Special permits allow a company or individual to package or ship a hazardous material in a manner that varies from the regulations provided an equivalent level of safety is maintained.
An approval is a written consent required under an international standard (i.e., International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code, International Civil Aviation Organization's Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (ICAO TI)), or is specifically provided for in the HMR, and is issued by the Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety. These revisions are intended to provide wider access to the regulatory flexibility offered in special permits and approvals and eliminate the need for numerous renewal requests, reducing paperwork burdens and facilitating commerce while maintaining an appropriate level of safety.
The rule incorporates, and replaces the need for several other long-standing special permits and competent authority approvals with proven safety records into the HMR. Among the special permits and approvals affected by the final rule are:
Special Permits
- DOT-SP 9275—Authorization for the transportation in commerce of certain limited quantities of liquids and solids containing ethyl alcohol and exempt these shipments from the provisions of the HMR. PHMSA is modifying this adoption to limit containers using this exception to 8 fluid ounces and eliminating the need for marking the words “contains ethyl alcohol on the package.” Packages shipping between 8 fluid ounces and 1 gallon under this section are required to place the words “contains ethyl alcohol” on the package.
- DOT-SP 11263—Authorization for the transportation of Class 9 solid coal pitch compounds in non-specification open-top or closed-top sift proof metal cans or fiber drums.
- DOT-SP 11836—Authorization for the transportation in commerce of UN1H1 and UN6HA1 drums containing ammonia solutions that do not meet certain requirements contained in §?173.24 and 173.24a.
- •DOT-SP 12134—Authorization of exceptions for spent bleaching earth (Division 4.2 PG III).
- DOT-SP 12825—Authorization to transport Life-saving appliances, self-inflating, containing non-specification steel cylinders between a vessel and an authorized facility for servicing.
- DOT-SP 14479—Authorization for the use of alternative shipping names and marking requirements for regulated medical wastes.
- Special Permits for Harmonization with the “FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012”—PHMSA is adding an exception to the HMR for Oxygen cylinders and other Oxidizing cylinders transported aboard aircraft within the state of Alaska. This language will make several existing special permits no longer necessary.
Approvals
- CA2005120010—Authorization to manufacture, mark, and sell UN4G combination packagings with outer fiberboard boxes and with inner fiberboard components that have basis weights that vary by not more than plus or minus 5% from the measured basis weight in the initial design qualification test report.
- CA20060660005—Authorization to manufacture, mark, and sell UN5M1 and UN5M2 multi-wall paper bags with individual paper wall basis weights that vary by plus or minus 5% from the nominal basis weights reported in the initial design qualification test report.
- CA2006060006—Authorization to manufacture, mark, and sell UN4G combination packagings with outer fiberboard components that have individual containerboard basis weights that vary by plus or minus 5% from the nominal basis weight reported in the initial design.
- •CA2006010012—Authorization to manufacture, mark, and sell UN4G combination packagings with outer fiberboard boxes and with inner fiberboard components that have individual containerboard basis weight that vary by plus or minus 5% from the nominal basis weight reported in the initial design qualification test report.
EPA’s New Solvent Wipe, Shop Towel Rule Demystified
- Does the rule apply to both cloth and paper wipes and rags?
- What solvents can be on the towels, and which are prohibited?
- Does the rule also apply to towels that contain characteristic hazardous waste?
- Can P or U-listed wastes be on the towels?
- How must the towels be stored on-site?
- Do they need to be tested for anything?
- How long can they be stored?
- How must the containers be marked or labeled?
- How must they be prepared for transportation?
- Where can you ship them and what are the disposal and recycling options?
- What are the documentation requirements?
- Can the rule be applied to uniforms or spill absorbents?
- How is the new rule impacted by current state regulations?
Virginia Beach RCRA and DOT Training
Cary HAZWOPER Refresher and IATA/IMO Training
Atlanta RCRA and DOT Refresher, Advanced RCRA, and OSHA GHS Hazard Communication Training
How to Implement OSHA’s Globally Harmonized Hazard Communication Standard
OSHA has issued a final rule revising its Hazard Communication Standard, aligning it with the United Nations’ globally harmonized system (GHS) for the classification and labeling of hazardous chemicals. This means that virtually every product label, material safety data sheet (now called “safety data sheet” or SDS), and written hazard communication plan must be revised to meet the new standard. Worker training must be updated so that workers can recognize and understand the symbols and pictograms on the new labels as well as the new hazard statements and precautions on SDSs.
Lowe’s to Pay $18.1 Million Settlement for Illegal Handling and Disposal of Hazardous Waste
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) announced that Lowe’s Home Centers will pay $18.1 million as part of a settlement of a civil environmental prosecution following a joint investigation by DTSC’s Office of Criminal Investigations (OCI), 31 California district attorney, and two city attorneys.
The judgment is the culmination of a civil enforcement action filed in Alameda County and led by the district attorneys of Alameda, San Joaquin, and Solano counties, which alleged that more than 118 Lowe’s stores throughout the state unlawfully handled and disposed of hazardous wastes over a six and a half year period. Those hazardous wastes and materials included pesticides, aerosols, paint and colorants, solvents, adhesives, batteries, mercury-containing fluorescent bulbs, electronic waste, and other toxic, ignitable, and corrosive materials.
“The support of statewide hazardous waste prosecutions brought by city attorneys and district attorneys is a top priority for the Office of Criminal Investigations,” said Reed Sato, DTSC Chief Counsel. “OCI will always provide assistance for these important efforts to obtain hazardous waste management compliance by the retail industry.”
From 2011 to 2013, OCI scientists and investigators conducted 17 dumpster examinations to gather evidence in this case. These dumpster examinations revealed that Lowe’s was routinely and systematically sending hazardous wastes into local landfills throughout California that were not permitted to receive those wastes. At some Lowe’s stores, employees were unlawfully throwing away batteries and compact fluorescent light bulbs that customers had turned in to be recycled.
Under the final judgment, Lowe’s must pay $12.9 million in civil penalties and costs. An additional $2.1 million will fund supplemental environmental projects furthering consumer protection and environmental enforcement in California, and Lowe’s will fund hazardous waste minimization projects of $3.2 million. The retailer will be bound under terms of a permanent injunction prohibiting similar future violations of the law. DTSC will receive about $1.67 million paid as penalties.
Stores are required to retain their hazardous waste in segregated, labeled containers to minimize the risk of exposure to employees and customers and to ensure that incompatible wastes do not combine to cause dangerous chemical reactions. Hazardous waste produced by California Lowe’s stores through damage, spills, and returns is being collected by hazardous waste haulers registered with DTSC and taken to proper disposal facilities.
DTSC has assisted state and local prosecutors in cases that, since 2010, have generated about $105 million as penalties, judgments, or projects through statewide environmental enforcement cases. Of that total, DTSC received about $4.8 million in costs, penalties, or judgments. The information below reflects the total funds generated from each settlement.
California Adopts New Industrial Storm Water Permit
The permit, required by federal law to be renewed every five years, is called the Industrial General Permit (IGP).
Stormwater and urban runoff are significant sources of water pollution and can threaten aquatic life and public health.
“This newly reissued permit will better protect water quality so that chemicals, oil, and other contaminants do not get into local streams and water bodies where they can harm public health, and fish and wildlife,” said State Water Board Chair Felicia Marcus. “A lot of stakeholder collaboration was conducted during the development of this new permit to ensure the requirements are effective and do not unnecessarily burden businesses that do not have an impact on water quality. The State Water Board looks forward to continuing to work with permittees on effective implementation of this permit and to work with other stakeholders towards improved performance-based permits in the subsequent permit reissuance.”
Since 1992, the State Water Board has regulated the runoff and treatment of storm water from industrial, construction and municipal sources in California.
Ohio General Air Permit for Oil and Gas Wells
Ohio EPA is making available for application through the Division of Air Pollution Control a model general permit-to-install and operate (PTIO) for oil and gas well-site production operations with small or large flares and a modification to the permit-to-install (PTI) and PTIO for unpaved roadways and parking areas. After considering comments received, Ohio EPA developed the final Model General Permits and began accepting applications on April 4, 2014.
California DTSC Enhances the Access to Inspection and Enforcement Data
The site will now provide you with detailed information on inspections and enforcement actions of permitted hazardous waste facilities to further aid you in gathering information about these sites.
EnviroStor continues to provide all existing information on permits and corrective action at hazardous waste facilities, as well as site cleanup projects. EnviroStor will now allow searches for information on completed facility inspection and enforcement actions, in addition to site investigation, site cleanup, permitting, and planned, current or completed corrective actions under DTSC’s oversight.
EPA Restricts Nano Silver Pesticide in Food Containers
The EPA has issued an order to the Pathway Investment Corp. of Englewood, New Jersey, to stop the sale of plastic food storage containers that have not been tested or registered with the EPA, in violation of federal pesticides law. The company’s Kinetic Go Green Premium Food Storage Containers and Kinetic Smartwist Series Containers both contain nano silver as an active ingredient, and the company markets other products as containing nano silver, which the company claims helps reduce the growth of mold, fungus and bacteria. Such claims can only be made on products that have been properly tested and are registered with the EPA.
“Claims that mold, fungus or bacteria are controlled or destroyed by a particular product must be backed up with testing so that consumers know that the products do what the labels say,” said EPA Regional Administrator Judith A. Enck. “Unless these products are registered with the EPA, consumers have no information about whether the claims are accurate. The EPA will continue to take action against companies making unverified public health claims.”
Some pesticides have been linked to various forms of illnesses in people, ranging from skin and eye irritation to cancer. Some pesticides may also affect the hormone or endocrine systems. In many situations, there are non-chemical methods that will effectively control pests.
Under federal pesticide law, products that contain an unregistered pesticide as an active ingredient or claim to kill or repel bacteria or germs are considered pesticides and must be registered with the EPA prior to distribution or sale. The Agency will not register a pesticide until it has been tested to show that it will not pose an unreasonable risk when used according to the label directions. The food storage containers sold by Pathway were never registered with the EPA, or tested for their ability to protect consumers against bacteria, fungus, mold, or mildew. Consumers should be careful to look for the EPA registration number printed on product labels, and need to follow the label directions for use.
During a November 13, 2013 EPA inspection of the company’s facility in Englewood, New Jersey, a Pathway representative acknowledged that the company sold plastic products containing nano silver. The label for the Kinetic Go Green Premium food storage container stated that the product contained nano silver technology and that the nano-sized particles of silver helped to reduce the growth of bacteria and mold, allowing foods to stay fresh up to three times longer. In addition, the company’s product description touted the benefits of nano silver in its products and the company’s website contained several claims that describe how the nano silver particles destroy, kill, or reduce the growth of mold, fungus, and bacteria.
In addition to the order sent to Pathway, the EPA has also issued warning letters to Amazon, Sears, Wal-Mart, and other large retailers directing them not to sell these products. These vendors have been selling Kinetic Food Storage Containers through their websites.
Under the order announced recently, Pathway may not sell the following products: Kinetic Go Green Premium Food Storage Containers; Kinetic Smartwist Series Containers; TRITAN Food Storage; and StackSmart Storage.
Web-Distributed Pesticide Labeling
It is important to note that even after labeling is available online, pesticide containers will continue to bear all required labeling.
Electronic or online labeling—called web-distributed labeling—will allow pesticide applicators to download streamlined labeling, including instructions for the state in which an application will be made and the use site. Labels accompanying pesticide products in stores can include more than 30 pages of instruction. Web-distributed labeling should improve compliance with the instructions on pesticide labels, by making labels easier to access, read, and comprehend. This new process will allow users to access portions of the label such as directions for use, first aid, and environmental statements for certain use sites.
EPA published examples of proper web-distributed labeling statements:
As well as examples of incorrect web-distributed labeling:
EPA has also developed a Standard Operating Procedure as a companion to the Pesticide Registration Notice. The SOP will guide EPA staff in reviewing applications for products that are intended to include web-distributed labeling.
EPA Inks Pair of Settlements over Hanford Asbestos Violations
The EPA has signed a pair of consent agreements with the US Department of Energy and two contractors to resolve alleged violations of federal asbestos handling regulations at the Hanford Site near Richland, Washington.
The recent settlements stem from what EPA determined was improper demolition work performed at the DOE Hanford Site. In August 2012, in response to complaints from Hanford workers, EPA inspected several demolition sites dating back to 2007. Samples collected by EPA showed remaining debris from the demolitions contained regulated asbestos waste.
Work performed at Hanford on behalf of the DOE by contractors Washington Closure Hanford, LLC, and CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company resulted in penalties of $44,000 and $131,594, respectively. Both contractors agreed to pay all penalties.
According to Ed Kowalski, Director of EPA’s Enforcement Office in Seattle, the results of EPA’s inspection were clear.
“Asbestos was poorly managed here from start to finish,” said Kowalski. “EPA requires all building owners and contractors to remove asbestos before starting any regulated demolition activity which can crush or pulverize asbestos and release dust. At a facility like Hanford, this is especially important to prevent asbestos exposure to anyone working or spending time in the area.”
Among EPA’s inspection findings:
- DOE and the contractors failed to remove more than 100,000 square feet of asbestos prior to demolishing buildings and structures as required by federal law
- DOE and the contractors provided incomplete or inaccurate notifications to EPA or the local air agency, Benton Clean Air Authority, as the demolition projects were underway
- Inspection of a waste storage trailer showed some wastes were not properly contained in leak-tight containers
- . If inhaled, asbestos fibers can lodge in a person’s lungs and lead to significant respiratory health conditions including lung cancer and mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer that is found in the thin lining of the lung, chest and abdomen. Asbestos exposure can also cause asbestosis, a serious progressive, long-term, non-cancer fibrotic disease of the lungs.
Criminal Complaint Filed Against Metal Recycling Facility Owner and Property Owner for Alleged Hazardous Waste Violations
The Los Angeles City Attorney has filed a criminal complaint against a Sun Valley metal recycler and the facility’s property owner. The criminal enforcement action resulted from a joint investigation by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the Los Angeles County Fire Department, Health Hazardous Materials Division.
Named in the complaint are Jose Guadalupe Romero, owner of JGR Metal Recycling, Inc., located at 12278 Branford Street, and the property owners, the Istrin Family Trust; the Herman and Gertrude Istrin Family Trust; and Herman Istrin, a trustee for the Istrin Family Trust.
The complaint alleges that the defendants disposed of heavy metals including chromium, lead, cadmium, and zinc at JGR Metal Recycling, Inc., which is not authorized to receive these materials. In addition, the complaint alleges that the defendants failed to minimize the potential release of hazardous waste at the Sun Valley facility; properly train personnel to manage hazardous waste; make proper hazardous waste determinations; and to label and properly manage containers of hazardous waste. The complaint charges 14 misdemeanor counts for violations of the California Health and Safety Code and one misdemeanor count for a violation of the Los Angeles Municipal Code.
“This sends a strong signal to those who violate our hazardous waste laws,” said Brian Johnson, DTSC Deputy Director of the Hazardous Waste Management Program. “DTSC supports the Los Angeles City Attorney’s prosecution of the facility operator as well as the property owner of the site where the alleged violations occurred.”
The collaboration between DTSC and the Los Angeles County Fire Department’s Health Hazardous Materials Division is part of a Metal Recycling Enforcement Initiative that DTSC launched in the fall of 2012. The initiative focuses inspection and enforcement activities on metal recycling facilities and the threats they pose to surrounding communities. DTSC has conducted 14 investigations throughout the state since the start of the initiative.
Unilever Pays $4.5 Million for Violating Clean Water Act at Connecticut Facility
As part of the resolution of this case, Unilever also is contributing $3.5 million to state and local environmental programs, and instituting a new environmental compliance program at its US manufacturing facilities.
“The environmental integrity of Connecticut’s rivers and the Long Island Sound are of essential importance to our state and all of us,” said US Attorney Daly. “As this prosecution so clearly demonstrates, we will pursue all violations of federal laws to protect our waters. We recognize and thank the EPA for their invaluable work in this investigation, and commend Unilever for redressing their violations by contributing $2.5 million to fund research, outreach, and education projects related to the effects of rising sea levels, and $1 million to construct a fishway in Clinton and for other environmentally projects in the lower Hammonasset River watershed. The Company’s contributions will directly assist the State of Connecticut in its efforts to protect and preserve our environment.”
“This case started with Unilever’s criminal conduct and is ending with a big return to the communities,” said Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “Unilever is taking responsibility for its illegal actions by funding important environmental research and development. This work is critical to protect communities, and help them prepare for the effects of climate change.”
“This case sends a strong message that everyone must obey our environmental laws and regulations – they are designed to protect natural resources and the public health and will be enforced,” said DEEP Commissioner Robert Klee. “In addition, this resolution provides funding for important local projects as well as supports the launch of the Connecticut Institute for Resiliency and Climate Adaptation at the University of Connecticut’s Avery Point campus, where important work will be done to help our residents and communities address challenges being posed by the changing climate.”
According to court documents and statements made in court, Unilever’s Clinton manufacturing facility produced a variety of health and beauty products for sale in the United States. The wastewater produced by the plant was regulated by a permit that prohibited the company from bypassing any portion of its wastewater treatment system unless the bypass was unanticipated, unavoidable, and necessary to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage. The permit further required that Unilever notify authorities within two hours of becoming aware of any bypass, and submit a written report within five days setting forth the cause of the problem, the duration of the event including dates and times, and corrective actions taken or planned to prevent future occurrences.
On December 5, 2008, at approximately 3:00 p.m., a third party contract employee noticed that a hose was being used to bypass the industrial process wastewater treatment system by allowing the contents of a 4,500 gallon vacuum filter filtrate tank to discharge directly to a storm drain pipe that led to Hayden Creek. Upon making this discovery, the contract employee alerted the junior wastewater treatment operator for the Clinton facility and showed him the hose and ongoing wastewater bypass. These two individuals then shut off the hose at approximately 3:10 p.m.
At 3:30 p.m., the contract employee notified his non-Unilever supervisor about his observations, and was urged to notify the Safety, Health and Environmental (SHE) manager of the Clinton facility. The SHE manager received a call from the contract employee between 3:30 and 3:45 p.m. After asking the contract employee to send her an email describing his observations, the SHE manager went to the waste treatment area between 3:45 and 4:00 p.m. and observed foamy water and signs of recent discharge at the inlet of the storm drain pipe. The SHE manager notified the plant manager, took pictures, and observed the downstream oil/water separator. Despite the requirement that the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) be notified within two hours of the detection of such a bypass, Unilever chose not notify the DEEP within this two-hour window.
On December 6, 2008, the SHE manager referred the matter to counsel for Unilever for further investigation and notification of DEEP. The next day, in response to the SHE manager’s request, the contract employee sent the SHE manager an email detailing his observations of the bypass and stating “[t]his is not the first time I’ve seen this done at your facility, I’ve seen this on two previous occasions. At that time, however, I was still trying to learn the system as quickly as possible and didn’t understand the significance of what I was viewing.” In the email, the contract employee opined that the senior operator had performed the intentional bypass and had “done this on several occasions, and perhaps more often than we care to know.”
On December 8, 2008, three days after being notified of the illegal discharge, the Unilever plant manager interviewed the two wastewater treatment operators and the contract employee who had initially discovered the bypass. All three individuals denied any responsibility for the bypass and indicated that they did not know who was responsible, although the contract employee again stated that he believed that the senior operator was responsible. From these interviews, the plant manager did not determine who was responsible for the bypass or confirm whether any prior bypasses had occurred. Later that day, the plant manager sent an email to his superior within the organization indicating that “we had somebody by pass [sic] the waste treatment process and put water into the storm water system . . .working with legal on how to handle the DEP [sic], if at all.”
On December 8, a DEEP compliance inspector was on-site at the Clinton facility for an unrelated reason. Unilever again failed to notify the on-site DEEP representative of the bypass that had occurred. On approximately December 10, Unilever notified the DEEP for the first time of the discharge that occurred five days earlier on December 5. This written notification occurred within the required five-day time period for the mandatory written report. Unilever also disclosed the discharge to the EPA in a written submission dated December 16, 2008.
Unilever conducted its own internal investigation of the December 2008 incident. In subsequent conversations and written communications with federal and state authorities throughout 2009 and 2010, Unilever claimed it was unable to conclusively determine who was responsible for the bypass, and mischaracterized the incident as an isolated, “one-off” incident that may have been the work of unknown “vandals.”
An extensive EPA investigation revealed the truth about what had happened. The junior operator admitted to the EPA that he intentionally bypassed the system on December 5. EPA further concluded that for an extended period of time, perhaps as long as two years prior to December 2008, the wastewater treatment operators routinely bypassed the system on a weekly basis, discharging approximately 1,500 gallons of partially treated wastewater at a time to the storm drain that led to Hayden Creek. EPA’s investigation established that these bypasses were concealed from and unknown to Unilever management, including the SHE manager and the plant manager. Unilever’s management was aware, however, both that the operators were not properly overseeing the wastewater treatment system and that the system was not properly functioning:
- The strength, flow, and variability of the facility’s wastewater made it difficult to treat. System upsets and capacity limitations often necessitated that wastewater be trucked off-site for treatment at a cost of approximately $1500 per truckload. The treatment system operators had authority to call for trucking if needed for wastewater treatment.
- Portions of the treatment system were old and in need of repair and maintenance. Equipment replacements and system improvements recommended by outside consultants were not fully implemented, although some corrective measures were completed.
- The treatment system required constant operator attention and adjustment. Nevertheless, during 2008, the senior operator was often absent. The junior operator did not possess the required license or training to qualify him to operate the system independently for extended periods of time without supervision, yet he was allowed by Unilever to do so.
Although the waste treatment operators were licensed by the State of Connecticut and subject to applicable permit requirements, they required oversight to properly operate the plant. That oversight was inconsistent and the operators were allowed to act autonomously.
In December 2012, Unilever ceased manufacturing operations at the Clinton facility. On December 5, 2013, Unilever pleaded guilty to two counts of knowingly violating, or causing to be violated, the Clean Water Act.
Recently, Unilever made a $3.5 million payment to the Connecticut Statewide Supplemental Environmental Project Account (SEP) administered by DEEP. Of that money, $2.5 million will be directed to the Connecticut Institute for Resiliency and Climate Adaptation at the University of Connecticut’s Avery Point campus, which will conduct research, outreach, and education projects related to the effects of rising sea levels. In addition, $500,000 will be used to design and construct a fishway at the Chapman Mill Pond in Clinton, and $500,000 will be used to fund various water quality or ecosystem restoration projects in the lower Hammonasset River watershed.
Unilever also has agreed to periodic environmental compliance inspections by an outside auditor at all of its manufacturing locations in the US, and to certify, within one year of sentencing, that all of its employees at these facilities who perform or manage work subject to environmental compliance requirements have received basic environmental compliance training. In addition, all Unilever employees who are responsible for advising these facilities with respect to mandatory notifications to be made to state and federal environmental agencies must complete additional training to ensure they understand the legal notification requirements under applicable environmental laws.
FleetPride Inc. to Pay $418,500 Penalty for Violating California Air Pollution Laws
A Texas-based automotive products distributor has entered into a settlement agreement with the California Air Resources Board, agreeing to pay $418,500 in penalties for supplying illegal windshield washer fluid to retailers throughout the state.
The de-icing windshield washer fluid products distributed by FleetPride, Inc., contained smog-causing chemicals at levels considered illegal in all areas of California. Windshield washer fluid with a VOC content of 25% is allowed for sale only in the more mountainous areas of California that routinely experience freezing temperatures in winter.
The penalty in such cases, in which products exceed state limits for smog-forming VOCs, is based on the amount of excess VOCs emitted from the products. In this case, it is estimated that more than 31 tons of VOCs were emitted as a result of direct sales to consumers.
These compounds are regulated by the ARB because they react with other pollutants under sunlight to form ground-level ozone, a main ingredient in smog. VOCs are used in windshield washer fluid as an anti-freeze.
“It is important that the composition of windshield washer fluid meets ARB’s VOC limits established for the region where it is sold,” said Jim Ryden, ARB’s enforcement chief. “Our goal is to protect public health.”
During the course of an ARB investigation, it was discovered that FleetPride was distributing several windshield washer fluid products that do not comply with a state consumer products regulation ranging in size from 1-gallon containers found in small service stations, repair shops and other commercial outlets to 55-gallon drums supplied to truck stops. Krystal Kleer Windshield Washer Fluid 0˚F was among the products supplied to truck stops.
FleetPride signed the settlement agreement February 7. The illegal products were in circulation approximately three years before they were discovered by an ARB staff member. The company later self-disclosed additional noncompliant products.
FleetPride has agreed to pay $418,500 in penalties under the settlement. The penalty goes to the California Air Pollution Control Fund to support projects and research to improve the state's air quality.
Wastewater Treatment System Operator Penalized $5,678 for Violating Water Pollution Control Requirements
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has assessed a $5,678 penalty to Whitewater, Inc., of Auburn to resolve violations of the Water Pollution Control permitting requirements that occurred at the North Acton Treatment Corporation's wastewater treatment operation in Acton. Whitewater is contracted by North Acton Treatment Corporation (NATC) to operate its sewage treatment facility.
MassDEP personnel inspected a pump station at the facility in response to a call by Whitewater to report a sanitary sewer overflow (SSO). The inspection determined that a malfunction at the pump station had allowed sewage to overflow into an adjacent brook, and that the pump station had an inadequate alarm system.
Under the terms of a consent order, Whitewater has agreed to inspect all pump stations at wastewater facilities that it operates and report any deficiencies to the pump station owner and MassDEP for corrective action. The company has also agreed to develop and submit to MassDEP for review and approval, a standard operating procedure for inspection of all pump stations, which includes a log sheet and checklist for their inspectors.
"Ensuring the proper operation of wastewater treatment facilities and their associated pump stations is essential for maintaining clean surface waters in the Commonwealth," said Lee Dillard Adams, director of MassDEP's Central Regional Office in Worcester. "Companies that operate wastewater treatment facilities assume obligations and responsibilities that are critical to protection of the public health and environment."
President of Lee Water Testing Company Pleads Guilty to Falsifying Drinking Water Reports
The director of a private water testing laboratory in Lee has pleaded guilty and been sentenced in connection with backdating drinking water sample analyses and for hiding evidence of bacterial contamination, Attorney General Martha Coakley's Office announced recently.
William Enser, Jr., age 64, of Lee, pleaded guilty on Wednesday in Berkshire Superior Court on charges of Knowingly Falsifying Reports Submitted to the Department of Environmental Protection (29 counts) and Willfully Making False Reports to the Department of Environmental Protection (29 counts).
Enser, formerly a certified public water system operator, was the director of Berkshire Enviro-Labs, Inc., (Enviro-Labs) in Lee. Enviro-Labs is a private Massachusetts company that formerly acted as a certified drinking water lab to provide drinking water testing for private and public water suppliers in the western part of Massachusetts.
After the plea was entered, Superior Court Judge John Agostini sentenced Enser to two years probation. Judge Agostini also imposed conditions that prohibit Enser from seeking any water testing related licenses and from operating another public water testing or operating company. Enser is also barred from participating in the sampling, testing, and analysis of public drinking water samples for any other company. Judge Agostini ordered Enser to publish a public apology in The Berkshire Eagle and to contribute $100,000 to the Massachusetts Natural Resources Damages Trust, which funds projects that protect drinking water in the Commonwealth.
“This defendant neglected his responsibilities to ensure the integrity of the testing and safety of the water supply by cutting corners and then attempting to cover it up,” AG Coakley said. “Through today’s sentence, he will face strict conditions that bar him from doing work with public drinking water. He is also required to take other actions that hold him accountable for his negligence, including contributing to an environmental trust and issuing a public apology to the community.”
“Labs that are certified to test drinking water samples are held to a very strict standard in order to ensure that the health and safety of the public is never compromised,” said Commissioner David W. Cash of the Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP). “This lab director purposely skewed the data and undermined the strict testing protocols. But because of the regulatory safeguards, and the investigative capacity of the staff within the Environmental Strike Force and MassDEP, this fraudulent activity was revealed and the operator brought to justice.”
Cash added that all of the affected drinking water facilities were immediately contacted by MassDEP and MassDEP worked closely with all impacted facilities to ensure an uninterrupted delivery of safe drinking water, and to provide the continuous collection and analyses of water samples, as required by applicable law. MassDEP continues to work with those facilities to ensure compliance with all safe drinking water standards.
In September 2012, the Massachusetts Environmental Strike Force began an investigation after MassDEP staff from the Wall Experiment Station conducted an audit that revealed suspicious data being generated at Enviro-Labs. As a result of the investigation, Enser’s company was de-certified and could no longer provide drinking water testing for private and public water suppliers in the western part of Massachusetts. Enser also subsequently lost his licenses to operate drinking water supplies.
In January 2013, Enser was indicted and arraigned in connection with backdating drinking water sample analyses to feign compliance with environmental laws. Between 2008 and 2012, Enser falsified the dates of drinking water sample analyses on reports submitted to the MassDEP in an attempt to make it appear that the analyses had been completed within the required holding time for those substances, when in fact, they had not.
Subsequent to his arraignment, authorities received additional information indicating that Enser had also hidden evidence of bacterial contamination related to samples he had collected between October 2012 and February 2013. Investigation revealed that some of these samples tested positive for bacteria, but Enser did not report it to MassDEP. Instead, Enser would request each sampler to take several separate samples at each water supply and choose the sample that passed inspection to send to MassDEP, thereby obscuring the fact that some samples had tested positive for bacteria.
In one such instance in October 2012, Enser directed an employee to report a “passing” drinking water sample as coming from a public water supply when, in fact, the sample had come from the tap in the Enviro-Labs’ office. Enser was arraigned on those additional charges in April 2013.
The result stems from an investigation by the Massachusetts Environmental Strike Force, an interagency unit which is overseen by AG Coakley, Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Rick Sullivan, and MassDEP Commissioner Cash. The Strike Force comprises prosecutors from the Attorney General’s Office, Environmental Police Officers assigned to the Attorney General’s Office, and investigators and engineers from the MassDEP who investigate and prosecute crimes that harm or threaten the state’s water, air, or land and that pose a significant threat to human health.
The case was handled by Assistant Attorney General Andrew Rainer, Chief of the Environmental Crimes Strike Force, and Assistant Attorney General Sara Shannon, of AG Coakley's Environmental Crimes Division, with assistance from the Massachusetts Environmental Police, and MassDEP Strike Force Director Pamela Talbot and investigators Tim Dame and Joel Rees. MassDEP staff in the Western Regional Office and in the state laboratory in Lawrence also worked to corroborate the technical findings, ensure the continued delivery of certified lab services to affected water suppliers, and to test drinking water samples in communities that may have been impacted by Enser’s actions.
DEP Fines Steelton Borough Water Authority $55,200 for Drinking Water Violations
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) announced recently that Steelton Borough Water Authority, Dauphin County, has signed a $55,200 consent order and agreement (COA) with DEP to address drinking water treatment and reporting violations that occurred in 2013.
“Upon discovery of these violations, DEP notified Steelton Borough Water Authority who responded promptly and appropriately,” DEP South-central Regional Director Lynn Langer said. “Since then, Steelton has been working with DEP on resolving the violations and has been carefully monitoring the situation to protect public health.”
On November 20, 2013, DEP conducted a filter plant evaluation and sanitary inspection of Steelton’s filter plant treatment system. During the inspection, DEP discovered the following violations:
- Steelton failed to provide adequate disinfection of Giardia lamblia, an organism commonly found in surface water that is capable of causing disease, for at least 24 days in 2013. Steelton also did not report this treatment failure to DEP
- Steelton failed to record filtered water turbidity levels, a measurement of the cloudiness of the water which is an indicator of water quality, for 108 separate days in 2013
- Steelton’s former operator falsely reported to DEP during the months of August, September, and October 2013 that filtered water turbidity had been recorded and the readings were all acceptable
- Steelton operated several modifications to the facilities without a Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) permit
According to the SDWA, a plant that treats surface water must provide reliable inactivation of Giardia through disinfection. Steelton did not meet this requirement, which was created to protect public health.
To address the violations, under the COA, Steelton Water Authority is required to implement a number of corrective actions, such as immediate use of a method to accurately calculate the inactivation of Giardia, submission of all the documentation necessary to obtain the required operation permits; creation of a protocol for conducting a filter performance study; and revision of their Emergency Response Plan and Operation and Maintenance Plan to include an updated procedure for issuing public notices.
If Steelton fails to complete the corrective actions according to the schedule in the COA, Steelton will be required to pay a series of additional civil penalties. Steelton Water Authority will pay the $55,200 penalty in four quarterly payments, with the last payment due April 15, 2015. DEP has received the first payment of $13,800.
DEP has been inspecting Steelton’s system once per week to confirm satisfactory operation of the facilities, and will continue to do so until the department is satisfied that Steelton Water Authority is providing adequate treatment. There are no ongoing health risks as a result of the violations.
Vehicle Emissions Inspector Sentenced to Two Months in Prison for Emissions Fraud
A licensed vehicle emissions inspector was sentenced recently to serve two months in prison for his role in providing fraudulent passing emissions scores for more than 200 vehicles, announced Anne M. Tompkins, US Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina. In addition to the prison term, US District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr. also sentenced Pedro Salmeron, 37, of Charlotte, to two years of supervised release, the first four months of which he must spend under home confinement. Salmeron was also ordered to perform 50 hours of community service and to a pay a $5,000 fine.
US Attorney Tompkins was joined in making the announcement by Special Agent in Charge Maureen O’Mara of the EPA, Criminal Investigation Division (EPA-CID), Atlanta Area Office; Greg McLeod, Director of the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation (NC SBI); and Steven M. Watkins, Director of the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles License and Theft Bureau (NC DMV L&T).
According to court records and the sentencing hearing, Salmeron was employed as a technician for “Carolina Inspections”—also known as “Carolinas Auto Inspection”—located in Charlotte, and was also a vehicle emissions inspector licensed by the state of North Carolina. As a state-licensed emissions inspector, Salmeron was responsible for ensuring the emissions of vehicles he tested met federally mandated emissions requirements. Court records show that from February 2010 through January 2011, Salmeron conducted 201 illegal vehicle emissions inspection and falsely passed vehicles that would have failed emissions inspection. Court records indicate that Salmeron performed these fraudulent tests by entering the information of the vehicle being tested into the state database at Carolinas Auto Inspection, but then connecting the testing equipment to “surrogate” vehicles at the repair shop. The illegal practice of utilizing substitute vehicles for emissions testing is referred to in the industry as “clean scanning.” Salmeron pleaded guilty in August 2012 to one count of conspiracy to violate the Clean Air Act by conducting false vehicle emissions inspections.
According to the EPA, the Charlotte metropolitan area exceeds the 8-hour standard set for Ozone, a potent irritant that can cause lung damage and other types of respiratory problems.
Salmeron was ordered to self-report to the Federal Bureau of Prisons upon designation of a federal facility. All federal sentences are served without the possibility of parole.
Salmeron is the latest defendant to be sentenced resulting from an investigation of Charlotte-area vehicle emissions inspectors involved in conducing “clean scans.”
$1.1 Billion for Henderson Perchlorate Clean Up
A settlement announced by the EPA and the US Department of Justice secured $1.1 billion in funds to cleanup a former chemical manufacturing site in Henderson, Nevada.
The Henderson site is the largest perchlorate groundwater plume in the country. The plume has contaminated Lake Mead, which feeds into the Colorado River, a major source of drinking water in the Southwest. Perchlorate can interfere with the production of thyroid hormones, which are needed for prenatal and postnatal growth and development, as well as for normal metabolism and mental function in adults.
“This historic $1.1 billion settlement will result in cleaning up the nation’s largest perchlorate plume and ensuring that 15 million people throughout the West will have access to safe drinking water,” said Jared Blumenfeld, EPA’s Regional Administrator for the EPA Pacific Southwest.
“This is a monumental development for Nevada. The hard work of the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection to not only direct the very successful perchlorate removal project, but also to pursue this significant settlement, is a huge win for southern Nevada and the more than 30 million people that rely on the Colorado River as their source of drinking water,” said Governor Brian Sandoval. “I also want to acknowledge the tremendous assistance we have received from Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto and her staff, as well as the cooperation of the Department of Justice and US EPA Region 9.”
"This settlement is the culmination of years of hard work by many people and it means that Nevada will have the necessary financial resources to continue the perchlorate removal efforts vital to southern Nevada,” said Leo Drozdoff, Director of the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. “To date more than 4,000 tons of perchlorate have been removed from both soil and groundwater. The state, through its Division of Environmental Protection, will continue these efforts and continue to pursue more aggressive strategies wherever possible."
“With this settlement, we mark an end to a long battle to ensure Nevada has sufficient financial support to continue the remediation and long term protection of vital southern Nevada water resources,” said Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto. “Our office was pleased to provide strategic legal support to this collaborative effort to protect Nevada’s environment.”
The settlement requires Anadarko and Kerr McGee to pay a total of $5.15 billion to resolve fraudulent conveyance claims based on allegations that the defendants sought to evade their liability for environmental contamination at toxic sites around the country. Of this total, approximately $4.4 billion will be used for environmental cleanup. This is the largest amount of money ever awarded in a bankruptcy-related settlement for environmental cleanup.
EPA Honors 2014 Clean Air Excellence Awards Winners
The award recognizes innovative programs that protect Americans' health and the environment, educate the public, serve their communities, and stimulate the economy.
“The innovative projects from this year’s Clean Air Excellence Award winners will protect air quality in communities across the country,” said Janet McCabe, EPA Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation. “These winners are educating our communities, inspiring organizations to take action, and developing cutting-edge programs that will cut harmful pollution, improve public health, and make our cities and towns more sustainable.”
From improving indoor air quality in Tribal communities in the Northwest to installing solar panels in Tennessee, award winners demonstrate a commitment to improving the air that we breathe and addressing climate change. This year’s winners include:
Clean Air Technology
Montgomery County Resource Recovery Facility – Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection, Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority, and Covanta Energy – Dickerson, MD
Community Action
Regional 8-Hour Ozone Flex Planning – Central Texas Clean Air Coalition – Austin, TX
Ducktown 28-Kilowatt Solar Array – City of Ducktown – Ducktown, TN
Education Outreach
Idle Free Louisville – Kentuckiana Air Education – Louisville, KY
Improving Tribal Indoor Air Quality -- Tribal Healthy Homes Northwest – Issaquah, WA
Regulation/Policy Innovations
Seaport Air Quality Program – Port of Seattle – Seattle, WA
Transportation Efficiency Innovations
Clean School Bus NC: Kids Breathe Here – North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources and Department of Public Instruction – Raleigh, NC
FPL’s Clean Fleet and Consumer Education Program – Florida Power & Light Company – Juno, FL
Gregg Cooke Visionary Program Award
Keep It Clean – Washoe County Health District Air Quality Management Division – Reno, NV
Thomas W. Zosel Outstanding Individual Achievement Award
Richard A. Valentinetti – Vermont Agency of Natural Resources
The awards program, established in 2000 at the recommendation of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, recognizes and honors both individuals and organizations that have undertaken the risks of innovation, served as pioneers in their fields, advanced public understanding of air pollution and improved air quality. Entries are judged by EPA and the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, and winners will be recognized with a certificate at an awards ceremony in Washington D.C. on April 2, 2014.
EPA Honors 2014 Energy Star Partners of the Year
The EPA and the US Department of Energy (DOE) are honoring 127 organizations for their commitment to protecting the environment through superior energy efficiency. Recipients of the 2014 Energy Star Partner of the Year Award include Des Moines Public School District; KB Home; Meritage Homes Corporation; PepsiCo., Inc.; Sears Holdings Corporation; and Samsung.
“Their commitment to saving energy helps fight climate change while also helping their bottom line.”
“Each year, Energy Star partners create jobs, protect the environment and raise the bar for the home improvement industry through their dedication to energy efficiency,” said Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy David Danielson. “This national program helps homeowners by providing access to innovative home improvement solutions and enabling American families to save money by saving energy.”
The winners were selected from 16,000 Energy Star partners, including manufacturers, retailers, public schools, hospitals, real estate companies, and home builders, for their dedication to protecting the environment through greater energy efficiency.
Organizations are recognized in the following categories:
Partner of the Year--Sustained Excellence: The 72 Sustained Excellence winners continue to exhibit exceptional leadership year after year in the Energy Star program while remaining dedicated to environmental protection through superior energy efficiency.
Partner of the Year: Forty-five organizations are receiving the Partner of the Year award for strategically and comprehensively managing their energy use. These organizations promote Energy Star products and practices in their own operations, in addition to providing efficient products and services to consumers and within their community.
Partner of the Year—Climate Communications: The 10 Climate Communications winners have raised their customers’ awareness of the impacts of climate change. These partners have created communications that encourage their customers to combat climate change with the help of Energy Star and emphasize how energy-efficient behaviors have a positive effect on the environment.
Excellence: Nine winners are receiving awards in part for their superior efforts in the Home Performance with Energy Star program. The remaining organizations are receiving Excellence Awards for specific activities to promote energy-efficient products, homes, or buildings.
Products, homes, and buildings that earn the Energy Star label prevent greenhouse gas emissions by meeting strict energy efficiency requirements set by the US EPA. From the first Energy Star qualified computer in 1992, the Energy Star label can now be found on products in more than 70 different categories, with more than 4.5 billion sold. Over 1.5 million new homes and 23,000 office buildings, schools and hospitals have earned the Energy Star label. Since the Energy Star program began, American families and businesses have saved $297 billion on utility bills and prevented more than 2.1 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions with help from Energy Star.
Environmental News Links