EPA Publishes Significant New Use Rules for 52 Substances

EPA is promulgating significant new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 52 chemical substances which were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs). Nine of these chemical substances are subject to TSCA section 5(e) consent orders issued by EPA. This action requires persons who intend to manufacture (including import) or process any of these 52 chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by this rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. The required notification will provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs.

 

Learn DOT’s New Rules for Lithium Battery Shipments

 

 

• Enhance packaging and hazard communication requirements for lithium batteries transported by air
• Replace equivalent lithium content with Watt-hours for lithium ion cells and batteries
• Adopt separate shipping descriptions for lithium metal batteries and lithium ion batteries
• Revise provisions for the transport of small and medium lithium cells and batteries including cells and batteries packed with, or contained in, equipment
• Revise the exceptions for small cells and batteries in air transportation
• Revise the requirements for the transport of lithium batteries for disposal or recycling
• Harmonize the provisions for the transport of low production and prototype lithium cells and batteries with the ICAO Technical Instructions and the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code
• Adopt new provisions for the transport of damaged, defective, and recalled lithium batteries

If you ship batteries by ground or air, you must comply with the latest DOT and IATA/ICAO regulations that specify how the batteries must be packaged, marked, labeled, and transported. The rules apply not only to batteries, but also to equipment or vehicles that contain batteries as well as batteries packed along with equipment. Virtually all types of batteries are regulated, including lithium, lead-acid, nickel cadmium, and metal hydride alkaline. According to 49 CFR 172.704, all personnel involved in the classification, packaging, marking, labeling, or shipment of batteries must receive initial and recurrent transportation training.

 

Williamsburg RCRA and DOT Training

 

Orlando RCRA and DOT Training

 

Charlotte RCRA and DOT Training

 

Transportation of Infectious Substances by Ground and Air

Because pathogens can cause widespread danger, the requirements for the shipment of infectious substances are significantly different than those that apply to other hazardous materials. Infectious substances are found not only in hospitals, clinics, labs, and universities, but are also found at many industrial facilities where regulated medical (red bag) waste is generated.

In this live webcast, which will be held on November 6, you will learn the unique requirements for the transportation of infectious substances, including how to:

• Classify the different types of infectious substances
• Determine when you must triple-package infectious substances, and how to package these materials in accordance with the latest regulatory requirements
• Mark, label, and document infectious substances for shipment by ground and air
• Protect yourself and coworkers from the hazards of infectious substances
• Comply with both DOT and IATA regulations for infectious substances shipped by ground and air

 

Coal Ash Rule Sent to White House for Review

This is an important step towards ensuring the EPA meets its court-ordered deadline of December 19 to finalize much needed protections.

In 2013, Earthjustice won a lawsuit on behalf of 11 environmental and public health groups and a Native American tribe that forced the EPA to finalize these protections.

“We are pleased that the White House has begun its review and hope they support real protections for public safety and health,” said Lisa Evans, an Earthjustice attorney. “Despite massive coal ash spills, arsenic and lead contamination of our drinking water supplies, and over a thousand coal ash dumpsites threatening nearby communities, our household garbage is better regulated than this toxic waste. It’s time for polluters to protect nearby residents and for the White House and the EPA to regulate coal ash.”

The groups involved in the lawsuit include: Appalachian Voices (NC); Chesapeake Climate Action Network (MD); Environmental Integrity Project (D.C., PA); Kentuckians For The Commonwealth (KY); Moapa Band of Paiutes (NV); Montana Environmental Information Center (MT); Physicians for Social Responsibility (DC); Prairie Rivers Network (IL); Sierra Club (CA); Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (eight southeast states); and Western North Carolina Alliance (NC),

Coal ash is the toxic byproduct that remains when coal is burned in coal-fired plants to generate electricity. Coal ash is filled with toxins such as arsenic, lead, mercury, and chromium.

Coal ash has contaminated more than 200 rivers, lakes, streams, and aquifers across the country, which has impacted drinking water. Over a thousand additional unlined and unmonitored coal ash dumpsites exist, as well as hundreds of potentially dangerous coal ash dams.

Fly ash particles, a major component of coal ash, can become lodged in the deepest part of your lungs, where they trigger asthma, inflammation, and immunological reactions. Studies link these particulates to the four leading causes of death in the US: heart disease, cancer, respiratory diseases, and stroke.

Roughly 140 million tons of coal ash is generated each year by coal-fired plants much of which ends up in the 1,425 coal ash sites in 37 states.

Coal ash regulations were proposed in 2010 following the largest toxic waste spill in US history in Kingston, Tennessee, when one billion gallons of coal ash sludge destroyed 300 acres and dozens of homes. The EPA received more than 450,000 public comments supporting coal ash regulation and thousands attended seven public hearings across the country.

But pressure from the power industry and coal ash users forced the EPA to delay finalizing the proposed rule until Earthjustice and its clients sued the agency in federal court. Following White House review, the EPA is set to finalize coal ash regulations by December 19, but what exactly those regulations will consist of remains a mystery.

EPA Releases Details on its Clean Power Plan

At the same time, EPA is following through on its commitment made in June to propose goals to reduce carbon pollution in areas of Indian Country and US Territories where fossil-fuel power plants are located.

EPA has engaged in unprecedented outreach to a broad range of stakeholders since proposing the Clean Power Plan, including states, utilities, industry, public health and environmental groups, labor, and community groups. During the many meetings, conference calls, and the nearly 1.5 million public comments the agency has received so far, stakeholders have identified a wide range of ideas and information.

In issuing the NODA, EPA is seeking to ensure that all interested parties are aware of the issues and ideas that have been consistently raised by a diverse group of stakeholders, so that everyone has the opportunity to consider them as they formulate their comments, which are due on December 1, 2014. Notices of data availability are commonly used to present additional information for the public to consider. They do not change a proposal, nor are they a complete summary of the wide variety of ideas that have been raised. They allow EPA to continue seeking ideas and comments on these and many other issues as the agency works toward a final rule that is flexible and empowers states to chart their own, customized path to meet goals for reducing harmful carbon pollution.

In a separate but related action, EPA is proposing goals for areas of Indian Country and US Territories where fossil fuel fired power plants are located to reduce their carbon pollution by 2030. Proposed goals for these areas were not included in the June 2014 proposed Clean Power Plan. The supplemental proposal relies on the approach used in the June 2014 Clean Power Plan and is based on new information and data provided through additional outreach to covered facilities and tribal and territorial governments. The proposal outlines a diverse range of options that tribes and territories could use to meet their goals. EPA will hold a public hearing on the supplemental proposal on November 19, 2014, in Phoenix, Arizona and will accept comment through December 19, 2014.

Power plants account for roughly one-third of all domestic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States. While there are limits in place for arsenic, mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particle pollution emissions, there are currently no national limits on carbon pollution from power plants.

In 2009, EPA determined that GHG pollution threatens Americans’ health and welfare by leading to long-lasting changes in our climate that can have a range of negative effects on human health and the environment. Taking steady, responsible steps to cut carbon pollution from existing power plants will protect public health, continue the United States’ international environmental leadership, and move the nation toward a cleaner, more stable environment for future generations, while supplying the reliable, affordable power needed for economic growth.

Risk Assessment: How It Works and How Your Research Can Help

An upcoming webcast, designed for Superfund Research Program (SRP) trainees and grantees, will help answer questions about what is involved in the EPA human health risk assessment process and how toxicological research, including study design and evaluation, is used in this assessment. This opportunity will help researchers make their work more relevant to the protection of human and environmental health. Webinar takes place on November 5, 2014, from 1–3 p.m. ET. 

New Best Practices Document for Crude Oil Emergencies

 

Petroleum Vapor Intrusion: Fundamentals of Screening, Investigation, and Management

Petroleum Vapor Intrusion (PVI) is the process by which volatile petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs) released as vapors from light nonaqueous phase liquids (LNAPL), petroleum-contaminated soils, or petroleum-contaminated groundwater migrate through the vadose zone and into overlying buildings.  By applying this approach, decision makers can confidently screen out sites, and therefore focus limited resources on the small fraction of petroleum-contaminated sites that warrant vapor control or additional site management. This ITRC guidance complements the ongoing work of EPA’s Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) in addressing the PVI pathway. 

EPA to Revise Allowance System for Controlling HCFC Production, Import and Export

Under the Protocol, total United States HCFC production and consumption is capped, and will be completely phased out by 2030. EPA also announced the availability of annual production and consumption allowances for HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, HCFC-123, and HCFC- 124 for 2015-2019. This rule also makes minor changes to the reclamation regulations, updates the use restrictions to account for a recent amendment to the Clean Air Act, and finalizes a de minimis exemption to the use restrictions for certain uses of HCFC-225ca/cb and HCFC-124.

EPA Releases Plans to Control Climate Change

 

“Climate change is no longer a distant threat. It is already challenging our communities and our ability to protect the quality of the air we breathe and the water we drink,” said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. “EPA’s Adaptation Plan provides the agency with a roadmap for how we will anticipate and plan for a changing climate, while our Sustainability Plan identifies specific ways we will help slow the rate of climate change by reducing our own carbon footprint.”

Climate Change Adaptation Plan

When he laid out his Climate Action Plan to cut carbon pollution, prepare communities for the impacts of climate change, and lead international efforts to reduce emissions, the president reiterated his commitment to leading by example in the Federal Government. The climate change impacts that are hitting communities across the country—ranging from more severe droughts and wildfires to record heat waves and damaging storms—are also affecting Federal facilities, operations, and resources. The President directed agencies to assess their vulnerabilities to these impacts in Climate Change Adaptation Plans and outline how they will protect Federal programs and taxpayer investments.

The EPA Plan identifies priority actions the Agency will take to incorporate considerations of climate change into its programs, policies, rules, and operations to ensure they are effective under future climatic conditions. The Plan reflects input received from States, Tribes, and municipal and county officials during development, as well as comments received during a formal Tribal consultation process and a 60-day public comment period during the Winter of 2013.

The Implementation Plans, which also reflect responses to public comment, provide more detail on how EPA Programs and Regions will carry out the work called for in the agency wide Plan in partnership with states, tribes, and local governments.

EPA commitments include:

• Incorporating climate adaptation criteria in the Brownfields grants process to ensure cleanup actions taken by communities are effective as the climate changes
• Integrating considerations of climate change into the Clean Water State Revolving Funds process and continue working with States to ensure investments in water infrastructure are resilient to changes in climate
• Providing communities with the tools they need to increase their resilience. For example, a Stormwater Calculator and Climate Adaptation Tool empowers community planners to estimate the amount of stormwater runoff that they’ll have to manage today and in the future.

Sustainability Plan

To do its part to help prevent the worst impacts of climate change, as the largest energy user in the Nation, the Federal Government must also lead by example to reduce its emissions of climate-changing GHGs. 

EPA has consistently met or exceeded the federal requirements for energy efficiency, fuel use, renewable energy, and other high-performance sustainable building metrics. In 2013, for example, EPA exceeded the 24% energy intensity reduction from its FY 2003 baseline, reducing its FY 2013 energy intensity by 25.6% from FY 2003. In FY 2013, EPA also reduced fleet petroleum use by 38.9% compared to the FY 2005 baseline, exceeding the goal of 16%.

EPA Approves GHG Permitting Program in Texas

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has worked closely with EPA and submitted a state implementation plan for GHG permits to replace the existing federal program. EPA announced both its approval of the state implementation plan (SIP) and the rescinding of the federal implementation plan (FIP) making the TCEQ the primary GHG permitting authority in Texas.

“I am proud of our team and our shared success. Together, we have issued over 55 GHG permits for Texas businesses, creating well over 20,000 jobs and bringing over $24 billion in projects to the Texas economy,” said EPA Regional Administrator Ron Curry. “We have always believed that states are best equipped to run the GHG permitting program and have been tireless in our effort to work with them to do so.”

The TCEQ worked closely with EPA to write federal GHG permits over the past months through a work-share agreement. The action eliminates the need for businesses to seek air permits from two separate regulatory agencies in Texas and moves the permitting program to TCEQ. EPA and TCEQ will continue to work closely with pending permit applicants during the transition period and ensure no unnecessary project delays result from this action. The authority for Texas to issue air permits for new or modified GHG pollution sources will become effective upon publication of the final SIP approval and the FIP withdrawal in the Federal Register. Publication in the Federal Register typically takes seven to 10 days following signature.

Since January 2, 2011, projects in Texas that increase GHG emissions substantially required an air permit from the EPA. In Texas alone, EPA has received 83 GHG permit applications from businesses since 2011. Texas is No. 1 in the country for receiving EPA-issued GHG permits—with over 50 permits being issued by EPA. Of the 189 GHG permits issued nationwide, EPA has completed 61 and the states have issued 128 permits.

Kern Steel Fabrication Inc. Fined $57,100 for Improper Management of Hazardous Waste

The EPA fined Kern Steel Fabrication, Inc., $57,100 for improper management of hazardous waste generated at its 627 Williams Street facility in Bakersfield, California.

 

The facility also failed to characterize some of the waste generated onsite as hazardous or not hazardous and did not have an adequate contingency plan designed to protect human health or the environment in the event of any fires, explosions, or any unplanned release of hazards into the environment.

Finally, EPA found that the facility did not submit a timely Biennial Report for 2011 and 2013. These reports are required for facilities that generate a minimum of 2,200 lb of hazardous waste per month.

The facility, located in a commercial-industrial area of Bakersfield, about three blocks from residential neighborhoods, is a structural steel fabricator that constructs aircraft ground support maintenance platforms, work stands, and docking stations, among other products.

The settlement is part of the EPA Region 9’s efforts to work together with its federal, state, and local partners to reduce pollution from facilities that manage, store, or handle large volumes of hazardous waste. The Agency’s goal is to reduce the risk to human health and the environment for the four million residents living in the San Joaquin Valley by ensuring wastes from these types of facilities are properly managed.

Under RCRA, hazardous waste must be stored, handled and disposed of using measures that safeguard public health and the environment.

Ohio Proposes to Update VOC RACT Rules

In accordance with Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 119.032 (5-year rule review), the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Air Pollution Control (DAPC) has reviewed the rules in Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-21, “Carbon Monoxide, Photochemically Reactive Materials, Hydrocarbons, and Related Materials Standards.” The Agency’s preliminary review indicates that all of the rules in this chapter continue to be necessary and that 24 of the 25 rules in this chapter require amendment. Ohio EPA is presenting the following major draft amendments for review:

1. Ohio EPA is removing regulations and emission limits from OAC rules 3745-21-07 and 3745-21-09 for air pollution sources that are located at facilities that have been completely and permanently shut down. The removal of these sources is being made to reduce confusion due to the inclusion of emission limits for sources that no longer exist and could not be restarted without completing new source review. These sources will also be removed, where appropriate, from the definitions (OAC rule 3745-21-01) and the compliance time schedules (OAC rule 3745-21-04).
2. Ohio EPA is adding an alternative monitoring and recordkeeping option for catalytic incinerators throughout the chapter. Existing catalytic incinerator monitoring and/or recordkeeping requires monitoring of and/or records of the catalyst bed inlet temperature and the temperature difference across the catalyst bed. The new option requires monitoring of and/or records of the catalyst bed inlet temperature and a catalytic oxidizer inspection and maintenance plan. This new option is similar to many existing USEPA MACT standards, such as Subparts JJJJ, OOOO, SSSS, and PPPPP, and existing OAC rules 3745-21-15, 3745-21-22 and 3745-21-24.
3. Ohio EPA is revising the list of air pollution sources included in OAC rule 3745-21-07. Sources have been added or removed for various reasons, including past court cases, lack of photochemical reactivity of process materials, lack of use of liquid organic materials, and errors. More information can be found in the Rule Synopsis included with the rule package.
4. Ohio EPA added paragraph (M)(5)(i) to OAC rule 3745-21-07, which exempts some phenolic urethane cold box resin binder system in foundry core-making and mold-making operations. This exemption is identical to the previous exemption contained in OAC rule 3745-21-07(G)(9)(h).
5. Ohio EPA is adding paragraphs (M)(1), (M)(2) and (M)(3)(a) to the exemption in OAC rule 3745-21-07(M)(5)(d). These additional paragraphs were included in the previous exemption contained in OAC rules 3745-21-07(G)(9)(c) and (d). Recordkeeping provisions for this exemption were also added in new 3745-21-07 (M)(5)(j).
6. Ohio EPA is revising table 1 of OAC rule 3745-21-28 to indicate that the VOC content limitation excludes water and exempt solvents. Table 1 of “The Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives” includes the recommended VOC emission limits that were used in this rule. The CTG indicates that the VOC emissions limits exclude water and exempt solvents.
7. Ohio EPA is making various minor changes to correct typos and update the rule language in this chapter to meet legislative service commission (LSC) style and formatting guidelines. These changes are being made throughout the chapter, are minor in nature, and do not affect the scope or intent of the rules
8. Other minor changes can be found in the Rule Synopsis included with the rule package.

Ohio EPA is proposing a new rule OAC rule 3745-21-26, “Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts.” The rule will be effective in the Cleveland-Akron area that consists of Ashtabula, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage, and Summit Counties. This rule is based on USEPA’s 2008 revised Control Technique Guidelines (CTG). This revised CTG is a strengthening of previous CTGs covering these categories that were also adopted by Ohio during previous rulemakings. Prior to this rule’s adoption the surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts was regulated under OAC rule 3745-21-09(U) and the surface coating of automotive/transportation plastic parts and business machine plastic parts was regulated under OAC rule 3745-21-09(HH).

 

Dunkin & Bush Inc. Fined $47,330 for Hazardous Waste Violations

A painting firm has corrected past environmental violations, but will pay a $47,330 fine for having allowed the non-compliance to occur.

Washington Department of Ecology inspectors found 26 violations of dangerous waste regulations at the Dunkin & Bush, Inc., regional shop at 17301 Northeast 70th St. in Redmond during site visits in February 2014 and May 2013. Dunkin & Bush has since cooperated with Ecology and come into compliance with the regulations.

The company collects and stores toxic and flammable leftover paint and solvents at the facility. Improper handling of dangerous chemicals can expose workers, the public, and the environment to safety and health hazards.

The violations at Dunkin & Bush included not properly labeling dangerous waste containers, not keeping the containers closed, keeping waste on site for too long, and not checking the management of waste weekly.

 

Ecology originally set the penalty at $71,000, but Dunkin & Bush entered into an expedited settlement agreement to reduce the recommended penalty by one-third. In doing so the company waived its right to appeal the penalty. The settlement saves the state, taxpayers, and Dunkin & Bush the expense of appeal litigation.

“We are committed to complying with applicable regulations intended to protect public health, safety and the environment,” said Dunkin & Bush Vice President Tom Dunkin III. “Toward this goal, we have improved our hazardous waste management program. We appreciate the opportunity to avoid litigation, saving the state, the taxpayers and Dunkin & Bush the related cost.”

Western Avenue Auto Body Penalized $44,000 for Conducting Fraudulent Emissions Inspections, Hazardous Waste Management Violations

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) penalized Western Avenue Auto Body of Lynn, Inc., $44,000 after two of the station’s inspectors were found to have conducted 22 fraudulent automobile emission inspections over a five-day period during the fall of 2013.

The investigation was undertaken by the Massachusetts Environmental Strike Force (ESF) and MassDEP’s Inspection and Maintenance Program (I&M). The ESF is a joint investigative effort of MassDEP, the Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office and the Massachusetts Environmental Police.

An inspector at Western Avenue Auto Body, when questioned by an ESF investigator, admitted that some of the local repair shops would bring in vehicles for an inspection sticker even though they could not pass inspection due to either the vehicle’s computer not being ready for testing or due to having the check-engine light on.

“We will not let rogue inspection stations circumvent the emissions testing protocol deliberately, which cheats everyone who plays by the rules and results in dirty car pollution,” said MassDEP Commissioner David W. Cash. “This type of activity undermines the integrity of the state’s emissions programs and jeopardizes improvements we’ve fought to make in air quality in Massachusetts over the last 40 years.”

 

Under the consent order, MassDEP has agreed to stay the emissions inspection license suspension for two years, provided there is no additional violation involving the auto emission inspection protocol. Western Avenue Auto Body will register as a generator of hazardous waste and bring the facility into full compliance on accumulation, recordkeeping, storage and signage involving its hazardous waste.

The facility will also pay $11,000 of the total penalty and MassDEP will suspend the remaining $33,000 provided there are no additional violations over the next two years.

Communities Call for Stronger Protection from Oil Refineries’ Air Pollution

The EPA has received more than 275,000 public comments supporting strengthening health and safety standards proposed in May that would reduce hazardous air pollution from oil refineries. In addition, EPA received a comment letter from nearly 100 community, health, and environmental organizations.

Community comments provide support for finalizing a more robust standard by specifically calling for reducing emissions from not only some parts of a refinery, but also leaks and flaring of cancer-causing air toxics. Comments were generated by Earthjustice, CREDO, Sierra Club, and many others.

The groups that submitted the letter include community and environmental groups representing residents who live near many of the 149 oil refineries currently operating in 32 states.

“Communities living in the shadow of refineries are calling on EPA to do its job to protect everyone’s need to breathe clean, healthy air,” said Earthjustice attorney Emma Cheuse, who, with co-counsel Environmental Integrity Project, brought the lawsuit that forced EPA to update these national air standards. “Now it’s time for EPA to set strong new protections, especially for children and communities hit from all directions by way too much toxic air pollution.”

The proposed standards—to be finalized in June 2015—reduce cancer risk caused by refineries for millions of Americans by preventing thousands of tons of toxins from being released into the air. But in comments filed with EPA, community and environmental groups explain why EPA needs to do more to meet the Clean Air Act’s basic requirements to assure that communities nationwide have strong and equal protection from toxic air pollution.

The proposed new standards include a national fenceline monitoring requirement for the first time which would require refineries to measure the toxic air contaminant benzene at the fenceline as it crosses into the local community’s air. In addition, if benzene exceeds the new action level EPA proposes to establish, the federal agency would require a plan for corrective action.

In addition, the proposed standards would require tighter controls on emissions from storage tanks and other parts of refineries that are major contributors to toxic air pollution (such as delayed coker units) along with operational and monitoring requirements on flaring or the burning of waste gas, which is, too often, used routinely and which creates harmful pollution.

The proposed standards also finally remove unlawful loopholes that previously allowed refineries to escape scot-free when they violated the air standards.

For EPA’s new standards to provide much-needed protection for communities on the ground, groups are calling for stronger fenceline monitoring requirements that would mandate the use of the best current technology to give neighborhoods a real-time, continuous measure of pollution, which communities can use to protect their families’ health.

The standards also must require accessible public reporting and enforceable consequences for excess pollution so refineries promptly fix problems. In addition, groups want to see a hard limit on flaring to ban its routine and unnecessary use and to assure refineries minimize flaring in all other circumstances, as well as tighter controls to reduce leaks, and limit hydrogen cyanide emissions from other parts of refineries.

And communities call on EPA to find the current health risks unacceptable. EPA acknowledges that 7 million people are exposed to higher cancer risk from refineries—they are disproportionately African-American and Latino—and the numbers translate into an extra cancer case every year and half. Even one extra cancer case is too many. And that’s on top of all of the other health threats refineries cause, including the risk of catastrophic exposure from fires and explosions that EPA needs to address.

In 2012, Earthjustice and the Environmental Integrity Project filed suit on behalf of Air Alliance Houston, Port Arthur-based Community In-Power and Development Association, Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services (T.E.J.A.S.), Louisiana Bucket Brigade, Wilmington-based Coalition For A Safe Environment, Del Amo Action Committee and California Communities Against Toxics. The EPA entered into a consent decree to resolve the lawsuit, which led to the proposed rulemaking and requires EPA to take final action by June 2015.

Maryland Department of the Environment Identifies Best Practices in Stormwater Management

Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) Secretary Robert M. Summers kicked off the first stop of the Stormwater Innovations Roadshow at Baltimore Community ToolBank in southwest Baltimore City. 

Frontier Refining Fined $153,000 for Risk Management Planning and Chemical Reporting Violations

 

Frontier Refining’s Cheyenne refinery processes flammable chemical mixtures and hydrogen fluoride over the 10,000 lb and 1,000 lb threshold levels, respectively. EPA inspectors found that the facility had not adequately implemented the risk management planning requirements for these chemicals. These deficiencies included failure to follow internal procedures for inspecting piping at the facility and failure to adequately train employees involved in operating process equipment.

According to the EPA settlement, Frontier Refining also miscalculated chemicals reported to EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory and failed to file reports for chlorine, cobalt compounds, and molybdenum trioxide handled on site. The failure to file TRI forms deprives local communities of the right to know about the chemicals present on site. Frontier Refining has since corrected all the alleged violations.

“Risk management plans and the Toxic Release Inventory protect communities by making sure that facilities provide transparent information and have procedures in place to prevent and respond to potential releases of the chemicals they use,” said Suzanne Bohan, EPA’s enforcement program director in Denver. “EPA appreciates Frontier Refining’s efforts to address these deficiencies.”

It also will ensure communities have accurate information about chemicals being processed, manufactured, or otherwise used at Frontier’s facility and will help federal, state, and local authorities plan for emergencies.

Approximately 40% of the population in the vicinity of the facility is minority and low income.

Texas Company to Pay $1.6 Million for Oil Spill Violations

 Under the consent decree lodged in federal court, Superior will pay $1.61 million to resolve the government’s claims.

The oil discharged from two tanks at the facility on February 9 and 10, 2010, and crude oil flowed into an unnamed lake and wetlands near the Intracoastal Waterway and Redfish Bay. The complaint also includes related violations of the Clean Water Act’s spill prevention, control, and countermeasure regulations and spill response plan regulations.

The $1.61 million penalty is in addition to the costs incurred by Superior Crude to respond to the oil spill and to repair the tanks and containment areas. Superior Crude has ceased operations at the facility, which is located within the former Falcon Refinery.

“Operators have a responsibility to prevent oil spills and protect the public and the environment through vigilance and preparation,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Sam Hirsch for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “This settlement underscores the consequences of failing to meet that responsibility.”

“Water resources are precious, especially in Texas,” said EPA Regional Administrator Ron Curry. “We rely on businesses to be effective partners in protecting these resources, and to take responsibility when their operations harm the environment.”

The Clean Water Act makes it unlawful to discharge oil or hazardous substances into or upon the navigable 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 managed by the National Pollution Fund Center. The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund is 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.

 

EPA Inspection Reveals Clean Water Act Violations by Winifred Feed Lot, LLC

EPA personnel conducted inspections in northeastern Kansas in December 2013. As a result of one of the inspections, the owner of a beef feedlot, Winifred Feed Lot, LLC, has agreed to pay a $16,150 civil penalty to settle alleged violations of the Clean Water Act (CWA), according to a proposed consent agreement.

The EPA inspection documented pollutant discharges from production areas of the 2,200-head facility to Perkins Creek, a perennial stream that has been listed by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) as impaired because of high levels of phosphorus and total suspended solids.

Nutrient management plans are critical to ensuring that nutrient-rich manure is land applied properly and kept out of nearby river and streams. Ultimately, the failure to develop the NMP resulted in KDHE’s refusal to renew the NPDES permit.

Manure and wastewater discharges from concentrated animal feeding operation production areas can violate water quality standards, pose risks to human health, threaten aquatic life and its habitat, and impair the use and enjoyment of waterways.

As part of the settlement agreement, Winifred Feed Lot has certified that it is now in compliance with the CWA. KDHE has confirmed that Winifred has developed and submitted a NMP. The consent agreement is subject to a 40-day public comment period before it becomes final. 

Washington Honors Safer Chemistry Champions

Five Washington businesses were honored as “Safer Chemistry Champions” by the Washington Department of Ecology for their leadership in reducing the use of toxic chemicals and finding safer alternatives.

How did they do it? Redesigning a bottling line to cut soap use, developing paints and household cleaners made from safer ingredients, finding ways to reuse industrial acids, even inventing an alternative to green floral foam.

Maia Bellon, Ecology’s director, praised the winners’ creativity and commitment as she presented the awards during the Northwest Green Chemistry Roundtable at the Greater Tacoma Convention & Trade Center.

“The Safer Chemistry Champion Awards celebrate businesses that are leading the way in safer products and cleaner manufacturing methods,” Bellon said. “They demonstrate that reducing or eliminating toxic chemicals is both good for the environment and just good business.”

The winners:

WaferTech LLC – This Camas semiconductor manufacturer reduced its hazardous waste generation by 94% over the past 10 years. WaferTech recycles more than 330 million gallons of water a year and has found ways to reuse chemicals such as sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid and thinner waste.

Redhook Ale Brewery – The popular Woodinville craft brewer replaced its steel bottling line with a plastic system, reducing its use of water and the surfactant used as a lubricant, cutting its use of antimicrobial disinfectants, and eliminating the chemicals needed to treat wastewater.

Eco Chemical – A Seattle-based specialty coatings manufacturer, Eco Chemical makes water-based, low-VOC, nontoxic paints and coatings for the treated wood industry and athletic fields. Its TempLine artificial turf paint can be quickly and safely removed to allow venues like CenturyLink Field to switch between football and soccer with minimal risk.

Earth Friendly Products – This company’s Lacey facility manufactures a range of cleaning and household products that are free of formaldehyde, phosphates, caustics, chlorine bleach, and other toxics. Earth Friendly Products’ operations are carbon-neutral and the company has reduced its non-hazardous waste generation by 90% since 2010.

Floral Soil Solutions – This new Everett company developed a bio-based alternative to the familiar green petroleum-based foam florists use to hold flower arrangements. Floral Soil is made out of algae and coconut husks and entirely compostable.

Environmental News Links

 

Trivia Question of the Week

Automobile exhaust contributes to:

 

a) Ozone depletion

b) Acid rain

c) Global warming

d) Smog

e) All of the above