EPA Proposes Rules for Greenhouse Gas Emissions

 In the spring of 2010, EPA finalized the GHG Tailoring Rule, which specifies that beginning in 2011, projects that will increase GHG emissions substantially will require an air permit. These rules will help ensure that these sources will be able to get those permits regardless of where they are located.

The Tailoring Rule covers large industrial facilities like power plants and oil refineries that are responsible for 70% of the GHGs from stationary sources. The proposed rules are a critical component for implementing the Tailoring Rule and would ensure that GHG emissions from these large facilities are minimized in all 50 states and that local economies can continue to grow.

The CAA requires states to develop EPA-approved implementation plans that include requirements for issuing air permits. When federal permitting requirements change, as they did after EPA finalized the GHG Tailoring Rule, states may need to modify these plans.

In the first rule, EPA is proposing to require permitting programs in 13 states to make changes to their implementation plans to ensure that GHG emissions will be covered. All other states that implement an EPA-approved air permitting program must review their existing permitting authority and inform EPA if their programs do not address GHG emissions.

Because some states may not be able to develop and submit revisions to their plans before the Tailoring Rule becomes effective in 2011, in the second rule, EPA is proposing a federal implementation plan, which would allow EPA to issue permits for large GHG emitters located in these states. This would be a temporary measure that is in place until the state can revise its own plan and resume responsibility for GHG permitting.

According to EPA, states are best-suited to issue permits to sources of GHG emissions and have long-standing experience working together with industrial facilities. EPA will work closely and promptly with states to help them develop, submit, and approve necessary revisions to enable the affected states to issue air permits to GHG-emitting sources. Additionally, EPA will continue to provide guidance and act as a resource for the states as they make the various required permitting decisions for GHG emissions.

EPA will accept comment on the first proposal for updated state implementation plans for 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. EPA has scheduled a hearing on the second proposal for the federal implementation plan on August 25, 2010, and will accept comment for 30 days after that hearing. The agency is working to finalize these rules prior to January 2, 2011, the earliest GHG permitting requirements will be effective.

Advertising Opportunities Available

Environmental Resource Center is making a limited number of advertising positions available in the Environmental Tip of the Week™, the Safety Tip of the Week™, and the Reg of the Day™. 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases

 

EPA Proposes to Modify TSCA Inventory Update Rule

The IUR rule requires manufacturers (including importers) of certain chemical substances listed on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory of Chemical Substances to report information about the manufacturing (including import), processing, and use of those chemical substances. You could be affected by this action if you manufacture (or import) chemical substances and mixtures listed on the TSCA Inventory in volumes of 25,000 lb or more during the principal reporting year (i.e., calendar year 2010).

The goals of the proposal are to:

1. Tailor the information collected to better meet the Agency’s overall information needs;
2. Increase its ability to effectively provide public access to the information;
3. Obtain new and updated information relating to potential exposures to a subset of chemical substances listed on the TSCA Inventory; and
4. Improve the usefulness of the information reported.

Proposed changes include:

• Required use of the electronic reporting software
• Require reporting if the production volume of a chemical substance met or exceeded the 25,000 lb threshold in any calendar year since the last principal reporting year
• Require the reporting of certain manufacturing data elements, including:

– Whether an imported chemical is physically at the reporting site

– The volume of the chemical substance directly exported and not domestically processed or used

– Whether a manufactured chemical, such as a byproduct, is being recycled, remanufactured, reprocessed, reused, or reworked

• Require reporting of production volume for all years since the previous principal reporting year (i.e., 2005)
• Processing and use-related information
• Eliminate the 300,000 lb threshold for processing and use information, thereby requiring all reporters of non-excluded substances to report information in all parts of the IUR Form U
• Revise the list of industrial function categories for the reporting of processing and use information and replacing the five-digit North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes with 48 Industrial Sectors (IS)
• Revise the list of consumer and commercial product categories for the reporting of consumer and commercial use information
• Require upfront substantiation when processing and use information is claimed as confidential business information (CBI)
• Change the reporting frequency from every five years to every four years
• Eliminate the 25,000 lb threshold for certain chemical substances that are the subject of particular TSCA rules and/or orders and to require manufacturers (including importers) of such chemicals to report under the IUR rule, regardless of the production volume
• Make chemical substances for which an enforceable consent agreement (ECA) to conduct testing has been made under 40 CFR 790 ineligible for exemptions, to provide a full exemption from IUR requirements for water, and to remove polymers that are already fully exempt from the partially exempt list of chemicals

Certain chemicals—naturally occurring substances, microorganisms, polymers, certain forms of natural gas, and water—are exempt unless they are subject to another TSCA rule. In addition, certain chemicals are partially exempt, and manufacturers of such chemicals are only required to report identification and manufacturing information for those chemicals. The partially exempt chemicals are listed in the IUR regulations at 40 CFR 711.6(b).

The 2011 submission period, during which 2010 manufacturing, processing and use and 2006–2009 production volume information would be reported, is scheduled to occur from June 1 to September 30, 2011.

EPA Adopts Strong Protections against Air Pollution from Cement Kilns

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced the nation’s strongest air pollution rules for over 100 cement kilns across the country. The move will result in significant pollution reductions of mercury, fine particle pollution, hydrochloric acid, and total hydrocarbons from the cement manufacturing industry. The EPA was under a settlement agreement to finalize the rule by August 6 after environmental groups won a challenge in federal court to the agency’s previously weak emission standard.

The EPA estimates that cutting air pollution from cement kilns could result in up to 2,500 premature deaths avoided each year. The EPA also estimates benefits from cutting this air pollution of up to $18 billion annually, starting in 2013 when the rule takes effect.

Some cement kilns are huge mercury polluters. In 2008, the Ash Grove Cement Co., in Durkee, Oregon, reported emitting over 1,500 lb of mercury from its stacks, making it the 5th biggest mercury air polluter in the country.

According to the EPA, the rule:

• Cuts 16,600 lb of mercury, roughly 92%
• Cuts 11,500 lb of particulate matter, roughly 92%
• Cuts 5,800 lb of hydrogen chloride, roughly 97%
• Cuts 10,600 lb of total hydrocarbons, roughly 83%

EPA also announced that it was moving towards proposing limits on greenhouse gas pollution from cement kilns. This effort will move forward separately to clean up mercury and other toxic air pollution from these kilns. The agency said that cement kilns are the 3rd largest industrial emitters of GHG and that there appear to be cost-effective technologies to curb those emissions.

Modernizing older cement kilns with technologies such as scrubbers and activated carbon injection will help to create more jobs for the cement industry and will help preserve jobs in existing communities. The1990 amendments to the CAA mandated that major air polluters such as cement kilns must limit toxic air pollutants such as mercury, hydrogen chloride, and organic hazardous air pollutants, among others. In a decision issued during the Bush administration, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that EPA had been “grossly negligent” in making efforts to comply with the CAA’s air toxics requirements.

“We’re glad that EPA saw fit to write a single strict standard for these pollutants that will apply to every cement kiln in the U.S.,” said Jim Schermbeck, with the Dallas, Texas-based group Downwinders At Risk. “All Americans deserve the same level of protection from toxic emissions from these facilities, regardless of where they live.”

“Parents across the nation should be pleased that the EPA issued rules today significantly reducing pollution from cement kilns. Many of those pollutants have severe adverse impacts on kids’ health: lead, mercury, and particulate matter all impact young children’s neurological development and breathing. Kudos to the EPA for putting children’s health over the profits of the cement industry,” said Jane Williams, longtime activist on cement kiln pollution and chair of the Sierra Club air toxics task force.

“For years, the cement industry has gotten a free pass to pollute our air and water,” said Earthjustice attorney James Pew. “Previous administrations ignored the law and turned a blind eye towards the cost of pollution on our health and environment. Under Lisa Jackson, the EPA has taken the necessary steps to finally curtail some of the biggest polluters and clean up our air and water. Today’s announcement will save lives and prevent suffering from cement kiln pollution’s devastating health effects for thousands of Americans.”

“We urge EPA to adopt protective limits on greenhouse gas emissions from cement kilns in a speedy and efficient manner,” said Earthjustice attorney Tim Ballo. “As legislation in Congress to curb greenhouse gases stalls, EPA must commit to use its authority under the Clean Air Act and set a firm timeline that ensures cleanup of major stationary greenhouse gas sources.”

According to the EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI):

• The Ash Grove Cement Co., facility in Durkee, Oregon, spewed 1,508 lb of mercury from its stack in 2008 alone, making it the largest mercury-emitting cement kiln, and the 5th biggest mercury polluter of any kind in the country.
• The Lehigh Southwest Cement Co., in Tehachapi, California pumped 945 lb of mercury into the air in 2008.
• The Lafarge site in Alpena, Michigan is a five-kiln plant, and in 2008 emitted 359 lb of mercury, according to the latest data from EPA’s TRI. The Alpena cement plant is of particular concern because it sits on the banks of Lake Huron and in close proximity to residential areas of Alpena.
• In the San Francisco Bay Area, Lehigh Southwest Cement Co., operates a kiln in Cupertino, California. The kiln reported emitting a staggering 587 lb of mercury pollution in 2008 to the EPA’s TRI, making it the nation’s 4th worst mercury-emitting cement kiln. This kiln is located within a major residential area in close proximity to several Cupertino schools. It is also located within five miles of the San Francisco Bay, which is currently contaminated with mercury.

 

New Federal Legislation on Composite Wood Products

The Act amends TSCA and requires the EPA to develop a new federal regulation by January 1, 2013, to implement provisions of the Act. The Act mandates the same formaldehyde emission standards, as well as all other major regulatory elements, contained in the California Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM). However, the Act also includes some notable differences relative to the California ATCM regarding sell through provisions and de minimus use exemptions. The detail of these differences will be determined by EPA as a result of their ongoing public rulemaking process.

Changes Ahead for Accredited Environmental Labs in Washington

The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) has updated the fee structure of the State Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program.

The agency conducted a public process to adopt the change after the Legislature authorized Ecology to increase fees to adequately cover the program’s costs of conducting business. The changes include increasing the fees for accreditation.

Also, Ecology has cut staffing and changed some of its business practices to reduce operating costs. To help offset the cost of the fee increase to accredited labs, Ecology is reducing the number of required proficiency testing studies for consistently well-performing labs.

Ecology administers the accreditation program for about 460 environmental laboratories, including labs that analyze drinking water. Accreditation ensures that labs are capable of providing accurate and defensible analytical data to Ecology, the state Department of Health, and other local, state, and tribal agencies. This helps protect public health and the environment. In addition, state drinking water and environmental permits require the use of accredited labs.

The last time Ecology changed fees for lab accreditation was in 2002.

Pennsylvania DEP Issues Guidance to Land Developers for New Automatic Permit Extension Law

 

The law, created as part of the 2010-11 budget, allows for the automatic extension of certain water and waste permits and approvals issued after December 31, 2008. The law allows approvals for these activities to be automatically extended until July 1, 2013.

The law was prompted by concerns from land developers that permits were expiring before construction could be completed due to economic-related delays.

The automatic permit extension law is not applicable to mining, oil and gas, and non-land development activities. It also does not apply to NPDES and other federal permits.

DEP has created an online guidance document for permit holders and others affected by the new law that explains the range of permits and approvals covered under the new rules. Permit holders should not assume that their permits are automatically extended or renewed and should use the verification process outlined in the online guidance document.

Butte College Set to Become First Grid Positive College in the U.S.

Butte College, located in Northern California and resting on a 928 acre wildlife refuge, has been recognized over the last few years as a national community college leader in sustainability. By May 2011, the college will move to the head of its class—as the only college in the nation that is grid positive—producing more clean energy from sustainable on-site solar power than it uses.

The college recently received approval from its Board of Trustees to complete its Phase III solar project, which adds approximately 15,000 solar photovoltaic panels—or 2.7 MW DC—to its current 1.85 MW or 10,000 solar panels—which will ultimately make the college the largest solar producing college in the world—for a system total of 4.55 MW DC of clean renewable energy generation capability. The college will generate over 6.381 million kW hours per year—enough electricity to power over 9,200 average-sized homes, or the equivalent of removing over 6,000 passenger cars from the roadways.

“Once this solar project is completed, Butte College will provide enough clean renewable energy to cover all of our electricity needs and generate slightly more than we use—which will be a source of additional revenue for the college,” said Dr. Diana Van Der Ploeg, Butte College President. “Sustainability is at the heart of everything we do. Being the first grid positive community college in the country demonstrates our commitment to the sustainable practices we’re modeling for our students and our communities.”

Van Der Ploeg credits the college’s transformation to a national leader in sustainability due to student engagement both at the college and in the community, infusion of sustainability into the curriculum, workforce development focused on green jobs, LEED certified buildings, sustainable land use management, and operation of the largest community college student transportation system in California.

The new 15,000 solar panels will be placed atop rooftops and will create covered parking areas and walkways, in addition to being mounted on the ground. The total funding for the project is $17 million, which $12.65 million is made possible by federal Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBS) which are low-interest loans that can be used for clean energy projects. The remainder, up to $4.35 million, will be funded by college.

“This project directly employs local people, local vendors and provides a huge economic shot in the arm for Butte County. This is a sustainable project for everyone and saves money for taxpayers. All of Butte College’s solar projects are projected to save the college over $150 million net over 30 years,” said Mike Miller, Butte College Director of Facilities, Planning, and Management.

According to Miller, the funding to pay for all of the solar projects, is the funding budgeted annually to purchase electricity from the grid, and for Phase III, almost $1 million in rebates from PG&E, the California Solar Initiative, and benefits from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act/CREBS allocations.

The Clean Renewable Energy Bonds for the project were arranged and funded by Bank of America as part of its 10 year, $20 billion business initiative to address climate change.

The first component of the Phase 3 solar project includes the construction of 1,639 solar panels that will create covered parking spaces at the Butte College Chico Center and will generate 450kW DC. The installation of the 13 new solar arrays has started at the Chico Center campus and will culminate at the main campus. This project is scheduled to be completed by May 2011.

When all of the college’s solar projects are combined, the college will have a yearly reduction of over 6.9 million lb of carbon dioxide (CO2), 27,000 lb of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 20,000 lb of nitrogen oxide (NOX).

“This solar project helps the college come close to being climate neutral and allows the college to offer solar training classes, in addition to reducing energy costs and generating revenue,” said Van Der Ploeg.

Chico Electric and DPR Construction, Sacramento formed Chico Electric DPR Energy JV for this project. The two companies bring expertise in LEAN project delivery and sustainable energy. LEAN construction is the collaborative design and construction methodology that incorporates all of the separate professional sub-groups, design disciplines and trade contractors into a cohesive management team. Norm Nielsen, owner of Chico Electric, is an alumnus of Butte College and has installed other solar projects at the college.

“This is a landmark project for Butte College and will make the college grid positive. Using solar will ultimately save the college money and help the environment. We’re also excited that a number of the workers on this projects are apprentices who went through the college’s solar installation training program,” said Norm Nielsen, owner of Chico Electric.

Over the past several years Butte College has earned a number of national awards for sustainability leadership including the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) 2009 Campus Leadership Award, the 2009 EPA Green Power Partnership Award, the 2008 National Wildlife Association Campus Chill-Out Award, and several Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building certifications from the U.S. Green Building Council, 2010.

“This project serves as a model for other colleges and universities in meeting energy needs and supporting a green jobs economy,” said Mark Cirksena, Regional Manager for DPR Construction in Sacramento. “According to the Environmental Information Administration’s energy outlook a couple of years ago, buildings represented 72% of U.S. electricity consumption. Butte College should be commended for taking a leadership role and setting new standards for environmental responsibility.”

Butte College, a single campus district, is located near the geographical center of Butte County, California. It has centers in Chico, the largest city in the district, and Orland in Glenn County. Because of its rural location, the college is unique among California Community Colleges because it operates as a self-contained city. Butte College has its own water system, maintains its own sewage treatment facility, and operates the largest community college transportation system in California. The college implemented its first solar energy project in 2005 and its second in 2008.

Environment Department Releases Green Business Permitting Guide to Help Spur Green Jobs in New Mexico

 

The manual, which the Department created in collaboration with the Governor’s Green Jobs Cabinet, makes it easier for green businesses to discover and navigate applicable incentives and permitting requirements.

“The guide offers valuable tools that will help attract green businesses and bring jobs to our state,” said New Mexico Environment Department Secretary Ron Curry. “The manual can help green businesses connect with resources around the state, evaluate applicable incentives and identify programs for specific businesses.”

Green industries include renewable energy facilities (e.g., solar, wind, geothermal, transmission, manufacturing sector), biofuels (e.g., algae and crops), biogas production (e.g., manure, landfill, and wastewater), and energy efficient and green buildings (e.g., weatherization, retrofits/remodels, and new structures).

The manual synthesizes permitting information from nine state regulatory agencies by covering such topics as: program description, types of permits or other approvals, applicable statutes and regulations, permit processing procedures, green industry specific information, agency contacts, and Web links. The guide provides permitting information on various state regulations that may govern the development of green resources and contains contacts and general information for federal, tribal, county, and local entities in New Mexico. The business assistance section offers information on green business support, job training incentives, starting a business, business expansion and financing assistance, and contacts for various green industry groups in New Mexico. Available tax credits, tax deductions, and other clean energy incentives are also listed.

Governor Richardson created the Green Jobs Cabinet in January 2009 to develop opportunities for clean energy, clean technology economic development, and job creation in an effort to build the state’s green economy.

Environmental Violations Cost Universal Circuits $45,000

Universal Circuits, Inc., has agreed to pay a $45,000 penalty for alleged environmental violations at its circuit-board-manufacturing facility located in Maple Grove, Minnesota.

The alleged violations were discovered in 2007 and 2008, during inspections by Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services staff. Hennepin County referred the violations to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for enforcement. The county and the MPCA have a Joint Powers Agreement facilitating the cooperative exercise of their authorities regulating hazardous waste management.

The manufacturing process at Universal Circuits’ Maple Grove facility uses hazardous materials and generates hazardous wastes containing or including sulfuric, hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, and several other corrosive etching and cleaning chemicals; solvent waste containing xylene; and copper, lead, cyanide-containing and other wastes. The facility is licensed by Hennepin County as a Large Quantity Generator of Hazardous Waste.

During their inspections of the facility, Hennepin County staff observed and documented conditions indicating that Universal Circuits had failed to recover spilled hazardous wastes as rapidly and thoroughly as possible. Hennepin County staff also documented that industrial waste or other pollutants had breached a trench inside the building, resulting in a discharge from the facility to the soil, and facility staff had failed to prevent a release of corrosive hazardous waste acid.

Other alleged violations related to hazardous waste management at the facility were inadequate training of staff and inadequate recordkeeping, storing incompatible wastes together, failure to maintain enough space to allow the unobstructed movement of personnel and equipment, failure to maintain and keep current its emergency contingency plan, and failing to properly close or remove underground storage tanks (USTs).

In addition to paying the $45,000 penalty, Universal Circuits agreed to evaluate and remove all waste from the facility’s floors, trenches, and USTs; prepare a plan for the review and assessment of the structural integrity of the facility’s tanks, floors, trench system, sanitary and storm sewer systems, and out-of-service USTs; submit a report on how and when inadequacies found during the assessment will be addressed; and submit a plan for cleaning up soil and groundwater if contaminated by chemicals released from the facility. The company has since corrected all alleged violations and is currently operating in compliance.

A stipulation agreement is one of the tools used to achieve compliance with environmental laws. When calculating penalties, the MPCA takes into account the potential for environmental harm as well as how seriously the violation affected the environment, whether it is a first-time or repeat violation, and how promptly the violation was reported to appropriate authorities. It also attempts to recover the calculated economic benefit gained by failing to comply with environmental laws in a timely manner.

NOAA: Second Warmest July and Warmest Year-to-Date Global Temperature on Record

The combined global land and ocean surface temperature made this July the second warmest on record, behind 1998, and the warmest averaged January–July on record. The global average land surface temperature for July and January–July was warmest on record. The global ocean surface temperature for July was the fifth warmest, and for January–July 2010 was the second warmest on record, behind 1998.

The monthly analysis from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, which is based on records going back to 1880, is part of the suite of climate services NOAA provides government, business, and community leaders so they can make informed decisions.

Global temperature highlights include:

• The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for July 2010 was the second warmest on record at 61.6?F (16.5?C), which is 1.19?F (0.66?C) above the 20th century average of 60.4?F (15.8?C). The averaged temperature for July 1998 was 61.7?F (16.5?C).
• The July worldwide land surface temperature was 1.85?F (1.03?C) above the 20th century average of 57.8?F (14.3?C)—the warmest July on record. Warmer-than-average conditions dominated land areas of the globe. The most prominent warmth was in Europe, western Russia, and eastern Asia. Cooler-than-average regions included central Russia, Alaska, and southern South America.
• According to the Finnish Meteorological Institute, Finland set a new all-time maximum temperature on July 29 when temperatures soared to 99.0?F (37.2?C), surpassing the previous record set in July 1914 by 2.3?F (1.3?C).
• Western Russia was engulfed by a severe heat wave during much of July. On July 30, Moscow set a new all-time temperature record when temperatures reached 102?F (39?C), exceeding the previous record of 99.0?F (37.2?C) set four days earlier. Before 2010, the highest maximum temperature recorded in Moscow was 98.2?F (38.8?C), set nine decades ago.
• According to the Beijing Climate Center, the July 2010 average temperature across China was 73.0?F (22.8?C), which is 2.5?F (1.4?C) above the 1971-2000 average and the warmest July since 1961.
• The worldwide ocean surface temperature was 0.97?F (0.54?C) above the 20th century average of 61.5?F (16.4?C) and the fifth warmest July on record. The warmth was most pronounced in the Atlantic Ocean.
• La Ni?a conditions developed during July 2010, as sea surface temperatures (SST) continued to drop across the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean. According to NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center, La Ni?a is expected to strengthen and last through the Northern Hemisphere winter 2010-2011.
• For the year-to-date, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 58.1?F (14.5?C) was the warmest January-July period on record. This value is 1.22?F (0.68?C) above the 20th century average.

Polar Sea Ice and Precipitation

• Arctic sea ice covered an average of 3.2 million square miles (8.4 million square kilometers) during July. This is 16.9% below the 1979-2000 average extent and the second lowest July extent since records began in 1979. The record low July was set in 2007. This was the 14th consecutive July with below-average Arctic sea ice extent. July 1996 was the last year that had above-average sea ice extent.
• Antarctic sea ice extent in July was above average, 4.8% above the 1979-2000 average—resulting in the largest July sea ice extent on record.
• According to Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, the continent received an average of 34.4 mm (1.35 inches) of precipitation during July 2010—this is 55% above the 1961-1990 average and the highest value since 1998.

Plains Pipeline to Spend More than $44 Million to Resolve Clean Water Act Violations

Plains All American Pipeline L.P. and several of its operating subsidiaries will spend approximately $41 million over the next three years to prevent and remediate corrosion, improve leak detection practices and capabilities, and enhance pipeline oversight on 10,420 miles of crude oil pipeline operated in the United States, the Justice Department and EPA have reported. The settlement resolves Houston-based Plains’ Clean Water Act (CWA) violations arising out of 10 crude oil spills in Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Kansas and also requires the pipeline company to pay a $3.25 million civil penalty.

Between June 2004 and September 2007, approximately 6,510 barrels of crude oil were discharged from various pipelines and one tank owned and operated by Plains into navigable waters or adjoining shorelines. The 10 spills ranged in size from 2.5 barrels to 4,500 barrels and most were caused by pipeline corrosion. Oil spills are known to cause both immediate and long-term harm to human health and ecosystems, including the suffocation of wildlife and the contamination of nesting habitats.

The CWA makes it unlawful to discharge oil or hazardous substances into or upon waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines in quantities that may be harmful to the environment or public health. The penalty paid for this spill will be deposited in the federal Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and will be used to pay for federal response activities and to compensate for damages when there is a discharge or substantial threat of discharge of oil or hazardous substances to waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines.

“The Justice Department is committed to strong enforcement of our nation’s laws in order to protect human health and the environment,” said Ignacia S. Moreno, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “This settlement will result in the enhancement of safety measures that will significantly reduce the risk of future pipeline leaks and harm to the environment.”

“In the last year alone, transportation pipelines released more than two million gallons of oil into the environment, posing a serious threat to human health and natural habitats,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

“These spills—and the recent pipeline spill in the Kalamazoo River—remind us that we must be diligent in our enforcement efforts and work to ensure that companies are meeting their environmental obligations.”

As part of the agreement, Plains must take steps to enhance corrosion control, enhance pipeline leak detection and provide proper training for personnel. In addition, Plains must ensure that all breakout tanks used to replace or substitute existing tanks that relieve pipeline surges have adequate capacity to contain such surges and are properly located within secondary containment.

According to recent pipeline spill reports, in the last year, more than 50,000 barrels (2.1 million gallons) of oil spilled from transportation pipelines across the nation. EPA’s enforcement responses to spills that affect waters of the United States under the CWA are critical to ensure that responsible companies are penalized for these spills and required to take appropriate actions to reduce the potential for future spills.

 

Tanco Kansas City to Pay $97,845 Civil Penalty for Violations of CWA, Failure to Prepare Facility Response Plan

Tanco Kansas City, LLP, a bulk materials storage facility, has agreed to pay a $97,845 civil penalty to the United States to settle allegations that it violated federal laws by failing to properly document its storage of sulfuric acid and prepare a Facility Response Plan (FRP) to guard against spills of its materials into a tributary of the Missouri River.

Tanco’s facility in Kansas City, Kansas, did not have an FRP in place at the time of a May 2009 EPA inspection, in violation of the federal CWA, according to an administrative consent agreement and final order filed in Kansas City, Kansas.

Inspectors also found Tanco had not properly implemented its Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) plan, including requirements for secondary containment and tank integrity testing, both of which are designed to prevent or minimize the impacts from accidental releases.

EPA’s review of the Tanco facility also found that the company violated the federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) by not filing proper reports for the years 2006, 2007, or 2008 to disclose the quantities of sulfuric acid that it stored onsite. A subsequent report filed in March 2010 showed Tanco stored more than 2.1 million lb of sulfuric acid in 2009.

Tanco’s facility has a documented storage capacity of more than 7.4 million gallons of products, including approximately 6.1 million gallons of tank capacity for the storage of liquid asphalt, with the remaining capacity divided between storage of sulfuric acid and calcium chloride.

EPA determined that a spill of those materials from Tanco could reach Island Creek, which is directly adjacent to the business, and from there, flow into the Missouri River, causing harm to fish and wildlife and the environment, and impacting downstream drinking water supply intakes.

As part of its settlement with EPA, Tanco has agreed to conduct a survey and increase its levels of secondary containment to prevent spills from leaving the facility. The company will also document all of its required training, drills, and exercises. Since the May 2009 inspection, Tanco has submitted an amended Facility Response Plan to EPA, and has agreed to a schedule for making and testing its necessary facility improvements.

Maryland Department of the Environment Issues 25 New Enforcement Actions

The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) announced 25 recent major enforcement actions seeking more than $1.6 million in penalties for alleged violations of MDE requirements for water, land, air, and radiation management.

“The Maryland Department of the Environment’s top priority is to protect public health and our environment, and a consistent baseline of enforcement actions prevents further pollution and risks to public health,” said MDE Secretary Shari T. Wilson. “The vast majority of Maryland businesses that are in compliance deserve to have environmental laws fairly applied across the board.”

 

New Jersey Landfill Owners Agree to Comply with CAA

The second of two agreements to resolve longstanding problems with landfill gas emissions and their negative impacts on air quality at the Middlesex County and Edgeboro landfills in New Jersey has been reached to bring them into compliance with the CAA, the Justice Department and EPA have announced. The two settlements together resolve all outstanding compliance issues at the landfill facilities. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) was also a party to the agreement.

Under the agreements, both facilities will enhance environmental controls at the site, conduct regular monitoring and make other required infrastructure improvements to meet federal standards. Landfill gas collected by the separate Middlesex County Utilities Authority (MCUA) and Edgeboro Disposal Inc. (EDI), gas collection systems is treated and then used to generate electricity.

As part of the settlement, MCUA has installed 19 additional landfill gas collection wells in its newest landfill cell, to improve its collection of landfill gases. MCUA also agreed to an innovative plan to monitor the surface of the Middlesex landfill for excess methane emissions. Under the terms of the agreement, the defendants must collectively pay a civil penalty of more than $1.3 million.

The active Middlesex County landfill, owned and operated by MCUA, is located directly adjacent to and on top of the Edgeboro landfill, an older, closed landfill. The facility is located in East Brunswick Township, New Jersey. This “piggyback” landfill design, in which MCUA landfill space is constructed on top of the capped Edgeboro landfill, contributed to challenging environmental compliance issues. The agreement was reached with the MCUA, and with NERC Middlesex Gas Co. LLC, and Middlesex Generating Co. LLC, the operators of the Middlesex County landfill at the time the violations occurred.

“The United States filed these actions to ensure that landfill operators, including the defendants in these cases, follow the requirements of the Clean Air Act by capturing and controlling their emissions of harmful air pollutants,” said Ignacia S. Moreno, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “In resolving these actions, the United States secures relief that will improve air quality and harness landfill gases to generate energy.”

“This agreement represents years of hard work to turn an environmental problem into an environmental asset,” said Judith Enck, EPA Regional Administrator. “Landfill gas is the by-product of the decomposing solid waste and mainly composed of carbon dioxide and methane. Instead of being allowed to escape into the atmosphere, landfill gas can be captured, converted, and used as an energy source. Converting landfill gases to energy offsets the need for coal and oil, and provides communities greater environmental protection by reducing the impacts on air quality.”

The first of the two agreements was reached on July 13, 2010, with EDI, Edgeboro Inc., NEO Edgeboro LLC, and O’Brien Biogas IV LLC, the owner and operators of the Edgeboro landfill. As part of this settlement, EDI completed construction of a new $6 million landfill gas collection and control system to capture and redirect harmful air pollution from the landfill for potential reuse as an energy supply. The defendants also paid $750,000 in penalties to resolve the CAA violations.

The landfill owners and operators had failed to comply with federal law that applies to large scale landfills that have been expanded or modified since 1991. The Edgeboro landfill did not have an adequate landfill gas collection and control system in place, which allowed excessive amounts of landfill gases to escape into the surrounding area. The facility’s air pollution control devices were also not operated properly, and various types of monitoring were not conducted.

The non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) in landfill gas contain volatile organic compounds and hazardous air pollutants that can result in adverse effects to the respiratory system, damage to the nervous system, and cancer. Landfill gas also contains carbon dioxide and methane gas which contribute to climate change. Methane gas can also cause fires or explosions when it accumulates in structures on or off the landfill site.

After EPA determined that the Edgeboro facility’s old gas collection system was too inadequate to comply with federal law, it worked with the defendants to design a new, horizontal gas collection system, which is now installed and operational. EPA anticipates extensive environmental improvements at the landfill, resulting in the capture and control of about 129 tons/yr of NMOC, a contributor to smog, 20,000 tons/yr of methane, and 58,000 tons/yr of carbon dioxide.

Texas Proposes Revisions to Oil and Gas Production Standard Air Permits

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is publishing in the Texas Register a proposed revision to permitting replacing the current standard permit for the construction and/or modification of oil and gas production facilities with a new standard permit.  The proposed standard permit would also feature variable emission limits based on the height above ground of emission release points and distance from those release points to off-property receptors such as residences, institutions, and public areas. Beginning January 5, 2012, facilities authorized under the current standard permit must meet the requirements of the new standard permit relating to MSS emissions. As of January 1, 2015, upon renewal, the owner or operator of a facility would be required to fully comply with this new standard permit.

A public hearing on the proposed standard permit and related revisions to the permit by rule for oil and gas sites will be held on September 14, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. at the TCEQ, Building E, Room 201S, 12100 Park 35 Circle, in Austin.

Comments may be mailed to Beecher Cameron, TCEQ, Office of Permitting and Registration, Air Permits Division, MC 163, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087 or faxed to 512-239-1070. All comments should reference the standard permit for oil and gas production facilities. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. on September 17, 2010. For further information, contact Mr. Cameron at 512-239-1495. Si desea informacion en Espanol, puede llamar al 800-687-4040.

Advanced Planning for Back-to-School Can Save Money and Help the Environment

Even with a tight economy, parents and students still need the back-to-school shopping trip for clothes, backpacks, computers, and school supplies. A survey conducted by the National Retail Federation found that this year consumers expect to spend an average of $606 for back-to-school needs.

A little advanced planning can help both the environment and your pocketbook. Here are a few tips from the EPA that can point you in the right direction:

• Buying a new computer, printer, cell phone, or other electronic device? If you are buying a new printer, purchase one that prints double-sided to reduce the use of paper. E-cycle your old electronics! Many retailers are partnering with EPA to recycle electronics. You may also be able to donate your old computer to a local school, library, or charity for a tax deduction.
• If you have to discard electronics, do it right! Check with your local municipality, county, state environmental agency or the EPA for the proper way to dispose of electronics safely. E-cycling conserves precious natural resources and reduces the amount of waste sent to landfills.
• Before you shop, see what you already have at home. Many supplies can be reused or recycled. Backpacks, notebooks, folders, and binders can all be reused.
• When you do need to buy new, choose products made from recycled materials such as pencils made from old blue jeans, binders made from old shipping boxes, and of course recycled paper products.
• Buy school supplies wrapped with minimal packaging; or buy products that come in bulk sizes. Packaging accounts for more than 30% of all the waste generated each year.
• Are there clothes that your child has outgrown that are still in good shape? Donate them to a local charity or shelter so someone else can put them to use, and earn yourself a possible tax deduction at the same time.
• Share your used books with friends, relatives, or younger schoolchildren. Many schools reuse textbooks to save money and reduce waste.
• For college textbooks, there is a large secondary market for used books. Search the Internet for resale sites. Also check with the campus and nearby bookstores.
• If you bring your lunch to school, package it in reusable containers instead of disposable ones. Bring drinks in an insulated bottle instead of disposable bottles or cartons. This saves money and reduces waste.
• Encourage your school to organize a recycling program if they don’t already have one.
• If you drive to school, try carpooling, public transportation, walking, or biking instead. By changing your transportation routine, you can save money on fuel costs, lower air pollution levels, and decrease traffic in your community.

A great way to reduce pollution is not to create it in the first place. Prevent pollution by reducing waste, reusing or recycling more. Work with your child’s teachers and friends to find ways to encourage everyone in your community to make reducing waste a part of every day life.

$11,000 Penalty for 30 Gallon Oil Spill

The EPA has filed a CWA complaint against International Petroleum Corporation of Delaware in connection with a 30 gallon oil spill that entered Trout Run in Avondale, Chester County, Pennsylvania.

The spill occurred when 400 gallons of oil was discharged onto Pennsylvania State Highway Route 41 in Avondale.

The oil traveled through a nearby storm drain into Trout Run, which is a navigable water of the United States. The oil entered the waterway causing a sheen on the surface of Trout Run. EPA is seeking a penalty of $11,000.

Trout Run flows into the White Clay Creek which in turn flows into the Christiana River. White Clay Creek is considered an environmentally-sensitive watershed by the U.S. Congress under the National Wild and Scenic River Act.

The CWA prohibits discharges of oil into United States waterways and coastal areas in quantities that are harmful to the environment or public health. Freshwater rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands are particularly sensitive to oil spills, which may damage fish and bird habitat and threaten drinking water supplies. The law also requires owners of the fuel facilities to develop and implement spill prevention plans to protect public health and the environment from fuel spills.

The International Petroleum Corporation of Delaware, which is located at 505 S. Market St., Wilmington, Delaware, has the right to contest the alleged violations and proposed penalty.

 

Owner of Fertilizer and Feed Supplement Maker to Pay $30,000 Penalty for Violations of CWA

International Minerals Technology, LLC, of The Woodlands, Texas, has agreed to pay a $30,000 civil penalty to the United States to settle allegations that it violated the federal CWA at its Tetra Micronutrients production facility in Fairbury, Nebraska.

Tetra Micronutrients produces zinc and manganese fertilizers and feed supplements at the Fairbury facility. According to an administrative complaint and consent agreement filed in Kansas City, Kansas, a March 2009 inspection found that Tetra Micronutrients exceeded the effluent limits of its stormwater permit for the years 2005 through 2009.

Tetra Micronutrients’ facility also violated inspection and review requirements of its Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), the inspection found.

Permit effluent limits are imposed to protect aquatic life and water quality. Runoff from the Tetra Micronutrients facility contained pollutants, including cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc. Polluted runoff can harm or kill fish and wildlife, and impact the quality of drinking water.

Runoff from Tetra Micronutrients is discharged into Brawner Creek, a tributary of the Little Blue River.

The CWA requires that industrial facilities such as Tetra Micronutrients have controls and pollution prevention procedures in place to prevent pollutants from being discharged with stormwater into nearby waterways.

The company has recently installed a containment basin to capture stormwater runoff to prevent the discharge of pollutants. Captured stormwater is then used as part of the company’s production process.

Environmental News Links

 

Trivia Question of the Week

Which of the following is not required by the federal EPA’s used oil regulations:
a. Containers must be kept closed
b. Containers must be marked with a start date and cannot be stored for more than 1 year
c. Containment must be provided for at least the volume of the largest container of used oil stored in the area
d. All of the above