The proposed e-reporting rule would make facility-specific information, such as inspection and enforcement history, pollutant monitoring results, and other data required by permits accessible to the public through EPA’s website.
EPA estimates that, once the rule is fully implemented, the 46 states and the Virgin Island Territory that are authorized to administer the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program will collectively save approximately $29 million each year as a result of switching from paper to electronic reporting.
“In addition to dramatically cutting costs for states and other regulatory authorities, the e-reporting rule will substantially expand transparency by making it easier for everyone to quickly access critical data on pollution that may be affecting communities,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “The e-reporting rule will also allow states and other regulatory authorities to focus limited resources on the most serious water quality problems, which will lead to increased compliance, improved water quality, and a level playing field for the regulated community.”
Currently, facilities subject to reporting requirements submit data in paper form to states and other regulatory authorities, where the information must be manually entered into data systems. Through the e-reporting rule, these facilities will electronically report their data directly to the appropriate regulatory authority. EPA expects that the e-reporting rule will lead to more comprehensive and complete data on pollution sources, quicker availability of the data for use, and increased accessibility and transparency of the data to the public.
The CWA requires that municipal, industrial, or commercial facilities that discharge wastewater directly into waters of the United States obtain a permit. The NPDES program requires that permitted facilities monitor and report data on pollutant discharges and take other actions to ensure discharges do not affect human health or the environment.
Most facilities subject to reporting requirements will be required to start submitting data electronically one year following the effective date of the final rule. Facilities with limited access to the Internet will have the option of one additional year to come into compliance with the new rule. EPA will work closely with states to provide support to develop or enhance state electronic reporting capabilities.
EPA has already scheduled several webinars in an effort to help states, trade organizations, and other interested parties better understand the details and requirements of the proposed rule. Over the next few months, EPA expects to schedule additional webinar sessions.
The proposed rule will be available for review and public comment for 90 days following the publication date in the Federal Register.
Birmingham RCRA and DOT Training
Indianapolis RCRA, DOT, and EHS Training
Charlotte RCRA, DOT, and Stormwater Training
How to Implement OSHA’s Globally Harmonized Hazard Communication Standard
OSHA has issued a final rule revising its Hazard Communication Standard, aligning it with the United Nations’ globally harmonized system (GHS) for the classification and labeling of hazardous chemicals. This means that virtually every product label, material safety data sheet (now called “safety data sheet” or SDS), and written hazard communication plan must be revised to meet the new standard. Worker training must be updated so that workers can recognize and understand the symbols and pictograms on the new labels as well as the new hazard statements and precautions on SDSs.
EPA Strengthens Chemical Assessment Process to Protect Public Health
IRIS is a human health assessment program that evaluates information on health effects that may result from exposure to environmental contaminants. These high quality, science-based health assessments are used to inform decisions to protect public health and the environment.
“EPA is committed to producing high quality scientific assessments in a timely and transparent manner,” said Lek Kadeli, principal deputy assistant administrator of EPA’s Office of Research and Development. “The improvements announced today will further strengthen our IRIS assessments and enable the agency to better protect human health and the environment by completing more health assessments for chemicals that are being used across our country every day.”
Consistent with recommendations from the National Research Council, EPA will now begin releasing preliminary materials and hold a public meeting early in the assessment development process to explain the criteria for selecting studies and to ensure that critical research was not omitted. Meeting with the public earlier in the process will result in more timely opportunities for the public to provide input into the assessment and comment on the information available for each chemical assessed.
EPA is also using a new document structure for IRIS assessments that is clearer, more concise and more systematic to make the information more accessible.
Additionally, the agency is implementing “stopping rules” for IRIS that will provide a cut-off point for accepting new data for individual IRIS assessments and raising scientific issues related to the assessment. With these changes, EPA’s goal is to increase the number of assessments being completed each year and provide more accurate assessment development timelines to the public.
The IRIS database contains crucial information about how and at what level chemicals may impact human health. When combined with exposure information, governments and private entities use IRIS to help characterize the public health risks of chemical substances, thereby supporting risk management decisions designed to protect public health.
California Air Resources Board Signs Agreement with Australian Climate Agency
The agreement establishes a framework for a working relationship that will mutually benefit each agency in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
“This agreement continues our productive relationship with the Clean Energy Regulator to improve our respective programs,” said Chairman Nichols. “It is another step forward in California’s efforts to establish relationships with other programs to continue sharing information and best practices to fight the global danger of climate change.”
“It is important for Australian agencies to develop strong relationships with our counterparts overseas as we work towards a global market. I believe this agreement will demonstrate the benefits of regulators working together to reinforce the effective operation of our programs,” said Chair Munro.
Under the agreement, the Clean Energy Regulator and the Air Resources Board will share information to develop complementary and effective market-based programs to reduce GHG emissions, and support and build on the capacity of the international carbon market.
The Australian Clean Energy Regulator and the Air Resources Board have been sharing practical lessons over the past year on methods for setting carbon prices. The new memorandum focuses on investing in clean energy generation and related technologies and improving market integrity to deepen collaboration between the two agencies.
Maryland Attorney General Joins Other States in Opposing Chemical Safety Improvement Act
Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler, joined by eight other attorneys general, recently informed members of Congress of his strong objections to the Chemical Safety Improvement Act (S.1009) in its current form.
“While we agree it’s time to update TSCA, we can’t remain silent as members of Congress consider gutting the long-standing authority of state governments to protect our citizens,” said Attorney General Gansler. “This threat is of even greater concern given that some in Washington want to chop the funding of our environmental watchdogs at the federal level, too.”
The letter details their concerns that S.1009’s preemption provisions are too broad.
Maryland currently provides protections, especially for children, under State law. The concerns expressed to Congress extend to Maryland’s ability to provide the same level of protection as new threats from harmful chemicals arise in the future. Examples of the types of laws that protect which could be impacted by sweeping preemption under the current version of S.1009 include:
- Regulation of products with brominated flame retardants
- Ban on manufacture and sale of lead-containing children’s products and,
- Regulation of cadmium in children’s jewelry
Massachusetts Company to Pay $2.6+ Million for Alleged Pesticide Violations
EMD Millipore Corporation, of Billerica, Massachusetts, has agreed to pay $2,681,500 in civil penalties to settle EPA allegations that it violated the federal pesticide law and regulations on numerous instances over many years.
The devices were used in laboratories for research, development, and manufacturing purposes. Although the allegations of noncompliance were serious and involved numerous violations over years, EPA is not aware of any specific human health or environmental harm caused by the violations in this case.
The $2.6+ million penalty is the second largest civil penalty ever paid in an EPA enforcement case under FIFRA, and is the largest such penalty levied by EPA in New England.
The types of violation resolved by this settlement include: 1) importing regulated pesticide devices into the US for distribution or sale without submitting “Notice of Arrival” forms to EPA; 2) selling misbranded pesticide devices that lacked important label information about where they were made; 3) producing pesticide devices in a then-unregistered establishment in Jaffrey, New Hampshire; and 4) filing incomplete annual production reports with EPA by failing to list pesticide devices that were produced at a facility in Molsheim, France and then imported into the US.
“Companies that produce, import and sell FIFRA-regulated devices in the US are obligated to carefully follow applicable requirements which help to ensure that EPA has accurate information for making informed decisions that result in protecting the health of Americans and our environment,” said Curt Spalding, regional administrator of EPA’s New England office. “These companies share an important role in ensuring that regulated devices, just like chemical pesticides, are made and sold in full compliance with the law so that our families and communities are not subject to unacceptable risks.”
EMD Millipore operates as the Life Sciences Division of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany (MDG). EMD Millipore was created in 2011 after MDG had acquired Millipore Corporation, a predecessor company that was also the subject of a FIFRA enforcement case settled with EPA in 2010. EMD Millipore distributes and sells a variety of products, including many that are regulated as “devices” under FIFRA. EMD Millipore produces devices at several facilities in the US and Europe but the allegations arose from the Jaffrey, N.H. and Molsheim, France operations. The devices in question are used, in part, to help ensure the safety and integrity of biotech and pharmaceutical drug therapies, as well as beverage-making.
The settlement requires EMD Millipore to certify that it is currently operating in compliance with FIFRA and its implementing regulations and that it has fully addressed the alleged violations. EMD Millipore also certifies that it provided EPA with true and accurate information during the investigation of the case. Under the CAFO terms, EMD Millipore does not admit liability for the violations.
FIFRA is the federal law that regulates the production, sale, distribution, use, and importation into the US of pesticides and pesticide devices. FIFRA classifies devices essentially as physical contrivances intended to mitigate pests and, as such, they are subject to fewer FIFRA requirements than chemical pesticides. While pesticide devices need not be registered under Section 3 of FIFRA, they are required to be produced in registered establishments and to comport with certain labeling provisions. Devices also are subject to FIFRA reporting requirements when they are produced, imported, or sold.
The FIFRA requirements at issue in this case are intended to ensure the integrity of the national pesticide program and protect against unreasonable risks to human health, welfare, and the environment from pesticides and devices.
The prohibition against selling or distributing “misbranded” pesticides/devices is important because it helps ensure that end-users and members of the public have the most accurate and up-to-date information available about pesticide products and where they were made. The requirement to file Notice of Arrival (NOA) forms prior to importing a pesticide or device provides vital product information to EPA before any sale or distribution can occur. Information from NOAs helps inform EPA about whether an import poses adverse risks and provides critical contact information in the event of an emergency related to the movement of potentially harmful pesticide products. Finally, registering production establishments under FIFRA is important because registered establishments must submit annual production and sales data to EPA which are crucial for the Agency to carry out FIFRA compliance, risk assessment, and risk reduction functions. Without proper establishment registrations, EPA cannot determine where and in what manner pesticides and devices are being produced, sold, and distributed.
California Dairy Fined $685,000 for Water Quality Violations
Violations included the discharge of manure waste into groundwater and the failure to comply with a Cleanup and Abatement Order (CAO).
“The Henry Tosta Dairy has a history of egregious violations, and the accumulated manure waste at the site is negatively impacting water quality,” said Regional Water Board Executive Officer Pamela Creedon. “The vast majority of dairy operators in the Central Valley Region work hard to follow good environmental practices and to abide by the Dairy General Order. The lack of proper management practices at this dairy, and the operator’s blatant disregard for the law, the Dairy General Order and subsequent Cleanup and Abatement Enforcement Orders, has created unhealthy and dangerous conditions, polluting the waters of the State of California.”
A May 2012 inspection identified numerous violations at the dairy and, in June 2012, the Regional Water Board issued a CAO.
Inspectors found that wastewater lagoons had not been regularly cleaned out or maintained, and settling basins for manure wastewater were full and lacked the capacity to handle the daily manure generated by the dairy cows.
Regional Water Board inspectors found manure slurry to a depth of several feet, filling a 3-to-4 acre area within the central part of the production area, which was not designed for manure storage and had no waste containment features. The manure in this area was encroaching on the corrals where the dairy cows were housed.
The dairy’s waste management plan failed to accurately reflect the infrastructure and conditions at the dairy. These management issues pose a significant threat to water quality, in particular where groundwater at the dairy is less than five feet below the surface, and because the Naglee-Burk Main Canal, which flows into the Old River, a tributary to the San Joaquin River, borders the dairy’s production area.
The Dairy General Order (Order), adopted by the Regional Water Board in 2007, requires dairies to manage their waste to reduce impacts to surface water and groundwater. The Order contains a number of requirements, including standards for manure and dairy wastewater storage, criteria for the application of manure and dairy wastewater to cropland as fertilizer, and the prohibition of the collection, treatment, storage, discharge or disposal of waste that results in contamination or pollution of surface water or groundwater.
Regional Water Board inspectors found that the dairy contributed to the pollution of groundwater. Additionally, despite repeated inspections and reminders, the discharger failed to comply with directives of the CAO, including requirements to remove the piles of manure accumulated at the dairy.
Due to continued violations, the Regional Water Board’s executive officer issued an Administrative Civil Liability Complaint in November 2012 proposing a fine of $1,140,713 against the Dairy.
At a hearing on July 25, 2013, the Regional Water Board imposed a penalty of $685,000 in compliance with the State Water Resources Control Board Enforcement Policy, which requires the consideration of mitigating factors in determining the amount of a penalty.
Ice Manufacturer Failed to Notify Emergency Responders of Hazardous Chemical Release
Star Ice & Fuel, Inc., manufactures ice using anhydrous ammonia, a colorless gas used in industrial refrigeration systems. In September 2011, the company’s facility in Fife, Washington accidentally released approximately 450 lb. of ammonia gas to the atmosphere.
“Ammonia is a highly toxic gas,” said Ed Kowalski, director of EPA’s enforcement program in Seattle. “Quick notification of an accidental release of ammonia or other hazardous chemicals helps ensure timely and safe actions by local emergency responders to protect both company employees and nearby residents.”
The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act requires that if a facility has a hazardous chemical release, they must immediately notify the National Response Center, the State Emergency Response Commission, and the Local Emergency Planning committee.
The ammonia release was caused by a compressor valve leak in the company’s refrigeration system. Milton police reported the ammonia smell to fire and hazardous materials responders.
The company has since corrected the violations and agreed to pay $50,805 in federal penalties as part of the recent settlement.
Most accidents with anhydrous ammonia occur from uncontrolled or accidental releases. Exposure to anhydrous ammonia vapors can cause temporary blindness and eye damage and irritation of the skin, mouth, throat, and respiratory tract. Prolonged exposure to high concentrations of anhydrous ammonia vapors can lead to serious lung damage and even death.
Massachusetts Housing Authority Settles Lead-Based Paint Disclosure Case
EPA and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development recently announced that the Springfield, Massachusetts Housing Authority will pay an $11,000 penalty for failing to inform tenants their apartments may contain lead-based paint, as required by law. In addition, the housing authority agreed to render apartment buildings at four of its properties lead safe at a cost of more than $49,500.
According to HUD and EPA, the Springfield Housing Authority violated the federal Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (Residential Lead Act) by failing to inform people seeking to rent pre-1978 housing that their homes may contain potentially dangerous amounts of lead. This action was based on compliance inspections of the Springfield Housing Authority by EPA in 2007 and 2009.
“Today’s settlement should remind landlords and property owners that they have a legal responsibility to tell their tenants about known as well as potential lead-based paint hazards in their homes,” said Jon L. Gant, Director of HUD’s Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control. “HUD is committed to working with public housing authorities and other housing providers to make certain we protect children from potentially dangerous lead poisoning.”
“Exposure to lead paint continues to be a significant health concern, especially for infants and children here in New England where there are many houses built before 1978 that may still contain lead paint,” said Curt Spalding, Regional Administrator of the US EPA’s New England office. “Providing basic information to prospective renters or purchasers of property built before 1978 helps to educate people about potential risks and how to protect themselves and their families from lead poisoning.”
Before the settlement, the Springfield Housing Authority performed lead-based paint inspections of its properties covered by the Residential Lead Act. Under the settlement, the Springfield Housing Authority will have two years to perform specific lead-based paint abatement work at four apartment complexes, including removal and replacement of basement windows and frames at the Ashley-Gerrish Apartments; steel exterior columns at the John J. Duggan Park Apartments; a wood basement stair system and basement walls at the Robinson Gardens Apartments; and bathtub trim at the Moxon Apartments.
The lead-based paint work is focused on these properties and building components because the lead-based paint inspections found that most of Springfield Housing Authority’s other properties were lead-based paint free. Springfield Housing Authority has agreed to complete all of the required work and spend at least $49,500 in the process. The lead abatement work required by the agreements goes beyond what Springfield Housing Authority is already required to do under HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule.
The settlement announced recently is the fifth such judicial consent decree or administrative agreement in New England between HUD and EPA. Nearly 12,000 rental units have been or will be made lead safe for tenants by landlords and management companies found to have violated the Residential Lead Act. Moreover, the landlords and management companies involved in these five settlements have paid civil fines totaling $366,133 and paid over $6.5 million to eliminate or reduce lead hazards.
The Residential Lead Act is one of the primary federal enforcement tools to prevent lead poisoning in young children. The Lead Disclosure Rule, authorized by the Act, requires home sellers and landlords of housing built before 1978 to provide an EPA-approved “Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home” pamphlet and warn of the hazards of lead-based paint to prospective purchasers and tenants. In addition sellers and landlords must share knowledge of known lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards on a disclosure form that both parties must sign. They must also provide copies of any available lead records or reports. The form should be attached to the sales contract or lease. Sellers must also provide purchasers with an opportunity to conduct a lead-based paint inspection and/or risk assessment at the purchaser’s expense.
Lead exposure causes reduced IQ, learning disabilities, developmental delays, poorer hearing, and a host of other health problems in young children. Many of these effects are thought to be irreversible. In later years, lead-poisoned children are much more likely to drop out of school, become juvenile delinquents and engage in criminal and other anti-social behavior. As reported in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers have found that even at low levels, lead exposure in children can significantly impact IQ and may even delay puberty in young girls.
At higher levels lead can irreversibly damage a child’s kidneys and central nervous system and cause anemia, coma, convulsions and even death. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an estimated 535,000 American children have elevated blood-lead levels.
Eliminating lead-based paint hazards in pre-1978 housing is essential if childhood lead poisoning is to be eradicated. Although the prevalence of childhood lead poisoning has dropped significantly, the risk to children in low-income, older housing remains high. HUD estimates about 23 million homes still contain significant lead-based paint hazards with the potential to poison young children.
California Food Processor to Pay $157,000 Fine for Toxic Ammonia Release
EPA recently announced a settlement with food processing company Ventura Foods, LLC, located in Ontario, California. Ventura Foods has agreed to pay $157,900 for violations of federal regulations including failing to notify the proper officials immediately following the release of anhydrous ammonia, failure to submit a required Risk Management Plan, and inadequate chemical accident prevention.
“Facilities using highly toxic substances such as ammonia must abide by federal laws designed to protect the community,” said Jared Blumenfeld, EPA’s Regional Administrator for the Pacific Southwest. “It is vital they eliminate equipment leaks, and implement plans and procedures to ensure the safety of workers, as well as emergency responders.”
At the request of local agencies, EPA conducted inspections of the Ontario facility. EPA investigators found that the facility had had over 24 ammonia releases since December 2007. A 288 lb. release was in excess of the 100 lb. reportable quantity that required immediate notification of authorities under the federal laws. Most of the ammonia releases were caused by flaws in the design and operation of systems. The facility has since completed upgrades to equipment to prevent future leaks.
In addition, the facility failed to submit a Risk Management Plan in a timely manner, failed to update process safety information, and didn’t provide current emergency contact information—all of which are necessary to ensure the safe operations of the facility and the proper management of ammonia.
Ventura Foods, located on East Jurupa Street in Ontario, California, manufactures, packages, and distributes an extensive line of oil-based food products, including shortenings, oils, margarines, salad dressings, mayonnaise, sauces, and syrups. As part of its processes, the Ontario facility stores and uses anhydrous ammonia in chilling phases of its product processing.
Anhydrous ammonia is a poisonous gas. Exposure to its vapors can cause temporary blindness and eye damage, and irritation of the skin, mouth, throat, respiratory tract and mucous membranes. Prolonged exposure to anhydrous ammonia vapor at high concentrations can lead to serious lung damage and even death.
Ventura Foods maintains 24,000 lb. of anhydrous ammonia on-site at its Ontario facility.
Inspection of Cobham Electronic Systems Reveals Hazardous Waste Management Violations
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) penalized Cobham Electronic Systems of Lowell $8,580 after an inspection revealed hazardous waste management violations that included an incomplete contingency or emergency plan. MassDEP also determined that the company had failed to train its facility personnel on the management of hazardous waste, and there were numerous labeling and storage violations.
On March 5, 2013, MassDEP conducted an inspection of the facility at 1001 Pawtucket Boulevard in Lowell and found numerous violations. MassDEP found that the company lacked proper training of its workers, failed to delineate the main waste accumulation area in order to keep it separate from the points of waste generation, and had a drum of unlabeled waste in the industrial wastewater treatment room that the facility has agreed it will identify and label immediately. Cobham Electronic Systems is a registered large quantity generator of hazardous waste, as well as a small quantity generator of waste oil.
“Proper training is essential in every aspect involving the generation, storage and transportation of hazardous waste,” said Eric Worrall, director of MassDEP’s Northeast Regional Office in Wilmington. “Mistakes involving hazardous waste can quickly snowball into widespread environmental damage, so employees must be trained to protect themselves, the workplace, and the potential damage they can do to the community.”
Cobham has agreed to pay the entire $8,580 penalty and to take immediate steps to correct the labeling violations and, within 30 days, to train its employees and post a completed contingency emergency plan.
MassDEP is responsible for ensuring clean air and water, safe management and recycling of solid and hazardous wastes, timely cleanup of hazardous waste sites and spills, and the preservation of wetlands and coastal resources.
MassDEP Assesses $3,000 Penalty Against Haverhill Contractor for Asbestos
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has assessed a $3,000 penalty against Absolute Environmental Contractors, Inc., of Haverhill for the company’s failure to follow asbestos removal procedures required by MassDEP regulations at a job site in Fitchburg.
During an August 2012 inspection of the former Fitchburg Gas and Electric power plant site at 115 Sawyer Passway, MassDEP inspectors observed Absolute Environmental Contractors personnel placing asbestos-insulated pipes in an open-top roll-off container without adequately wetting the asbestos waste materials or sealing them in leak-tight, labeled containers, as required by the regulations.
MassDEP regulations require that removal contractors thoroughly wet asbestos-containing materials during all phases of removal, handling, and packaging for disposal. These work practices are crucial requirements designed to minimize the potential for dangerous asbestos fibers to become airborne and thus reducing potential exposures to workers and the general public.
“Licensed asbestos contractors are most certainly aware of the required asbestos removal procedures and must strictly follow all work practices prescribed by the MassDEP asbestos regulations,” said Lee Dillard Adams, director of MassDEP’s Central Regional Office in Worcester. “The cost of noncompliance includes payment of penalties and escalated cleanup, decontamination and monitoring costs.”
Absolute Environmental Contractors is an asbestos contractor licensed by the Massachusetts Department of Labor Standards.
Property owners or contractors with questions about asbestos-containing materials, notification requirements, proper removal, handling, packaging, storage and disposal procedures, or the asbestos regulations are encouraged to contact the appropriate MassDEP Regional Office for assistance.
Massachusetts Man Found Guilty of Operating Illegal Dump
A Northborough man has been found guilty in connection with multiple environmental violations for the operation of an illegal dumping site, Attorney General Martha Coakley announced recently.
Following a seven-day bench trial in Worcester Superior Court, Santo Anza, Jr., age 52, of Northborough, was found guilty by Superior Court Judge Richard T. Tucker on the charges of violating the Massachusetts Clean Air Act (3 counts) and violating the Massachusetts Solid Waste Act (8 counts). Judge Tucker scheduled a sentencing hearing for August 22 in Worcester Superior Court.
Anza operated an illegal dump for solid waste on his Whitney Street property in Northborough. The dump site polluted the air and created a public nuisance by emitting rotten odors that annoyed and sickened neighbors.
In October 2010, Anza applied for and was granted a composting registration from the Department of Agricultural Resources (DAR). In March 2011, Anza applied for a renewal of the composting registration from DAR. A site visit in connection with the application for renewal showed little agricultural activity. Anza used the site not as a farm, but instead as a dump for spoiled and rotting food, non-food waste, street sweepings, and other materials. Anza was granted temporary registration provided that he brought the site into compliance.
After his temporary certificate expired in April 2011, Anza continued to accept over 2 million lb. of food waste without a valid site assignment. According to authorities, during the summer months of June, July, and August 2011, the operations at the property emitted strong and repulsive odors into a nearby residential neighborhood on repeated occasions, at times forcing the neighbors to stay indoors.
After an extensive investigation, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) referred this matter to the Attorney General’s Office in September 2011.
The criminal charges were the result of a joint investigation by personnel from MassDEP and DAR, agencies overseen by Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Rick Sullivan. MassDEP and DAR staff worked closely with prosecutors from the Attorney General’s Environmental Crimes Strike Force, an interagency unit that is overseen by AG Coakley, Secretary Sullivan and MassDEP Commissioner Kenneth Kimmell. The Strike Force comprises prosecutors from the Attorney General’s Office, Environmental Police Officers assigned to the Attorney General’s Office, and investigators and engineers from the MassDEP who investigate and prosecute crimes that harm or threaten the state’s water, air, or land and that pose a significant threat to human health.
He was found guilty recently by Judge Tucker on 11 environmental violations. A sentencing hearing has been scheduled for August 22.
Members of the public who have information regarding a potential environmental crime are encouraged to contact the MassDEP Environmental Strike Force Hotline at 1-888-VIOLATE (846-5283) or the Attorney General’s Office at 617-727-2200.
Asbestos Contractor Penalized $18,312 for Asbestos Violations
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has assessed an $18,312.50 penalty against Envirogreen, LLC, of Jamaica Plain for failing to follow asbestos removal procedures required by MassDEP regulations at a work site in Worcester.
During a September 2012 inspection, MassDEP inspectors observed Envirogreen personnel removing asbestos-containing siding shingles from a multi-family residential structure located on Reeves Street in Worcester. The shingles were observed being removed without any attempt to minimize breakage or to carefully lower them to the ground. During the inspection, MassDEP observed numerous dry, shattered asbestos-containing shingles uncontained on the ground.
MassDEP regulations require that contractors remove asbestos-containing siding shingles wet, take adequate precautions to minimize breakage, carefully lower them to the ground and seal the asbestos waste while wet into leak-tight containers that have appropriate asbestos warning labels affixed to them. These work procedures are critical measures designed to prevent a release of asbestos fibers to the environment, to protect workers, building occupants and the general public from exposure to asbestos fibers and to preclude other parts of the building from becoming contaminated.
Under the terms of the negotiated settlement, Envirogreen must follow all state asbestos requirements, and pay $10,000 of the assessed penalty. MassDEP has agreed to suspend $8,312.50 of that penalty provided the company does not have repeat violations for one year.
“Licensed asbestos contractors are fully aware of the removal, handling, packaging and storage requirements that must be followed when dealing with asbestos-containing siding,” said Lee Dillard Adams, director of MassDEP’s Central Regional Office in Worcester. “Asbestos is a known carcinogen, and following prescribed regulatory work practices is imperative to protect workers, as well as the general public and environment. Failure to do so will result in significant penalty exposure as well as escalated cleanup, decontamination and monitoring costs.”
Envirogreen, LLC, is an asbestos contractor licensed by the Massachusetts Department of Labor Standards (DLS).
Property owners or contractors with questions about asbestos-containing materials, notification requirements, proper removal, handling, packaging, storage and disposal procedures, or the asbestos regulations are encouraged to contact the appropriate MassDEP Regional Office for assistance.
Washington Begins Rule-Making to Make Two Changes to Children’s Product Chemical List
The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) is beginning the process of adding a chlorinated tris flame retardant (tris[1,3-dichloro-2-propyl]phosphate) and removing another chemical solvent called n-butanol from the list of chemicals that children’s product manufacturers must report on under the Children’s Safe Product Act (CSPA).
This rule-making process is in response to two petitions Ecology received to amend the reporting rule. These petitions, submitted by the Washington Toxics Coalition and the American Chemistry Council, provided information that was not available to the agency when the reporting rule was developed in 2011. Revising the list requires amending the rule.
Ecology, in consultation with the state Department of Health, developed the list of chemicals of high concern to children. The list currently contains 66 chemicals. Under the CSPA, manufacturers of children’s products must report to Ecology the use of these chemicals in their products. The reporting rule phased in the reporting requirements. Ecology has now received two sets of data reports from manufacturers.
Fry’s Electronics Fined $50,000 for Making Unsubstantiated Pesticide Claims
Fry’s Electronics has agreed to pay a $50,000 penalty to settle a case against the company for importing and selling an unregistered gaming equipment wipe that falsely claimed to be anti-bacterial and anti-pathogenic.
“Before putting any products on the floor for sale, retailers must ensure they are in compliance with federal environmental laws,” said Jared Blumenfeld, EPA’s Regional Administrator for the Pacific Southwest. “EPA will continue to work with our state counterparts to ensure that products do not make unverified claims about health benefits.”
Evidence collected during an inspection by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation in February 2010 and a follow-up EPA investigation led EPA to issue a complaint against Fry’s Electronics for the improper importation, sale, and distribution of Cambre Products’ Game On brand “Dirt Rags.” After being contacted by EPA, Fry’s Electronics promptly pulled the product from its shelves nationwide.
Fry’s Electronics is based in San Jose, California, and has stores throughout California and in eight other states. The manufacturer of the gaming control wipes, Cambre Products, is headquartered in Toronto, Canada.
Products that claim to kill or repel bacteria or germs are considered pesticides, and must be registered with EPA before their sale or distribution, pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (). The Agency will not register a pesticide until it has been tested to show that it will not pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment when used according to the approved label directions. Consumers should carefully follow the directions for proper use, and to look for the EPA registration number printed on product labels.
Environmental News Links
Trivia Question of the Week
Which of the following may be offered for transportation by ground in the US as regulated medical waste?
a. Waste pharmaceutical materials
b. Laboratory and recyclable wastes
c. Rejected or recalled health care products
d. All of the above
e. None of the above