EPA Proposes Revisions to Risk Management Program Regulations

“Chemicals are a necessary part of our everyday lives; however, as we have too often seen they can cause loss of life, injury and significant property damage,” said Mathy Stanislaus, EPA’s assistant administrator for the Office of Land and Emergency Management. “It is these dangers that we are working to prevent and minimize as we propose revisions to the RMP, such as improving our prevention program requirements, ensuring coordination with first responders, and ensuring that accident planning protects local communities that need to evacuate or shelter-in-place during an accident.”

While numerous chemical plants are operated safely, in the last 10 years more than 1,500 accidents were reported by RMP facilities. These accidents are responsible for causing nearly 60 deaths, some 17,000 people being injured or seeking medical treatment, almost 500,000 people being evacuated or sheltered-in-place, and costing more than $2 billion in property damages.

 The proposed revisions to EPA’s RMP regulations is a key action item under President Obama’s Executive Order (EO) 13650, Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security. EPA shares RMP information with state and local officials to help them plan for and prevent chemical accidents and releases.

This proposal is the result of a review undertaken to modernize the existing EPA RMP and information gathered from feedback obtained during listening sessions, Webinars, meetings with stakeholder groups, stakeholder conferences and public comments in response to EPA’s Request for Information.

The proposed amendments are intended to improve existing risk management plan requirements to enhance chemical safety at RMP facilities by:

• Requiring the consideration of safer technologies and alternatives by including the assessment of Inherently Safer Technologies and Designs in the Process Hazard Assessment
• Requiring third party audits and root cause analysis to identify process safety improvements for accident prevention
• Enhancing emergency planning and preparedness requirements to help ensure coordination between facilities and local communities
• Strengthening emergency response planning to help ensure emergency response capabilities are available to mitigate the effect of a chemical accident
• Improving the ability of LEPCs (Local Emergency Planning Committees) and local emergency response officials to better prepare for emergencies both individually and with one another; and
• Improving access to information to help the public understand the risks at RMP facilities.

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 February 16 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

Houston RCRA and DOT Training

Indianapolis RCRA, DOT, IATA/IMO, and SARA Training

Charleston RCRA and DOT Training

Lithium-Ion Batteries Prohibited as Cargo on Passenger Aircraft

The 36-State International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Governing Council adopted a new aviation safety measure, which prohibits, on an interim basis, all shipments of Lithium-ion batteries as cargo on passenger aircraft.

“Safety is always our most fundamental priority in international civil aviation,” stressed Dr. Olumuyiwa Benard Aliu, ICAO Council President. “This interim prohibition will continue to be in force as separate work continues through ICAO on a new lithium battery packaging performance standard, currently expected by 2018.”

The Council’s decision will be effective April 1, 2016. It pertains only to Lithium-ion batteries shipped as cargo on passenger aircraft, and not to those contained in personal electronic devices carried by passengers or crew. It comes subsequent to extensive reviews undertaken by the ICAO Air Navigation Commission, and the UN agency’s Dangerous Goods, Flight Operations, and Airworthiness panels.

The prohibiting of Lithium-ion cargo shipments on passenger aircraft has been eagerly awaited by aircraft manufacturer and pilots associations, which have been the most vocal advocates for the new safety measure. Details of the prohibition:

Passenger baggage

1. Lithium ion batteries carried by passengers in their personal electronic devices, whether in their carry-on or checked baggage, are not affected by this new restriction.
2. Passengers must not pack spare lithium ion batteries in checked baggage. Spares must be packed in carry-on baggage or carried on the person.

Baggage shipped by air as cargo:

1. Lithium ion batteries may no longer be packed in baggage shipped independently as cargo.
2. Lithium ion batteries in mishandled baggage, or excess passenger baggage shipped as cargo, are permitted so long as they also satisfy the requirements of passenger baggage points 1 and 2 above.

Global versus local government and airline requirements:

1. Passengers should verify local government and airline regulations, which are set out in order to ensure full compliance with all applicable requirements specific to their voyage.
2. The new prohibition is not voluntary and must be adhered to by all 191 State parties to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention).

EPA to Propose User Fee for Electronic Hazardous Waste Manifest

After promulgation of the first e-Manifest regulation in February 2014 to authorize the use of electronic manifests and to codify key provisions of the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act, EPA is moving forward on the development of the separate e-Manifest User Fee Schedule Regulation.

The law authorizes the EPA to impose on manifest users reasonable service fees that are necessary to pay costs incurred in developing, operating, maintaining, and upgrading the system, including costs incurred in collecting and processing data from any paper manifest submitted to the system after the date on which the system enters operation. The agency plans to issue both a proposed and final rule in setting the appropriate electronic manifest and manifest fees.  The agency plans in a final rule to establish a program of fees that will be imposed on users of the e-manifest system and announce the user fee schedule for manifest-related activities, including activities associated with the collection and processing of paper manifests submitted to the EPA. The agency also plans in that final rule to announce the date upon which the EPA will be ready to transmit and receive manifests through the national e-Manifest system and the date upon which the user community must comply with the new e-Manifest regulation. An Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is expected to be published in May, 2016.

Holtkotter Leuchten Gmbh Fined $117,480 for Hazardous Materials Violations

The FAA alleges that on November 14, 2014, Holtkotter offered a box containing 9.6 liters of flammable liquid glue to UPS for air transportation. The package was subsequently transported on a Lufthansa passenger flight from Dusseldorf, Germany, to Chicago O’Hare International Airport. Employees at a UPS processing center in suburban Chicago discovered the shipment.

The FAA alleged the amount of glue exceeded the quantity allowed on passenger aircraft and the shipment was not labeled for “cargo aircraft only.” The agency further alleges the package was not accompanied by shipping papers and was not properly marked and packaged.

Holtkotter has 30 days from receipt of the FAA’s enforcement letter to respond to the agency.

The US and Canada Announce Phosphorus Reduction Targets

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and Canada’s Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna recently announced that Canada and the U.S. have adopted targets to reduce phosphorus entering affected areas of Lake Erie by 40%. The targets will minimize the extent of low oxygen “dead zones” in the central basin of Lake Erie; maintain algae growth at a level consistent with healthy aquatic ecosystems; and maintain algae biomass at levels that do not produce toxins that pose a threat to human or ecosystem health.

Through the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, Canada and the United States committed in 2012 to combat the growing threat of toxic and nuisance algae development in Lake Erie, and agreed to develop updated binational phosphorus reduction targets for Lake Erie by February 2016. The 40% reduction targets are based on 2008 loading levels. Canada and the United States have committed to develop domestic action plans, by no later than February 2018, to help meet the new targets.

“To protect public health, we must restore the Great Lakes for all those who depend on them,” said Gina McCarthy, Administrator, US EPA. “The first step in our urgent work together to protect Lake Erie from toxic algae, harmful algal blooms, and other effects of nutrient runoff, is to establish these important phosphorus limits. But, establishing these targets is not the end of our work together. We are already taking action to meet them.”

The Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of Environment and Climate Change said, “Canada recognizes the urgency and magnitude of the threat to Lake Erie water quality and ecosystem health posed by toxic and nuisance algal blooms. By establishing these targets, we strengthen our resolve to work with our American neighbours, and Canadian and U.S. stakeholders who share these waters, to protect the tremendous natural resource that is Lake Erie.”

Algae occur naturally in freshwater systems. They are essential to the aquatic food web and healthy ecosystems. However, too much algae, linked to high amounts of phosphorus, can lead to conditions that can harm human health and the environment. Since the 1990s, Lake Erie has seen an increase in algal growth that has compromised water quality and threatens the Lake Erie region’s recreation-intensive economy. The targets were developed after extensive public input from a diversity of sectors.

Quick Facts

• The 2015 harmful algal bloom in Lake Erie was recorded as the largest bloom this century.
• Modeling experts from the United States and Canada used nine different computer simulation models to correlate changes in phosphorus levels with levels of algal growth in order to determine phosphorus load reduction targets.
• A binational public consultation process was held between June 30 and August 31, 2015. Final targets were established following widespread support for the draft targets and the target setting process.
• More than 40 Canadian and American experts formed a binational team under the leadership of Environment and Climate Change Canada and the United States Environmental Protection Agency to develop the targets.
• In Canada, more than 50 individuals, groups and agencies representing Agricultural and other non-government organizations, Conservation Authorities, municipal governments, Ontario government agencies, First Nations, and Universities commented on the draft targets through an on-line tool and face-to-face discussions.

Contaminated Groundwater Concerns Mount in Minnesota

Groundwater contamination is a growing concern that should be on everyone’s radar, according to scientists at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Three out of four Minnesotans get their drinking water from groundwater sources. However, unlike lakes, rivers and streams, groundwater is largely out of sight.

Up to 60% of groundwater monitoring wells sampled in central Minnesota are contaminated with nitrate well beyond the safe drinking water standard. Drinking water contaminated with nitrate can lead to illnesses such as Blue Baby Syndrome, a fatal blood disorder in infants.

Nitrate enters groundwater from sources like animal manure and agricultural fertilizers. Some of the affected cities include Becker, Clear Lake, Cold Spring, Hastings, Goodhue, Adrian and Park Rapids. City officials in those areas have explored treatment options, including distributing bottled water to residents, drilling new wells and building new reverse-osmosis water treatment plants. Many small cities are spending millions to address the problem.

The Groundwater Protection Recommendations report highlights the current state of Minnesota’s groundwater and provides recommendations for ways to reduce and prevent groundwater contamination. Minnesota lawmakers requested the report during the 2013 legislative session.

“This report underscores the urgent need to ensure that all Minnesotans have clean water,” said Governor Mark Dayton. “I look forward to discussing this report, and our state’s serious water quality challenges, at the Governor’s Water Summit this weekend.”

Some Minnesota cities have already experienced the cost burden of treating contaminated groundwater. A 2014 Drinking Water report from the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) put cost estimates for treating contaminated drinking water in Minnesota in the billions of dollars. The estimated cost for cleaning up contaminated water in Hastings was a staggering $9 million; estimated costs for Park Rapids were upwards of $11 million.

“Groundwater is one of our most precious resources. This report is another warning indicator about our water quality challenges,” said MPCA Commissioner John Linc Stine. “We know that prevention is key. It costs between 10 to 30 times more to fix contaminated groundwater than to prevent contamination in the first place.”

Many harmful groundwater contaminants are caused by human activity. Those contaminants come from sources like urban runoff, road de-icing salt, antibiotics, pharmaceuticals, viruses, and agricultural practices.

One contaminant, chloride, enters Minnesota’s groundwater from salt use during winter. While chloride is not believed to be very toxic to humans, high concentrations give drinking water a taste many people dislike. Additionally, contaminated groundwater can make its way to lakes and streams, harming fish and other aquatic life. Scientists recommend reducing the amount of road salt used during the winter months. Many local governments have already decreased their use of road salt, but more work needs to be done to reduce use on roads, parking lots, and sidewalks.

The report also includes information about naturally-occurring contaminants like arsenic, manganese, and radium. Long term exposure to these can contribute to illnesses such as bladder, liver and prostate cancer. Infants are also at risk. For example, infants relying on powdered formula mixed with drinking water that contains high concentrations of manganese are at risk of developing neurological problems.

The MPCA, in collaboration with other state agencies that share groundwater responsibilities, provided 30 recommendations that will aid in protecting Minnesota’s groundwater. One recommendation includes continuing to fund programs that support clean and safe groundwater, like the MPCA’s Superfund Program. Another recommendation in the report calls for more research to better understand the impacts of contaminants on human health, especially for newer contaminants of concern like pharmaceuticals and antibiotics.

The Governor’s Water Summit in St. Paul on Saturday, February 27th will focus public attention on the serious challenges facing Minnesota’s water supplies, including groundwater. 

Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCs) Found in Colorado Water System

In October 2015, EPA released the latest results from its national sampling program.  PFCs are a family of human-made chemicals that do not occur naturally in the environment. These compounds are found in firefighting foams, coating additives, and surface protection products for carpets and clothing, and other common commercial products. No other drinking water samples in Colorado showed the presence of PFCs. However, this is a national issue impacting about 90 public drinking water systems in 27 states across the U.S.

Some public water sources had concentrations of PFCs above a temporary health advisory established by EPA in 2009. Drinking water provided by public water systems southeast of Colorado Springs meet the health standards in the Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations and may be used for drinking, bathing, and all indoor and outdoor uses. Water utilities in these three communities are collecting additional water samples and working with the Colorado Department of Public Health (CDPHE) and EPA to ensure drinking water PFC levels are below EPA’s current health advisory level.

 El Paso County Public Health (EPCPH) Laboratory is not able to test for PFCs. Studies have shown that certain treatment systems are effective in removing PFCs from drinking water. Reverse osmosis (RO) has been shown as a reliable under-the-sink treatment option. These devices can be purchased at local home improvement stores. Residents with questions about their public drinking water, should contact their local water provider.

State and local governments do not have authority over unregulated contaminants such as PFCs. Since they are not regulated, water providers are not required to treat drinking water or routinely sample for PFCs. However, out of an abundance of caution, the EPA, state, and local health agencies are working together with public drinking water systems in the area to understand and address this emerging issue and reduce exposure to PFCs as recommended by EPA.

Human studies show increased exposure to PFCs might increase the risk for some health effects. However, these studies have scientific limitations, and results have not been consistent. The most consistent health effects in human studies are increases in blood cholesterol and uric acid levels, which may be associated with an increased risk of heart disease or high blood pressure. Studies have shown more limited findings related to low infant birth weights. It is not yet clear whether PFCs cause cancer, some studies have shown associations with higher level exposures to PFCs and increased risk of kidney and testicular cancer in humans and liver, pancreas, and testicular cancer in laboratory animals. It is important to understand that there is a large amount of uncertainty on exposure levels and health effects for PFCs. 

Manufacturers Agree to Improve Collection of Used Mercury-Containing Thermostats

Twenty-five manufacturers will improve their collection methods of used thermostats that contain mercury, a potent neurotoxin, under an agreement announced recently by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).

The manufacturers agreed to a Consent Order requiring them to develop an outreach plan and pilot projects to increase awareness and incentivize safe disposal of mercury-containing thermostats. DTSC expects these improvements will serve as a model for improving collection efforts in other states.

“This agreement provides an opportunity for DTSC and local government agencies to partner with the manufacturers to collect these thermostats and prevent the mercury in them from harming the public and the environment,” said Elise Rothschild, Deputy Director of DTSC’s Hazardous Waste Management Program. “DTSC appreciates the commitment that has been made by the manufacturers to improve their collection program and their level of effort in California.”

The Mercury Thermostat Collection Act of 2008 required manufacturers that had sold or distributed mercury-containing thermostats in California prior to 2006, to establish a program to collect and recycle the thermostats. The manufacturers used the Thermostat Recycling Corporation (TRC) to carry out their collection responsibilities.

DTSC adopted regulations that established annual performance requirements for the collection of mercury-containing thermostats that are becoming waste each year. The manufacturers, through TRC, failed to meet those requirements for 2013 and 2014, prompting DTSC to issue a Summaries of Violation to the manufacturers. The Consent Order settles those violations.

DTSC will be taking separate enforcement actions against five manufacturers who declined to sign the Consent Order.

Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can cause significant harm to human health and the environment. Though no longer sold in California, an estimated 4 to 9 million mercury-containing thermostats are still in use in California homes and businesses. Mercury-containing thermostats may not be disposed in solid waste landfills.

Public Input Spurs Updates to Clean Air Rule, Ecology to Incorporate Feedback into New Draft Rule

The Washington Department of Ecology plans to update the draft Clean Air Rule it proposed in January after engaging with stakeholders and gathering feedback. “We appreciate all the helpful and constructive feedback we have received from stakeholders,” said Sarah Rees, Ecology’s special assistant on climate change policy. “We’re listening and being responsive to the ideas on how to best move the rule forward.”

Ecology proposed the draft rule in an effort to cap and reduce carbon pollution in Washington state. The rule would help slow climate change and limit the projected effects on coastal communities, agricultural industries, and drinking water supplies.

Key areas that will be updated include clarifying compliance options, transparency in the proposed credit system, and considerations for Washington manufacturers whose products are sensitive to global pricing.

Ecology has withdrawn the proposed rule to make updates and will release a new proposed rule and supporting documents for public review in the spring. In the meantime, Ecology will continue to meet with stakeholders and gather input.

“We’ll continue the engagement process with the public and stakeholders while we make the updates,” Rees said. “We’re committed to keeping the conversation going; it’s a priority for us.”

The Department of Ecology plans to finalize and adopt the Clean Air Rule this summer.

Focus on Groundwater Protection Results in Enforcement Actions at Northwest Gas Stations

The EPA reached settlements with nine gas stations in Alaska, Oregon, and Washington to bring them into compliance with federal laws designed to protect underground sources of drinking water from fuel tanks stored below ground. The gas stations were subject to increased penalties for repeat violations, and some were blocked from receiving fuel shipments for continued non-compliance.

“Underground fuel tank owners and operators must be knowledgeable and safely operate their systems to prevent harmful releases,” said Peter Contreras, Manager of EPA’s Groundwater Unit in Seattle. “Repeat violators will face stiffer penalties and may be blocked from receiving fuel shipments.”

All but one of the nine stations listed below has agreed to correct the problems, improve their management of underground fuel tanks, and come into compliance with federal rules. Shell Gas Station in Hoquiam, Washington is prohibited from receiving fuel delivery until it returns to compliance.

Holiday Alaska #631 (Anchorage, Alaska): Failed to provide an adequate line leak detector system on underground piping by delaying required annual line tests. $10,650 penalty.

• Holiday Alaska #637 (Anchorage, Alaska): Failed to provide an adequate line leak detector system on underground piping by delaying required annual line tests. $6,390 penalty.
• Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company #77 (Palmer, Alaska): Failed to provide an adequate line leak detector system on underground piping by delaying required annual line tests. $6,390 penalty.
• Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company #54 (Girdwood, Alaska): Failed to provide an adequate line leak detector system on underground piping by delaying required annual line tests. $6,390 penalty.
• 76 X-Press (Tigard, Oregon): Failed to properly monitor tanks and piping which resulted in a petroleum release on the property. $13,520 penalty and fuel delivery prohibition.
• K & J Petroleum (Portland, Oregon): Failed to provide an adequate line leak detector system on underground piping. $6,390 penalty.
• TJ’s Gas Station (Sheridan, Oregon): Failed to provide adequate release detection method on tanks that routinely contain product. $6,390 penalty.
• Shell Gas Station (Hoquiam, Washington): Failed repeatedly to properly monitor tanks and piping which resulted in a petroleum release on the property. Fuel delivery prohibition.
• Chevron Gas Station (Mill Creek, Washington): Failed repeatedly to provide adequate release detection method on tanks that routinely contain product. $3,400 penalty.

Failure to properly monitor tanks and underground piping contributed to more than 6,800 new petroleum spills across the United States in 2015. State regulatory agencies and EPA are working to respond to prevent new groundwater contamination and petroleum spills, which add to the over 70,000 properties contaminated from leaking underground tank systems nationwide. A leaking underground tank can present other health and environmental risks, including the potential for fire and explosion.

This is the first major revision to the federal underground storage tank regulations since 2005.

City of Leavenworth, Kansas, Fined $46,200 for Clean Water Act Violations

As part of the settlement, the city is also required to pay a cash penalty of $46,200, and implement a Supplemental Environmental Project.

To resolve the violations, under separate compliance orders with EPA, the city will develop and implement a stormwater management program plan to reduce pollution into urban stormwater to the maximum extent practicable by December 2016. Another compliance order requires the city to prevent and eliminate unlawful sewer overflows by December 2020.

In addition to the $46,200 penalty, the city will complete a Supplemental Environmental Project to implement water quality upgrades as an expansion of its storm sewer project. The project is estimated to cost approximately $38,800, and will be designed to reduce erosion and pollutants, and capture and filter runoff from adjacent roadways prior to its discharge into the stream.

Municipalities play a key role in protecting local waterways by preventing stormwater from washing harmful pollutants into streams and rivers. Effective municipal stormwater programs inform and involve the public in stormwater pollution prevention efforts, and prohibit illegal discharges of pollutants in stormwater.

Urbanized areas contain large portions of impervious surfaces such as roads, rooftops and parking lots that channel stormwater directly into local streams, rivers, and other water bodies. Improperly managed stormwater runoff from urbanized areas can damage streams, cause significant erosion, and carry excessive nutrients, sediment, toxic metals, volatile organic compounds, and other pollutants downstream.

$1.3 Million Fine for Underground Storage Tank Noncompliance

William W. Arnett will pay

$1.3 million in civil penalties and direct costs for UST law violations beginning in the late 1980s at his property, 411 N. 5th Avenue in Tucson, Arizona, where a UST used for storing and dispensing gasoline was located. The judgment concludes a September 2010 lawsuit filed by ADEQ and the attorney general’s office against Arnett in Maricopa County Superior Court following many years of effort to work cooperatively with him to clean up soil and groundwater contaminated with gasoline at his Tucson property.

Three reasons this judgment is significant:

• It is the first leaking UST case to result in a Superior Court judicial judgment since the state’s UST laws were overhauled in 1997
• It establishes, as a matter of law, that defendants in civil actions brought by ADEQ for violations of state environmental laws are not entitled to a trial by jury
• It establishes that defendants cannot misrepresent the true owner of a UST to block ADEQ from seeking sanctions against that owner at a later date

“Our mission is to protect and enhance Arizona’s public health, air, water, and soil, and support environmentally responsible economic growth,” said ADEQ Director Misael Cabrera. “Each and every day, we work cooperatively with our customers to adhere to environmental requirements and best practices to prevent issues from occurring.” Director Cabrera added, “Our next line of defense is to take proper actions, including enforcement, to address threats to our environment when they are found.”

Because the UST owner and operator were uncooperative, ADEQ stepped in and performed the necessary cleanup of Arnett’s gasoline leak to subsurface soil and groundwater to protect public health and the City of Tucson’s drinking water supply. ADEQ’s cleanup work began in October 2012, and was completed in April 2014.

“ADEQ proactively strives to educate and assist our customers to avoid time consuming and costly litigation,” ADEQ Waste Programs Division Director Laura Malone commented. “While we ultimately achieved environmental protection, had Arnett cooperated with ADEQ from the beginning, a positive outcome would have been achieved years sooner and at a fraction of the costs incurred by the state and its taxpayers.”

Morning Star Packing Company Issued $1.5 Million Penalty for Wastewater Violations

The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) has issued a $1.5 million civil liability against Morning Star Packing Company for the unauthorized expansion of two wastewater ponds, and the reduction in cropland used to dispose of wastewater. The Water Board also adopted a negotiated Cease and Desist Order, which requires Morning Star to address 10 categories of waste discharge violations.

It is estimated that approximately 266 million gallons of wastewater was discharged from the unpermitted expansions of the ponds to groundwater at the company’s tomato packing facility in Williams (Colusa County). The Morning Star Packing Company owns three tomato packing facilities, a trucking company and farming operations in the Central Valley.

The violations listed in the Cease and Desist Order include the unpermitted expansion of the wastewater cooling pond from 60 acres to 100 acres, and the unauthorized discharge of tomato waste into this pond. The expansion of the cooling pond resulted in the reduction in cropland from 695 acres to 485 acres. The crops are intended to remove the contaminants before the wastewater percolates into the groundwater. However, Morning Star’s improper wastewater disposal exceeded the cropland loading limits for nitrogen, salt, and organic waste. Additional violations include the failure to address continuing groundwater pollution, operation of an unpermitted silage operation, the unauthorized expansion of the settling pond, and the creation of objectionable odors that were detected beyond the property boundaries.

Morning Star failed to disclose the two pond expansions to the Board during the 2012 permit update process, and therefore the existing permit does not consider the effect of the expansions on groundwater quality. The discharge of wastewater is regulated by the Regional Water Board through the issuance of waste discharge requirements, which contain conditions intended to protect surface water and groundwater quality. A basic tenant of the Regional Water Board’s permits is that a discharger may not make a material change in its wastewater system without informing Board staff and obtaining updated permit requirements that are fully protective of water quality.

“In adopting this order, our Board members noted the egregious nature of Morning Star’s actions” said Andrew Altevogt, assistant executive officer for the Regional Water Board. “When a discharger chooses to mislead our staff in this way, we are unable to assure that their practices will be protective of water quality.”

Board staff discovered the unauthorized expansion in August 2015 when Board staff began receiving odor complaints from neighbors of the Williams facility. During an inspection, staff learned that Morning Star had made significant changes to its wastewater storage and disposal system. The current waste discharge requirements do not evaluate the additional discharge and therefore do not contain sufficient water monitoring requirements. The civil liability was issued by the Board on Feb. 18.

Settlements Aim to Prevent Oil Spills by Darling Ingredients Inc., Related Subsidiaries in Iowa, Kansas

Three subsidiary companies of Darling Ingredients, Inc., a publicly traded corporation headquartered in Irving, Texas, have agreed to settle allegations of Clean Water Act violations at four different oil storage facilities located in Muscatine and Sioux City, Iowa, and Wichita and Kansas City, Kansas. Each of these facilities store a combination of petroleum fuel oils, vegetable oils, or animal fats produced from animal rendering.

Through three separate settlements with EPA Region 7, naming Darling Ingredients, Inc., Darling Ingredients LLC and Darling National LLC (both doing business as Dar Pro), and Griffin Industries, LLC, as respondents, the companies will pay a combined civil penalty of $135,000 to the United States. EPA identified the violations during site visits and inspections of each facility in 2013.

 In 2013, EPA inspected the Sioux City, Wichita, and Kansas City facilities and found these facilities violated SPCC program requirements by failing to properly identify and account for all oil storage capacity, and properly plan for the containment of possible spills.

The CWA also requires facilities that store more than 1 million gallons of oil to develop a Facility Response Plan (FRP), which outlines procedures for addressing “worst-case” discharges of oil. By being prepared and by conducting required response drills, facilities are better situated to prevent environmental harm from such releases.

“The Clean Water Act requires small oil storage facilities to have plans to prevent a spill from leaving their property, and for large oil storage facilities to have adequate response plans to prevent a spill from becoming a much larger environmental problem,” said EPA Region 7 Administrator Mark Hague. “In the case of an oil spill, the lack of proper spill prevention and response preparation can have serious consequences for nearby residents and the environment. This settlement helps protect the environment and the communities near these facilities from that risk.”

At the time of EPA’s site visits, both the Muscatine and Sioux City facilities produced and stored more than 1 million gallons of oil. The Muscatine facility has now ceased the storage of oil, and the Sioux City facility has reduced its oil storage capacity to less than 1 million gallons.

The settlement agreement with Griffin Industries, LLC, for the Muscatine facility requires a penalty payment of $12,500 and resolves the company’s previous failure to properly determine whether a FRP was required for that facility.

The settlement agreement with Darling Ingredients, LLC, and Darling National, LLC, resolves the SPCC violations alleged at the Wichita and Kansas City facilities and requires a penalty payment of $23,500.

Lastly, a proposed settlement with Darling Ingredients, Inc., resolves both alleged SPCC and FRP violations at the Sioux City facility and requires a penalty payment of $99,000. This settlement is subject to a 40-day public comment period. 

By each of these settlements, each company attests they are now in compliance with the CWA.

BNSF Railway Fined $600,000 for Oil Spill Incidents

The agreement, filed as a stipulated settlement in the U.S. District Court of Colorado, resolves four oil and diesel spills to waters of the United States from BNSF locomotives as well as inadequate plans at the company’s rail yards in Denver, Colorado; Guernsey, Wyoming; Grand Forks, North Dakota; and Minot, North Dakota. As part of the agreement, the Fort Worth, Texas-based company will pay a civil penalty of $600,000.

“By addressing these compliance issues, BNSF’s rail yards are now better prepared to safely manage large volumes of oil and fuel and respond effectively to spills that threaten nearby waters and communities. The beneficiaries of these actions are aquatic life, natural habitats and the people who rely on the South Platte River, the North Platte River, the Red River of the North, and the Souris River for drinking water, agriculture and recreation.”

The recent agreement also resolves oil and diesel spills from BNSF locomotive engines at four locations in EPA Region 8 dating to 2010. These include a March 2010 discharge of approximately 3,750 gallons of diesel from a locomotive in Mobridge, South Dakota affecting Lake Oahe; a May 2010 derailment that discharged as much as 7,400 gallons of diesel and 230 gallons of lube oil from locomotives to the Wind River near Thermopolis, Wyoming; a February 2012 collision between a locomotive and truck which led to the discharge of roughly 3,000 gallons of diesel in Williston, North Dakota, which impacted Stony Creek; and a June 2013 discharge of 200 gallons of diesel to a drainage ditch connected to Livingston Creek during the refueling of a locomotive in Minot, North Dakota.

An EPA investigation of BNSF facilities also revealed inadequate Facility Response Plans at the company’s rail yards in Denver, Colorado and Guernsey, Wyoming. These critical preparedness plans, required under the Oil Pollution Act, ensure that operators have the on-site capacity and expertise to respond to worst-case oil spill scenarios and mitigate impacts to surface waters. They are typically required for facilities that store 1 million gallons or more of oil on site.

As part of an assessment of overall facility preparedness, EPA conducted an unannounced exercise at BNSF’s Denver Yard in July 2014 to determine whether the facility was prepared to respond to a hypothetical spill of 2,100 gallons of diesel fuel to the South Platte River. In the exercise, as well as a subsequent exercise in October 2014, BNSF was unable to demonstrate that it could properly deploy a boom in the South Platte River to respond to such a spill.

In addition, EPA found inadequate Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure plans at BNSF rail yards in Denver, Colorado; Guernsey, Wyoming; Grand Forks, North Dakota; and Minot, North Dakota. These plans require specific measures, including accurate diagrams of facilities, descriptions of inspection and testing procedures, and adequate descriptions of infrastructure in place to prevent and contain oil spills on site.

BNSF has since remedied these deficiencies by remediating the spill locations, submitting complete plans, making investments in spill response capacity and equipment, and installing secondary containment and other infrastructure at the affected rail yards.

BNSF owns and operates one of the largest railroad networks in North America, with approximately 32,500 route miles of track (excluding multiple main tracks, yard tracks, and sidings) in 28 states.

California Small Businesses Recognized for Implementing Climate-Smart Strategies

“These businesses illustrate the California story,” said CARB Chair Mary Nichols. “From Eureka to San Diego, from an auto body shop to a winery, small businesses throughout the State are showing that environmental protection, innovation, and profit go hand-in-hand.”

The 19 award winners were selected from competitive applicants, representing a variety of business sectors from across the state. These businesses took a number of different actions to save money and improve their business operations while reducing their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and environmental impacts. Some of the steps they took included installing LED lights, solar panels, and energy-efficient equipment; manufacturing biodiesel or using biodiesel fueled vehicles; eliminating toxic chemicals and solvents; using eco-friendly, recycled/reused/repurposed products; composting food scraps and plant material; and starting or enhancing recycling and water conservation programs.

Three businesses received the Business of the Year award for demonstrating exceptional climate change management practices and emission reductions, while documenting their cost savings, return on investment and benefits received from taking specific actions. Sixteen businesses were acknowledged as Climate Leaders for taking proactive steps to reduce their impact on our climate and communicating this information to their employees and customers.

The winners come from 15 California cities across the state and represent different industries including manufacturing, catering, fitness, transportation services, dental healthcare, personal care products, solar installation, waste recycling, vineyard/winery, hospitality, and animal healthcare.

EPA Announces 2015 Energy Star Certified Manufacturing Plants

Together, these manufacturing plants saved a significant amount of energy, cut their energy bills by $476 million, and reduced GHG emissions by more than five million metric tons—equal to the average annual energy use of more than 450,500 households. From building corporate energy management programs to implementing energy efficiency projects, there are many ways plants can save energy with EPA’s Energy Star program.

“Energy Star certified manufacturing plants are driving the kinds of efficiencies and innovations that keep our country strong,” said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. “They’re proving every day that businesses can save on energy, cut down on bills, and reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions all at the same time.”

Since 2006, EPA has certified manufacturing plants with the Energy Star for reaching the top 25% of energy performance in their industries nationwide each year. Energy Star certified plants must have their energy performance independently verified. Plants from the automotive, cement manufacturing, corn refining, food processing, glass manufacturing, pharmaceutical manufacturing, and petroleum refining industries are among those that qualified in 2015.

Nine plants earned certification for the first time:

• Actavis: Fajardo, Puerto Rico (pharmaceutical manufacturing)
• Actavis: Manati, Puerto Rico (pharmaceutical manufacturing)
• Allergan: Cincinnati, Ohio (pharmaceutical manufacturing)
• Ardagh Group: Bridgeton, New Jersey (container glass)
• Ardagh Group: Winchester, Indiana (container glass)
• ConAgra Foods: Boardman, Oregon (frozen fried potato processing)
• ConAgra Foods Lamb Weston: Twin Falls, Idaho (frozen fried potato processing)
• Argos USA: Newberry, Florida (cement)
• Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas: Lafayette, Indiana (corn refining)

Since the inception of EPA’s Energy Star certification, a total of 148 manufacturing plants have achieved this distinction. These plants have saved over 618 trillion British thermal units (TBtu) in energy, equal to preventing more than 41 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions and saving enough energy to provide the total yearly energy needs for approximately 3.5 million American households.

These tools are available for 11 manufacturing sectors and enable companies to compare a plant’s energy performance against those of its industry counterparts and empower manufacturers to set informed improvement goals.

Energy Star is the simple choice for energy efficiency. For more than 20 years, people across America have looked to EPA’s Energy Star program for guidance on saving energy, saving money, and protecting the environment. Behind each blue label is a product, building, or home that is independently certified to use less energy and cause fewer of the emissions that contribute to climate change. Energy Star is the most widely recognized symbol for energy efficiency in the world, helping families and businesses save $362 billion on utility bills, while reducing GHG emissions by 2.4 billion metric tons since 1992.

EPA Scientists Receive Highest Honor from the White House

President Obama has named two EPA scientists as recipients of the Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE). This award, which is being given to EPA’s Dr. Alex Marten and Dr. Rebecca Dodder, is the highest honor bestowed by the U.S. government on outstanding science and engineering professionals in the early stages of their independent research careers. Awardees are selected for their pursuit of innovative research at the frontiers of science and technology and their commitment to community service as demonstrated through scientific leadership, public education, or community outreach.

“I am pleased and proud to see two members of the EPA family recognized with this prestigious honor,” said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. “Through their innovative research, Drs. Marten and Dodder have helped paint clearer pictures of the social costs of greenhouse gas pollution and the impacts of our energy choices on the natural world.”

Dr. Marten was nominated for his innovative economic research applying global integrated assessment models for calculating the social costs of (GHGs), including carbon dioxide (CO₂) and, importantly, other less well-studied gases including methane and nitrous oxide.  In addition to his innovative economic research, Dr. Marten was recognized for his leadership in various mentoring, teaching, and community outreach activities.

Dr. Dodder was nominated for her innovative approach to evaluating current and emerging environmental challenges and opportunities related to energy production and use in the United States.  Dr. Dodder’s other passion has been to develop and lead science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) outreach activities to share her knowledge for protecting public health and the environment with the next generation. She co-created and taught two curricula for Citizens School North Carolina and developed Generate—a game that lets players explore how energy choices affect the environment.

Dr. Marten and Dr. Dodder were two of 105 researchers across the Federal Government who were recognized with this honor. They will receive their awards at a ceremony this spring in Washington, D.C.

The PECASE award was established in 1996 to encourage the development of science leaders and highlight the importance of science and technology. Five scientists from EPA have previously received the PECASE.

Environmental News Links

Trivia Question of the Week

What percentage of new U.S. electric capacity is produced by solar energy?

a) 15%
b) 30%
c) 45%
d) 60%