Effective May 16, 2012, the US Postal Service has revised Mailing Standards of the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) section 601.10.20 to codify that primary lithium metal or lithium alloy (nonrechargeable) cells and batteries or secondary lithium-ion cells and batteries (rechargeable) are prohibited when mailed internationally or to and from an APO, FPO, or DPO location (Air/Army Post Office or Fleet Post Office). However, this prohibition does not apply to lithium batteries authorized under DMM 601.10.20 when mailed within the US or its territories.
International standards have recently been the subject of discussion by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the Universal Postal Union (UPU), and the Postal Service anticipates that on January 1, 2013, customers will be able to mail specific quantities of lithium batteries internationally (including to and from an APO, FPO, or DPO location) when the batteries are properly installed in the personal electronic devices they are intended to operate.
Until such time that a less restrictive policy can be implemented consistent with international standards, and in accordance with UPU Convention, lithium batteries are not permitted in international mail. The UPU Convention and regulations are consistent with the ICAO Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (Technical Instructions). The Technical Instructions concerning the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Post do not permit dangerous goods as defined by the ICAO Technical Instructions in international mail. The prohibition on mailing lithium batteries and cells internationally also applies to mail sent by commercial air transportation to and from an APO, FPO, or DPO location.
The Postal Service will revise and renumber Exhibit 601.10.20.7 to reflect watt-hour ratings instead of lithium content for secondary lithium ion batteries when describing maximum quantity limits.
Finally, the Postal Service has moved the lithium battery standards as it relates to international, APO, FPO, or DPO locations, to the Mailing Standards of the US Postal Service, International Mail Manual (IMM).
EPA Revises New Source Performance Standards for Nitric Acid Plants
Under the revised standards, new, modified, and reconstructed nitric acid plants are required to meet a nitrogen oxides (NOX) limit of 0.50 lb NOX per ton of nitric acid produced, calculated using a 30-day average emission rate. The revised limit also applies during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. In addition to meeting the revised NOX limit, sources are required to install, calibrate, maintain, and operate continuous emission monitors to measure NOX. EPA is not taking final action to establish a limit for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the revised NSPS, but encourages nitric acid plants to consider technologies that reduce both NOX and nitrous oxide (N2O).
Orlando RCRA and DOT Training
Baltimore RCRA, DOT, and IATA/IMO Training
Baton Rouge RCRA and DOT Training
How to Prepare for OSHA’s Globally Harmonized Hazard Communication Standard (GHS)
- June 26
- July 18
- August 15
- October 2
EPA to Slash Federal Enforcement Programs and End Voluntary Disclosures Under its Audit Policy
The FY 2013 Draft Guidance identifies EPA’s intent to significantly cut back traditional federal enforcement strategies across all major federal environmental programs, and to eliminate the voluntary disclosure program long relied upon by industry to disclose violations discovered during compliance audits.
Change in Enforcement Focus
Although the tone of the guidance suggests that federal enforcement will continue to be strong, the details underscore a significant change in the EPA’s traditional enforcement strategy. The EPA intends to rely less on on-site inspections and more on non-physical investigations in the form of Requests for Information, administrative subpoenas, and electronic monitoring and reporting. The EPA also intends to focus enforcement “in communities that are disproportionately affected by pollution” and other vulnerable communities, mainly urban areas and areas identified as Environmental Justice (EJ) communities.
In addition to focusing on industry in EJ areas, the EPA intends to continue to pursue enforcement initiatives nationwide against: (1) mining and mineral processing activities, (2) concentrated animal feedlot operations; (3) facilities using flares to control emissions; (4) facilities subject to Clean Air Act (CAA) Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) programs, (4) and companies having excess emissions associated with startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions (SSM). Other industrial enforcement targets include the usual suspects: (1) facilities that are considered large sources of air pollution (the coal-fired utility, acid, cement, glass, and natural gas industries); (2) waste disposal and recycling facilities; (3) manufacturers and users of high concern chemicals; and (4) facilities subject to the CAA Risk Management Program (RMP).
Major Program Emphasis Areas
The EPA announced its focus in the major programs to be as follows:
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) enforcement will focus on: financial assurance, surface impoundments, and treatment storage and disposal (TSD) facilities; EPA will target corrective action sites that have not made meaningful progress; EPA will scale back underground storage tank (UST) enforcement and will rely on states to address USTs.
- Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) enforcement will focus on: lead based paint affecting children in schools and housing, reducing exposure to pesticides, and the formaldehyde rule.
- CAA enforcement will focus on: the Section 112(r) RMP program, flares used to control hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), compliance with LDAR provisions, and excess emissions during SSM; EPA indicated that other program areas, such as GHG reporting and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), will be addressed in settlements of New Source Review and other CAA enforcement cases; EPA indicated that the Regions should focus enforcement efforts on major sources and those that are 80% synthetic minors.
- Clean Water Act (CWA) enforcement will be directed mainly at municipalities and municipal sewer systems and will focus on keeping raw sewage and contaminated storm water out of rivers, streams, and lakes; Regions 2, 3, 4, and 5 are directed to continue efforts to protect the Chesapeake Bay from water as well as air pollution; EPA indicates that it will target industrial facilities that have spills into waterways.
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) enforcement will focus on: worker safety, fumigants, retail marketing, and container labeling and management.
- Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) enforcement will be practically nonexistent; EPA is minimizing the Brownfields program, insisting that CERCLA’s self-implementing landowner liability protections replace the need for the Brownfields program.
Inspection/Enforcement Numbers
To illustrate the diminished level of federal enforcement identified by the FY 2013 Draft Guidance, EPA indicates that each Region is expected to evaluate 20 facilities for EPCRA Section 313 nonreporting using Requests for Information. Similarly, EPA indicates that nationally there will be 12 inspections of mineral processing facilities, and that each region is to inspect six hazardous waste large quantity generators (LQGs) (even though thousands of LQGs exist). EPA indicates that 90% of TSCA enforcement resources at the Regional level should be spent on lead based paint.
EPA’s Audit Policy
The Executive Summary for the FY 2013 Draft Guidance describes significant changes from the FY 2012 guidance, including specific changes regarding the Audit Policy which can only be described as negating the benefits of self-disclosure to the EPA under the Audit Policy.
The FY 2013 Draft Guidance explains that the Audit Policy “is one of the areas where OECA will reduce its program work to a minimal national presence.” The FY 2013 Draft Guidance instructs the EPA Regions to “consult with Headquarters before initiating any new work in response to self disclosures.” The only explanation provided by OECA is that, “Although the Audit Policy/Self-Disclosure program has yielded a significant number of annual disclosures, the environmental benefit from those disclosures is estimated to be significantly less than from traditional enforcement, and the disclosures have generally not focused on the highest priority areas.” What this conclusion overlooks, of course, is the fact that issues identified by companies making self disclosures under the Audit Policy and the Interim New Owner Audit Policy would not have been identified by the EPA in the first place under its traditional inspection and enforcement approaches. With the announced cuts to the EPA’s traditional enforcement programs, it appears unlikely that the EPA will focus resources to identify potential environmental violations unless the violations are in program areas on which the EPA is focusing. The EPA is taking comment from the Regions, States, and Tribes on the FY 2013 Draft Guidance and related program guidance until March 19, 2012.
EPA Releases Alternatives Assessment for Nonylphenol Ethoxylates
NPEs are widely used in industry as surfactants and wetting agents for detergents, cleaners, carriers, and other commercial uses. When released into the environment, NPEs, and NPE degradates (chemicals to which NPEs break down), can degrade slowly and be highly toxic to aquatic organisms.
The action plan was issued in August 2010 to address concerns about potential ecological and other effects from the manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and uses of NP and NPEs.
The Agency anticipates that the NPE Alternatives Assessment will help industries that use NPEs—such as manufacturers of cleaners and detergents, textiles, pulp and paper, and pest control agents for agriculture—find safer substitutes.
Background
Most commenters, who represented a spectrum of interests, found the assessment very helpful and agreed with the DfE approach to comparing alternatives. The commenters felt that the assessment will serve as a useful resource for those working on the manufacture of safer surfactants and cleaning products, as well as on advancement in the use of safer chemicals and products in general.
The Alternatives Assessment highlights and builds on the DfE Program’s extensive work on surfactants and alternatives to NPEs, which include:
DfE’s Work to Identify Safer Surfactants Used in the Assessment
DfE has worked in collaboration with diverse stakeholder groups to:
- Develop its Criteria for Safer Surfactants,
- Ensure the use of safer surfactants in its Safer Product Labeling Program,
- List safer surfactants on the CleanGredients? database, and
- Recognize companies through the SDSI program that exclusively use safer surfactants.
DfE routinely applies its safer surfactant criteria in evaluating products that are candidates to carry the DfE label, and has researched and evaluated hundreds of surfactants, including the ones highlighted in this Alternatives Assessment.
Through SDSI, EPA recognizes product manufacturers who are formulating with safer surfactants in lieu of NPEs across entire product lines.
The Alternatives Assessment includes ideas for ways to expand progress in the use of safer surfactants.
Trashing Old, Unused Medications Best for Reducing Environmental Impact
A new study suggests that dumping old or unneeded medications in the trashcan may be the best way to reduce the environmental impact of the 200 million lb of pharmaceuticals that go unused in the US each year.
Stephen J. Skerlos and colleagues explain that to avoid the risks of abuse and accidental poisoning, as well as other problems that unused, unwanted, or expired pharmaceuticals pose, they shouldn’t be kept in homes. If thrown away or flushed down a toilet, however, antibiotics, hormones, and other drugs can get into lakes, rivers, and other water supplies, where they can affect humans and animals. Some places in the US have recently started take-back programs, in which pharmacies collect unneeded drugs and incinerate them with other medical waste, but this burning and transportation produces GHGs and other pollution. The authors wanted to assess the different disposal methods to see which might make the most sense for US households.
Their evaluation shows that, on balance, trash disposal may be the best option in the US Flushing unwanted drugs puts more drug compounds into the environment. Incineration of drugs taken back to a pharmacy could significantly reduce releases to the environment, but the authors note that take-back programs often have limited participation and could have major financial costs. A national program could cost $2 billion each year. A national participation rate of 50% in a take-back program, considered to be a high level of participation, would reduce releases of drugs by 93%, which is only 5% more than 100% participation in trash disposal. “Furthermore, since 60% of individuals in the US already trash their unused pharmaceuticals, trash disposal is likely to accomplish faster removal of unused pharmaceuticals from households due to higher participation rates and greater convenience,” the authors say.
$6.6 Million Groundwater Cleanup Settlement at San Gabriel Valley Superfund Site
Since EPA began cleaning up this site in 2008, approximately 4,600 lb of contaminants have been removed from the groundwater.
EPA has recovered a total of $25 million for the South El Monte cleanup, with the latest $6.6 million to pay for extraction and treatment of groundwater polluted with industrial solvents such as trichloroethylene (TCE) and perchloroethylene (PCE), a chemical once common in dry cleaning operations.
“EPA remains committed to pursuing parties responsible for environmental damage in the San Gabriel Valley,” said Jared Blumenfeld, EPA’s Regional Administrator for the Pacific Southwest. “So far, more than ten billion gallons of water have been treated to provide safe drinking water for the local communities.”
The three settlement claims were brought by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) on behalf of EPA and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control against eleven current or former landowners and operators of business facilities that contributed to the contamination in South El Monte.
The first of the recent consent decrees was entered in the federal District Court on April 13, 2012. The second and third consent decrees were lodged on May 15, 2012. All three resolve liabilities for contamination.
The eleven responsible parties are Quaker Chemical Corporation; Art Weiss, Inc.; Astro Seal, Inc.; Craneveyor Corp.; EBA, Inc., D/b/a Earl Butler & Associates; M&T, LLC; Mary Brkich; New Air, Inc.; Pacific Coast Drum Co.; Seachrome Corporation; and Linderman Living Trust A.
The San Gabriel Valley Area 1 Superfund site was placed on the National Priorities List in 1984, and overlays approximately eight square miles of solvent-tainted groundwater in the areas of South El Monte, El Monte, and Rosemead. The San Gabriel Valley is a suburban, largely-developed portion of Los Angeles County containing more than one million residents and covering more than 170 square miles.
EPA signed an interim Record of Decision with the goal of containing contaminated groundwater at the site in 2000 and issued an Explanation of Significant Differences to address new contaminants in 2005. The San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority implements the cleanup under a Cooperative Agreement with EPA. The agreement funds groundwater extraction and treatment systems operated by the City of Monterey Park, San Gabriel Valley Water Company, and Golden State Water Company.
QEP Field Services to Pay $4 Million, Install Pollution Controls to Resolve Violations of the CAA
Four members of the Ute Indian Tribe intervened as co-plaintiffs. Under the proposed settlement, QEPFS will pay a $3.65 million civil penalty and pay $350,000 into a Clean Air Trust Fund to be established by the tribal member intervenors. The settlement also requires QEPFS to reduce its emissions by removing certain equipment, installing additional pollution controls, and replacing the natural gas powered instrument control systems with compressed air control systems.
“Natural gas extraction projects help to fuel our economy, but also need to follow the nation’s laws,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator of EPA’s OECA. “This settlement will bring cleaner air to the members of the Northern Ute Tribe by ensuring natural gas compressor stations are operated in compliance with the law and by creating a trust to fund environmental projects on the Uintah and Ouray Reservation.”
“This settlement will result in cleaner air for residents living on the Uintah and Ouray reservation and allow the responsible development of energy resources in accordance with the CAA,” said Ignacia S. Moreno, assistant attorney general for the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the DOJ. “It also will establish the Tribal Clean Air Trust Fund to fund environmental projects for the benefit of tribal members.”
QEPFS’s compressor stations remove water and compress natural gas for transportation through gas pipelines. They are sources of air pollution, emitting HAPs, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and nitrogen oxides (NOx), which can increase the risk of asthma attacks and are significant contributors to the formation of ozone. The actions required in the settlement will eliminate approximately 210 tons of NOx, 219 tons of carbon monoxide, 17 tons of HAPs, and more than 166 tons of VOCs per year. It will also conserve 3.5 million cubic feet of gas each year, which could heat approximately 50 US households. The reduction in methane emissions (a GHG that is a component of natural gas) is equivalent to planting more than 300 acres of trees.
QEPFS is a wholly-owned subsidiary of QEP Resources, Inc., which is headquartered in Denver. QEPFS provides midstream field services such as natural gas gathering, compression, dehydration, and processing to upstream natural gas companies.
The consent decree is subject to a 30-day public comment period and final court approval.
El Paso Midstream Group to Resolve CAA Violations
The EPA has announced a settlement with El Paso Midstream Group, LLC, (El Paso) resolving CAA violations at the Blue Bell Gas Plant near Roosevelt in Duchesne County, Utah. The settlement requires the company to pay $20,000 in civil penalties and up to $235,000 toward funding and maintaining two regulatory air monitors in the Uintah Basin.
EPA alleges that prior to 2009 El Paso failed to control hazardous air pollutant emissions from the Blue Bell plant and failed to implement a program for leak detection and repair, in violation of the CAA.
The settlement stems from a 2007 inspection and subsequent investigation of El Paso’s Blue Bell Gas Plant. The company has since worked cooperatively with EPA to bring the Blue Bell Gas Plant into compliance. In 2010 the Blue Bell Gas Plant was modified into a natural gas compressor station and is now known as the Blue Bell Compressor Station.
In addition to the monetary penalty, El Paso will continue to fund two ambient air monitoring stations on the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation with the intention of reporting data to the EPA’s national database. This monitoring data will inform local officials and residents and contribute to the management and protection of air quality on the Reservation.
Wholesale Grocer Fined for Chemical Release
C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., a large food distribution business headquartered in Keene, New Hampshire, has agreed to pay a penalty of $126,700 to settle claims by that it violated the CAA.
The case stems from an investigation that the EPA launched following the release of anhydrous ammonia from a C&S cold storage warehouse in Hatfield, Massachusetts, in 2007. Although no one was seriously hurt, the release prompted the evacuation of nearby homes and sent 13 employees to the hospital for decontamination and treatment of respiratory ailments. C&S has also agreed to provide a hazardous materials trailer and associated equipment worth $10,405 to the Hatfield Fire Department to help emergency responders in the area address hazardous substance releases.
The complaint alleges that on the day of the release, three of the four refrigeration condensers were out of service and an electric panel on the fan for the fourth condenser was closed and overheated. It is alleged that a series of events caused pressure in the ammonia refrigeration system to rise resulting in the release. The refrigeration system at the Hatfield warehouse contains 58,000 lb of ammonia and is required to follow federal risk management planning under the CAA. According to the complaint, C&S had an inadequate risk management plan which lacked clear procedures to aid emergency responders when they arrived at the scene, leading to a delay in shutting down the system.
While not admitting any liability, C&S has agreed to hire a refrigeration expert to audit the facility’s ammonia refrigeration system and determine whether it complies with all applicable generally accepted good engineering practices. The consultant will then recommend any necessary changes to the design, maintenance, inspections, testing, and operation of the system. As referenced in the consent decree, C&S will give the results of the audit and assessment to EPA within six months, and C&S will make changes within a year.
NMED Settles Compliance Order Issued to Southwest Tire Processors, Inc.
The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) has settled an Administrative Compliance Order (ACO) issued in 2003 to Southwest Tire Processors (STP) and its operators—Jeanne M. Romero Gacanich and Moises Romero. The settlement included payment of a $119,229 civil penalty.
“The results were worth the exceptional effort put into this case by NMED’s employees,” said NMED Secretary David Martin. “Photographs of the area show the dramatic improvements from the time of the fire.”
The NMED’s 2003 ACO alleged serious operational, safety, and permit-related violations of the Solid Waste Act and Regulations at STP’s tire recycling facility located southwest of Socorro, New Mexico. The alleged violations included the unsafe storage of an excessive number of scrap tires, bales, or processed rubber near or underneath electrical power lines.
The tire recycling facility was consumed in a catastrophic fire, which occurred in June, 2000. The incident resulted in a response by the EPA, which assisted by overseeing partial extinguishment of the fire by on-site burial of the burning rubber with heavy equipment using locally-acquired soil. Hot spots and flare ups continued for several years after the site was covered with soil.
After years of effort and site evaluation, including the installation of ground water monitoring wells and related monitoring at the NMED’s expense, STP and representatives of the STP Trust (an entity comprised of representatives of Tri-State Electric Cooperative and STP) reached a settlement agreement that included site abatement through installation of an engineered cover (similar to the cover on a closed landfill) to help prevent infiltration and contamination of ground water, and payment of a $119,229 civil penalty. The cover and site abatement work was performed under the direct supervision and oversight of a professional engineering firm, with close coordination and approval by the NMED.
“The installation of an engineered cap, ground water monitoring, and the deterrent achieved through the costs of compliance and payment of the civil penalty highlight the successful and necessary enforcement action taken by the NMED,” said Secretary Martin.
Pennsylvania DEP Fines Sand and Gravel Producer $33,065 for Improper Disposal of Tires
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has levied a $33,065 fine against Herbert L. Hasbrouck and Marion L. Hasbrouck of Oil Creek Township, Pennsylvania, and Hasbrouck Sand and Gravel Inc., of Titusville, Pennsylvania, for violations of the Solid Waste Management Act related to the improper handling and disposal of waste tires.
“Proper disposal of waste is essential to preserving the quality of Pennsylvania’s air, land, and water,” DEP Northwest Regional Director Kelly Burch said. “The Solid Waste Management Act provides a mechanism for DEP to monitor and enforce appropriate disposal methods.”
In January 2011, DEP conducted an inspection of the Hasbrouck property and observed a large pile of incinerated tires that had been reduced to ashes. Smoke and flames were visible during the inspection and additional waste tires were scattered throughout the burn area. DEP staff determined that the tires were generated by Hasbrouck Sand and Gravel and transported to the property. The agency issued a Notice of Violation in February 2011, and numerous follow-up inspections confirmed the waste tires and tire ash that remained on the property had not been removed.
On January 11, 2012, DEP issued an administrative order to Herbert L. Hasbrouck and Marion L. Hasbrouck and Hasbrouck Sand and Gravel to immediately cease transport of solid waste to the property; remove any remaining waste tires and waste ash; and submit receipts indicating proper disposal.
DEP conducted a final follow-up inspection at the property on March 8 and concluded that all conditions of the administrative order were met.
Metal Recycling Facility Penalized for Failing to Notify of Operations
The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) has issued Notices of Violation (NOV) to three businesses for alleged environmental violations arising from the recycling of metal and ship repair/ maintenance and scrap metal recycling along the Providence, Rhode Island, waterfront.
One NOV was issued to Rhode Island Recycled Metals, LLC, (RIRM) and ACR Realty LLC, for numerous alleged violations of Rhode Island’s Water Pollution Act, state water quality regulations, Rhode Island Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (RIPDES) regulations, and state oil pollution control regulations. The violations carry a $46,250 penalty. RIRM operates a business that is engaged in the recycling of metal, and ACR Realty LLC, owns the property.
The permit required the installation of storm water controls. However, the permit does not authorize some of the auto salvage activity that is ongoing at the site because RIRM failed to disclose this activity on the permit application. According to the NOV, the permit application made no mention of activity involving vehicle crushing or engine removal and storage.
According to DEM inspectors, vehicle crushing, vehicle engine removal, vehicle engine storage activities, and repair and maintenance of equipment were being conducted at the facility as early as November 2011. DEM inspections also found oil staining on the land in the vehicle engine storage area. In January 2012, RIRM notified DEM that four derelict vessels—a sunken barge, tugboat, ferry, and submarine—are undergoing vessel dismantling activity. To date, RIRM has not obtained a water quality certificate from DEM for the vessel dismantling activity. Further, RIRM has not obtained approval from DEM to undertake repair and maintenance of equipment, vehicle crushing, or vehicle engine removal and storage on the property. RIRM also has not installed the storm water controls as required under the permit.
Under the terms of the NOV, the Respondents are ordered to immediately cease receiving any additional derelict vessels for dismantling until all required permits from DEM are obtained; immediately cease receiving any scrap metal and vehicles until certain conditions are met; and immediately cease releasing oil/petroleum onto the surface of the ground and report any future oil/petroleum releases to DEM. Further, the Respondents must immediately cease equipment repair and maintenance, vehicle crushing, vehicle engine removal, and engine storage activities. They are also required to immediately install and maintain oil/petroleum containment boom surrounding all in-water operations, and collect and properly dispose of all produce captured by the boom. Finally, the Respondents are ordered to immediately install as necessary, repair, and continuously maintain all erosion and sedimentation controls as required.
Within 60 days, they must remove all scrap metal, engines, and vehicles. By December 31, 2012, Respondents must complete the dismantling of the sunken barge, tugboat, ferry, and submarine, and dispose of all ballast and bilge water from the vessels.
A second NOV was issued to SMM New England Corporation (SMM), which operates a business engaged in ship repair/maintenance and scrap metal recycling at 242 Allens Avenue, for alleged violations of Rhode Island’s Water Pollution Act, state water quality regulations, and RIPDES regulations. The violations carry a $25,000 penalty.
SMM acquired the property from Promet Marine Services Corporation and began operating the facility on October 7, 2011. On October 25, 2011, SMM informed DEM that at present it wanted to continue with the ship building/repair business previously done by Promet. DEM then advised SMM that it needed to file a request to transfer the storm water permit that DEM issued to Promet to SMM. DEM also advised SMM that if and should it decide to expand the activities beyond ship building/repair it would need to reapply for authorization and submit a new storm water plan that addressed the proposed activities. According to the NOV, SMM did not file a request to transfer the storm water permit issued to Promet until January 2012, and expanded its activities to scrap metal recycling without reapplying to DEM for authorization to do so. Last December, DEM inspectors observed a discharge of storm water associated with scrap metal recycling and ship repair/maintenance to the Providence River. To date, SMM has not obtained approval from DEM to discharge storm water associated with industrial activity.
Under the terms of the NOV, SMM is ordered to immediately cease receiving any scrap metal until such time that the firm obtains a storm water permit from DEM and constructs the required storm water controls. Also, SMM is ordered to immediately cease receiving any ships for repair/maintenance until it obtains a storm water permit from DEM. Within 60 days of receipt of the NOV, SMM must remove all scrap metal from the property and complete repairs/maintenance to all ships on the property; within seven days of completing these actions, SMM must clean the property of any waste debris associated with ship repair/maintenance and properly dispose of the waste.
Ship Captain Convicted of Obstructing a Coast Guard Inspection
The former captain of a Panama-flagged cargo ship that discharged hundreds of plastic pipes into the ocean has been convicted by a jury in Mobile, Alabama, for obstructing a US Coast Guard inspection of the vessel in the port of Mobile on September 21, 2011. Prastana Taohim, the captain of the M/V Gaurav Prem, was found guilty of two counts of obstruction of justice.
At trial, witnesses testified that Captain Taohim ordered the ship’s chief officer to throw hundreds of plastic pipes into the ocean and not record the discharge in the ship’s garbage record book as required. The garbage record book is a required log regularly inspected by the US Coast Guard. Taohim then knowingly made the garbage record book available during a Coast Guard inspection of the vessel in the Port of Mobile, Alabama, on September 21, 2011. The plastic pipes had previously contained insecticide and were used to fumigate a grain shipment. The discharge of plastic into the sea is prohibited under the International Convention to Prevent Pollution from Ships, known as MARPOL.
Taohim was found guilty in for obstructing the Coast Guard’s inspection of the ship. The jury also found the defendant guilty of one count of obstruction of justice related to covering up the pollution by creating a false and fictitious garbage log.
Sentencing is set for August 15, 2012.
Environmental News Links
Trivia Question of the Week
At any given time, what percent of the trucks on the road are carrying hazardous materials regulated by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act?
a. 1-5%
b. 5-10%
c. 10-15%
d. 15-20%
