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.
“Safety is our number one priority, and this rule provides an additional layer of protection to the shipment of lithium batteries, which we all depend on daily to power our phones and our laptops,” said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. “Today’s standards are part of our ongoing work to improve safety for all travelers, including those who travel with or ship lithium batteries.”
Voluntary compliance is encouraged upon publication of the final rule; however mandatory compliance is effective six months after publication.
The rule will also provide a greater level of consistency with international standards, including the International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by air.
“Our continuing efforts to harmonize US Hazardous Materials Regulations with international standards improve consistency in procedures and terminology when shipping lithium batteries around the globe,” noted PHMSA Administrator Cynthia L. Quarterman.
- 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 requirements for hazmat employee training of personnel responsible for the shipment of batteries.
40-Hour HAZWOPER Training
Houston RCRA and DOT Training
Charlotte RCRA, DOT, and Stormwater 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?
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.
EPA Considers Revisions to Risk Management Plan Regulations
Executive Order 13650 establishes the Chemical Facility Safety and Security Working Group, composed of the Department of Homeland Security, EPA, the Department of Labor, and senior representatives of other Federal departments, agencies, and offices. The Executive Order requires the Working Group to carry out a number of tasks to prevent chemical accidents, such as the explosion that occurred at the West Fertilizer facility in West, Texas, on April 17, 2013.
Section 6 of the Executive Order requires the Secretary of Labor to issue a RFI designed to identify issues related to modernization of the Process Safety Management (PSM) standard and related standards necessary to meet the goal of preventing major chemical accidents. The OSHA RFI requested information on 17 potential policy and rulemaking topics relating to modernization of the PSM standard and other related OSHA standards. While Executive Order 13650 does not specifically direct EPA to publish a similar RFI, EPA believes it is an appropriate step for several reasons. The order requires the Working Group to develop options for improved chemical facility safety and security that identify “improvements to existing risk management practices through agency programs, private sector initiatives, Government guidance, outreach, standards, and regulations.” With regard to EPA specifically, section 6(c) of the order requires the Administrator of EPA and the Secretary of Labor to “`review the chemical hazards covered by the Risk Management Program (RMP) and the Process Safety Management Standard (PSM) and determine if the RMP or PSM can and should be expanded to address additional regulated substances and types of hazards.'' Therefore, EPA has issued an RFI to evaluate potential changes in its Risk Management Program.
- Update the list of regulated substances (ammonium nitrate, additional toxic, flammable, and reactive substances; adding new categories of regulated substances)
- Removing certain substances from the list or raising their threshold quantity
- Lowering the threshold quantity for substances currently on the list
- Adding new risk management program elements
- Define and require evaluation of updates to applicable recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices
- Extending mechanical integrity requirements to cover any safety-critical equipment
- Requiring owners and operators to manage organizational changes
- Requiring third-party compliance audits
- Requiring safer technology and alternatives analysis
- Requiring emergency drills to test a source's emergency response program or plan
- Requiring automated detection and monitoring for releases of regulated substances
- Additional stationary source location requirements
- Compliance with emergency response program requirements in coordination with local responders
- Incident investigation and accident history requirements
- Worst case release scenario quantity requirements for processes involving numerous small vessels stored together
- Public disclosure of information to promote regulatory compliance and improve community understanding of chemical risks
- Revisions to threshold quantities and off-site consequence analysis
Environmental Response Television Website
Environmental Response Television (ERTV) provides video support to EPA's Environmental Response Team (ERT) by providing broadcast-quality documentary video programs on alternative hazardous waste treatment technologies, unique hazardous waste sites, site investigations, and other ERT activities. ERTV's entire catalog of 129 videos is now available for streaming.
New Minnesota Law to Get More Mercury Out of the Waste Stream Takes Effect
Manufacturers of thermostats that contain mercury will be taking on greater responsibility for keeping these products out of garbage cans and sewers.
Beginning Friday, August 1, no mercury-containing products will be allowed into a solid waste or wastewater disposal system, or a solid waste processing or disposal facility. The law, enacted by Governor Mark Dayton and the Minnesota Legislature in 2014, removes exemptions to the state’s existing bans on sale and disposal of products containing mercury.
This means that homeowners should not discard any mercury-containing product down the drain or in the garbage. For household mercury products, all of the state’s household hazardous waste disposal facilities will accept almost every type of mercury item for no charge. (Some facilities do charge a small amount for fluorescent lamps.) For business mercury products, all of the state’s collection sites for hazardous waste generators will accept unwanted mercury products.
Manufacturers will be held accountable for the costs of collecting old mercury thermostats when they are replaced. The law also removes exemptions from the ban on sales of mercury thermometers, including mercury thermometers for food research and processing. Those items are now banned since the Food and Drug Administration no longer requires their use in such facilities.
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: Addition of Global Warming Potentials
The GHG Reporting Rule was published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2009 (74 FR 56260). Part 98 became effective on December 29, 2009, and requires reporting of GHGs from certain facilities and suppliers. The rule established reporting requirements for 28 categories of GHG emitters and suppliers.
Currently, these fluorinated GHGs and HTFs are not assigned GWPs under the rule. The proposed changes would increase the completeness and accuracy of the carbon dioxide (CO2)-equivalent emissions calculated and reported by suppliers and emitters of fluorinated GHGs and HTFs. In addition, the EPA is proposing conforming changes to the provisions for the Electronics Manufacturing and Fluorinated Gas Production source categories.
In Situ Thermal Treatment Technologies: Lessons Learned
While the focus is on federally-funded cleanup sites, many of the lessons learned will be of interest to RPMs and OSCs who are overseeing potentially-responsible party (PRP)-lead cleanups.
EPA Corrects Error in Compliance Certification Content Requirements for State and Federal Operating Permits Programs
In that action, one sentence was removed from the rules inadvertently.
The error occurred in a June 27, 2003, final rule (68 FR 38517) amending the compliance certification requirements in 40 CFR 70.6(c)(5)(iii)(B) and 71.6(c)(5)(iii)(B). The final 2003 rule inadvertently removed the following sentence from the end of paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(B) of both sections: "If necessary, the owner or operator also shall identify any other material information that must be included in the certification to comply with section 113(c)(2) of the Act, which prohibits knowingly making a false certification or omitting material information."
This sentence was originally added to the operating permits rules in the context of the 1997 Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM) rulemaking (62 FR 54900), which clarified the use of CAM monitoring data in compliance certifications. Specifically, this sentence was intended to clarify that "other material information (i.e., information beyond required monitoring that has been specifically assessed in relation to how the information potentially affects compliance status)" (62 FR 54937) known by the owner or operator must be identified and addressed in compliance certifications consistent with section 113(c)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and the 1997 Credible Evidence Revisions rule (62 FR 8314). The 2003 rulemaking that erroneously removed the subject sentence was intended to address a court remand concerning other aspects of the annual compliance certification requirements of title V. EPA has finalized the regulatory language by reinserting the sentence that was inadvertently removed.
Alaska DOT and Public Facilities Resolve Hazardous Waste Violations
The violations stem from the improper management of highway paint in Soldotna, Alaska, according to an agreement with EPA.
In 2009, ADOT&PF employees failed to identify that a 250-gallon batch of unusable yellow highway paint was a hazardous waste. The employees placed the paint in a shallow pit lined with plastic where it remained for over a year to let it solidify in the open air. The paint solids were later disposed in a landfill.
Highway paint in liquid form contains chemicals such as solvents, which may release fumes and pose a health risk to anyone nearby.
"Highway paint contains chemicals that can be a danger to people and the environment if mismanaged, especially when you’re working with large quantities," said Scott Downey, Manager of the Hazardous Waste Compliance Unit at the EPA Seattle office. "Facilities can prevent risk to the environment and communities by recognizing when a waste is hazardous and managing it accordingly."
EPA also contends that ADOT&PF failed to label a used oil tank and 55-gallon drums containing hazardous waste.
Barrel Recycler in Seattle Fined for Hazardous Waste Violations
Ecology’s penalty augments a $55,250 action earlier this year by King County’s Industrial Waste Program for related violations by the company. The county assessed a $17,225 penalty and agreed to a $38,025 supplemental environmental project.
Seattle Barrel Co., 4716 Airport Way South, collects industrial barrels, and cleans and prepares them for re-use. Many barrels the company receives last contained chemical compounds that require disposal as hazardous waste.
King County, which operates the region’s wastewater treatment system, requires pre-treatment of industrial wastewater released into the sanitary sewer system.
County and Ecology inspectors have detected and ordered corrections on permit, wastewater discharge, and hazardous waste requirements, some of them repeated, over the past five years.
Ecology’s penalty cites Seattle Barrel for eight incidents in 2013 where monitoring equipment documented discharges of highly caustic materials into the sewer. The company failed to identify and designate the waste from the company’s process as hazardous waste. Some chemicals can interfere with the wastewater treatment process, create potential dangers for treatment plant workers, or both.
The Ecology fine also covers instances where Seattle Barrel did not label hazardous wastes or provide secondary containment to prevent the escape of hazardous liquids if a primary container leaks or breaks.
“There has been a pattern of repeated violations over the past several years,” said K Seiler, who manages Ecology’s Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction program. “Our aim is to get voluntary compliance first, if possible. Many other firms consistently shoulder the cost to properly manage and dispose of their hazardous wastes, which protects public safety and the environment.”
Ecology’s penalty may be appealed within 30 days to the Washington State Pollution Control Hearings Board.
Synergy Enterprises Agrees to Pay $110,000 to Settle Hazardous Waste Case
Synergy Enterprises, Inc. of Hayward, CA has agreed to pay $110,000 to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to settle allegations that it repeatedly stored asbestos longer than allowed and didn’t properly label containers.
DTSC’s review of hazardous waste manifests documented 951 instances where Synergy stored asbestos waste for more than 10 days in 2010, 2011, and part of 2012. In addition, the company failed to properly label 15 containers of hazardous waste.
In the settlement reached last week, the company agreed to pay $110,000, of which $14,348 is to reimburse DTSC’s cost of enforcement. Synergy Enterprises also agreed to the following:
- Empty all bags of asbestos waste into an appropriate container within 24 hours of acceptance
- Have a hazardous waste transporter empty all Dumpsters within a week
- Update manifests daily into a central computer system
Historic Clean Water Act Settlement will Prevent Millions of Gallons of Sewage Discharges into San Francisco Bay
Under the agreement, EBMUD and the communities will assess and upgrade their 1,500 mile-long sewer system infrastructure over a 21-year period.
The work is expected to cost approximately $1.5 billion.
Since 2009, EPA, state and local regulators and environmental groups have worked to reduce sewage discharges from East Bay communities. During that period, interim actions required EBMUD and the East Bay communities to improve their sewer maintenance practices and gather information to identify priorities for investment.
The San Francisco Bay covers 1,600 square miles and is the largest Pacific estuary in the Americas, a host for millions of migratory birds and a hub of commerce and recreation for more than 7 million Bay Area residents.
Unfortunately, the Bay is under threat from many sources of pollution, including crumbling wastewater infrastructure that allows sewage to escape from the system. During rainstorms, in particular, older sewer systems can be overwhelmed, releasing rivers of sewage before being fully treated.
In addition to polluting waterways, raw and partially treated sewage can spread disease-causing organisms, metals, and nutrients that threaten public health. Sewage can also deplete oxygen in the bay, threatening fish, seals, and other wildlife.
“Many of these discharges are the result of aging, deteriorated sewer infrastructure that will be fixed under the EPA order.”
“This settlement will result in major reductions of sewage discharges into the San Francisco Bay,” said W. Benjamin Fisherow, Chief of Environmental Enforcement in the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “These improvements will help reach our goal of eliminating pollution in the neighborhoods in these cities and in the Bay so that citizens may rest assured that they reside in a safe, clean environment.”
The seven East Bay communities in the EBMUD settlement are:
- City of Alameda
- City of Albany
- City of Berkeley
- City of Emeryville
- City of Oakland
- City of Piedmont
- Stege Sanitary District (serving El Cerrito, Kensington, and a portion of Richmond)
“The public has been required to repair their own sewer laterals for over two years now, so it is past time that the local agencies aggressively repair their sewer systems,” said Bruce Wolfe, Executive Officer of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board. “This settlement spells out how the agencies will work with the public over the next 21 years to do just that and protect the Bay.”
“Baykeeper will be watching the progress of these repairs closely to ensure that pollution of San Francisco Bay is reduced and eventually eliminated, and we will take action if the repairs fall short,” said Baykeeper Executive Director Deb Self.
On an annual basis, hundreds of millions of gallons of raw and partially treated sewage are discharged directly to San Francisco Bay. Also, as much as 600,000 gallons of raw sewage from community sewer systems is first discharged onto streets and other public areas—through outlets such as manhole covers—before it drains to the Bay.
As part of the agreement, EBMUD and the seven communities will:
- Repair and rehabilitate old and cracked sewer pipes
- Regularly clean and inspect sewer pipes to prevent overflows of raw sewage
- Identify and eliminate illegal sewer connections
- Continue to enforce private sewer lateral ordinances
- Ensure proactive renewal of existing sanitary sewer infrastructure
EBMUD will also immediately begin work to offset the environmental harm caused by the sewage discharges, which are expected to continue until these sewer upgrades are completed, by capturing and treating urban runoff and contaminated water that currently flows to the Bay untreated during dry weather.
The proposed settlement is subject to a 30-day public comment period and final court approval.
EPA Cuts Emissions at Navajo Generating Station
The EPA recently finalized its rule to reduce harmful pollution from Navajo Generating Station (NGS), the culmination of five years of efforts between the federal government and tribes, utilities, water users, and environmental groups. NGS, one of the biggest sources of nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions in the country, is a 2,250 megawatt coal-fired power plant located on the Navajo Nation outside Page, Arizona, and less than 20 miles from the Grand Canyon.
Each year, more than 4.4 million people travel to the Grand Canyon, spending $467 million and supporting nearly 7,400 jobs. Yet, the spectacular vistas of the Grand Canyon and 10 other national parks in the region are often clouded by a veil of haze created by air pollution, including NOx. When fully implemented by 2030, the EPA plan will reduce NOx emissions by about 80% and the visual impairment from NGS by roughly 73% at 11 national parks and wilderness areas.
“By cutting pollution from NGS, millions of visitors will see the magnificent vistas of the Grand Canyon with greater clarity," said Jared Blumenfeld, EPA’s Regional Administrator for the Pacific Southwest. "This flexible and practical solution will also generate critical tribal revenues, improve public health, provide long-term certainty to power and water utilities and set the stage for a transition to a clean energy future."
In crafting the recent rule, EPA held five public hearings, had 50 consultations with tribes and considered 77,000 public comments. EPA’s final action on NGS follows two proposals released in 2013 to cut NOx emissions at the plant.
Navajo Generating Station, built in the mid-1970s, is owned by several entities, including the Bureau of Reclamation, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Arizona Public Service, NV Energy, Tucson Electric Project and Salt River Project, which also operates the plant. A portion of the power generated by NGS pumps Colorado River water to tribes, agricultural users and municipalities; the remaining power is sold to support tribal water settlement agreements.
In recent years, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and NV Energy, which collectively own almost one third of the facility, announced their intentions to divest from NGS.
The Clean Air Act’s Regional Haze Rule requires the use of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) at older coal-fired power plants to reduce haze and improve visibility.
In addition to impairing visibility, NOx reacts with other airborne chemicals to form ozone and small particulates—both harmful to human health. Children, the elderly, people with lung ailments such as asthma, and people who work or exercise outside are at risk for adverse effects from ozone and particulate matter.
Acknowledging the significance of NGS to the region, EPA, Department of the Interior and Department of Energy signed a commitment last year to help develop clean, affordable and reliable power, as well as sustainable water supplies and economic development, while minimizing impacts on those who rely NGS, including municipalities, tribes and agricultural users.
AllenCo Fined $99,000 for Air, Water, and Community Right to Know Violations
The EPA recently reached a settlement with AllenCo Energy, Inc., requiring the company to pay $99,000 for violations of federal environmental laws.
AllenCo is a small oil production facility located in a residential neighborhood of South Los Angeles, approximately two miles from the University of Southern California. The facility voluntarily shut down operations in late November 2013. As part of a consent agreement with EPA in April 2014, AllenCo will continue to make changes and improvements at the facility and must certify with the Agency that the work is completed at least 15 days prior to re-opening the facility. In addition to the recent penalty, AllenCo estimates that it will spend approximately $700,000 for improvements at the facility, which will include the actions required by EPA’s order.
Settlement of Clean Water Act Violations Aims to Prevent Future Oil Spills by Archer Daniels Midland Company
Archer Daniels Midland Company, a food processing and commodities trading company headquartered in Decatur, Ill., has agreed to settle allegations that it violated the Clean Water Act (CWA) at five different large oil storage facilities located in Cedar Rapids, Iowa; Columbus, Nebraska; Des Moines, Iowa; Mexico, Missouri; and Deerfield, Missouri.
Through the settlement with EPA Region 7, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) will also pay a civil penalty of $430,000 to the United States.
The Clean Water Act requires facilities that store large quantities of oil to develop response plans that outline 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 the five ADM facilities produces and stores more than 1 million gallons of oil. Combined, the five facilities have a total estimated storage capacity of more than 36 million gallons.
“Large oil storage facilities are required to have proper spill prevention and response plans in order to comply with the Clean Water Act,” said Karl Brooks, EPA Region 7 administrator. “The penalty imposed reflects the serious nature of noncompliance with these important requirements. By coming into compliance with the law, ADM is now better prepared to respond to spills that can harm the environment. Proper preparation for spills and emergencies can help avoid large-scale environmental disasters. We call upon other companies to do the same.”
EPA identified the lack of a response plan during a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) inspection in 2008 at ADM’s Cedar Rapids, Iowa, facility. The facility required a Facility Response Plan (FRP) because the storage capacity of its denatured ethanol tanks exceeded one million gallons. ADM committed to develop and submit an FRP, but failed to do so for the Cedar Rapids facility and three additional facilities until almost two years later in 2010. ADM’s Deerfield, Missouri, facility also operated for a period in 2011 and 2012 without a required updated FRP.
The settlement resolves these violations by ADM of the FRP requirements of the CWA.
The violations included ADM’s failure to implement best management practices at its facilities, failure to conduct and record site inspections, exceedances of permitted effluent limits, and unauthorized discharges of non-stormwater to waters of the United States in violation of the facilities’ CWA permits.
In addition to the payment of the $430,000 penalty, in order to document future compliance with the CWA, the settlement requires that ADM report on the implementation of the FRP program and the applicable industrial stormwater permits at the referenced facilities for three years.
Asphalt Company Fined for Air Permit Violations
An EPA settlement will require that a Rhode Island asphalt manufacturing company comply with its Clean Air Act permit designed to minimize air emissions and protect air quality around the community where it operates.
The company, T. Miozzi, Inc., will also pay a total penalty of $23,700 to settle EPA claims that the company operated its facility in violation of an air permit issued by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM). The settlement requires that the company comply with its air permit and provide a report to EPA demonstrating compliance for the 2014 operating season.
T. Miozzi, Inc., operates a hot mix asphalt plant that manufactures paving asphalt at 75 Airport Road, in Coventry, Rhode Island. The company has operated the plant since 2006.
EPA and RIDEM conducted an inspection of the plant in April, 2013. After the inspection, EPA determined that T. Miozzi failed to comply with certain provisions of its air permit. For example, EPA alleged that T. Miozzi failed to maintain certain records, including records relating to testing of emissions from the company’s rotary drum burner used in manufacturing the asphalt and testing of equipment used to control particulate emissions.
The company’s air permit contains provisions designed to limit the emissions of particulate matter, fugitive dust, and other contaminants such as nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. Compliance with the permit helps reduce air pollution and protects air quality near the facility and in the surrounding community.
T. Miozzi worked quickly to correct the violations cited by EPA, and cooperated with EPA in reaching a settlement.
Pinecrest Energy Center Power Plant Receives EPA Greenhouse Gas Permit
EPA has issued a final greenhouse gas (GHG) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) construction permit to the Pinecrest Energy Center power plant in Lufkin, Texas. The project proposes to construct a new natural gas-fired combined cycle electric generating plant.
“Every day we are hard at work to help Texas businesses take advantage of new opportunities for growth and make a positive difference on addressing climate,” said Regional Administrator Ron Curry. “This project is another step toward a cleaner economy and greener energy future for Texans.”
Once completed the plant will have two new natural gas-fired combined cycle turbines, two natural gas-fired duct burner systems with heat recovery steam generators, a firewater pump engine, emergency generator, and an auxiliary boiler. The projected cost of the project is $443.8 million and will produce fifty new permanent jobs.
In June 2010, EPA finalized national GHG regulations, which specify that beginning on January 2, 2011, projects that increase GHG emissions substantially will require an air permit.
EPA believes states are best equipped to run GHG air-permitting programs. Texas is working to replace the federal implementation plan with its own state program, which will eliminate the need for businesses to seek air permits from EPA. This action will increase efficiency and allow industry to continue to grow in Texas.
EPA is taking a variety of actions to cut GHG emissions and address the impacts of climate change.
EPA Issues GHG Permit to OCI Beaumont
EPA has issued a final GHG Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) construction permit to the OCI Beaumont LLC, methanol and ammonia plant in Nederland, Texas.
“Companies in Texas are expanding their operations and production to meet growing demands and also meeting our climate goals,” said EPA Regional Administrator Ron Curry. “This project shows that economic development and environmental protection can make good business sense.”
Once completed the plant will have two modified reformers, a new pre-reformer, pre-reformer heater, flare and saturator column. The new additions and modifications will increase methanol production to 3000 metric tons per day. The projected is expected to bring $83 million to the local community.
In June 2010, EPA finalized national GHG regulations, which specify that beginning on January 2, 2011, projects that increase GHG emissions substantially will require an air permit.
According to EPA, the states are best equipped to run GHG air permitting programs. Texas is working to replace the federal implementation plan with its own state program, which will eliminate the need for businesses to seek air permits from EPA. This action will increase efficiency and allow industry to continue to grow in Texas.
New Jersey DEP Fines HJ Trucking $135,000 for Illegal Dumping
The Christie Administration has taken action against an unregistered waste hauler alleged to have dumped piles of asphalt and other construction and demolition debris on city-owned property in Newark, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner Bob Martin announced recently.
The DEP this week issued an Administrative Order and Notice of Civil Administrative Penalty Assessment to address three violations, totaling $135,000 in penalties against HJ Trucking, an unregistered waste hauler in Bloomfield.
“This type of activity, which negatively impacts the environment and the quality of life, especially in our urban areas and overburdened communities, cannot be tolerated in our state,’’ said Commissioner Martin. “The Christie Administration takes such egregious disregard of state laws and our environment very seriously. Offending parties will be held accountable for their actions.”
On July 2, the DEP’s Compliance and Enforcement Division and the Newark Police Department received complaints from the city of Newark about illegal solid waste dumping that had occurred in the vicinity of 411 Wilson Avenue. Newark police who responded to the scene encountered a dump truck attempting to deposit a load of dirt, gravel and other construction debris, according to police. The driver of the truck, Hector Quinatoa, identified himself as owner of HJ Trucking, but was not licensed to drive as a commercial waste hauler. He was arrested at the scene.
The DEP’s enforcement team subsequently documented debris piles up to four-feet high containing broken pieces of asphalt, concrete and related construction and demolition debris.
The respondents identified in the DEP’s enforcement action include Hector Quinatoa, Jorge Quinatoa and Armando Andredes Itas of HJ Trucking. The company was fined a maximum penalty of $50,000 for failing to deposit solid waste at an approved facility and a maximum of $50,000 for operating a solid waste facility without a permit. Another $35,000 fine was levied for transportation of solid waste materials without an approved transporter registration.
"This enforcement action echoes our statewide efforts to crack down on illegal dumping," said John Giordano, Assistant Commissioner for Compliance and Enforcement. "Whether it be in cities such as Newark or in our state parks and forests, we will not back down to persons who choose to violate our environmental laws. We will aggressively pursue enforcement action to preserve a level playing field, while protecting the public’s health, safety, and welfare."
“Urban places like Newark are often sites for the illegal dumping of hazardous and nonhazardous materials,” said Assemblywoman L. Grace Spencer, who represents the community where the dumping occurred. “Newark and other municipalities are fighting to stop it and to hold those individuals responsible. The recent actions on the part of the City of Newark and the Department of Environmental Protection to investigate and eventually prosecute the individuals in this case sends a clear message that neither Newark or any city in New Jersey shall be dumped on.”
The fines against HJ Trucking continue an aggressive response by the DEP to rid communities of similar illegal debris and dirt piles. Last November, DEP issued $2.6 million in penalties against T. Fiore Recycling Corp., T. Fiore Demolition Inc. and Theodore Fiore for large stockpiles of illegally dumped construction and demolition debris in Newark, near the New Jersey Turnpike. That material is now being gradually cleaned up.
Previous DEP enforceemtment actions on dirt and debris piles have included securing the removal of approximately 50,000 cubic yards of fill dirt that a company placed illegally by Brook Industrial Park LLC within the flood zone of the Raritan River in Bound Brook, Somerset County.
Environmental News Links
Trivia Question of the Week
There are differences in the hazardous materials transportation regulations for primary and secondary batteries. What is the difference between primary and secondary batteries?
a) Primary batteries are manufactured and distributed by the manufacturer; secondary batteries are relabeled or private labeled for a distributor or reseller
b) Primary batteries are not rechargeable; secondary batteries are rechargeable
c) Primary batteries are not replaceable; secondary batteries are replaceable
d) Primary batteries have standard sizes (such as AA); the size of secondary batteries is not standardized (such as laptops or cell phones)