On July 23, 2009, the U.S. EPA proposed to extend until June 1, 2010 the existing administrative stay on the “grandfathering” provision for PM2.5 requirements in the New Source Review (NSR) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program.
The grandfathering provision allows the permitting authority to review PSD permit applications received before July 15, 2008 according to U.S. EPA’s 1997 policy of satisfying the requirements for particulate matter less than 10 micrometers (PM10) as a surrogate for meeting the new requirements for PM2.5.
The existing administrative stay is in effect June 1, 2009 until September 1, 2009. This action proposes to extend the existing administrative stay by an additional nine months. U.S. EPA expects to propose, take public comment on, and issue a final action concerning the repeal of the grandfathering provision for PM2.5 in the PSD program by the end of the stay.
For more information, see the Federal Register notice or contact EQ’s Jeff Slayback at (800) 229-7495 or Tom Robertson at (800) 229-5299.
On July 13, 2009, U.S. EPA proposed new emissions standards for area source paint manufacturers. This proposal has not yet been published in the Federal Register.
Nationwide, this could potentially affect about 2,190 small or area sources in the paints and allied products manufacturing category.
The proposed national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) are based on generally available control technologies (GACT) or management practices, which U.S. EPA describes as ... methods, practices and techniques that are commercially available and appropriate for application by the sources in the category considering economic impacts to and the technical capabilities of the firms to operate and maintain the emission control systems.
The proposed standards would affect any facility that is not a major source of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and that manufactures paints, inks, adhesives, stains, varnishes, shellacs, putties, sealers, caulks, and other coatings, the intended use of which is to leave a dried film of solid material on a substrate. HAPs addressed by the NESHAP comprise volatile substances (e.g., benzene and methylene chloride) contained in solvents that evaporate during the manufacturing process and metals (e.g., chromium, cadmium, lead, and nickel compounds) that are emitted during the handling of solid materials such as pigments and resins.
U.S. EPA's proposed control standards are also correlated to either volatile or metal HAP emissions and apply to both new and existing sources. Specifically:
To demonstrate initial compliance, all affected sources would need to certify that the required control technologies and management practices have been implemented and all equipment associated with the processes will be properly operated and maintained.
In addition, a visual emissions test using EPA Method 9 would need to be performed on the particulate control devices on or before the compliance date and every 6 months thereafter.
Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are included in the proposed standards to ensure compliance.
For more information, contact EQ’s Jeff Slayback at (800) 229-7495 or Tom Robertson at (800) 229-5299.
On July 13, 2009, the Ohio Public Utilities Commission proposed to adopt new regulations regarding greenhouse gas reporting and carbon dioxide control planning for public utilities owning or operating electric-generating facilities.
The proposed rule specifies that:
These rules are proposed in accordance with statutory requirements specified by the legislation in July 2008. They are intended to ensure that competitive retail electric services are provided.
For more information, contact EQ’s Jeff Slayback at (800) 229-7495 or Tom Robertson at (800) 229-5299.
On July 10, 2009, the U.S. EPA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) that seeks to promote Superfund fiscal responsibility in managing environmental concerns at hard rock (igneous or metamorphic rock) mine sites.
This notice, which has not yet been published in the Federal Register, is the first step in rulemaking and is not itself a rule. U.S. EPA plans to propose the rule by spring of 2011.
The rule is anticipated to promote cost-effective environmental controls at existing facilities, as well as at historic mining sites.
The agency also announced that by the end of 2009 it plans to examine other industries, including hazardous waste generators, hazardous waste recyclers, metal finishers, wood treatment facilities, and chemical manufacturers, in order to determine if they may warrant the development of financial responsibility requirements under Superfund.
For more information, visit the U.S. EPA website or contact EQ’s Jeff Slayback at (800) 229-7495 or Tom Robertson at (800) 229-5299.
On July 9, 2009, the U.S. Senate voted to approve legislation that would extend for one year the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) regulatory authority over security for chemical facilities at potential risk of a terrorist attack. The U.S. House of Representatives approved similar legislation on June 24, 2009.
The temporary chemical security rules expire on October 4, 2009.
A conference may need to be held to iron out the differences between the versions of the legislation.
The Obama administration has said it will work with Congress on enacting a permanent regulatory program. A Senate aide recently said, however, that such legislation is unlikely to pass Congress in 2009.
Interim chemical facility anti-terrorism standards were issued in 2007 after Congress gave DHS temporary authority to regulate chemical security as part of a fiscal year 2007 Homeland Security appropriations bill.
For more information, contact EQ's Laurie Buckman at (800) 229-7495.
On July 7, 2009, a federal appellate court unanimously rejected nearly all challenges to the U.S. EPA’s 2005 designation of fine particle nonattainment areas, but required the agency to clarify its decision to list one New York county as not in attainment of the standard.
According to a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, U.S. EPA “satisfied--indeed, quite often surpassed--its basic obligation of reasoned decisionmaking” when issuing its nonattainment designations.
Several states, counties, and power plants had filed challenges to U.S. EPA's January 2005 designation of nonattainment areas for fine particulate matter--particles 2.5 microns in diameter or smaller.
The judges, however, found all of the challenges to the nonattainment designations without merit with the exception of Rockland County in New York.
For more information, view the decision or contact EQ’s Jeff Slayback at (800) 229-7495 or Tom Robertson at (800) 229-5299.
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has proposed to amend regulations to clarify the scope of the P and U waste code listings to unused commercial chemical products. The proposal is intended to clarify that state requirements are more stringent than the federal requirements concerning P and U chemical wastes and specify that formulations may have more than one active ingredient and still meet the listing description.
The North Carolina General Assembly has established disposal bans on numerous retail goods.
The bans go into effect October 1, 2009.
Prohibited materials include:
The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality has proposed rules that will restrict the placement of coal combustion byproduct (CCB) residues in an area located within a 100-year floodplain. In addition, the regulation establishes standards for siting, design, construction, operation, and closure of projects beneficially using CCB.
The Ohio EPA is not planning to adopt U.S. EPA's revisions to the definition of solid waste rules, which were effective in unauthorized states on December 29, 2008. This is because, on January 29, 2008, the new rule was appealed to the U.S. District Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia by the Sierra Club and the American Petroleum Institute. In addition, 13 interested parties have filed motions with the Court to intervene in the case.
As a result, the future of the rule is uncertain and could be in threat of being remanded or vacated. Ohio EPA will watch how the situation proceeds and reconsider adoption when the future of the rule is better understood or known.
For more information, contact EQ’s Jeff Slayback at (800) 229-7495 or Tom Robertson at (800) 229-5299.
On June 26, 2009, in a 219-to-212 vote, the U.S. House of Representatives approved legislation to cap U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by creating an emissions trading program. The cap-and-trade program imposes a declining cap on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions: 97 percent of 2005 levels by 2012, 83 percent by 2020, 58 percent by 2030, and 17 percent by 2050.
The bill establishes mandatory schedules (12 to 36 months) for U.S. EPA to issue new rules for 31 separate requirements. It also requires the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to oversee the GHG emissions allowance market. The bill structures the trade aspects such that 15 percent of the emissions can be bought, sold, traded, and borrowed. A national GHG registry would track and inventory GHG emissions.
The Senate leadership has pledged action on climate and energy legislation before the end of the year. Given the contentiousness of the subject matter, interest groups from all sides of the debate (e.g., regulated industries, environmental non-government organizations, state and local governments, etc.) will likely lobby and campaign to advance their interpretation of what is best for the country.
For more information, contact EQ’s Jeff Slayback at (800) 229-7495 or Tom Robertson at (800) 229-5299.
On June 8, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit vacated the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters ("Boiler MACT"), and remanded the rule to the U.S. EPA.
The U.S. EPA has not yet proposed revisions to the boiler MACT. The agency missed the deadline specified in the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) consent decree which indicated it would propose a revised Boiler MACT by July 15, 2009. U.S. EPA has since indicated that it will propose a revised Boiler MACT by August 2009. However, a recent information request from the U.S. EPA to 310 sources (187 for Boiler MACT and 123 for CISWI) mandates that the results be submitted to the agency by October 15, 2009.
Section 112(j) of the Clean Air Act, also known as the "MACT Hammer," establishes a mechanism for states and local agencies to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutant (HAPs), through the development of source-specific MACT standards, in the event U.S. EPA fails to promulgate MACT standards for regulated source categories by the applicable deadlines.
Many state agencies have delayed implementation of the MACT Hammer for Boiler MACT sources until U.S. EPA releases guidance for developing standards for this source category.
A representative from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), however, recently made an announcement that PADEP plans to begin implementation of the MACT Hammer for Boiler MACT sources.
This mechanism is implemented through the submission by affected facilities of two separate permit applications: a Part 1 MACT application, which is a simple notification providing basic information about the affected source, and a Part 2 MACT application, which requires more detailed, comprehensive source-specific information. The permitting authority has up to 18 months after the submittal of a complete Part 2 application to develop specific MACT standards for the affected source and incorporate such standards into the source's Title V permit.
It is unclear how this rule-making process will affect the plans of independent States to implement the MACT Hammer for Boiler MACT sources. Although almost everyone has struggled with understanding the implementation of 112j since the Boiler
MACT rule was vacated, it is clear that a growing number of key individuals will argue that the deadlines for both Part 1 and Part 2 applications required under the implementing regulations for case-by-case MACT (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart B) have long passed.
If your facility has not submitted these applications and even if your state agency has not required them, you should evaluate the 112j requirements and be prepared to address them or to defend your position. While Part 1 applications require minimal effort, Part 2 applications may be quite time consuming and could require additional resources.
Environmental Quality Management Inc. (EQ) is prepared to assist you in responding to MACT hammer notifications.
For more information, contact EQ’s Jeff Slayback at (800) 229-7495 or Tom Robertson at (800) 229-5299.
The U.S. EPA’s Office of Enforcement periodically assesses its own initiatives to evaluate how compliance programs balance or conflict with each other.
The agency selects a limited number of specific environmental problems as national strategic enforcement and compliance assurance priorities. This cycle occurs every 3 years, and 2009 is the midpoint of the 2008‐2010 cycle.
Among other categories, national priorities from big picture topics include:
Air Toxic programs
For the next 18 months or so, U.S. EPA’s air toxic initiatives will focus on:
New Source Review (NSR)
Several industry sectors continue to be a priority for U.S. EPA under the Clean Air Act NSR program:
Storm water
U.S. EPA has ramped up its efforts related to storm water compliance. Priority areas include:
To help avoid non-compliance with storm water rules, companies should evaluate best management practices, install controls where needed, train employees, and assign responsibility for overall management to a company official.
RCRA Financial Responsibility
A pivotal point in the RCRA enforcement timeline dates to a December 12, 2003 publication of priorities and policies identifying significant environmental risk along with a pattern of non-compliance (see also 40 CFR Part 264 and 265, Subpart H). This publication led to guidance and policy related to financial responsibility for:
Regions and States have the discretion to determine appropriate financial assurance mechanisms. Permits must contain schedules of compliance along with assurance of financial responsibility.
In a recent advance notice of proposed rulemaking, U.S. EPA indicated that RCRA Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) and Coal Mines are the only business categories currently required to provide federally mandated financial assurance for closure and reclamation activities. The notice also indicated that U.S. EPA will be reviewing other industry segments to determine if they should be required to provide financial assurances for closure and reclamation activities.
EQ CAN HELP
In these difficult economic times, EQ can help you target your vulnerable compliance areas. We employ a gap-analysis approach, as opposed to a full-blown audit process, to help you quickly and cost-effectively identify potential areas of concern related to non-compliance. The approach includes focused, but abbreviated site work, comprehensive regulatory applicability analysis, historical review, prioritization of areas of concern, and recommendations for corrective actions where necessary. From LDAR inspections to Benzene Waste NESHAP training, and SP3 plans to NSR look-backs, EQ can provide cost-effective solutions to help you deal with future noncompliance and subsequent financial penalties.
For more information, contact EQ’s Mike Arozarena at (800) 229-7495; George Mesing at (724) 775-2910; Andy Hetz or Dean Downs at (540) 772-3130; or Tom Robertson at (800) 229-5299.
On July 31, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pump an additional $2 billion into the overwhelmingly popular Cash for Clunkers program, which was launched on July 23 and appeared to be running out of money a week later. The Senate is expected to vote during the first week of August.
Officially known as the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), this U.S. Department of Transportation program offers owners of old, inefficient cars and trucks a $3,500 or $4,500 credit toward a new, more fuel-efficient vehicle. The program, with an initial budget of $1 billion, was expected to run until November 1.
A week after the program was launched, however, it appeared that auto dealers might have already exceeded the 250,000 vehicle sales allotted. This prompted media reports that the program had been suspended. The White House later announced the program had not been suspended - yet.
For more information, visit the CARS website.
Disposal of e-waste presents unique challenges and potential costs that business enterprises seldom consider.
These costs, estimated at $200 - $400 per computer, are the administrative costs of inventory, accounting, sanitizing hard drives, monitor disposal/ replacement, storage, and packing/shipping, plus the labor expense of people performing these duties and the recycling/disposal fees.
If you are accepting used equipment from employees or other off-site locations, storing the out-of-service equipment in a non-secure environment, refurbishing and re-selling old equipment, donating, dumping, disposing, or donating equipment to a vendor who may be shipping it overseas, you may be liable for security breaches, financial issues, negative public relations, and non-compliance with existing hazardous waste rules.
Mismanagement of e-waste (computers, monitors, TVs, cell phones, copy machines, fax machines, game consuls, etc.) has become a hot topic. The general accounting office has lambasted U.S. EPA for not enforcing the existing rules and allowing tons of hazardous waste to be shipped to developing countries in violation of existing treaties, U.S. law and implementing regulations.
The environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are campaigning to get e-waste management into the social consciousness of corporate America. Several states (California, Hawaii, Illinois Maine, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, New York City, North Carolina, Virginia, and Washington) have adopted legislation that require electronic manufacturers to implement equipment recovery and recycling plans that provide for the collection of manufacturer-labeled equipment that has reached the end of its useful life.
CRT focus
Businesses that have out-of-service cathode ray tubes (CRTs) such as TVs, computer monitors, video display units, and game consuls are at risk of becoming a hazardous waste generator and/or a hazardous waste management facility if the conditional exclusions specified by the rules are not followed. Non-residential generators of less than 100 kilograms or about 220 pounds of hazardous waste in a calendar month including CRTs are known as conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs) and are not subject to most of the RCRA hazardous waste management requirements. Non-residential generators of hazardous waste that exceed 100 kilograms in any month, however, are subject to various rules and regulations implementing the hazardous waste management standards. U.S. EPA has provided conditional exclusions from the federal hazardous waste management standards for CRTs destined for reuse and/or recycling. The conditions for meeting the exclusion are found in 40 CFR 261.39.
The rules state that CRTs undergoing repairs such as rewiring or replacing defective parts before resale or distribution are not being reclaimed and are considered to be products in use rather than solid wastes. These repairs do not constitute waste management. The rule state that if a person, other than a household, decides to send CRTs directly to a landfill or incinerator (e.g., place it in a dumpster) that person is considered to be the generator of a solid waste. The person making the disposal decision must also determine if the CRTs exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic under 40 CFR part 261 subpart C by either testing the CRTs or by using process knowledge to make this determination. Published results by manufacturers indicate that virtually all CRTs would be characteristically hazardous for lead content with a waste code of D008 if they were to be disposed. A typical CRT contains between 2 and 5 pounds of lead according to the California EPA.
Out-of-service, used and unbroken CRTs are not regulated as hazardous waste as long as they are stored for no more than a year. Out-of-service, used, unbroken CRTs become a hazardous waste if the owner is operating as a collector and/or recycler. Indefinite storage of unbroken CRTs is allowed for owners who do not operate as a collector and/or recycler. U.S. EPA has defined a CRT collector as a person who receives used, intact CRTs for recycling, repair, resale, or donation. Hence, if an owner receives CRTs from others (employees, neighbors, etc.) and the CRTs are destined to be recycled, he/she would be classified as a collector and subject to the speculative accumulation standards (i.e., no more than 1 year of storage on a unit-by-unit basis).
Additionally, out-of-service, used, inoperable, or broken CRTs are not regulated as hazardous waste as long as the following conditions are met:
To remain unregulated, CRTs undergoing reclamation and recycling must follow the same requirements, and they must be processed inside a building, at temperatures not high enough to volatilize lead from the glass.
The limitations on speculative accumulation for intact CRTs are issued under RCRA authority, and therefore will not go into effect until individual states have adopted corollary rules.
The following is a list of the status of CRT rules in selected states:
For more information, contact EQ’s Tom Robertson at (800) 229-5299.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently concluded the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) needs to have better control and oversight of its Voluntary Protection Program (VPP).
GAO found some VPP participants had injury and illness rates higher than the rates for their industries. In fact, one employer had an injury and illness rate four times higher than the average rate for its industry.
In response, OSHA said it intends to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the VPP to determine how the agency can best allocate its resources. Employers participating in the program are supposed to have exemplary safety records. While participants remain subject to inspections following fatalities, other serious injuries, or workers' complaints about safety or health hazards, they are exempted from routine inspections conducted by OSHA.
For more information, contact EQ’s John Kominsky at (800) 229-7495.
On June 26, 2009, an 18-month “National Conversation on Public Health and Chemical Exposures” was launched with a one-day meeting in Washington, D.C.
The goal of the meeting, organized by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), was to “revitalize a public health approach to chemical exposure.” A public health approach focuses on disease prevention.
ATSDR's mission is to evaluate the human health effects of hazardous waste sites.
Six work groups will be convened to develop ideas on how federal agencies, state and local public health and environmental agencies, companies, academic institutions, and other parties could take a public health approach to chemicals.
The work groups will focus on six topics related to chemicals: monitoring, scientific understanding, policies and practices, chemical emergencies, serving communities, and education and communication.
The recommendations that will follow the end of the 18-month dialogue will help ATSDR shape the direction of its work and could affect the growing national discussion on chemical policies including reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
For more information, visit the website.
Irrigation systems offer a convenient way to protect your home, office, or facility landscape investment. If you employ some simple strategies and technology, you can conserve water, reduce runoff and waste, and save money!
In regards to automatic irrigation systems:
Try a rain barrel:
To learn more about EQ’s Sustainability Program, visit our website or contact EQ’s Tom Robertson at (800) 229-5299.
For your engineering needs, please contact EQ Engineers at 219-844-3500, or email Ron Hawks
For questions about EQ's capabilities, please contact
Jerry Day or Laurie Buckman, or call (800) 229-7495.
To subscribe to the EQuation Newsletter, please send an email to subscribe-eq@eqm.com.
To remove your name from the EQuation Newsletter listing, please send an email to unsubscribe-eq@eqm.com.