How Will EPA’s New Clean Power Plan Impact You?

President Obama and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy recently released the final Clean Power Plan, a major step in the Obama Administration’s fight against climate change.

The Clean Power Plan establishes the first-ever national standards to limit carbon pollution from power plants. EPA had already set limits that protect public health by reducing soot and other toxic emissions, but until now, existing power plants, the largest source of carbon emissions in the US, could release as much carbon pollution as they wanted.

According to EPA, the final Clean Power Plan sets flexible and achievable standards to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 32% from 2005 levels by 2030, 9% more ambitious than the proposal. By setting carbon pollution reduction goals for power plants and enabling states to develop tailored implementation plans to meet those goals, the Clean Power Plan is a strong, flexible framework that will:

• Provide significant public health benefits – The Clean Power Plan, and other policies put in place to drive a cleaner energy sector, will reduce premature deaths from power plant emissions by nearly 90% in 2030 compared to 2005 and decrease the pollutants that contribute to the soot and smog and can lead to more asthma attacks in kids by more than 70%. The Clean Power Plan will also avoid up to 3,600 premature deaths, lead to 90,000 fewer asthma attacks in children, and prevent 300,000 missed work and school days
• Create tens of thousands of jobs while ensuring grid reliability
• Drive more aggressive investment in clean energy technologies than the proposed rule, resulting in 30% more renewable energy generation in 2030 and continuing to lower the costs of renewable energy
• Save the average American family nearly $85 on their annual energy bill in 2030, reducing enough energy to power 30 million homes, and save consumers a total of $155 billion from 2020-2030
• Give a head start to wind and solar deployment and prioritize the deployment of energy efficiency improvements in low-income communities that need it most early in the program through a Clean Energy Incentive Program
• Continue American leadership on climate change by keeping us on track to meet the economy-wide emissions targets EPA has set, including the goal of reducing emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and to 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025

Key Features of the Clean Power Plan

The final Clean Power Plan takes into account input EPA received through extensive outreach, including the 4 million comments that were submitted to the agency during the public comment period. According to EPA, the result is a fair, flexible program that will strengthen the fast-growing trend toward cleaner and lower-polluting American energy. The Clean Power Plan significantly reduces carbon pollution from the electric power sector while advancing clean energy innovation, development, and deployment. It ensures the US will stay on a path of long-term clean energy investments that will maintain the reliability of our electric grid, promote affordable and clean energy for all Americans, and continue United States leadership on climate action. The Clean Power Plan:

• Provides Flexibility to States to Choose How to Meet Carbon Standards: EPA’s Clean Power Plan establishes carbon pollution standards for power plants, called carbon dioxide (CO₂) emission performance rates. States develop and implement tailored plans to ensure that the power plants in their state meet these standards—either individually, together, or in combination with other measures like improvements in renewable energy and energy efficiency. The final rule provides more flexibility in how state plans can be designed and implemented, including: streamlined opportunities for states to include proven strategies like trading and demand-side energy efficiency in their plans, and allows states to develop “trading ready” plans to participate in “opt in” to an emission credit trading market with other states taking parallel approaches without the need for interstate agreements. All low-carbon electricity generation technologies, including renewables, energy efficiency, natural gas, nuclear and carbon capture and storage, can play a role in state plans.
• More Time for States Paired with Strong Incentives for Early Deployment of Clean Energy: State plans are due in September of 2016, but states that need more time can make an initial submission and request extensions of up to two years for final plan submission. The compliance averaging period begins in 2022 instead of 2020, and emission reductions are phased in on a gradual “glide path” to 2030. These provisions to give states and companies more time to prepare for compliance are paired with a new Clean Energy Incentive Program to drive deployment of renewable energy and low-income energy efficiency before 2022.
• Creates Jobs and Saves Money for Families and Businesses: The Clean Power Plan builds on the progress states, cities, and businesses and have been making for years. Since the beginning of 2010, the average cost of a solar electric system has dropped by half and wind is increasingly competitive nationwide. The Clean Power Plan will drive significant new investment in cleaner, more modern and more efficient technologies, creating tens of thousands of jobs. Under the Clean Power Plan, by 2030, renewables will account for 28% of our capacity, up from 22% in the proposed rule. Due to these improvements, the Clean Power Plan will save the average American nearly $85 on their energy bill in 2030, and save consumers a total of $155 billion through 2020-2030, reducing enough energy to power 30 million homes.
• Rewards States for Early Investment in Clean Energy, Focusing on Low-Income Communities: The Clean Power Plan establishes a Clean Energy Incentive Program that will drive additional early deployment of renewable energy and low-income energy efficiency. Under the program, credits for electricity generated from renewables in 2020 and 2021 will be awarded to projects that begin construction after participating states submit their final implementation plans. The program also prioritizes early investment in energy efficiency projects in low-income communities by the Federal government awarding these projects double the number of credits in 2020 and 2021. Taken together, these incentives will drive faster renewable energy deployment, further reduce technology costs, and lay the foundation for deep long-term cuts in carbon pollution. In addition, the Clean Energy Incentive Plan provides additional flexibility for states, and will increase the overall net benefits of the Clean Power Plan.
• Ensures Grid Reliability: The Clean Power Plan contains several important features to ensure grid reliability as we move to cleaner sources of power. In addition to giving states more time to develop implementation plans, starting compliance in 2022, and phasing in the targets over the decade, the rule requires states to address reliability in their state plans. The final rule also provides a “reliability safety valve” to address any reliability challenges that arise on a case-by-case basis. These measures are built on a framework that is inherently flexible in that it does not impose plant-specific requirements and provides states flexibility to smooth out their emission reductions over the period of the plan and across sources.
• Continues US Leadership on Climate Change: The Clean Power Plan continues US leadership on climate change. By driving emission reductions from power plants, the largest source of US greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the Clean Power Plan builds on prior Administration steps to reduce emissions, including historic investments to deploy clean energy technologies, standards to double the fuel economy of our cars and light trucks, and steps to reduce methane pollution. Taken together these measures put the US on track to achieve the President’s near-term target to reduce emissions in the range of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, and lay a strong foundation to deliver against our long-term target to reduce emissions 26 to 28% below 2005 levels by 2025. The release of the Clean Power Plan continues momentum towards international climate talks in Paris in December, building on announcements to-date of post-2020 targets by countries representing 70% of global energy based carbon emissions.
• Sets State Targets in a Way That Is Fair and Is Directly Responsive to Input from States, Utilities, and Stakeholders: In response to input from stakeholders, the final Clean Power Plan modifies the way that state targets are set by using an approach that better reflects the way the electricity grid operates, using updated information about the cost and availability of clean generation technologies, and establishing separate emission performance rates for all coal plants and all gas plants.
• Maintains Energy Efficiency as Key Compliance Tool: In addition to on-site efficiency and greater are reliance on low and zero carbon generation, the Clean Power Plan provides states with broad flexibility to design carbon reduction plans that include energy efficiency and other emission reduction strategies. EPA’s analysis shows that energy efficiency is expected to play a major role in meeting the state targets as a cost-effective and widely-available carbon reduction tool, saving enough energy to power 30 million homes and putting money back in ratepayers’ pockets.
• Requires States to Engage with Vulnerable Populations: The Clean Power Plan includes provisions that require states to meaningfully engage with low-income, minority, and tribal communities, as the states develop their plans. EPA also encourages states to engage with workers and their representatives in the utility and related sectors in developing their state plans.
• Includes a Proposed Federal Implementation Plan: EPA is also releasing a proposed federal plan. This proposed plan will provide a model states can use in designing their plans, and when finalized, will be a backstop to ensure that the Clean Power Plan standards are met in every state.

 In fact, since 1970, air pollution has decreased by nearly 70% while the economy has tripled in size. The Clean Power Plan builds on this progress, while providing states the flexibility and tools to transition to clean, reliable, and affordable electricity.

Building on Progress

The Clean Power Plan builds on steps taken by the Administration, states, cities, and companies to move to cleaner sources of energy. Solar electricity generation has increased more than 20-fold since 2008, and electricity from wind has more than tripled. Efforts such as the following give us a strong head start in meeting the Clean Power Plan’s goals:

• 50 states with demand-side energy efficiency programs
• 37 states with renewable portfolio standards or goals
• 10 states with market-based GHG reduction programs
• 25 states with energy efficiency standards or goals

 

• Standards for Light and Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Earlier this summer, the EPA and the Department of Transportation proposed the second phase of fuel efficiency and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, which if finalized as proposed will reduce 1 billion tons of carbon pollution. The proposed standards build on the first phase of heavy-duty vehicle requirements and standards for light-duty vehicles issued during the President’s first term that will save Americans $1.7 trillion, reduce oil consumption by 2.2 million barrels per day by 2025, and slash GHG emissions by 6 billion metric tons through the lifetime of the program.
• Low Income Solar: Last month, the White House announced a new initiative to increase access to solar energy for all Americans, in particular low-and moderate income communities, and build a more inclusive workforce. The initiative will help families and businesses cut their energy bills through launching a National Community Solar Partnership to unlock access to solar for the nearly 50% of households and business that are renters or do not have adequate roof space to install solar systems and sets a goal to install 300 megawatts (MW) of renewable energy in federally subsidized housing by 2020. Through this initiative housing authorities, rural electric co-ops, power companies, and organizations in more than 20 states across the country committed to put in place more than 260 solar energy projects and philanthropic and impact investors, states, and cities are committed to invest $520 million to advance community solar and scale up solar and energy efficiency for low- and moderate-income households. The initiative also includes AmeriCorps funding to deploy solar and create jobs in underserved communities and a commitment from the solar industry to become the most diverse sector of the US energy industry.
• Economy-Wide Measures to Reduce other Greenhouse Gases: EPA and other agencies are taking actions to cut methane emissions from oil and gas systems, landfills, coal mining, and agriculture through cost-effective voluntary actions and common-sense standards. At the same time, the US Department of State is working to slash global emissions of potent industrial GHGs, called hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), through an amendment to the Montreal Protocol; EPA is cutting domestic HFC emissions through its Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program; and, the private sector has stepped up with commitments to cut global HFC emissions equivalent to 700 million metric tons of carbon pollution through 2025.
• Investing in Coal Communities, Workers, and Communities: In February, as part of the President’s FY 2016 budget, the Administration released the POWER+ Plan to invest in workers and jobs, address important legacy costs in coal country, and drive the development of coal technology. The Plan provides dedicated new resources for economic diversification, job creation, job training, and other employment services for workers and communities impacted by layoffs at coal mines and coal-fired power plants; includes unprecedented investments in the health and retirement security of mineworkers and their families and the accelerated cleanup of hazardous coal abandoned mine lands; and provides new tax incentives to support continued technology development and deployment of carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration technologies.
• Energy Efficiency Standards: DOE set a goal of reducing carbon pollution by 3 billion metric tons cumulatively by 2030 through energy conservation standards issued during this Administration. DOE has already finalized energy conservation standards for 29 categories of appliances and equipment, as well as a building code determination for commercial buildings. These measures will also cut consumers' annual electricity bills by billions of dollars.
• Investing in Clean Energy: In June the White House announced more than $4 billion in private-sector commitments and executive actions to scale up investment in clean energy innovation, including launching a new Clean Energy Impact Investment Center at the US Department of Energy (DOE) to make information about energy and climate programs at DOE and other government agencies accessible and more understandable to the public, including to mission-driven investors.

 

 

New Exclusions for Solvent Recycling and Hazardous Secondary Materials

EPA’s new final rule on the definition of solid waste creates new opportunities for waste recycling outside the scope of the full hazardous waste regulations. This rule, which went into effect on July 13, 2015, streamlines the regulatory burden for wastes that are legitimately recycled.

The first of the two exclusions is an exclusion from the definition of solid waste for high-value solvents transferred from one manufacturer to another for the purpose of extending the useful life of the original solvent by keeping the materials in commerce to reproduce a commercial grade of the original solvent product.

The second, and more wide-reaching of the two exclusions, is a revision of the existing hazardous secondary material recycling exclusion. This exclusion allows you to recycle, or send off-site for recycling, virtually any hazardous secondary material. Provided you meet the terms of the exclusion, the material will no longer be hazardous waste.

Learn how to take advantage of these exclusions at Environmental Resource Center’s live webcast where you will learn:

• Which of your materials qualify under the new exclusions
• What qualifies as a hazardous secondary material
• Which solvents can be remanufactured, and which cannot
• What is a tolling agreement
• What is legitimate recycling
• Generator storage requirements
• What documentation you must maintain
• Requirements for off-site shipments
• Training and emergency planning requirements
• If it is acceptable for the recycler to be outside the US

 

EPA Issues New Industrial Storm Water General Permit

 If you were permitted under the 2008 MSGP and need to obtain coverage under the new permit, you must submit your Notice of Intent (NOI)—in accordance with the 2015 MSGP’s updated NOI requirements—by September 2, 2015.

 

You will learn how to:

• Obtain a stormwater discharge permit
• Develop and implement an effective SWPPP
• Select and implement effective control measures (including best management practices)
• Develop and document inspection procedures
• Implement an effective monitoring and sampling plan
• Meet your permit’s training requirements
• Comply with reporting and recordkeeping requirements
• Certify no-exposure
• Comply with permit renewal requirements
• Terminate permit coverage

 

EPA’s Revises Underground Storage Tank Regulations

EPA has revised the Underground Storage Tank (UST) regulations for all facilities—including those with emergency generator tanks. These are the first major revisions to the UST regulations since 1988.

The rules establish new requirements for the use of equipment to reduce releases to the environment, as well as detect releases should they occur.

 

• Existing UST regulations and requirements
• EPA’s approved leak detection methods
• New requirements for:
• Secondary containment for new and replaced tanks and piping
• Operator training
• UST system capability for biofuel blends
• Operation and maintenance for UST systems
• Removed deferrals for emergency generator tanks, airport hydrant systems, and field constructed tanks—making these tanks fully regulated
• Updating codes and practices

 

Richmond RCRA and DOT Training

 

Houston RCRA and DOT Training

 

Charlotte RCRA, DOT, and Stormwater Training

 

EPA Issues SNUR for Trichloroethylene in Consumer Products

 The proposed significant new use is manufacture or processing for use in a consumer product, with a proposed exception for use of TCE in cleaners and solvent degreasers, film cleaners, hoof polishes, lubricants, mirror edge sealants, and pepper spray. Persons subject to the SNUR would be required to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing any manufacturing or processing of TCE for a significant new use. The required notification would provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary based on the information available at that time, an opportunity to protect against potential unreasonable risks, if any, from that activity before it occurs.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, process, or distribute TCE in commerce chemical substances and mixtures. This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. Persons who import any chemical substance governed by a final SNUR are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import certification requirements and the corresponding regulations at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127; see also 19 CFR 127.28. Importers must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA, including any SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR 707, subpart B. In addition, any persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance that is the subject of this proposed rule on or after September 8, 2015, are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)), (see 40 CFR 721.20), and must comply with the export notification requirements in 40 CFR 707, subpart D.

Three Companies Penalized for Hazardous Materials Violations

 

 

The cases are as follows.

• $63,000 against the Sherwin-Williams Company of Cleveland, Ohio. The FAA alleges that on Oct. 15, 2014, Sherwin-Williams offered a shipment of 10 cans of flammable paint for transport aboard a FedEx flight from Piqua, Ohio, to Niagara Falls, New York. FedEx employees at the company’s sorting facility in Indianapolis discovered that the shipment was leaking. Sherwin-Williams is scheduled to meet with the FAA in mid-August to discuss the case.
• $63,000 against Rock Water Energy Solutions, of Houston, Texas. The FAA alleges that on June 20, 2014, a Rock Water Energy Solutions employee offered five 17-ounce spray cans of flammable aerosol paint in checked baggage aboard an Envoy Airlines passenger flight from Denver, Colorado, to Midland, Texas. The spray cans released paint in the cargo hold of the aircraft. Rock Water is scheduled to meet with the FAA in mid-August to discuss the case.
• $54,000 against X-Chem, LLC, of Irving, Texas. The FAA alleges that on March 9, 2015, X-Chem offered a shipment of six bottles of hazardous materials, including five bottles of flammable liquids and one bottle of corrosive material, to FedEx for transport by air from Midland, Texas to Irving, Texas. X-Chem has 30 days from receipt of the FAA’s enforcement letter to respond to the agency.

EPA Releases Final 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan

The Final 2014 Plan does not include the initiation of any new ELGs but it does discuss:

• EPA’s decision to continue a number of ELG rulemakings
• EPA’s decision to conduct studies and investigations of industries for further regulation
• Findings of such studies and investigations to date

The Act also requires EPA to review all existing effluent guidelines annually. On a biennial cycle, EPA publishes a preliminary plan for public comment and then a final plan.

Buschur Racing Fined $58,350 for Hazardous Materials Violations

 

 

 

 

Buschur Racing has asked to meet with the FAA to discuss the case.

EPA Develops Handout Summarizing its Climate Change Adaptation Tools

 Tools include, among others, a Storm Surge Inundation and Hurricane Strike Frequency Map; a Workbook for Developing Risk-Based Adaptation Plans; a Flood Resilience Guide for Water and Wastewater Utilities; and a National Stormwater Calculator with Climate Scenarios.

BWE Settles with EPA for EPCRA Reporting Lapses at Manchester, New Hampshire, Facility

An EPA settlement reached with BWE, Inc., an East Hartford, Connecticut, company that stores and distributes petroleum products and other flammable liquids at several facilities in New England, will help ensure that the community and emergency responders have the information they need to plan for accidents and protect themselves against potentially dangerous materials.

BWE, Inc., has agreed to pay $82,200 to settle claims it failed to file timely chemical inventory reports required by a federal right-to-know law. BWE, which operates as G.H. Berlin-Windward, stores petroleum products and other flammable liquids in warehouses throughout New England. 

The case is based on an inspection by EPA New England at the company’s West Rutland, Vermont, facility in May 2012 and additional investigations into compliance with reporting requirements at the company’s other facilities, including in Manchester. EPA alleged that the company failed to report hazardous chemicals present at the Manchester facility by the annual deadlines in 2012 and 2013.  As part of the settlement, the company certified that it is now in compliance with federal reporting requirements. The products stored and distributed by BWE are used in trucks, automobiles, and industry.

Chemicals at the Manchester facility include, among others, methanol and diesel fuel. Methanol is highly flammable and requires specialized emergency response because of the way in which it burns. Likewise, diesel fuel is flammable.

“Lack of chemical inventory information can compromise proper emergency planning and response by the local officials,” said Curt Spalding, regional administrator of EPA’s New England office. “The penalty paid by BWE is a reminder to other companies that the federal government takes seriously the public’s right and need to know about chemicals present in the community.”

Pennsylvania DEP Fines Waste Management, Inc. $528,000 for Solid Waste Violations

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has assessed $528,000 penalty against Waste Management, Inc., for three landfills the company owns and operates in Bucks County.

The fine is being assessed for odor nuisance violations at Tullytown Landfill and leachate storage violations at GROWS, GROWS North, and Tullytown Landfills. All three landfills are owned and operated by subsidiaries of Waste Management, Inc.

The $528,000 Consent Assessment of Civil Penalty is to resolve penalty liability related to the frequent and recurring offsite odor nuisances experienced by Florence, New Jersey, residents, related to operations at the Tullytown Landfill, as well as leachate storage violations that occurred at all three of the landfills, located in lower Bucks County. Landfill leachate is a liquid, primarily from precipitation, that has permeated or drained through solid waste and must be treated onsite or transported to a treatment facility.”

“We received and verified complaints regarding offsite odors from Tullytown Landfill throughout a period from September 2014 through May 2015, despite efforts undertaken by the operator in an attempt to control and minimize their occurrence,” said DEP Southeast Regional Director Cosmo Servidio. “The number and persistence of the offsite odors warranted a civil penalty. In addition, Waste Management, Inc. was assessed a penalty for the storage of excessive amounts of leachate for unacceptable durations throughout the period of January 2013 through May 2015 at all three landfills. The storage violations resulted from Waste Management, Inc.’s, inability to manage the leachate generated by the three landfills by its approved leachate treatment methods and necessitated the hauling of leachate to offsite treatment facilities in order to come into compliance.”

DEP recently renewed the Tullytown Landfill solid waste permit for a period limited to two years, after which the facility must cease waste disposal operations and properly close the facility. Public concerns regarding odor, noise, bird and aesthetic nuisances, received primarily from New Jersey residents were a significant factor in the DEP decision to limit waste disposal operations to no more than two years, said Servidio. GROWS North Landfill is permitted to receive waste until February 2019, at which time it will cease waste disposal operations and properly close. 

EPA Requires Safety-Kleen, Other California Companies to Improve Oil Spill Prevention Plans

Safety-Kleen will pay a $90,000 penalty and Cargill will pay a $45,000 penalty to resolve the violations at their facilities.

“All companies who store oil must comply with federal standards. Facilities are required to prevent spills and be prepared to respond to a worst case oil discharge emergency," said Jared Blumenfeld, EPA’s Regional Administrator for the Pacific Southwest. “Preventing spills and protecting our waterways from oil spills is essential.”

 

Cargill Corporation, which operates a vegetable oil terminal and packaging facility in Fullerton, California, violated EPA’s oil pollution prevention regulations by failing to update and recertify its SPCC plan for its Fullerton facility; failing to provide adequate oil containment and drainage controls; failing to ensure that the secondary containment walls of the East Tank Farm could contain spilled oil; and failing to remove accumulations of oil outside tanks and piping, transfer areas and process area collection trenches.

EPA also recently settled with four smaller California companies for violations of the oil pollution prevention regulations at their sites. The four companies are:

• Antioch Building Materials – The Pittsburg, California, company was fined $2,775 for failure to provide a proper SPCC plan, implement tank inspection and integrity testing programs, and provide documentation of employee training.
• JC Greasebuyers – The Riverside, California, company was fined $2,400 for failure to provide a proper SPCC plan, for storing oil in improper storage containers and for failing to implement a tank integrity testing program to prevent releases.
• Gemsa Oil – The La Mirada, California, company was fined $2,250 for failure to provide a proper SPCC plan and have adequate secondary containment for vegetable oil storage tanks.
• SoCal Pumping – The Riverside, California, company was fined $1,900 for failing to provide a proper SPCC plan, and complete inspection records, The facility also lacked an adequate tank integrity testing program and proper oil drum secondary containment.

 

The goal of EPA’s SPCC regulation is to prevent oil from reaching navigable waters and adjoining shorelines, and to contain and respond to discharges of oil. The regulation requires onshore oil storage facilities to develop and implement SPCC Plans and establishes procedures, methods, and equipment requirements to prevent spills, and to respond properly if a spill occurs.

Arch Coal Subsidiaries to Make System-Wide Upgrades to Reduce Pollution Entering US Waters

The settlement resolves hundreds of Clean Water Act violations related to illegal discharges of pollutants at the companies’ coal mines in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia. The states of West Virginia, Virginia and Pennsylvania are co-plaintiffs in the settlement. The companies will also pay a $2 million civil penalty.

“Businesses have an obligation to ensure that their operations don’t threaten the communities they serve, especially those that are overburdened by or more vulnerable to pollution,” said Assistant Administrator Cynthia Giles for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “This settlement will prevent future environmental and public health risks by making sure these companies comply with federal and state clean water laws.”

“This joint enforcement effort, with three states, has resulted in a settlement that will require changes that will benefit the health and environment of Appalachian communities for many years to come,” said Assistant Attorney General John C. Cruden for the Environment and Natural Resources Division. “Under the terms of the agreement, Arch Coal and its subsidiaries will pay a significant penalty, improve their pollution control systems and provide for independent monitoring and data tracking that will make it a better company and a better neighbor to these communities.”

In addition to paying the penalty, under the proposed consent decree the companies must implement measures to ensure compliance and prevent future Clean Water Act violations, which will help protect communities overburdened by pollution, including:

• Developing and implementing a compliance management system
• Periodic internal and third-party environmental compliance audits
• Maintaining a data management system to track violations, water sampling data and compliance efforts
• Providing training for environmental managers and others responsible for the consent decree
• Paying escalating stipulated penalties if violations continue to occur

The government complaint filed concurrently with the settlement alleged that in the last six years, ICG operations have violated discharge limits for aluminum, manganese, iron, and total suspended solids in their state-issued National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits on more than 1,200 occasions, resulting in over 8,900 days of violations. Of those violations, 700 have been previously resolved by state enforcement actions in Kentucky and West Virginia.

EPA discovered the violations through inspections of ICG facilities and projects, reviewing various information provided by the companies and coordinating with the affected state governments.

 

Paying for Stormwater Webcast on August 13

EPA’s Green Infrastructure program will host a webcast on August 13 from 1-2:30 p.m. Eastern titled “Paying for Stormwater—The Benefits of a Utility.” Featured speakers include Dr. Robert D. Chandler, Assistant Public Works Director, City of Salem, Oregon; Sheila Dormody, Director of Policy, City of Providence, Rhode Island; and Andrew Reese, Vice President, AMEC Foster Wheeler. 

PCBS Removed from Santa Monica Schools but Left in Malibu

The same toxic contamination is being treated in vastly different ways in public schools within the same school district, according to documents posted by America Unites for Kids and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). 

For nearly two years, Malibu Middle and High Schools and Juan Cabrillo Elementary School have been roiled by discovery of illegal contaminants, including extremely high concentrations in window and door caulk. Teachers, students, and alumni at the schools have come forward with health complaints that they fear may be linked to spending extended periods of time on the campuses.

Throughout this period, the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) has refused demands for comprehensive source testing and removal of all PCBs on the Malibu campuses. Only after independent parties tested and found PCBs thousands of times over the legal limit within arms-reach of children did the District agree to a limited removal of caulk only from those specific doors and windows. The district still refuses to test the caulking on adjacent doors and windows where the same PCB contaminated caulk is found.

Meanwhile, SMMUSD is planning improvements to both Santa Monica High School and Olympic High School and has released the PCB inspection and sampling reports for both campuses. By contrast with Malibu, in Santa Monica SMMUSD is:

• Conducting comprehensive testing, including hundreds of building material samples in areas being renovated or demolished
• At Olympic High School, where PCBs above legal limits were found, removing not just contaminated material, but all materials which are similar in appearance, just to be safe
• Exercising much greater caution for PCB-laden materials in abandoned areas than for children and teachers occupying classrooms with much higher levels of PCBs on a daily basis

“There are no studies proving there is a safe level of exposure to PCBs, and children are the most vulnerable,” said Jennifer deNicola, President of America Unites for Kids. “Yet, Malibu kids are ordered to occupy PCB-laden classrooms for a third school year.”

PCBs are known human carcinogens that can also cause disruption of the immune, endocrine, and neurological systems. Children are more sensitive to PCBs because their brains and bodies are still developing. 

“It is beyond ironic that safeguards for PCBs taken to landfills are more stringent than those for our classrooms,” stated PEER Senior Counsel Paula Dinerstein, who is part of the legal team suing SMMUSD for violating TSCA. “It is utterly baffling that classrooms set to be demolished are treated with far more care than those still occupied by teachers and students.”

EPA Proposes Stronger Standards for People Applying the Pesticides with the Greatest Risk

These pesticides are not available for purchase by the general public, require special handling, and may only be applied by a certified applicator or someone working under his or her direct supervision.

“We are committed to keeping our communities safe, protecting our environment and protecting workers and their families, said Jim Jones, EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “By improving training and certification, those who apply these restricted use pesticides will have better knowledge and ability to use these pesticides safely.”

The goal of the recent action is to reduce the likelihood of harm from the misapplication of toxic pesticides and ensure a consistent level of protection among states. Pesticide use would be safer with increased supervision and oversight.

EPA is proposing stricter standards for people certified to use restricted use pesticides and to require all people who apply restricted use pesticides to be at least 18 years old. Certifications would have to be renewed every 3 years.

EPA is proposing additional specialized licensing for certain methods of application that can pose greater risks if not conducted properly, such as fumigation and aerial application. For further protection, those working under the supervision of certified applicators would now need training on using pesticides safely and protecting their families from take-home pesticide exposure.

State agencies issue licenses to pesticide applicators who need to demonstrate under an EPA-approved program their ability to use these products safely. The proposed revisions would reduce the burden on applicators and pest control companies that work across state lines. The proposal promotes consistency across state programs by encouraging inter-state recognition of licenses.

The proposal also updates the requirements for States, Tribes, and Federal agencies that administer their own certification programs to incorporate the strengthened standards. Many states already have in place some or many of EPA’s proposed changes. The proposed changes would raise the bar nationally to a level that most states have already achieved. The estimated benefits of $80.5 million would be due to fewer acute pesticide incidents to people.

Tesoro Refinery in California to Pay $4 Million for Air Quality Violations

 

During a routine inspection, an Air District inspector discovered that Tesoro’s practice was to periodically drain process waste fluid to its on-site sewer and water treatment system. When drained, volatile air contaminants, primarily butane and propane, would immediately evaporate off of the liquid and pollute the air. Butane and propane hydrocarbon emissions contribute to the formation of ozone and smog.

“We require Bay Area refineries to control their emissions at every step of their process,” said Jack Broadbent, executive officer of the Air District. “Through the Air District’s aggressive enforcement program, these violations were discovered and this uncontrolled release of air pollution stopped.”

The Air District conducted a full investigation and documented draining violations from 2007 through 2014. This draining caused a significant amount of air pollution and was in violation of Tesoro's permit and Air District regulations which require the use of abatement technology to remove volatile air contaminants from process waste prior to draining fluids to the on-site sewer. Sewer drains must also be controlled to prevent air contaminants from escaping to the air. Tesoro bypassed its abatement technology and drained the process fluids directly into the on-site sewer.

Several of the violations occurred in 2013, after the Air District discovered that Tesoro had a practice of draining process waste to the sewer and confirmed to Tesoro that this practice was both unlawful and dangerous. Further violations occurred in late 2013 and early 2014, after Tesoro committed that it would cease the unlawful draining practice. Tesoro cooperated with the Air District's investigation of the incidents.

The violations also include leak detection and repair violations discovered during the Air District's investigation of the draining events. Tesoro has stopped the practice of draining process fluids into the on-site sewer system to prevent future violations.

New Jersey Steps Up Inspection of Laboratories to Comply with Air Pollution Control Act

Laboratories in New Jersey must obtain an air permit if they have the potential to emit any Group 1 or Group 2 TXS (Toxic Substances), or a combination thereof, at a rate greater than 0.1 lb per hour (45.4 grams per hour).

Group 1 TXS includes air contaminants found on the list of Group 1 TXS at N.J.A.C. 7:27-17.3, which is incorporated by reference herein, together with all amendments and supplements, including: Benzene (Benzol), Carbon tetrachloride (Tetrachloromethane), Chloroform (Trichloromethane), Dioxane (1,4-Diethylene dioxide; 1,4-Dioxane), Ethylenimine (Aziridine), Ethylene dibromide (1,2-Dibromoethane), Ethylene dichloride (1,2-Dichloroethane), 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (Tetrachloroethane), Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene), 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (Vinyl trichloride), and Trichloroethylene (Trichlorethene).

Group 2 TXS includes air contaminants found on the list of Group 2 TXS at N.J.A.C. 7:27- 17.3, together with all amendments and supplements, including Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane), 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (Methyl chloroform).

The Department has discovered that some laboratory owners and operators have operated their equipment and/or source operation in such a manner that exceeded the 0.1 lb per hour of Group 1 or Group 2 TXS. Operating such equipment in this way is permissible only if such equipment has an approved air permit that contains conditions specifying allowable use of one or more of the Group 1 or Group 2 TXS and may include air pollution control.

The Department will be issuing enforcement actions for all violators. Enforcement actions may include penalty assessments pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:27A, Air Administrative Procedures and Penalties. If your laboratory operates equipment and/or source operation that has the potential to emit any Group 1 or Group 2 TXS (or a combination thereof) at a rate greater than 0.1 lb per hour (45.4 grams per hour), please call the Department’s Air Quality Permitting Program at 609-292-0834 to request assistance in obtaining the appropriate air permit(s). If you are not sure what to do next, call the above telephone number and request a pre-application meeting. This meeting will help determine permit applicability and, if necessary, how to obtain the appropriate air permit(s). Questions may also be addressed to NJDEP Air Quality Permitting or your local field office:

NJDEP Air Quality Permitting	609-292-0834
Air Compliance and Enforcement - Northern Field Office (Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Hunterdon, Morris, Passaic, Somerset, Sussex, Warren, and Union Counties)	973-656-4444
Air Compliance and Enforcement – Central Field Office (Burlington, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, and Ocean Counties)	609-292-3187
Air Compliance and Enforcement – Southern Field Office (Atlantic, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, and Salem Counties)	856-614-3601

The following web sites can be accessed for additional information:

• Division of Air Quality Permitting Program website (for information about Air Quality Permits): 
• Specific rule containing the requirements:
• For general NJDEP information:

Owens-Brockway Glass Manufacturing Plant in Northeast Portland Fined $8,000 for Air Quality Violations

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has issued an $8,000 penalty to Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc., for exceeding the limit on visible emissions from its glass manufacturing plant at 9710 NE Glass Plant Road in Northeast Portland.

The violations of the visible emissions standard, also known as the opacity limit, occurred when emissions were released from the plant’s glass melting furnaces on November 7, 2012.

Exceeding the opacity limit is a violation of the facility’s Title V air quality permit and indicates excessive particulate matter emissions. Particulate matter in air can cause serious health problems, including decreased lung function, irregular heartbeat, and chronic bronchitis.

127 Washington Wastewater Treatment Plants Recognized for Perfect Performance

More than one-third of Washington’s wastewater treatment plants—127—have received an Outstanding Performance Award from the state Department of Ecology for perfect performance in 2014.

Each of the plants passed all environmental tests, analyzed all samples, turned in all state-required reports, and avoided permit violations during 2014.

“The talents of our professional operators are critical to successful plant operations and protecting the health of Washington’s waters. It is an honor to recognize their contributions with these awards,” said Heather Bartlett, manager of Ecology’s Water Quality program.

Ecology devised the annual awards program as an incentive for compliance, because wastewater treatment plant operations are the first line of defense to protect public health and water quality in our lakes, rivers, and Puget Sound.

When the awards program began in 1995, only 14 treatment plants had perfect compliance.

This year, there were five first-time award winners:

• Fort Flagler State Park Wastewater Treatment Plant in Jefferson County
• Lewis County Water District #2 Wastewater Treatment Plant
• Loon Lake Sewer District No. 4 Wastewater Treatment Plant in Stevens County
• Selkirk School District No. 70 Wastewater Treatment Plant in Pend Oreille County
• Willapa Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant in Pacific County

The Manchester Wastewater Treatment Plant in Kitsap County received its 20th consecutive award. Vancouver’s Marine Park Treatment Plant in Clark County received special recognition for winning the award 10 years in a row. Five plants received special recognition for winning the award five years in a row.

State funding helps communities keep their plants operating successfully. In the current funding cycle, Ecology is offering $145 million in grants and loans to 21 wastewater treatment facilities for construction and preconstruction projects. In addition, the state provides technical assistance to many of small plants to help them operate successfully.

 

Environmental News Links

 

Trivia Question of the Week

The public health and climate related benefits of the new clean power rule were estimated by EPA to save Americans how much each year?
a) $4 million
b) $54 million
c) $5 billion
d) $45 billion