volkswagen to redress the violations of our nation’s clean air laws alleged in the complaint.”
“VW’s illegal defeat devices have resulted in thousands of tons of excess NOx emissions in California, a state where more than 12 million people live in areas that exceed air quality standards set to protect public health,” said CARB Chair Mary D. Nichols. "The California Air Resources Board is fully coordinating its investigation with the federal EPA and DOJ to address the environmental harm VW has caused.”
Motor vehicles equipped with illegal defeat devices cannot be certified.
The complaint alleges that Volkswagen equipped certain 2.0 liter vehicles with software that detects when the car is being tested for compliance with EPA emissions standards and turns on full emissions controls only during that testing process. During normal driving situations the effectiveness of the emissions control devices is greatly reduced. This results in cars that meet emissions standards in the laboratory and at the test site, but during normal on-road driving emit oxides of nitrogen (NOx) at levels up to 40 times the EPA compliance level. In total, the complaint covers approximately 499,000 2.0 liter diesel vehicles sold in the United States since the 2009 model year.
The complaint further alleges that Volkswagen also equipped certain 3.0 liter vehicles with software that senses when the vehicle is undergoing federal emissions testing. When the vehicle senses the test procedure, it operates in a “temperature conditioning” mode and meets emissions standards. At all other times, including during normal vehicle operation, the vehicles operate in a “normal mode” that permits NOx emissions of up to nine times the federal standard. In total, the complaint covers approximately 85,000 3.0 liter diesel vehicles sold in the United States since the 2009 model year.
NOx pollution contributes to harmful ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter. These pollutants are linked with asthma and other serious respiratory illnesses. Exposure to ozone and particulate matter is also associated with premature death due to respiratory-related or cardiovascular-related effects. Children, the elderly, and people with pre-existing respiratory disease are particularly at risk of health effects from exposure to these pollutants. Recent studies indicate that the direct health effects of NOx are worse than previously understood, including respiratory problems, damage to lung tissue, and premature death.
The filing of a civil complaint under Sections 204 and 205 of the Clean Air Act seeks injunctive relief and the assessment of civil penalties. A civil complaint does not preclude the government from seeking other legal remedies. The United States will seek to transfer its case and fully participate in the pretrial proceedings now initiated in the related multi-district litigation in the Northern District of California. The United States’ investigation is ongoing, in close coordination with CARB. EPA and CARB have been in active discussion with Volkswagen about potential remedies and recalls to address the noncompliance, and those discussions are ongoing.
Affected 2.0 liter diesel models and model years include:
- Jetta (2009–2015)
- Jetta Sportwagen (2009–2014)
- Beetle (2013–2015)
- Beetle Convertible (2013–2015)
- Audi A3 (2010–2015)
- Golf (2010–2015)
- Golf Sportwagen (2015)
- Passat (2012–2015)
Affected 3.0 liter diesel models and model years include:
- Volkswagen Touareg (2009–2016)
- Porsche Cayenne (2013–2016)
- Audi A6 Quattro (2014–2016)
- Audi A7 Quattro (2014–2016)
- Audi A8 (2014–2016)
- Audi A8L (2014–2016)
- Audi Q5 (2014–2016)
- Audi Q7 (2009–2015)
Over 800,000 People Call for EPA to Ban Dangerous Pesticide Chlorpyrifos
More than 80,000 people urged the EPA to ban the use of the dangerous, widely-used pesticide chlorpyrifos from use on all crops.
On October 30, 2015, EPA proposed to ban the neurotoxic pesticide on food crops, 15 years after banning it for residential use. The public comment period on EPA’s proposed ban recently ended. Recent appeals court decisions gave EPA a deadline to take meaningful action on a 2007 legal petition to ban the chemical. EPA’s open comment period on the proposed ban on chlorpyrifos ended January 5.
“A total ban on chlorpyrifos is what farmworkers, agricultural communities and all consumers deserve,” said Patti Goldman, the Earthjustice attorney handling the case. “EPA’s and other independent findings show that chlorpyrifos causes brain damage to children and poisons workers and bystanders. It is imperative that EPA move quickly to protect workers and children by issuing a final and total ban to this widely-used pesticide.”
A coalition of farmworker, environmental health and labor groups submitted comments on behalf of legal experts, scientists, and the general public.
“Given the incredibly strong science on the health harms of chlorpyrifos, it’s absurd that EPA has taken so long to act,” said Dr. Margaret Reeves, senior scientist at PAN. “Kids, farmworkers and families in rural areas are getting an extra dose of this brain harming chemical as it drifts from nearby agricultural fields—its on produce, in the air, and in the water. A full ban of all uses will finally ensure that communities are safe from this highly hazardous pesticide.”
Calling EPA’s delay “egregious,” the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered EPA to respond to the 2007 petition by October 30 and to make a final decision on the ban by the end of 2016. Earthjustice filed the original lawsuit spurring the court deadline on behalf of PAN and NRDC.
“For too long, farmworkers have worked around this chemical deemed too dangerous for household use,” said Virginia Ruiz, director of occupational & environmental health at Farmworker Justice. “EPA needs to ban all uses of chlorpyrifos and end this double standard.”
"Studies indicate that disruptions in children’s brain development are associated with very low levels of chlorpyrifos exposure, and the effects appear to be permanent, irreversible, and lifelong. Given the seriousness of these effects,” said Dr. Jennifer Sass, senior scientist with NRDC. “EPA should act now to ban this dangerous pesticide and protect children.”
In December 2014, EPA acknowledged the extensive body of peer-reviewed science correlating chlorpyrifos exposure with brain damage to children, including reduced IQ, delayed development, and loss of working memory. The agency found that drinking water contaminated with the pesticide is particularly harmful to infants, and highlighted the serious risks to workers from handling chlorpyrifos or entering fields after spraying.
“Farmworkers and their families deserve the same protections as the rest of the workers in this country,” said Erik Nicholson, national vice president of United Farm Workers. “It is now time for EPA to take chlorpyrifos out of all fields and nurseries to ensure a safer workplace for all.”
Environmental News Links
Trivia Question of the Week
Bees are responsible for pollinating how much of the food we eat?
a) 20%
b) 40%
c) 60%
d) 80%
