The Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reports required by the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (SARA Title III) are must be submitted to EPA by July 1 of each year. Your facility is required to report to the TRI Program if it meets all of these three threshold criteria:
- Your facility is included in a TRI-covered North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code
- The facility has 10 or more full-time employee equivalents (i.e., a total of 20,000 hours or greater; see 40 CFR 372.3)
EPA prefers that you use use the Agency’s TRI-MEweb application to submit your TRI reports electronically.
The TRI-MEweb application for RY2012 includes the following revisions:
- New process to certify TRI forms within the TRI-MEweb reporting application
- New electronic reporting security requirements for identification purposes
- New alternative electronic signature agreements to expedite the transmission, certification, and submission of the TRI reports
Houston RCRA and DOT Training
Indianapolis RCRA, DOT, IATA/IMO, and Hazard Communication Training
Charleston RCRA, DOT, and IATA/IMO Training
How to Implement OSHA’s Globally Harmonized Hazard Communication Standard (GHS)
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 Issues Revised Total Coliform Rule
On February 13, EPA published in the Federal Register the revisions to the 1989 Total Coliform Rule.
The rule is based on the Agency's consideration of public comments and recommendations from the total coliform distribution system advisory committee, which consisted of a broad range of stakeholder groups, including States, environmental groups, utilities, and public health and public interest groups. Public water systems and primacy agencies must comply with the revised requirements by April 2016.
DOT Breaks its Record for Pipeline Hazardous Materials Penalties in 2012
In its push to ensure the nation's pipeline companies continue to enhance the safety of their systems by investing in necessary improvements, the Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration announced another record year in the number of enforcement actions it has taken against pipeline operators.
PHMSA issued 116 enforcement orders to pipeline operators in 2012, its second highest year, for problems with integrity management programs, qualified personnel, corrosion control, and a number of other possible regulatory violations identified during routine inspections and failure investigations.
"When President Obama signed the 2011 Pipeline Safety Act into law, it strengthened the Department's ability to help promote a safer, more reliable, and capable American pipeline transportation network," said US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. "Through a combination of education, preparation, and enforcement, we can all help prevent pipeline accidents."
PHMSA issues enforcement orders to ensure pipeline operators address safety related issues involving their systems or components, in addition to pinpointing violations of federal pipeline safety regulations. A
"These enforcement numbers are a direct result of improved internal tracking procedures and rigorous investigations and inspections of pipeline facilities by PHMSA field personnel," said PHMSA Administrator Cynthia Quarterman. "Our job is to ensure pipeline operators comply with federal safety regulations and I am proud of our enforcement achievements over the last four years."
PHMSA's number of enforcement orders issued in 2012 is just four shy of the agency's single year record in 2011 of 120.
The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, was signed into law last year by President Obama. The Act doubled the maximum civil penalty amount PHMSA can issue to pipeline operators for violating pipeline safety regulations from $100,000 to $200,000 for each violation, and from $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. The Act also authorizes PHMSA to increase its federal pipeline inspector workforce.
EPA Fines Six Arizona School Districts for Asbestos Violations
More than 15,000 children attend the 25 schools not in compliance with the federal AHERA in these districts.
During inspections conducted in 2011, EPA inspectors discovered numerous violations, from failing to inspect facilities for asbestos containing materials, failing to re-inspect campuses with known asbestos containing materials, and failing to have an Asbestos Management Plan. All of the school districts have since taken necessary actions to comply with the law, with the cost of compliance reducing the penalties in most cases to zero.
“Asbestos in schools has the potential to harm the health of students, teachers, and maintenance workers,” said Jared Blumenfeld, EPA’s Regional Administrator for the Pacific Southwest. “EPA takes these violations seriously, and we are satisfied the schools have now conducted inspections and put their asbestos plans in place.”
Each school district is allowed to subtract properly documented costs of complying with the regulations from the penalty amount. The six school districts are:
Apache Junction Unified School District (Pinal County): fined $21,675, but this was reduced to $7,933 because of the school district’s cost of achieving compliance.
St. John’s Unified School District (Apache County): fined $14,195, reduced to $824 by the school district’s cost of achieving compliance.
Florence Unified School District (Pinal County): fined $31,705, but no cash payment was due because the documented costs of compliance exceeded the penalty.
Vernon Elementary School District (Apache County): fined $2,700, but no cash payment was due because the documented costs of compliance exceeded the penalty.
McNary Elementary School District (Fort Apache Indian Reservation): fined $14,200, but no cash payment was due because the documented costs of compliance exceeded the penalty.
Round Valley Unified School District (Apache County): fined $10,100, but no cash payment was due because the documented costs of compliance exceeded the penalty.
Federal law requires schools to conduct an initial inspection using accredited inspectors to determine if asbestos-containing building material is present and develop a management plan to address the asbestos materials found in the school buildings. Schools are also required to appoint a designated person who is trained to oversee asbestos activities and ensure compliance with federal regulations. Finally, schools must conduct periodic surveillance and re-inspections of asbestos-containing building material, properly train the maintenance and custodial staff, and maintain records in the management plan.
Local education agencies must keep an updated copy of the management plan in its administrative office and at the school, which must be made available for inspection by parents, teachers, and the general public.
Environmental Groups Claim that EPA Waived Pollution Fees For Industrial Polluters in Southern California
Environmental advocates Earthjustice, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Communities for a Better Environment have challenged a decision by the EPA that would relieve major industrial sources in the smog-choked L.A. region from Clean Air Act obligations to pay a fee for their emissions that contribute to ozone pollution in the region.
Los Angeles was one of two regions that failed to meet the 2010 deadline and was designated as an “extreme ozone nonattainment area.”
The health impacts of ozone air pollution—often called smog—are well documented, ranging from asthma attacks to deadly respiratory disease. The Clean Air Act set national standards for a reduction in ozone pollution, and imposed penalties for regions that failed to meet those standards by 2010. Fines on ozone-causing emissions would create incentives to limit pollution and provide funds to clean up the air.
Los Angeles was one of two regions (along with California’s San Joaquin Valley) that failed to meet the 2010 deadline and was designated as an “extreme ozone nonattainment area.” Rather than imposing the mandated penalties on stationary industrial sources, EPA instead decided to allow the local air quality district to take credit for fees collected from existing permitting programs in the L.A. basin. Those fees, according to EPA and the Air District would raise funds equivalent to the fines required of the biggest polluters.
“The job of the Environmental Protection Agency is environmental protection,” said attorney Paul Cort with the public interest law firm Earthjustice, “but now EPA is invoking the right to waive a statutory requirement that is unpopular with the industries it is expected to regulate. This dangerous decision not only damages the effectiveness of ozone controls in Los Angeles, the state of California, and the nation, but it also sets an illegal precedent for EPA to ignore the laws it is supposed to enforce.”
The petition for review, filed February 12 in the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, asks the court to overturn the EPA decision permitting the local air board to waive fees for industrial polluters. Earthjustice filed a parallel suit against EPA in October 2012, challenging the same EPA decision for the San Joaquin Valley.
Study Shows Toxicity of Components of California Fine Particle Air Pollution
The new study looks at the toxicity of various components of fine particle air pollution (PM2.5), including ultrafine particles. Previous research has shown that PM2.5 is associated with asthma, heart disease, and premature death.
The investigators introduced particles collected from different air samples into laboratory mice and looked for indicators of respiratory and cardiovascular effects, such as markers of inflammation in lungs and blood. The samples were collected with a system that classified particles according to their chemical composition, thereby enabling researchers to associate the particles to different sources.
The analysis showed different levels of toxicity for different PM samples. The samples were associated with a variety of sources, such as traffic and wood smoke. Also, ultrafine particles were more potent inducers of inflammatory markers and cell death than larger particles. The air samples used in this study were collected in Fresno, California.
The research was conducted by Dr. Anthony Wexler, director of the Air Quality Research Center at the University of California, Davis. Dr. Wexler developed a novel methodology using a single particle mass spectrometer and ten particle samplers to analyze and separate ambient particles.
Laboratory mice were exposed to the separated particles, and their responses were monitored for signs of toxicity by Dr. Kent Pinkerton, a professor of pediatrics at the UC Davis School of Medicine.
March 7 Webcast on Consumer Confidence Report Rule Electronic Delivery Framework
On March 7, 2013, 2:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. EST, EPA will hold a webinar to explain the consumer confidence report electronic delivery framework. Panelists will discuss electronic delivery methods and approaches appropriate to meet consumer confidence report rule requirements to "mail or otherwise directly deliver" the report to customers. The webinar is intended for community water systems, state and federal drinking water regulators, and other interested parties. The webinar will also provide an opportunity for attendees to ask questions of the EPA representatives regarding delivery requirements.
California State Water Board Report Recommends Actions to Ensure Safe Drinking Water
Working to ensure that Californians have access to safe drinking water, California’s Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) recently released recommendations to address the impacts of nitrate-contaminated groundwater—a source of drinking water for 2.6 million of the state’s residents.
As pointed out in the report, nitrate contamination is particularly significant in the Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley areas. The recommendations included in the report to the Legislature further underscore the need for cooperative and comprehensive solutions to improve the quality of all drinking water sources in California.
Many of the recommendations in the report rely upon a secure and stable source of funding to be effective. Without identifying a secure source of funding, nitrates and other contaminants will continue to affect drinking water sources resulting in residents and communities, particularly those that are small and disadvantaged, paying more for safe drinking water. The report examines several options at how such funding might be identified and the Administration will work with the Legislature to address the need for a sustainable funding source for groundwater-dependent communities dealing with all forms of groundwater contamination, including nitrates.
The nitrate report follows the State Water Board’s February 4, 2013, release of a report that identifies communities relying on contaminated groundwater sources for their drinking water. Arsenic and nitrates were the two major contaminants.
“These two reports reflect the broad challenges we face and offer the same stark conclusion about the need to address statewide groundwater contamination,” said Charles R. Hoppin, Chair of the State Water Board. “Governor Brown has stated that safe drinking water is a human right and it is our job to work with all parties to identify and implement viable solutions.”
A number of steps are already being taken by the administration to address nitrate contamination. The California Department of Public Health (CDPH), for example, is currently revising the process for making emergency funding available for local water systems with immediate, emergency needs, and is working with state and local partners to support consolidation of projects that will more efficiently improve water systems’ delivery of safe drinking water.
“CDPH monitors the quality of drinking water, assists systems in addressing contaminants such as nitrates, and enforces health standards in drinking water,” said Dr. Ron Chapman, CDPH director and public health officer. “We provide funding for planning and construction of water projects and to address emergency drinking water issues. Our goal is for California to have access to safe drinking water that meets health-based standards.”
The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) is working with other state agencies and the farming community to address the issue. Farmers and ranchers have recognized and responded to the issues of nitrates and groundwater quality with improved technologies and methods that allow fertilizer to be applied more precisely than ever before. However, much more needs to be done.
“California’s farmers have an important role to play in ensuring safe drinking water in their communities,” said CDFA Secretary Karen Ross. “We fully support the Governor’s call for a collaborative, cooperative effort among our agencies, industries and communities to identify both funding and solutions.”
The Department of Water Resources (DWR) is working with CDPH to fund those communities with the most critical needs for safe drinking water.
“DWR is committed to the State’s efforts to provide all Californians with safe drinking water,” said Director Mark Cowin. “We will make it a priority to streamline our application process for the small disadvantaged communities.”
These cooperative efforts are critical to meet the goals of Assembly Bill 685, signed into law last year by Governor Brown, which stated that every human being has the right to safe, affordable, and accessible water adequate for human consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes.
In addition to the actions already under way, the Administration has committed to a number of other efforts that can begin immediately, without Legislative authority, including:
The Water Boards will identify nitrate high-risk areas so regulatory oversight and assistance efforts can be prioritized on these areas first
The Water Boards, in coordination with CDFA, will convene a stakeholder/expert group to review existing agriculture best practices concerning nitrates, and develop recommendations in an effort to further protect groundwater quality through practices and existing regulatory programs
DWR will require that Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) plans for regions in nitrate high-risk areas include an evaluation of nitrate impacts and potential solutions as part of their critical water supply and water quality needs analysis. DWR and IRWM groups should target funding for potential solutions in nitrate high-risk areas.
CDFA will immediately establish an interagency task force in collaboration with the State Water Resources Control Board to assess nitrogen management tracking and data needs in nitrate high risk areas
CDFA, in partnership with UC Cooperative Extension and other experts, will develop additional nitrogen management technical training programs to provide growers with on- the-ground tools and to facilitate regulatory compliance
CDFA will work with experts to identify research gaps in understanding the movement of nitrogen and other nutrients through soil and groundwater systems, and establish a research collaborative to pursue funding sources for this research
CDPH will create a Pre-Planning and Legal Entity Formation Assistance Program under an SRF Local Assistance Set-aside to assist small communities disproportionately affected by drinking water contaminants, such as nitrates, in accessing the project funding process. Funded pre-planning activities may include improving or establishing governance, formation of public water systems, or consolidation efforts.
CDPH has proposed a Change to the SRF Process for Emergency Projects that would allow public water systems with emergencies requiring system repair or replacement to avoid serious health effects to immediately apply and be prioritized for funding. This change will expedite the use of SRF funds for such emergencies, augmenting the existing Proposition 84 emergency funding.
CDPH will incorporate its recent Small Water System Program Implementation Plan into its Capacity Development Strategy with USEPA, allowing the use of SRF funds for some of the activities in this plan. CDPH’s overarching goal is to bring the proportion of small systems that meet all health-based standards to 95% within three years, reaching parity with large water systems.
CDPH will continue to promote Consolidation in planning and construction projects, including new incentives that will be implemented to encourage large water systems to consolidate with small systems that have safe drinking water compliance challenges—consolidation can be the most cost-effective and expeditious solution to these challenges
Recommendations were made with significant input from multiple sources including:
- Interagency Task Force, which included representatives from the California Department of Public Health, the Department of Food and Agriculture, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, California Environmental Protection Agency, and local environmental health agencies
- Public input from the May 2012 State Water Board workshop
- Nitrate report by University of California, Davis (March 2012)
- Report from Governor’s Drinking Water Stakeholder Group (August 2012)
Testing Shows Most Products Sold in Washington Adhere to BPA Ban
Washington state’s 2010 ban on the use of the chemical BPA in baby bottles, children’s cups, and sports bottles appears to be working. The Department of Ecology (Ecology) recently tested a number of these products on retail shelves in Washington and found that BPA has nearly disappeared. BPA, which stands for Bisphenol A, is a health concern for children.
During July 2012, Ecology tested 74 products purchased from nine state retailers. Products included baby bottles, sippy cups, toddler containers (bowls and plates), and plastic and metal sports bottles. Nearly all the products collected were labeled “BPA-free.” Most of samples (96 %) tested did not contain BPA levels above the testing limit used in this study.
Only one sample turned up with a high enough BPA level for Ecology to take regulatory action. Ecology is enforcing the BPA law at the same level the agency requires for reporting under the Children’s Safe Product Act (20 ppm).
The sample was a polycarbonate sports bottle sold at a discount store. It contained a BPA level of 100 ppm. It was not marketed as BPA-free, and it was the only bottle of its kind left on the store shelf. Ecology is working with the retailer, who no longer sells sports bottles, to ensure that they understand the requirements of the law and do not sell BPA-containing bottles in the future. The two other bottles containing detectable BPA were well below Ecology’s enforcement limit.
“Given the small percentage of products that tested positive for BPA, we believe businesses are making great progress in complying with the ban, which is helping to reduce children’s exposure to this chemical,” said Carol Kraege, Ecology’s toxics policy specialist.
BPA is a chemical building block that is used primarily to make polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins. Along with water bottles and baby bottles, polycarbonate plastic is also used to make products such as compact disks and eyeglass lenses. Many food and drink cans are lined with epoxy resins that contain BPA.
In 2008, the National Toxicology Program (a group associated with the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, and the Food and Drug Administration) concluded that, at current exposure levels, there was some concern for toxicity of BPA in fetuses, infants, and children.
OEPA Proposes Amendments to Permit-by-Rule for Flowback Operations at Oil and Natural Gas Well Sites
Ohio EPA is considering amendments to the rule language to add an additional permit-by-rule for flowback operations at oil and natural gas well sites.
Prior to generating the rule language, Ohio EPA is asking for input/suggestions on this rule from potentially affected parties. DAPC will be accepting comments on these potential changes through Friday, March 22, 2013.
Landworks Industries Fined $53,937 for Asbestos Removal Violations
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) penalized the contractor and the homeowner for asbestos violations found during an inspection at 10 Denmark Street in Milton. Landworks Industries, Inc., is a Boston-based contractor that had been hired by the owners of the residence, Tu Do and Kevin Nguyen, to conduct the work.
"Prior to renovation or demolition of the interior or exterior of a structure, building owners and contractors must ensure that any areas and materials involved in the work are inspected and sampled to determine if asbestos is present," said Eric Worrall, acting director of MassDEP's Northeast Regional Office in Wilmington. "If there is asbestos and it needs to be removed, it must be done properly."
During MassDEP's initial inspection on September 7, 2012, there were pieces of asbestos concrete and tile debris in the basement and outside the structure adjacent to the basement door, mixed in with soil in a hole in the rear of the property. MassDEP also noted a 30-yard roll-off container in the driveway filled with demolition and renovation debris, carpeting, and black plastic bags. Pieces of tile were also observed on the carpeting and in a black plastic bag in the container.
MassDEP sampled the suspect materials and found that the materials contained asbestos. MassDEP then worked to ensure that Landworks and the owners of the property hired a licensed asbestos contractor to properly decontaminate the container and basement, containerized the waste, and properly disposed of all the asbestos-containing waste materials.
Landworks was penalized $53,937, with $9,000 payable to the Commonwealth and the remaining $44,937 suspended provided no further violations occur over the following two years. Tu Do and Kevin Nguyen were jointly penalized $31,100, with $3,000 payable and the remaining $28,100 suspended provided no further violations occur within the next year.
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.
LEWA Fined $4,260 for Violating Environmental Requirements
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has assessed a $4,260 penalty to LEWA, Inc., of Holliston for violating Hazardous Waste Management and Title 5 regulations. Pumps that are manufactured elsewhere are tested and repaired at the company's 132 Hopping Brook Road facility.
During an inspection of the facility conducted by MassDEP in February of 2012, it was determined that the company failed to post a sign in the waste oil accumulation area, properly mark and label satellite hazardous waste and waste oil containers, and clearly delineate its waste oil accumulation area. The company also generated hazardous waste materials in excess of its registered status, and discharged industrial wastewater to an on-site septic system.
In a consent order with MassDEP, the company agreed to comply with all applicable requirements and pay the $4,260 penalty.
"The company acted very quickly to comply with applicable regulations once notified of the violations," said Lee Dillard Adams, director of MassDEP's Central Regional Office in Worcester.
Louisiana DEQ to Reissue Permit for Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
Coverage under this general permit applies to operators (parishes, cities, towns, military bases, etc.) of storm water drainage systems that typically serve populations between 10,000 and 150,000 persons.
Current permit holders are required to apply for coverage under the new permit within 60 days of being notified by DEQ, as coverage under the new permit will not be automatically extended to current permit holders.
DEQ will notify all currently permitted operators of the requirement to reapply, and notifications will be mailed by March 1, 2013. The application will consist of a new Notice of Intent (NOI) and/or Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP).
The change is being made based upon a mandate by the EPA which requires all states to include reapplication requirements in reissued Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System general permits.
Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System operators may submit a complete form MS4-G or complete Sections I through IV of the form and attach a current Storm Water Management Plan in lieu of completing Section V (ensuring the SWMP addresses all questions in Section V).
Maryland Department of Environment Issues Enforcement Actions
The Maryland Department of the Environment recently announced major enforcement actions in recent months for alleged violations of State and federal environmental laws to protect public health and our land, air, water, and wetlands resources.
“The Maryland Department of the Environment's top priority is to protect public health and our environment. A consistent baseline of enforcement actions prevents further pollution and risks to public health,” said MDE Secretary Robert M. Summers. “The majority of Maryland businesses comply with environmental laws. A strong and fair enforcement program protects our investment in the environment as well as the health and quality of life of all Maryland residents.”
MPCA Praises Power Utilities Regarding Mercury Emissions
Ninety percent of the atmospheric mercury that falls into Minnesota lakes and makes our fish unsafe to eat comes from outside of the state. There may not be much we can do about that, but when it comes to the 10 % that’s in our control, Minnesota is leading the nation.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) recently sent letters to representatives of the state’s power utility sector and to a variety of other public and private entities, thanking them for their help in achieving a significant environmental milestone.
When the state’s power utilities embarked on state-ordered efforts to reduce mercury in the mid-1990s, Minnesota’s coal-fired utility mercury emissions were about 1,850 lb per year. Now they are down to about 870 lb, and headed for less than 200 lb by 2016. According to MPCA Commissioner John Linc Stine, that’s a remarkable achievement.
“Mercury emissions from this sector are now at less than half of where we started a little more than a decade ago,” Stine said. “And our power utilities are well ahead of their scheduled reductions laid out in the Minnesota Mercury Reductions Act of 2006.
“Our letter was an acknowledgment of the great job they’ve done in dealing with mercury emissions. Getting to this point required bold thinking and innovative leadership on their part. One measure of their success is that the US Environmental Protection Agency now looks to Minnesota as a model for how other states can reduce their own emissions of mercury from power utilities,” Stine said.
Mercury is problematic because it is released into the air from sources in Minnesota around the world and then falls onto our land and surface waters. Mercury is a neurotoxin that converts to methylmercury in water, which accumulates in fish, resulting in fish consumption advisories in Minnesota.
Responding to the MPCA recognition, Xcel Energy Regional Vice President Laura McCarten said, “Achievements such as significant reductions in mercury and other air emissions result from strong partnerships—and a clear vision of where we’re headed—among regulators, utilities, customers, environmental advocates, and other stakeholders. Minnesota’s significant advances in energy and environmental policy occurred because we came together and creatively aligned our diverse interests with state policy goals.”
Minnesota Power Vice President of Regulatory and Legislative Affairs Margaret Hodnik said, “From our nationally recognized research on mercury removal in the 1990s to achieving above 90 % mercury reduction at our facilities, Minnesota Power has steadily furthered environmental stewardship on its system and in Minnesota. The tremendous progress we’ve made so far and additional planned mercury reductions on our fleet are made possible only with the support of many stakeholders.”
Stine’s letter was prompted by a recent MPCA analysis that showed utility-sector mercury emissions are down by more than half from a decade ago.
The reductions came about due to collaboration among public utilities, environmental organizations, legislators, and the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. That work resulted in the landmark Mercury Emissions Reduction Act of 2006. But efforts started before that, when Xcel Energy completed the Metropolitan Emissions Reduction Project in 2009, converting its High Bridge and Riverside plants from coal to natural gas fuel. Mercury controls were upgraded at other Xcel plants. And Minnesota Power and Rochester Public Utilities made significant upgrades to their plants.
Power utilities are the largest source of mercury emissions in Minnesota and most other states, and burning coal is the largest source in that sector. While the utility sector is leading the way, other source categories, such as the mining and mercury-in-products sectors, have further to go.
“While we are thrilled with these mercury reductions, there’s still plenty of work to be done,” Stine said. “Reducing pollution at the source is just the first step in eliminating mercury emissions and impairments to Minnesota’s surface waters and fisheries.”
Environmental News Links
Trivia Question of the Week
As of 2013, how many sites are designated as Superfund sites by the EPA?
a. 130,120
b. 13,120
c. 3,120
d. 1,312
