This rule establishes requirements for existing power generating facilities and existing manufacturing and industrial facilities that are designed to withdraw more than 2 million gallons per day of water from waters of the United States and use at least 25% of the water they withdraw exclusively for cooling purposes.
On April 20, 2011, EPA published a proposed rule that included several options for addressing these impacts. Subsequently, EPA published two Notices of Data Availability (NODA), on June 11, 2012 and June 12, 2012, which further clarified EPA’s proposed approach. This final rule also responds to judicial remand of aspects of the previously promulgated Phase II and Phase III section 316(b) rules. In addition, EPA is also responding to an earlier judicial decision by removing from the previously promulgated Phase I new facility rule a restoration-based compliance alternative and the associated monitoring and demonstration requirements.
Training on New Rules for Lithium Battery Shipments
These changes are designed to ensure that lithium cells and batteries are able to withstand normal transportation conditions and are packaged to reduce the possibility of damage that could lead to an unsafe situation.
- Enhance packaging and hazard communication requirements for lithium batteries transported by air
- Replace equivalent lithium content with Watt-hours for lithium ion cells and batteries
- Adopt separate shipping descriptions for lithium metal batteries and lithium ion batteries
- Revise provisions for the transport of small and medium lithium cells and batteries including cells and batteries packed with, or contained in, equipment
- Eliminate the exceptions for small cells and batteries in air transportation, except with respect to extremely small cells packed with or contained in equipment
- Revise the requirements for the transport of lithium batteries for disposal or recycling
- Harmonize the provisions for the transport of low production and prototype lithium cells and batteries with the ICAO Technical Instructions and the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code
- Adopt new provisions for the transport of damaged, defective, and recalled lithium batteries
If you ship batteries by ground or air, you must comply with the latest DOT and IATA/ICAO regulations that specify how the batteries must be packaged, marked, labeled, and transported. The rules apply not only to batteries, but also to equipment or vehicles that contain batteries as well as batteries packed along with equipment. Virtually all types of batteries are regulated, including lithium, lead-acid, nickel cadmium, and metal hydride alkaline. According to 49 CFR 172.704, all personnel involved in the classification, packaging, marking, labeling, or shipment of batteries must receive initial and recurrent transportation training.
These webcasts are designed to meet the DOT’s for hazmat employee training of personnel responsible for the shipment of batteries.
Houston RCRA and DOT Training
Columbus RCRA and DOT Training
San Antonio RCRA and DOT Training
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?
- How is the new rule impacted by current state regulations?
A New Look at What’s in Fracking Fluids Raises Red Flags
As the oil and gas drilling technique called hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking”) proliferates, a new study on the contents of the fluids involved in the process raises concerns about several ingredients. The scientists presenting the work at the 248th National Meeting & Exposition of the American Chemical Society (ACS) say that out of nearly 200 commonly used compounds, there’s very little known about the potential health risks of about one-third, and eight are toxic to mammals.
The meeting features nearly 12,000 presentations on a wide range of science topics and is being held here through Thursday by ACS, the world’s largest scientific society.
William Stringfellow, Ph.D., says he conducted the review of fracking contents to help resolve the public debate over the controversial drilling practice. Fracking involves injecting water with a mix of chemical additives into rock formations deep underground to promote the release of oil and gas. It has led to a natural gas boom in the US, but it has also stimulated major opposition and troubling reports of contaminated well water, as well as increased air pollution near drill sites.
“The industrial side was saying, ‘We’re just using food additives, basically making ice cream here,’” Stringfellow says. “On the other side, there’s talk about the injection of thousands of toxic chemicals. As scientists, we looked at the debate and asked, ‘What’s the real story?’”
To find out, Stringfellow’s team at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and University of the Pacific scoured databases and reports to compile a list of substances commonly used in fracking. They include gelling agents to thicken the fluids, biocides to keep microbes from growing, sand to prop open tiny cracks in the rocks and compounds to prevent pipe corrosion.
What their analysis revealed was a little truth to both sides’ stories—with big caveats. Fracking fluids do contain many nontoxic and food-grade materials, as the industry asserts. But if something is edible or biodegradable, it doesn’t automatically mean it can be easily disposed of, Stringfellow notes.
“You can’t take a truckload of ice cream and dump it down the storm drain,” he says, building on the industry’s analogy. “Even ice cream manufacturers have to treat dairy wastes, which are natural and biodegradable. They must break them down rather than releasing them directly into the environment.”
His team found that most fracking compounds will require treatment before being released. And, although not in the thousands as some critics suggest, the scientists identified eight substances, including biocides, that raised red flags. These eight compounds were identified as being particularly toxic to mammals.
“There are a number of chemicals, like corrosion inhibitors and biocides in particular, that are being used in reasonably high concentrations that potentially could have adverse effects,” Stringfellow says. “Biocides, for example, are designed to kill bacteria—it’s not a benign material.”
They’re also looking at the environmental impact of the fracking fluids, and they are finding that some have toxic effects on aquatic life. In addition, for about one-third of the approximately 190 compounds the scientists identified as ingredients in various fracking formulas, the scientists found very little information about toxicity and physical and chemical properties.
San Diego Fined $949,634 and Agrees to Storm Water Controls
These permit requirements have been in place for 14 years.
The settlement agreement assesses an administrative civil liability penalty of $949,634 to the City. The remaining portion of the penalty, $456,900, will be suspended if the City completes a mitigation project by August 2016, to enhance existing stormwater controls at five City facilities and builds a new stormwater hydromodification basin at a sixth City facility. The project is estimated to cost $1,710,892.
In the second action, the San Diego Water Board adopted a Time Schedule Order that requires the City to bring the public and private priority development projects into compliance with the Municipal Storm Water Permit by August 2016. Failure to comply with the Time Schedule Order may result in an assessment of up to $10,000 per day in penalties for each violation.
“This settlement agreement recognizes the City’s leadership has finally made a point to improve its interdepartmental coordination,” said James Smith, Assistant Executive Officer of the San Diego Water Board. “We expect that will prevent such broad program failures from reoccurring and will allow for timely and creative water quality solutions.”
Runoff from the urban environment is a leading threat to local water quality. Pollutants in runoff discharged from the storm drains threaten and adversely affect human health, recreational opportunities, and animals that live in or rely upon clean water. The most common pollutants in storm drain runoff include trash, sediment, pathogens (like bacteria and viruses), heavy metals (like cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc), petroleum products and poly-nuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, animal waste, and detergents.
EPA Finalizes Stronger Stream Buffers to Protect Imperiled Salmon from Pesticides
A coalition of conservation organizations, advocates for alternatives to pesticides, and fishing groups cheered the victory. These groups brought a lawsuit to demand reasonable fish protections from the insecticides, some of which are derived from nerve toxins developed during World War II.
“We know our Northwest farmers and growers to be good land and water stewards. In reaching agreement, EPA will now give clearer direction to farmers on how to better protect fish, if and when they choose to use these chemicals near salmon-supporting streams,” said Kim Leval, Executive Director of the Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP), the lead plaintiff on the lawsuit that led to the settlement agreement. “We know, for example, that many fruit growers in the Columbia Basin have already implemented larger buffers with assistance from public and private funding sources. NCAP is committed to working in partnership with affected farmers to develop and implement alternatives to the five insecticides.”
“Poisoning salmon rivers puts our people out of work while creating an unnecessary and expensive public health hazard,” said Glen Spain of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, a West Coast commercial fishing industry trade association and co-plaintiff. “This agreement helps the coastal and inland communities that depend on salmon for their livelihoods and provides more certainty for landowners on safer use of these chemicals.”
The buffers apply to salmon habitat throughout California, Oregon, and Washington to prohibit aerial spraying of broad-spectrum pesticides diazinon, chlorpyrifos, malathion, carbaryl, and methomyl within 300 feet of salmon habitat and prohibit ground-based applications within 60 feet. The agreement provides detailed notice to state regulators, pesticide applicators, farmers, and the public about the required no-spray buffer zones. These buffers will remain in place until the National Marine Fisheries Service completes analyses of the impacts of these five pesticides on the fish. Then, the EPA must implement permanent protections grounded in the Fisheries Service’s findings.
“Before this agreement, we lacked clear or consistent rules to protect the health of our rivers and salmon fisheries from these toxins,” said Steve Mashuda, an Earthjustice attorney representing coalition. “This clears the road for the EPA and the Fisheries Service to continue to work together toward permanent protections that keep pesticides out of our waters.”
These insecticides can harm salmon in a number of ways: by killing the fish directly, obliterating its habitat, impairing the species’ ability to swim, or interfering with its ability to navigate back to home streams to spawn. The pesticides also kill the insects salmon need to eat to survive.
“We have many areas of overlap in California between farming and imperiled salmon and steelhead runs, including many coastal river valleys, wine-growing regions, and the Central Valley,” said Lowell Ashbaugh of the Northern California Council of the Federation of Fly Fishers. “Many farmers in these areas are already engaged in fish-friendly practices, such as the Napa Green ‘best practices’ program for land-use and wine production that is protecting the Napa River. These new measures will ensure that all farmers keep poisonous chemicals out of sensitive rivers and streams—the most sensible and cost-effective way to ensure the health of our fisheries.”
The buffers reinstated under the agreement were previously required by a 2004 court order after the federal courts ordered the EPA to consult with the Fisheries Service over the impacts of these chemicals on the imperiled salmon. That injunction expired when the Fisheries Service completed its analysis of these chemicals in 2008 and 2009. While the Fisheries Service required the EPA to adopt extensive permanent protections to keep these deadly chemicals out of salmon streams within one year, EPA failed to take action, leaving salmon and steelhead with no protection from these neurotoxic chemicals. The agreement resolves litigation filed by these groups in 2010 to compel EPA to adopt permanent protective measures in line with the Fisheries Service’s findings. This settlement will end years of litigation and save taxpayer money by allowing the EPA to focus its resources on permanent solutions.
14 Firms Fined for Failing to Submit Stormwater Reports
Fourteen businesses in Washington have been fined for failing to submit stormwater monitoring reports for three or more consecutive quarters.
Polluted stormwater runoff is the biggest threat to urban waters. Industrial stormwater can be some of the most toxic. The monitoring reports are instrumental to assuring that Washington waters are protected from polluted runoff.
“We understand that complying with stormwater sampling and reporting permit requirements costs businesses time, effort, and money. However, businesses that are not reporting are taking an unfair advantage over those who are,” said Bill Moore, who manages water quality permits at Ecology.
Each of the following businesses received a $3,000 fine:
- Western Coating Inc., Auburn
- Miller Fabrication, Auburn
- Hunnicutts Inc., Bellingham
- Tri County Truss Inc., Burlington
- Powell Christensen Inc., Grandview
- Kemira Logistics Inc., Kalama
- Simpson Door Co., McCleary
- Ikan Auto Wrecking, Montesano
- Lincoln Industrial Corp., Port Angeles
- Monroe Machined Products Inc., SeaTac
- North Star Casteel Products Inc., Seattle
- JM Eagle PSU, Sunnyside
- Elenbaas Co. Inc., Sumas
- Cub Crafters Inc., Yakima
Settlement of Clean Water Act Violations Aims to Prevent Future Oil Spills by Cargill Inc.
Cargill Incorporated, a privately held multinational corporation headquartered in Minnetonka, Minnesota, has agreed to settle allegations that it violated the Clean Water Act (CWA) at two different large oil storage facilities located in Blair, Nebraska, and Eddyville, Iowa.
Through the settlement with EPA Region 7, Cargill will pay a civil penalty of $187,500 to the United States.
The Clean Water Act requires facilities that store large quantities of oil to develop a Facility Response Plan (FRP) that outlines procedures for addressing “worst-case” discharges of oil. By being prepared and by conducting required response drills, facilities are better situated to prevent environmental harm from such releases. Each of Cargill’s two facilities produces and stores more than 1 million gallons of oil. Combined, the two facilities have a total estimated storage capacity of more than 7 million gallons.
“The Clean Water Act requires large oil storage facilities to have adequate response plans to prevent a spill from turning into a large-scale environmental disaster,” said Karl Brooks, EPA Region 7 administrator. “The lack of a Facility Response Plan for these facilities can have serious consequences for humans and the environment in the case of a spill. This settlement helps protect the communities of Blair, Neb., and Eddyville, Iowa, if spills were to occur.”
EPA identified the lack of a response plan during 2013 site visits at Cargill’s facilities in Blair, Nebraska, and Eddyville, Iowa. Each facility required a Facility Response Plan (FRP) because the storage capacity of its denatured ethanol tanks exceeded 1 million gallons. As a result of the visits, in June 2014 Cargill submitted to EPA signed and effective FRPs.
The settlement resolves the FRP violations of the CWA by Cargill.
Report Released on Impacts of Extreme Climate and Weather Events at Water Utilities
The report discusses how utility managers and other local water resource managers made decisions, what information was used to inform decisions, what institutional dynamics helped or hindered, and how water utilities and their communities are planning to deal with extreme events in the future.
Niagara Thermal Products Pays $5,500 Penalty for Violating Environmental Requirements
In January 2013, a MassDEP inspector observed that the company, doing business as J. Kittredge, a Division of Niagara Thermal Products, Inc., had accumulated hazardous waste in excess of the time period allowed for a Small Quantity Generator of Hazardous Waste, failed to comply with numerous other hazardous waste management requirements and to submit a compliance certification for its industrial wastewater discharge.
In a consent order with MassDEP, the company agreed to maintain compliance with applicable regulations and pay the penalty.
“Once notified of the violations, the company took swift action to attain compliance,” said Lee Dillard Adams, director of MassDEP’s Central Regional Office in Worcester.
FMC Corporation Fined $117,216 for Improper Advertising of Pesticides
As part of the settlement, FMC Corporation has agreed to pay a civil penalty of $117,216 to the United States.
Investigation showed that FMC Corporation contracted with the five individual radio stations and the one network to advertise its Capture LFR product through a total of 144 advertisements that were carried over a two-week period in December 2012. The advertisements were in violation of FIFRA regulations because they did not identify Capture LFR as a restricted use pesticide.
Under FIFRA, restricted use pesticides are products that, due to their acute toxicity, are approved for retail sale to, and use by, only certified applicators or persons under their direct supervision, and only for those purposes covered by the applicator’s certification. FIFRA requires that the restricted use status of such products must be included in any advertising of the products.
Restricted use pesticides can be dangerous to wildlife, public health, and the environment. By ensuring that consumers are adequately informed of products’ restricted use status, EPA helps to protect public health and the environment from the impacts of misuse.
As part of the settlement, FMC Corporation has certified that it is presently in compliance with FIFRA.
Repeated Wetlands Violations by New England Power Co. Lead to $15,156 Penalty
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) penalized the New England Power Company $15,156.25 after an inspection found repeated instances of erosion from the company’s substation in Amesbury. The erosion caused unpermitted filling and alteration of a bordering vegetated wetland and other wetland resource areas. This is the second consent order with the company, which operates as National Grid, for work at this substation at 102 Middle Road.
The company had a valid order of conditions dating back to 2007 from the Amesbury Conservation Commission permitting the construction of a substation. Erosion and sedimentation from the site occurred in 2010 and resulted in a consent order with MassDEP that included a $7,500 penalty and an agreement to repair the damage to the wetland resource area.
This year, on April 8 and 9, MassDEP conducted inspections and observed slumping of the slope at the site that was causing erosion and the deposition of sediment into a bordering vegetated wetland and intermittent stream. The company and its engineering consultant met with MassDEP on-site to devise a stabilization plan as well as to discuss long-term solutions.
“New England Power Company needs to stabilize the situation at this site,” said Eric Worrall, director of MassDEP’s Northeast Regional Office in Wilmington. “The repeated failure to do so has led to significant erosion that needs to be corrected and prevented from reoccurring, and the damage has to be repaired as well.”
If all the terms of the order are met—but not until five growing seasons have passed—MassDEP will suspend $5,156.25 of the penalty. National Grid must pay the balance of $10,000 within 30 days.
Lahey Clinic Hospital, Inc. Fined $540,000 for Installing and Operating Engine without Approval
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) penalized the Lahey Clinic Hospital, Inc., $540,000 for installing and operating a 3,000-kilowatt combined heat and power engine at its Burlington location without proper air quality approval and for submitting misleading and inaccurate information.
“A health-care facility that provides essential services to the community should not be installing and operating an engine of this size when they clearly understand the need to obtain required approvals, and then give false and misleading information about its installation,” said Eric Worrall, director of MassDEP’s Northeast Regional Office in Wilmington.
Under the terms of a consent order signed with MassDEP, the company will devote $100,000 of the penalty amount to fund a Supplemental Environmental Program (SEP). The SEP will go to the Middlesex 3 Coalition to support a regional transportation shuttle service designed to decrease car usage and vehicle emissions in the area. Middlesex 3 Coalition is a non-profit organization of over 50 area businesses established in 2012 to promote sustainable economic development along Route 3 in Middlesex County.
In addition to the air quality violations, MassDEP also determined during inspection that Lahey Clinic had numerous hazardous waste management violations involving its storage and accumulation areas for hazardous waste; the signage and posting of emergency coordination plans; and, emergency contacts. Under the order, the company has agreed to undertake a third-party comprehensive environmental compliance and management systems audit and submit the results to MassDEP by no later than August 30, 2015.
Lahey Clinic will also be allowed to complete the commissioning period to operate the engine provided that the device complies with all the required comprehensive plan approvals going forward. An engine of this size, generating electricity of 3,000 kilowatts output, is roughly the amount of energy that is used to power 3,000 homes for a year.
Lahey Clinic must also conduct outreach to other hospitals and medical institutions to promote compliance with environmental laws and regulations, including addressing a meeting of Massachusetts Society of Hospital Engineers and the Boston Hospital Plant Engineers Association in 2014.
A & E Environmental Fined $19,312.50 for Asbestos Violations
A & E Environmental, Inc., of Leominster, Mass., a licensed asbestos removal contractor, has been fined $19,312.50 by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) for failing to follow state asbestos-removal regulations.
During a March 2013 inspection, MassDEP inspectors observed asbestos-containing insulation had been improperly removed by the company at a residence in Millbury. MassDEP personnel inspected the basement of the residence after the company had finished its work and found numerous pieces of dry, friable asbestos-containing insulation on the basement floor and remaining on the heating pipes that the company had been hired to abate. Those asbestos-containing materials should have been wet and sealed in leak-tight containers with appropriate asbestos warning labels and disposed of at a landfill permitted to accept asbestos-containing waste material.
Under terms of the negotiated settlement, the company must pay $5,000 of the assessed penalty, while the remaining $14,312.50 will be suspended provided the company does not violate asbestos-removal requirements again for one year.
“Licensed asbestos contractors are well-aware of the work practices that must be followed when removing, handling, packaging, and disposing of asbestos-containing materials. Asbestos is a known carcinogen, and following prescribed work practices is imperative to protect workers as well as the general public,” said Lee Dillard Adams, director of MassDEP’s Central Regional Office in Worcester. “Failure to do so will result in penalties, as well as escalated cleanup, decontamination, and monitoring costs.”
Property owners or contractors with questions about asbestos-containing materials; notification requirements; proper removal, handling, packaging, storage, and disposal procedures; or the asbestos regulations are encouraged to contact the appropriate MassDEP Regional Office for assistance.
EPA Fines Orthotics Companies for Unsubstantiated Antimicrobial Claims
The EPA last week, ordered WalkFit, LLC, WalkFit Platinum, LLC, and Ideal Products, LLC, to pay $210,316 in civil penalties for making unsubstantiated antimicrobial claims about their orthotic shoe inserts, resulting in the sale and distribution of an unregistered pesticide, a violation of federal environmental law.
The instruction sheet and advertising material for WalkFit Platinum Orthotics contained claims that the shoe inserts were treated with “nanosilver” that had antibacterial and antifungal properties and killed germs. Products that claim to kill or repel bacteria, fungi, or germs are considered pesticides and must be registered with the EPA before their sale or distribution, as required under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ().
During an investigation that began in 2010, EPA, along with the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, found that the WalkFit companies, headquartered in Sherman Oaks, California, sold numerous orthotics with the claims to various retailers and customers throughout the nation from July 2009 to August 2012. Orthotics are shoe inserts that claim to eliminate posture problems, strengthen heels and ankles, and reduce foot and leg pain.
The companies have since removed the terms “antibacterial,” “antifungal,” and “germ-killing” from their instruction sheets, advertising material, and website.
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. Consumers should be careful to look for the EPA registration number printed on pesticide product labels, and need to follow the label directions for use.
Environmental News Links
Trivia Question of the Week
In 2013, the US exported about 120 million tons of coal to other countries. To which country was the largest amount of that coal shipped?
a) China
b) United Kingdom
c) Spain
d) Argentina
