EPA to Propose Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases

An EPA rulemaking would establish monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements on facilities that produce, import, or emit greenhouse gases above a specific threshold in order to inform future regulatory policy options related to greenhouse gases. The rulemaking responds to the legislative mandate to develop such a rule, which was contained in the FY08 Consolidated Appropriations legislation. 

Electronic Version of 2008 ERG Now Available

Two versions of the 2008 North American Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG) are now available for download from the Department of Transportation’s website:

 

The electronic versions of the ERG are provided at no cost. 

EPA to Increase Civil Penalties for Inflation

The EPA will be adjusting its civil monetary penalties for inflation, which have not been increased since the last adjustment in March 2004, as required by Congress in the Debt Collection Improvement Act (DCIA) of 1996, 31 U.S.C. 3701. The DCIA provides that each federal agency is required to issue regulations adjusting for inflation the maximum civil monetary penalties that can be imposed pursuant to agency statutes. The purpose of the adjustments is to maintain the deterrent effect of civil monetary penalties and to further the policy goals of the laws. The DCIA requires adjustments to be made at least once every four years. 

DOT Issues Draft Guidance for Shipping Gasoline/Ethanol Blends

DOT is encouraging shippers and carriers of these materials to review and provide comments on the guidance prior to its release.

EPA Guidance on Implementing Fine Particle Pollution Air Quality Standard

EPA issued a final rule outlining steps that state, local, and tribal governments must take to reduce fine particle pollution (PM2.5). The rule describes how to apply the New Source Review (NSR) program at facilities that emit fine particles. EPA's NSR program requires industrial facilities to obtain permits outlining emissions controls for target air pollutants before they begin construction.

The rule affects areas that do not meet the 1997 PM2.5 standards. Those areas must meet the standards by 2010.

The rule complements the agency's PM2.5 final implementation rule issued on April 25, 2007, which addressed the non-New Source Review provisions of PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards. A related rule, proposed on Sept. 21, 2007, would complete the PM2.5 preconstruction review program framework by establishing increments, significant impact levels, and significant monitoring concentrations for EPA's Prevention of Significant Deterioration program. Together, these three rules will establish the framework for implementing preconstruction permit components of the 1997 PM2.5 air quality standards. 

Regulatory Review Council Approves Arizona Clean-Car Rules to Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The Arizona Governor’s Regulatory Review Council (GRRC) recently voted 5–2 to approve ADEQ’s proposed rules to cut greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from automobiles and other passenger vehicles. GRRC is the body that must review all state regulations before they can become law.

“Because vehicles produce roughly 40% of all GHG emissions in Arizona, these rules are an extremely important step for our state in doing our share to address climate change,” ADEQ Director Steve Owens said. “If we are going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Arizona, we have to reduce emissions from vehicles.”

The new Clean Car rules will reduce GHG emissions from passenger cars and light trucks by 37% by 2016. Arizona has the fastest rate of growth of GHG emissions in the country. Between 1990 and 2005, Arizona’s GHG emissions grew by nearly 56%, roughly two-and-a-half times the national average. If unchecked, Arizona’s GHG emissions are projected to grow by 140% over 1990 levels by the year 2020 and by 200% over 1990 levels by 2040.

The rules were developed pursuant to an Executive Order on climate change issued in September 2006 by Governor Janet Napolitano. The Arizona Climate Change Advisory Group (CCAG) had unanimously recommended that Arizona adopt the Clean Car standards to reduce Arizona GHG emissions.

Arizona joins California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington State in having adopted the Clean Car standards. Other states, including Utah, Montana, and Florida, have said they intend to adopt the rules as well.

The rules will apply to vehicles beginning with the 2012 model year. The rules cannot go into effect, however, until EPA grants approval for them. EPA has refused to approve the rules so far, and 15 states, including Arizona, have sued EPA over its refusal.

Rhode Island DEM Warns Businesses of UST Testing by Whitco/Ameritest

The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management's (DEM) Office of Compliance and Inspection, along with the Office of Criminal Investigation, has received several complaints from gas station owners regarding the validity of tank-tightness testing conducted by Whitco/Ameritest or its representatives on underground storage tanks (USTs).

Whitco/Ameritest and its representatives were not licensed to perform UST tank-tightness testing after Sept. 30, 2006. If Whitco/Ameritest conducted these tests on your behalf after this date, the testing results may not be valid or may not be on file with DEM.

Minnesota Enforcement Actions Total More Than $550,000 in First Quarter of 2008

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) concluded 50 enforcement cases totaling $554,178 in penalties during the first quarter of 2008. The cases occurred at facilities in 32 counties throughout Minnesota.

The following is a brief summary of the cases completed during the first quarter of 2008:

• $80,770—Duluth Missabe & Iron Range Rail Company, Two Harbors, for aboveground storage tank violations
• $35,000—Le Sueur Inc., Le Sueur, for air quality violations
• $32,623—Fabcon Inc., Savage, for water quality and solid waste violations
• $32,000—Turtle Creek Estates & Niles-Wiest Construction Co., Austin, for stormwater violations
• $27,000—Northern Metal Recycling LLC, St. Paul, for hazardous waste violations
• $26,700—American Iron, dba Northern Metals LLC, St. Cloud, for air quality violations
• $25,000—Eco Metal Finishing, Fridley, for hazardous waste violations
• $19,000—Suzlon Rotor Corporation, Pipestone, for air quality violations
• $12,716—Flueger Construction Company, Red Wing, for solid waste violations
• $10,000—Washington County Public Works & Pember Excavating Inc., May Township, for stormwater violations
• $9,460—Bayer Built Woodworks Inc., Belgrade, for hazardous waste violations
• $8,500—City of Lake Elmo, for water quality violations
• $8,270—S-B Tires, Stewart, for hazardous waste violations
• $8,256—City of Iron Junction, for water quality violations
• $8,250—Erickson Truck Sales & Salvage Inc., dba Erickson Truck-N-Parts, Jackson, for solid waste violations
• $8,130—John Roberts Printing Co., Coon Rapids, for hazardous waste violations
• $7,500—Minnesota Department of Transportation & S.M. Hentges & Sons Inc., Chanhassen, for stormwater violations
• $7,500—John Kerwin & Nicollet Restoration Inc., Red Wing, for asbestos violations
• $7,500—Mavo Systems Inc., Bloomington, for asbestos violations
• $7,500—Shiva Maharad, Appleton, for asbestos violations
• $7,187—Xcel Energy-Red Wing Generating Station, Red Wing, for air quality violations
• $7,000—BNSF Railway & Hough Inc., Gorman Township, for stormwater violations
• $6,535—Lake Superior Laundry, Pine City, for stormwater violations
• $5,785—Olinger Transport Inc., Hector, for hazardous waste violations
• $5,000—Northstar Materials, Carlton, for water quality violations
• $4,880—Odyssey Development, Larsmont, for water quality violations
• $4,600—Jim Dees LLC, Tri County Topsoils, Sauk Rapids, for stormwater violations
• $4,250—John Collins, Brian Sprino, & Landworks Construction Inc., Cambridge, for solid waste violations.
• $4,125—Boise White Paper, LLC, International Falls, for air quality violations
• $4,000—Valley Asphalt Products Inc., New Ulm, for air quality violations
• $4,000—MJB Custom Homes (Huntington Cove), Coon Rapids, for stormwater violations
• $3,596—Wendt Custom Cabinets, Moorhead, for hazardous waste violations
• $3,500—Scott County Highway Department, Chard Tiling & Excavating Inc., Prior Lake, for stormwater violations
• $3,500—Brenny-Dahl Concrete Products, Cloquet, for solid waste and water quality violations
• $3,500—Frattalone Companies Inc., St. Paul, for asbestos violations
• $3,000—Bob Guetschoff, Cambridge, for asbestos violations
• $2,975—Westbrook Ag Power Inc., Westbrook, for hazardous waste and solid waste violations
• $2,781—M & S Collision Inc., Maple Grove, for air quality violations
• $2,750—Parker Hannifin Caphose Production Division, Deerwood, for hazardous waste violations
• $2,500—Danial Bennett, Brook Park, for solid waste violations
• $2,320—Quality Overhead Door Company of Rochester, Rochester, for solid waste violations
• $2,285—Brown Printing Co.-Waseca Division, Waseca, for air quality violations
• $2,275—Minnesota Department of Transportation, Detroit Lakes, for water quality violations
• $2,000—Independent Tanning Supply, St. Cloud, for hazardous waste violations
• $1,997—M & J Construction Co., Newfolden, for air quality violations
• $1,562—Basset Cultured Marble & Granite LLC, Shakopee, for air quality violations
• $1,250—Metropolitan Council, St. Paul, for air quality violations
• $1,250—Jarnot Development (Lake Andrew-Benton County wastewater treatment facility), Benton, for water quality violations
• $350—Premier Builders/Welk Logging, Longville, for stormwater violations

 

For questions on specific enforcement cases, please contact Stephen Mikkelson, information officer, at 218-855-5001 or 1-800-657-3864.

Suzlon Rotor Corp. Pays $19,000 Penalty for Air Quality Permit Violations

Suzlon Rotor Corp., a manufacturer of wind turbine blades in Pipestone, Minn., has paid a $19,000 penalty to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for alleged violations of air quality regulations. According to MPCA, the company failed to obtain an air quality permit prior to construction and operation of the facility.

With the potential to emit 27 tons per year of hazardous air pollutants, 17 tons of which could be xylene, the company is subject to federal standards for hazardous air pollutants. Xylene includes types of benzene used as solvents.

Construction of the plant began without an air quality permit in November 2005, and the facility began operation one year later. State law requires facilities to submit plans and receive permits prior to facility construction and operation in order to monitor pollutants and ensure that they do not exceed regulatory standards.

The company did not apply for the required air quality permit until June 2007. Annual air emissions inventories for 2005 and 2006, which would have been required in a permit, were not received until December 2007.

The settlement, known as a Stipulation Agreement, is one of the tools used to achieve compliance with environmental laws. When calculating penalties, MPCA takes into account 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 the company gained by failing to comply with environmental laws in a timely manner.

New York To Be Part of Nation's First 'Cap and Trade' Program

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is an agreement by 10 Northeastern states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, with participating states issuing their own regulations. When fully implemented, RGGI will achieve a 16% reduction in emissions from projected business-as-usual emissions.

Since announcing the first draft of RGGI regulations last fall, New York has received more than 10,000 public comments. In response, the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) have updated the proposed regulations and outlined rules for the auctioning of pollution credits.

RGGI states have set auctions for September and December. Through the auction process, companies will have to buy allowances for every ton of carbon dioxide they emit. The auction process is a market-based approach that will cap, and then reduce, the amount of emissions allowed.

"Global warming is the issue of our time," said DEC Commissioner Pete Grannis. "With these regulations, we will be attacking it in three ways: reducing emissions, fostering energy efficiencies, and spurring the development of clean and renewable sources of energy."

"Under the leadership of Governor David A. Paterson, New York State is demonstrating its commitment to addressing global climate change," said Bob Callender, vice president for programs at NYSERDA. "The RGGI auction program affords NYSERDA yet another opportunity to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in New York State, and it helps to strengthen the delivery of our broad range of energy efficiency activities. Furthermore, RGGI's trailblazing work will help advance the efforts to enact a national cap-and-trade program. Once again, New York State will lead the way forward on energy and environmental policy."

Comments on the revised regulations will be received until June 23, 2008. The public is invited to submit comments in writing to DEC and NYSERDA, or they may attend one of two public hearings (schedule below). The state expects to finalize the regulations by the end of this calendar year.

In a major departure from similar programs elsewhere, the state will not simply give power plant owners RGGI allowances. From the start, companies will have to buy allowances through an auction or in a secondary market for every ton of carbon dioxide they emit. The proposed regulations establish a minimum price of $1.86 per ton. No allowances will be sold at for bids below this level. In addition, the state reserves the right to retire unsold allowances. The revised draft regulations also set forth many of the specifics of how and when the auctions will be conducted and the obligations for those wishing to participate.

Proceeds from the auction would go toward energy efficiency programs, renewable energy projects, and innovative non-carbon emitting technologies. The program would also provide small opportunities for power companies to offset their emissions through other "green" investments.

Power plants pump out 25% of the total annual carbon dioxide emitted in New York State. For the initial six years of the RGGI program, carbon emissions for New York power plants 25 megawatts and larger will be capped at roughly current levels (64.3 million tons annually). In 2015 and in each of the subsequent three years, the cap will be reduced by 2.5% for an overall reduction of 10%. This will achieve a 16% reduction from projected business-as-usual emissions.

Other states participating in RGGI include: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland.


The public hearings are as scheduled:

• Monday, June 9, 2008, at 2 p.m. Place: NYS Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233
• Monday, June 9, 2008, at 1 p.m. Place: NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Region 1 Offices 50 Circle Road Conference Room, Basement Room #002 A/B Stony Brook, NY 11790

 

The public hearings are scheduled in places that are reasonably accessible to persons with impaired mobility. At the hearings, DEC will provide interpreter services for deaf persons at no charge. Written requests for such services are required and should be submitted by May 23, 2008, to Laura Stevens, NYSDEC, 625 Broadway, Albany NY 12233-3250; 518-402-8451

$100,000 Penalty for Blatant Stormwater Violations

Widewaters Greenport Co. LLC has agreed to pay a $100,000 settlement to resolve numerous stormwater violations at its Greenport Commons retail project on Route 9 in the town of Greenport (Columbia County), N.Y., according to NYDEC Commissioner Pete Grannis and Region 4 Director Gene Kelly.

The violations occurred because the company commenced work without implementing proper erosion-control and sediment-control measures, as per the company's stormwater pollution prevention plan. Also, the company had not secured written permission to disturb more than five acres—when, in fact, almost 40 acres of soil had been disturbed and were left exposed and vulnerable to rainfall erosion.

"Widewaters exhibited a blatant disregard for the stormwater regulations of the state and created the potential for a significant water-quality violation," Kelly said. "Luckily, we had a long stretch of dry weather, which averted any significant turbid discharges to the nearby Claverack Creek. The magnitude of this penalty, which is the largest stormwater penalty in the state's history, reflects the seriousness with which DEC views violations of this sort."

As part of the settlement, Widewaters must hire an independent inspector, in addition to the required existing daily inspector, to monitor the construction site at least twice every seven days to ensure compliance with their stormwater pollution prevention plan. The inspector must compile and submit to DEC a weekly report detailing compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

Widewaters is headquartered in Syracuse. Its Greenport Commons project is a 500,000-square-foot retail center that is expected to be anchored by Lowe's and a Wal-Mart super center.

Costco pays $40,000 for Air Violations

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) fined Costco Wholesale Corp., of Issaquah, Wash., $40,200 last week for failing to comply with state transport refrigeration unit laws.

ARB inspectors found that Costco filed late and incomplete reports for its Mira Loma and Tracy, Calif., distribution facilities, violating the Transport Refrigeration Unit facilities regulation.

Facilities with 20 or more cold storage loading docks are required to monitor, keep records, and report activities that create emissions, including diesel-powered refrigeration units mounted on trucks, trailers, shipping containers, and rail cars. These activities take place during the loading and unloading of perishables goods at distribution centers around the state.

The California Air Pollution Control Fund, established to mitigate various sources of pollution through education and the advancement and use of cleaner technology, will receive $30,150, and the Peralta Community College District will get $10,050 from Costco to fund diesel education courses. The company also voluntarily provided additional information to ARB investigators about operating schedules, facility diagrams, and estimated loading and idling times at the two facilities in question.

A decade ago, the ARB listed diesel particulate matter as a toxic air contaminant in order to protect public health. Since then, California has aggressively worked to cut diesel emissions by cleaning up diesel fuel; requiring cleaner engines for trucks, buses, and off-road equipment; and limiting unnecessary idling.

The Air Resources Board is a department of the California Environmental Protection Agency. ARB’s mission is to promote and protect public health, welfare, and ecological resources through effective reduction of air pollutants, while recognizing and considering effects on the economy. The ARB oversees all air pollution control efforts in California to attain and maintain health-based air quality standards.

Ohio Requires 25% Renewable or Advanced Energy by 2025

Ohio Governor Ted Strickland approved a bill on May 1 that will require the state's utilities to draw on renewable or advanced energy for 25% of their electricity supply by 2025. Senate Bill 221 requires renewable energy to meet at least half of that requirement, which starts at 0.5% by the end of 2009 and gradually ratchets up to 25% by the end of 2024. So the actual renewable energy requirement starts at 0.25% at the end of 2009 and increases to 12.5% by the end of 2024.

The bill defines renewable energy as electricity produced from solar electric systems, wind power, geothermal energy, biomass energy, low-impact hydropower, and fuel cells, regardless of their type and the fuel they use. A small fraction of the renewable energy must come from solar energy, starting at 0.004% of all electricity sales by the end of 2009 and increasing to 0.5% of electricity sales by the end of 2024. At least half of the renewable energy facilities must be located within the state, and renewable energy credits may be used to meet the requirement.

The bill deviates from most state renewable energy requirements by allowing half of the 25% requirement to be met through demand-side management, energy efficiency improvements for customers, and efficiency improvements at existing power plants that increase the plants' generating capacity. It also allows for power produced from customer-located cogeneration systems, which produce both heat and electricity, and from "clean coal" power plants, advanced nuclear power plants, and advanced waste-to-energy plants. Utilities that fail to meet the requirements will have to make payments to the state's advanced energy fund, unless the utility can show that the electricity from renewable or advanced energy sources would cost at least 3% more than electricity from traditional energy sources. The bill also lifts some restrictions on net metering of customer-located power generators and lifts all restrictions on net metering of generators located at hospitals. Net metering is a method of giving credit for power fed into the grid by customers.

While allowing energy efficiency and demand-side management programs to meet a portion of the advanced energy requirement, the bill also establishes separate requirements for energy efficiency and demand-side management. Starting in 2009, utilities will have to implement energy efficiency programs that achieve annual energy savings equal to at least 0.3% of their electricity sales, gradually increasing to 1% of sales for 2014–2018, then doubling to 2% of their sales for 2019–2025. By 2025, this will achieve a cumulative energy savings greater than 22% of today's electricity sales. Utilities will also have to implement demand reduction programs designed to achieve a 1% reduction in peak demand in 2009 and an additional 0.75% reduction each year through 2018.

To further encourage such programs, the state's utility commission may approve measures to decouple utility revenues from actual electricity sales. That means, if sales go down because of energy-saving programs, the utility's profits won't suffer. Such "revenue decoupling" measures may also be established for natural gas utilities. Utilities must also report on their greenhouse gas emissions and establish plans to control those emissions.

Climate Registry Finalizes General Reporting Protocol

When organizations become reporters, they agree to register their greenhouse gas emissions for all operations in the United States, Canada and Mexico, and they are encouraged to report their worldwide emissions.

DOE Launches Plain Language Series to Explain Energy Topics

“Energy in Brief” is a new series from the DOE’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) that explains important energy topics using plain language.

As the source of official energy statistics from the U.S. government, EIA provides the most accurate, policy-neutral energy data and analysis available. The new Energy in Brief series strives to make EIA information more accessible to energy novices.

“Energy education is a critical part of EIA’s mission. At a time when American consumers face many energy-related challenges, it is more important than ever to provide the public with reliable energy information in a format that is useful and accessible by the widest possible audience,” said EIA Administrator Guy Caruso.

 The goal is not to be exhaustive but to clearly cover the main points. The briefs are designed to be visually engaging webpages that are also printer-friendly.

The articles in the latest issue address the following:

• How dependent are we on foreign oil?
• What are greenhouse gases and how much do we emit?
• How much renewable energy do we use?
• What is liquefied natural gas and what is its role as an energy source?

 

$80,000 Penalty for Failure to Submit Form R for Lead

 

Electronic Evolution Technologies, Inc., located at 9455 Double R Road in Reno, Nev., failed to submit timely, complete, and correct reports detailing the amounts of lead processed at its facility from 2002 through 2005. EPA inspectors discovered the four violations as a result of a routine inspection in April 2007 and a follow-up investigation.

“Facilities that process particularly toxic chemicals, such as lead, must follow reporting rules to ensure (that) area residents and emergency response personnel are informed of possible chemical hazards locally,” said Nathan Lau, Communities and Ecosystems Division Associate Director for EPA’s Pacific Southwest region. “This penalty should remind others that we are maintaining a close watch over chemical reporting practices and are serious about enforcing community right-to-know laws.”

Federal community right-to-know laws require facilities processing, manufacturing, or otherwise using more than 100 pounds of lead to report releases of this highly toxic chemical on an annual basis to the EPA and the state. Although Electronic Evolution Technologies exceeded these thresholds from 2002 through 2005, it failed to submit reports to the agency for any of those years.

The facility uses lead in connection with its manufacturing of printed circuit boards. Although the facility’s operations did not release lead into the environment, it was still required to report lead processing to the EPA because the facility was over the applicable reporting threshold.

 This TRI database estimates the amounts of each toxic chemical released to the environment, treated or recycled on-site, or transferred off-site for waste management, and also provides a trend analysis of toxic chemical releases.

$157,500 Fine for Oil Spill Prevention Violations

A Maine company that owns and operates six oil storage and distribution facilities in Stonington and Deer Isle faces up to $157,500 in EPA fines for allegedly failing to adequately plan for and guard against oil spills, a violation of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations.

An EPA administrative complaint alleges that R.L. Greenlaw & Son, Inc., failed to adequately prepare and implement Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures () plans at two of its Stonington facilities.

Spill prevention and control laws help ensure that a tank failure or spill does not lead to oil being released into surface waters, such as harbors, rivers, or streams. The regulations require that certain spill prevention and response measures be implemented at facilities that store oil above threshold amounts. Both R.L. Greenlaw oil storage facilities are located directly adjacent to Penobscot Bay, thus posing a threat to the Bay if spills were to occur.

An inspection by EPA’s New England office and the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP) of the Sea Breeze Avenue and Indian Point Road oil storage facilities in Stonington found that R.L. Greenlaw had failed to fully implement adequate SPCC plans for the two sites. In particular, the company failed to maintain sufficiently impervious secondary containment for its oil tanks at both locations and failed to construct adequate containment for the loading and off-loading areas at the Sea Breeze Avenue facility, which are adjacent to the harbor. The two facilities also lacked fencing, which is required by the EPA regulations to prevent unauthorized access to oil storage containers.

“EPA will continue to ensure that oil-handling facilities take the correct steps to minimize risks of oil spills.”

Following EPA’s inspection and contacts with the company, R.L. Greenlaw has been responsive to EPA’s requests to bring the Stonington facilities into compliance with the Oil Pollution Prevention regulations, and is working with an engineering company to update its SPCC plans. R.L. Greenlaw has recently inspected its Sea Breeze Avenue tanks and conducted liquid-tightness testing of the dike to identify leaks. The company has submitted a corrective action plan for both facilities, which includes repairs to the tank dikes and construction of poured concrete containment areas for the Sea Breeze Avenue oil transfer areas.

EPA continues to focus on oil spill prevention in New England. In 2007, EPA conducted inspections at more than 100 facilities in New England to determine their compliance with the Oil Pollution Prevention regulations.

Valspar Settles With EPA for Pesticide and Hazardous Chemical Violations

Valspar Corp., has paid a $266,800 penalty as a part of a settlement of an enforcement action brought by EPA for violations of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act () and the Emergency Planning and Community-Right-to-Know Act ().

Valspar manufactures paints and stains, which are sold under the Samuel Cabot name, at the Newburyport, Mass., facility. Valspar bought Samuel Cabot, Inc., including its operations and Newburyport facility in 2005. Valspar employs about 100 people at the facility and more than 9,000 people nationwide.

In the FIFRA portion of the complaint, EPA alleged that Valspar sold or distributed unregistered pesticide products, specifically, “Cabot SPF 1 Cleaner and Conditioner” and “Cabot Problem Solver Wood Cleaner” from March 2006 to February 2007. The labels on the products included claims about the products’ mildew and mold killing/removing properties, triggering EPA’s pesticide registration requirements. However, neither product had received a pesticide “registration” from EPA. Federal law directs EPA to perform rigorous, science-based assessments of pesticide products and their uses before they can be legally used in the United States. Registration requirements were created for consumer protection, helping to ensure that no pesticide is distributed, sold, or used in a manner that could pose unnecessary risk to human or ecological health.

In the EPCRA portion of the complaint, EPA alleged that Valspar failed to submit certain information, thereby hampering the public’s ability to obtain accurate information about the type and amount of toxic chemicals in their community. The violations were based on Valspar’s failure to submit to EPA, Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting Forms (Form-Rs) for five hazardous chemicals manufactured, processed, or otherwise used in quantities above minimum threshold reporting levels. Form R information is entered into EPA’s publicly accessible Toxic Release Inventory.

EPCRA was enacted by Congress in 1986 to provide greater protection of the public from chemical emergencies and dangers through public disclosure by business and industry of the chemicals they store, use, and release. EPCRA was passed in the wake of the 1984 Bhopal, India, chemical release disaster, which killed 3,000 people and injured many more, as well as a toxic release from a West Virginia chemical plant less than a year later.

Valspar corrected the EPCRA and FIFRA violations as of spring 2007.

“It’s very important for industries that work with chemicals to understand and comply with environmental laws, which are designed to protect the health of people and the environment,” said Robert Varney, regional administrator of EPA’s New England Office.

Builder Pays $106,000 to Settle Dust Violations

The EPA recently settled with Sun State of Tempe, Ariz., for alleged dust violations that occurred at commercial construction sites in Maricopa County.

From October 2004 to February 2007, Sun State allegedly failed to comply with Maricopa County rules during earth moving and dust-generating operations at construction projects. Maricopa County inspectors discovered the following violations:

• Failure to install a trackout control device to remove particulate matter from vehicles
• Failure to immediately clean up dirt tracked out 50 feet beyond the site
• Failure to water down disturbed surface areas while conducting earth moving operations

 

“Maricopa County's particulate air pollution is a serious problem, and companies not complying with dust control regulations are one of the primary causes,” said Deborah Jordan, the EPA’s Air Division director for the Pacific Southwest region. “The EPA works closely with the county to enforce them and send the message that non-compliance will not be tolerated.”

The primary cause of particulate pollution in the Phoenix area is windblown dust from construction and home development sites, road-building activities, unpaved parking lots and roads, disturbed vacant lands, and paved road dust.

As part of the settlement, all current and new Sun State employees involved in dust-generating activities must complete dust-control training, the company must certify every six months that training is up-to-date, and the company must employ a qualified dust control coordinator at all Maricopa County sites equaling or exceeding 5 acres in disturbed surface area.

Particulate matter, including dust, affects the respiratory system. Particle pollution is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets in the air. When breathed in, these particles can reach the deepest regions of the lungs and is linked to a variety of significant health problems, ranging from aggravated asthma to premature death in people with heart and lung disease.

The elderly, children, and people with chronic lung disease, influenza, or asthma are especially sensitive to high levels of particulate matter. Particle pollution also is the main cause of visibility impairment in the nation’s cities and national parks.

Maricopa County exceeds the national health standard for particulate matter, or dust. The EPA has classified the county as a serious non-attainment area for particulate matter. The Clean Air Act requires the state to submit a plan containing measures that will reduce airborne particulate matter 5% a year until the area meets the federal air quality standard.

Environmental News Links

 

Trivia Question of the Week

The world’s oldest tree, recently found in Sweden, is providing us with clues to global warming. The tree is estimated to be how old?

a. 950 years
b. 2,500 years
c. 5,900 years
d. 9,500 years