Beginning immediately, companies can no longer submit their new chemical notices and support documents on paper for EPA’s review.
“This is the latest in a series of actions that EPA is taking to improve the reporting of information on chemicals, and, importantly, increase the public’s access to that information,” said Steve Owens, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “The agency used an outdated process that depended on paper filings for far too long.”
On April 6, 2010, EPA issued a final rule that put in place a two-year phase-out of paper and optical disc reporting for new chemical notices to the agency. The rule included a one-year phase-out of paper reporting and a two-year phase-out of optical disc reporting.
Under TSCA, companies are required to submit new chemical notices, including pre-manufacture notices (PMNs), to EPA at least 90 days (in the case of PMNs) prior to the manufacture or import of the chemical. EPA reviews the notice and can set conditions to be placed on the use of a new chemical before it enters into commerce. EPA typically receives 1,000 new chemical notices each year, which can include hundreds of pages of supporting material. Companies are required to submit these notices using EPA’s electronic PMN software either on optical disk (for one more year) or via EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX).
St. Louis, Missouri RCRA and DOT Training
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™.
New Source Performance Standards for Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators
The rule, which was published on April 4, revises and corrects an earlier (October 6, 2009) amendment by correcting erroneous cross-references in the reporting and recordkeeping requirements, clarifying that compliance with the emission guidelines must be expeditious if a compliance extension is granted, correcting the inadvertent omission of delegation of authority provisions, correcting errors in the units’ description for several emissions limits in the emission guidelines and new source performance standards, and removing extraneous text from the hydrogen chloride emissions limit for large hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators in the emission guidelines.
Among the changes in this rule, which goes into effect on May 4, 2011, are new emissions limits for nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide.
EPA Announces Updated Energy Star Standards for Lighting
Effective October 1, 2011, to qualify for the Energy Star label light fixtures will need to increase efficiency 30% above currently qualified fluorescent-based fixtures. In 2013, performance requirements will increase further, providing 40% higher efficiency compared to currently qualified models.
Light fixtures that earn the Energy Star save consumers money on their energy bills and reduce the costs and hassle associated with bulb replacement. The bulbs in Energy Star qualified fixtures last at least 10 times longer than standard light bulbs. The fixtures will continue to meet other strict performance requirements that ensure quick start-up and high quality light output, as well as reduced toxics in the fixture materials. Additionally, the fixtures will come with a 3-year warranty, which is above the industry practice.
Consumers can expect to see a range of technology options qualifying under the new Energy Star requirements—including fluorescent and LED lighting—each held to the same high standard. In order to earn the Energy Star label under the new requirements, product performance must be certified by an EPA-recognized third-party, based on testing in an EPA-recognized laboratory. Manufacturers of the products must participate in verification testing programs run by recognized certification bodies.
Currently, the Energy Star label can be found on more than 60 different kinds of products as well as new homes and commercial and industrial buildings that meet strict energy-efficiency specifications set by EPA. Last year alone, Americans, with the help of Energy Star, saved $18 billion on their energy bills while reducing GHG emissions equivalent to 33 million vehicles.
Louisiana DEQ Offers Hands-on NetDMR Training
The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is offering training for permittees on the use of the NetDMR online application for the submission of discharge monitoring reports. A discharge monitoring report, known as a DMR, is a self-reporting document that is generated by permittees that have a Louisiana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. The DMR contains information pertaining to water discharges into waters of the state.
The three-hour session is intended to provide permittees and data providers with an overview of the NetDMR application that will enable the online submissions of the required discharge monitoring reports. The training will instruct participants on registering for an account, entering data and signing and submitting a DMR online using the NetDMR test environment.
The training will be held May 12 from 8:30 to 11:30 a.m. in Baton Rouge at DEQ Headquarters and in Jennings on July 27, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon at the Louisiana Technical College – Morgan Smith Campus.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. Assessed $8,000 Penalty for Hazardous Waste and Industrial Wastewater Violations
The Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, which operates an industrial hygiene research facility in Hopkinton, Massachusetts, has been assessed an $8,000 penalty by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) for violating state Hazardous Waste Management and Industrial Wastewater regulations.
During a MassDEP inspection of the company’s 71 Frankland Road facility in June 2010, it was determined that the company discharged industrial wastewater to an on-site sanitary septic system without first obtaining a groundwater discharge permit. In addition, the company failed to comply with numerous Hazardous Waste Management requirements, including a violation by the company that it accumulated hazardous waste longer than allowed under its permit.
In a recently finalized consent order, the company agreed to pay the $8,000 penalty and to comply with all applicable environmental regulations in the future. The company has since complied with the hazardous waste requirements and ceased the discharge of industrial wastewater.
“MassDEP personnel perform routine inspections designed to determine compliance with regulatory requirements to protect our water resources,” said Martin Suuberg, director of MassDEP’s Central Regional Office in Worcester.
ESI VP and Two Managers of Waste Treatment Facility Sentenced for Clean Water Act Felonies
Three officials of Ecological Systems, Inc., (ESI), an oil reclamation company that operated a centralized waste treatment facility in Indianapolis, Indiana, were sentenced in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana for felony violations of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The prosecution stemmed from ESI’s intentional discharges of untreated wastewater and stormwater from its facility directly into the Indianapolis sewer system.
“The Clean Water Act is designed to protect our nation’s water resources, and the defendants’ repeated attempts to hide the plant’s capacity to handle the wastes that ESI accepted and excess rain water threatened those critical protections,” said Randall Ashe, Special Agent in Charge of the EPA Criminal Investigation Division’s Chicago Area Office. “Today’s sentences prove that those who willfully circumvent our nation’s laws and put Indiana residents and nearby homeowners at risk will be caught and prosecuted.”
Joe Biggio, ESI’s former Operations Manager and Executive Vice President, was sentenced to three years probation, a $15,000 fine, and community service, after having previously pled guilty to two counts of CWA criminal violations and one violation of the federal false statements statute, 18 U.S.C. 1001. Biggio’s community service requires him to lecture graduate students seeking degrees in business management regarding his case and criminal conviction.
Mike Milem, former Operations Manager, was sentenced to six months home detention, three years probation, a $5,000 fine, and community service, after he previously pled guilty to one criminal violation of the CWA. Similarly to Biggio, Milem’s community service requires him to lecture students in Indiana colleges regarding his case and criminal conviction.
Mark Snow, former Lab Manager of ESI, was sentenced to three years probation, a $5,000 fine, and 8 hours of community service per month during the duration of probation, after he also pled guilty to one criminal CWA violation.
In addition, all three defendants are prohibited from applying for any environmental license or employment in the environmental field without disclosing their felony convictions to any such licensing board or prospective employer.
The investigation began after the Indiana Department of Environmental Management received complaints from several Indianapolis homeowners that thick, oily wastewater was flowing into their yards from sewer manholes after a heavy rainfall on February 11, 2009. ESI was required to have sufficient storage capacity to handle wastewater from this type of wet weather event, but it did not. In order to deal with the excess wastewater, Mr. Milem and Mr. Snow decided to directly discharge untreated oily wastewater into the Indianapolis sewer system by pumping wastewater through hoses that bypassed ESI’s treatment processes. As a result, the wastewater received no treatment, and was discharged into the sewer system leading to the City of Indianapolis’ wastewater treatment plant. The discharge continued for approximately eight hours and resulted in a discharge of approximately 300,000 gallons of untreated wastewater. In the hours after this discharge, the oily sludge-like waste emerged from several sewer manholes downstream of the ESI facility, contaminating residential properties.
The subsequent investigation revealed that ESI had not been adequately treating the waste it took from customers for reclamation for a significant period of time, in part because major pieces of equipment in the treatment process, such as pumps, needed to be repaired or replaced, and because badly-needed storage space was not available at the facility. Investigators also determined that ESI had misrepresented to EPA and Indiana the storage capacity it had to handle such a rainfall event as the one that occurred on February 11, 2009.
Mr. Biggio, as the Executive Vice President of Operations, knew that ESI was hiding its noncompliance in several ways. Instead of reporting all of its wastewater samples to the city, as required by its permit, he “cherry picked” the data and only reported the “best” samples whose analytic results reflected lower concentrations of certain pollutants. Similarly, wastewater was collected after rainfalls, resulting in diluted samples that could be reported as “lower” pollution levels to the city. This practice of submitting false sampling results, along with making false statements to the authorities, attempted to disguise the fact that pollution discharge limits were being exceeded on a regular basis. The company’s Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure () Plan stated it had millions of gallons more capacity than actually existed to handle spills and rain events.
The case was investigated by EPA’s Criminal Investigation Division, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, and the Indiana Department of Natural Resources. It was prosecuted by the Office of the United States Attorney, Southern District of Indiana.
Fisher Sand & Gravel to Pay $312,000 for Air and Water Quality Violations
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and Arizona Attorney General’s Office announced that Fisher Sand & Gravel (FSG) and its subsidiary, Southwest Asphalt, will pay a settlement totaling $312,000 under a consent judgment with ADEQ for air quality and water quality violations that occurred in six counties.
The air quality violations occurred in the City of Phoenix in Maricopa County, community of Rio Rico in Santa Cruz County, Town of Florence in Pinal County, community of Dragoon in Cochise County and near the Town of Wickenburg in Yavapai County. The water quality violation occurred at Oak Creek in Sedona in Coconino County.
Of the $312,000 being paid by FSG, $187,000 will be for the development and implementation of an Environmental Management System (EMS) that is expected to help FSG avoid future violations. The EMS is a continual cycle of planning, implementing, reviewing and improving the actions that FSG undertakes to meet its business goals while protecting the environment.
In 2006, ADEQ inspections conducted in Maricopa County revealed that FSG had in several cases exceeded its hours of operation during a 10-week period. In one of those cases, FSG was permitted for 3.3 hours per day but operated up to 16 hours in some instances. Subsequent inspections conducted as recently as March 2010 uncovered other significant violations including operating without an air quality permit, failure to prevent excess dust emissions, and failure to conduct performance testing on applicable equipment.
FSG also was cited for operating equipment with stack heights significantly below the permitted limits. The permit required FSG to have a 14-foot stack on its internal combustion engines and a 22-foot stack on its asphalt equipment but at the time of inspection many of the stacks measured only between six and 12 feet high. Maintaining the proper stack height is crucial for the proper dispersion of air pollutants.
ADEQ’s air quality division issued FSG 18 Notices of Violation and four Notices of Opportunity to Correct from September 2006 through March 2010. The majority of the violations occurred in Maricopa County, which the U.S. EPA has designated as a non-attainment area for PM-10.
In addition, FSG was issued two Notices of Violation in March 2009 and one Notice of Violation in March 2010 for unauthorized discharges of sediment to Oak Creek near Sedona and a sewage spill near U.S. Highway 89A near Oak Park. FSG also failed to control discharges from construction activities which resulted in a plume of sediment moving downstream. Sediment has adverse impacts on fish and aquatic habitats as well as spoiling aesthetic values.
“Fisher Sand & Gravel did not live up to its obligations to protect air quality near its operations and a national treasure like Oak Creek,” ADEQ Director Henry Darwin said. “FSG must take its environmental obligations seriously and comply with the laws that protect the environment and public health. An Environmental Management System, as required by this settlement, is a good first step.”
“The many serious violations that occurred, including in the Sedona area, prompted our office and ADEQ to take a significant enforcement action,” Attorney General Tom Horne said. “Compliance with Arizona’s environmental regulations is not optional and companies that fail to abide by the law must be held accountable.” The consent judgment is subject to court approval.
Arnette Limited to Pay $90,591 for Hazardous Waste and Community Right-to-Know Violations
Arnette Limited, LLC, a manufacturer of epoxy blends and advanced resins, has agreed to pay a $90,591 civil penalty to the United States to settle a series of violations of environmental regulations related to the storage of hazardous wastes and the public reporting of toxic chemicals at its facilities in Richmond, Missouri.
According to an administrative consent agreement filed by EPA Region 7 in Kansas City, Kansas, in December 2008 the Agency conducted a compliance inspection of Arnette’s facility at 8905 Wollard Boulevard in Richmond, and found that it was operating as a hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal facility without a permit, as required by the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act () and Missouri state regulations.
At the Wollard Boulevard facility, Arnette also failed to conduct hazardous waste determinations on waste vacuum pump oil, epoxy intermediate process water, diatomaceous earth waste, and an area of spilled material on the floor of the facility’s hazardous waste tank storage area, the inspection noted. The inspection at the Wollard Boulevard facility also noted numerous violations involving failures to comply with hazardous waste generator requirements.
Subsequently, a November 2009 inspection of Arnette’s facility at 1002 W. Main Street in Richmond found the company had failed to submit reports to EPA and the State of Missouri concerning quantities of certain toxic chemicals that were manufactured, processed ,or otherwise used at the facility during 2006, 2007, and 2008. Those chemicals included diisocyanates, 4,4-isopropylideneiphenol, and lead compounds (for all three years), phenol (for 2007 and 2008), and isobutyraldehyde (for 2008).
Submission of the annual toxic chemical reports is a requirement of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (). Under EPCRA regulations, companies of certain size are required to submit annual reports to EPA and state authorities listing the amounts of regulated chemicals that their facilities release into the environment through routine activities or as a result of accidents. The reports provide an important source of information to emergency planners and responders, and residents of surrounding communities.
EPCRA was enacted by Congress in 1986 as an outgrowth of concern over the protection of the public from chemical emergencies and dangers. After the catastrophic accidental release of methyl isocyanate at Union Carbide’s Bhopal, India, facility in December 1984, and a later toxic release from a West Virginia chemical plant, it was evident that national public disclosure of emergency information was needed.
Edinger Incorporated Fined for Violating the CWA
EPA fined Edinger Incorporated, of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, $2,950 for violating the CWA’s SPCC regulations. During a recent inspection of the company’s oil production facility in Caddo County, Oklahoma, EPA uncovered a variety of SPCC violations.
These included improper or inadequate measures for spill containment, discharge prevention, storage and labeling of oil, and drainage controls. EPA also found site personnel were inadequately trained in a number of areas, including operation and maintenance of equipment, discharge protocols, and pollution control laws and regulations. Additionally, staff had not conducted periodic visual inspections of containers, foundations, and supports for maintenance needs.
As part of a March 2011 Expedited Settlement Agreement with EPA, the facility has certified that all identified deficiencies have been corrected.
SPCC regulations require onshore oil production or bulk storage facilities to provide oil spill prevention, preparedness and responses to prevent oil discharges. The SPCC program helps protect our nation’s water quality. A spill of only one gallon of oil can contaminate one million gallons of water.
Cross Spear Marble, Inc. to Pay $80,000 Penalty to Resolve Air Quality Violations
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and Arizona Attorney General’s Office announced that Cross Spear Marble, Inc., has agreed to pay an $80,000 penalty to settle air quality violations at its limestone mining, crushing and screening facility near Chiricahua National Monument in Cochise County.
The Chiricahua monument was designated by Congress a Class 1 Airshed, which means that it receives the highest degree of protection from polluting sources. It is one of eight such areas designated in the state. Cross Spear is a decorative rock and mining company headquartered in Phoenix, with an office in Willcox.
Cross Spear was cited for several serious violations including release of excess emissions and failure to install and maintain emission control devices. Between February 2009 and October 2009, ADEQ inspectors observed that Cross Spear was not operating its baghouse and other particulate emissions controls properly or that the devices were not in place. The missing and malfunctioning equipment resulted in excess emissions of limestone dust, which were visible from as far away as 30 miles.
In September 2009, ADEQ issued an abatement order that required Cross Spear to repair or install emission controls for particulates. Cross Spear made swift progress in controlling excess emissions from all three on-site plants, returning to compliance in June 2010. Cross Spear spent more than $150,000 to repair or install particulate control systems and to hire an engineering firm to assist with the repairs and troubleshooting of the emissions control equipment.
Cross Spear has also instituted environmental training, and an operation and maintenance plan, which has already begun to prevent or minimize the frequency and duration of excess emissions during high wind events.
“These are serious violations that degraded air quality in this important area to our State,” said ADEQ Director Henry Darwin. “But the company has resolved the violations and we hope this settlement is a new beginning.”
“Mining companies need to rigorously comply with state standards to protect the health of our citizens and our environment,” Attorney General Tom Horne said. The consent judgment is subject to court approval.
Special Compliance Option for California On-road Diesel Fleets
The California Air Resources Board announced an early action compliance credit for trucking fleets that install a particulate filter by July 1, 2011, or that make a commitment to purchase a particulate filter by May 1, 2011. By installing a particulate filter early on one truck, the fleet will be able to delay compliance for a second truck in the fleet until January 1, 2017.
The early action “buy-one-get-one-free” credit applies to heavier trucks with a manufacturer’s gross vehicle weight rating of more than 26,000 lbs. There is no limit on how many trucks in the fleet can earn the early action credit.
“California fleets need to act now in order to take advantage of this special offer to clean up their fleets so that they are further along in complying with ARB’s diesel reduction regulations,” said ARB Chairman Mary D. Nichols. “Acting now not only makes good business sense, it also means communities can breathe cleaner air sooner.”
Fleets that install a particulate matter filter by July 1, 2011, will get the early action credit. Fleets that have made the commitment to purchase by May 1 and install the PM filter after July 1, 2011, will still receive early action credit. In addition, the vehicle that is retrofitted would also be compliant until 2020 regardless of engine model year. Extra particulate filter credits are not available for filters installed to comply with other pre-existing ARB regulations or, if partially paid for by public funding.
Fleets are required to report information about all of their heavier trucks that operate in California by January 31, 2012, to use the phase-in option and to claim the early action credit plus other credits.
On December 17, 2010, ARB made amendments to the Truck and Bus regulations in order to offer businesses a variety of options to comply with regulations to reduce soot from diesel engines while assuring that California continues to meet its air quality obligations and public health.
On December 11, 2008, ARB approved the Truck and Bus regulation to control emissions from nearly all existing diesel powered heavy-duty trucks and buses operating in California and became effective under California law on January 8, 2010. The regulation applies to diesel fueled trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 lb that are privately owned, federally owned, and to publicly and privately owned school buses.
Diesel exhaust contains a variety of harmful gases and over 40 other known cancer-causing compounds. In 1998, California identified diesel particulate matter as a toxic air contaminant based on its potential to cause cancer, premature death and other health problems. In 2000, the ARB established California’s Diesel Risk Reduction Plan, which aims to reduce diesel emissions to 85% below 2000 levels by 2020.
EPA Orders Scrap Yard to Stop Releasing Contaminated Storm Water
Grimmel leases the property from Pease Development Authority. Monitoring by Pease shows the stormwater discharges from Grimmel’s metal scrapyard operations contain metals, suspended solids and chemical oxygen demand which exceed permit benchmarks. Further, the stormwater discharges contain mercury and PCBs that cause or contribute to an exceedance of water quality standards. Because of mercury and PCBs in fish and shellfish, New Hampshire has issued an advisory limiting consumption of salt-water fish (e.g., bluefish, striped bass, king mackerel, swordfish, shark and tilefish) as well as lobster.
Grimmel Industries applied late for the Multi-sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity. In violation of the Multi-sector General Permit, Grimmel Industries did not perform required inspections or sampling, and did not take corrective actions and the required review of its Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan to address the exceedances of benchmarks and water quality standards. In addition, Grimmel Industries has an unpermitted discharge caused by spraying scrap metal piles with water to suppress dust. The company discharges its stormwater and dust suppressant wastewater to the Piscataqua River.
The EPA order requires Grimmel to terminate its unpermitted discharge, begin sampling its stormwater discharges, and develop and implement a plan to reduce contaminant levels in its stormwater discharge.
The permit imposes limits to the amount of pollutants that the company may discharge. Companies that fail to comply with such permit limits risk facing substantial penalties.
Rainwater running off industrial sites such as metal scrap yards can carry sediments, oil, and other pollutants which contaminate nearby streams, ponds, and rivers. Sediments and chemicals can also contribute to fish die-offs, toxic algae blooms, contaminated shellfish beds, and closed swimming beaches.
EPA inspected Grimmel Industries after receiving correspondence and relevant data from the New Hampshire office of the Conservation Law Foundation.
Railway Company Fined for Clean Water Violations
A Maine-based railroad has agreed to pay $30,000 to settle EPA claims that it violated the CWA and federal regulations designed to prevent oil spills from reaching waterways.
Bangor-based Montreal Maine & Atlantic Railway operates a locomotive repair and maintenance facility in Milo, Maine, which has a total storage capacity of almost 108,000 gallons of oil. According to EPA, a railway employee on October 2, 2009, left a fuel transfer unattended in the Milo facility’s boiler room. The facility’s secondary containment failed to prevent fuel oil from spilling onto the boiler room’s grated floor. The fuel oil travelled underground and eventually reached the Piscataquis River.
The railway discovered the oil overflow the evening of October 2 and on October 3 alerted the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, the National Response Center, and EPA. The oil spill caused a noticeable, but temporary sheen on the Piscataquis River. The railway hired an oil spill response company and worked with DEP to contain and cleanup the oil spill. Subsequently, the railway worked with EPA to come into compliance with spill prevention regulations.
According to a complaint filed by EPA’s New England office, the railway violated the CWA by discharging a harmful quantity of oil into the Piscataquis River, and for failing to fully maintain and implement an SPCC plan, as required by the CWA and Oil Pollution Prevention regulations. These oil spill prevention regulations require that specific preventative measures be taken at facilities that store more than 1,320 gallons of oil, and could reasonably be anticipated to release oil products into nearby surface waters or shorelines.
“Because oil spills can do significant damage to the environment, it’s very important that facilities handling and storing oil do everything possible to minimize the risk of oil spills,” said Curt Spalding, regional administrator of EPA’s New England office. “It’s much easier and less expensive to prevent pollution before it occurs.”
Companies Form Healthcare Plastics Recycling Council
Eight companies across healthcare, recycling, and waste management industries have come together to form a technical coalition seeking to inspire and enable sustainable, cost effective recycling solutions for plastic products and materials used in the delivery of healthcare. The Healthcare Plastics Recycling Council (HPRC) is made up of members from Becton, Dickinson and Company, Cardinal Health, Engineered Plastics, DuPont, Hospira, Johnson & Johnson, Kimberly Clark, and Waste Management.
Understanding that the potential for plastics recycling is significant to both reducing environmental and human health impacts, HPRC exists in a collaborative effort to be a change agent for sustainable healthcare product and packaging lifecycle with the end goal of increasing the overall recycling of healthcare plastics. HPRC is unique in its focus on identification of plastics recycling barriers and solution development along the entire value chain, seeking to affect plastics recycling from healthcare product design and manufacturing through product use, disposal, and recycle.
HPRC is currently engaged in three initiatives aimed at enabling recycling of select plastics. The first initiative, healthcare plastics value chain mapping, is focused on defining the healthcare value chain and identifying issues and barriers along the value chain that disable plastics recycling. The second initiative, design for recycling guidelines, is focused on developing a document that articulates product and packaging design considerations that could enhance recycling potential and value. The third initiative, pilot study programs within healthcare facilities, is focused on building a data model to facilitate economic analysis of plastics recycling.
Environmental News Links
Trivia Question of the Week
Which of the following would not require a TSCA certification when being imported into the US?
a. Chemicals that are on the TSCA inventory
b. Ink pens
c. Residues of chemicals in containers that are emptied to less than 1% of their capacity
d. The motor oil in vehicles