On March 30, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) proposed changes to clarify and streamline the determination of case-by-case Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) emission limits under Section 112(j) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (the so-called MACT Hammer provision). The changes only apply to major source categories initially listed by U.S. EPA in 1992, and a court has vacated the subsequent MACT rules in their entirety. The rules and source categories affected by the revised 112(j) procedures are: PVC and Copolymers Production; Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; Clay Ceramics Manufacturing; and Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Processes Heaters. For these source categories, U.S. EPA is proposing a permit application deadline (to be submitted to the State Title V permitting authority) of 90 days after promulgation of the revised 112(j) rules or the date requested by the permitting authority, whichever is earlier. The current Part 1 and Part 2 application process would be replaced by a single application.
For additional information, see the Federal Register or contact EQ’s Kent Berry at (800) 229-5299.
On March 29, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection agency (U.S. EPA) announced the signing of a final Federal Register (FR) notice that defers Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V air permitting for greenhouse gases (GHGs) – see the February 2010 issue of the EQ newsletter. The notice reaffirms the policy issued under the Bush Administration that PSD permitting is not triggered for a pollutant such as GHGs until a final nationwide rule requires actual control of the pollutant. The notice further interprets that “actual control” means when the rule “takes effect” – rather than upon FR publication or the effective date of the nationwide rule. This means that the upcoming publication of rules limiting GHG emissions from cars and light trucks, which will require control of vehicles sold in the United States after January 2, 2011, does not trigger PSD and Title V permitting until after that date. The notice states that there is no “grandfathering” of pending permit applications, however, so PSD permits still in process will need to include a Best Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis for GHGs if they are not issued by January 2, 2011. Finally, U.S. EPA notes that it intends to complete final action soon on the GHG Tailoring rule that would raise the GHG emission thresholds that trigger PSD and Title V permitting. The above policy decisions are effective on March 29, 2010.
For additional information, see http://www.epa.gov/nsr/guidance.html , or contact EQ’s Kent Berry at (800) 229-5299.
On March 22, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) announced proposed rules that would amend its October 30, 2009, Mandatory Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Rules (see October 2009 e-newsletter) to require reporting by seven additional source categories. These proposed rules would require reporting of fugitive and vented methane and CO2 from approximately 3000 facilities in the petroleum and natural gas industry. The proposed rules would also require reporting of fluorinated GHGs, the most potent and persistent of the GHGs, by five source categories covering approximately 385 facilities where these gases are manufactured or used.
The additional facilities covered by the proposed rules would be required to report by March 31, 2012 for calendar year 2011. U.S. EPA also proposed minor additional reporting requirements in the Subpart A General Provisions that would apply to all sources covered by the GHG reporting rules.
For additional information, see the U.S. EPA Website or contact EQ’s Kent Berry at (800) 229-5299.
On March 18, 2010 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) proposed and simultaneously published direct final rules on a number of technical changes that correct or clarify several parts of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste regulations. RCRA relates to hazardous waste identification; manifesting; the hazardous waste generator requirements; standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; standards for the management of specific types of hazardous waste and specific types of hazardous waste management facilities; the land disposal restrictions program; and the hazardous waste permit program. These changes clarify existing parts of the hazardous waste regulatory program and update references to Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations that have changed since the publication of various RCRA hazardous waste final rules. The Direct Final Rule is effective on June 16, 2010 unless adverse comments are received by May 3, 2010.
Authorized States are required to modify their programs only when U.S. EPA promulgates Federal regulations that are more stringent or broader in scope than the authorized State regulations. This Direct Final rule is considered to be neither more nor less stringent than the current standards. Therefore, authorized States would not be required to modify their programs to adopt the technical corrections promulgated today, although U.S. EPA strongly urges the States to adopt these technical corrections to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding by the regulated community and the public. One exception to the above discussion concerns clarifications of the manifest regulations in 40 CFR 262.23. All authorized States will be required to adopt these revisions in accordance with the consistency requirements in 40 CFR 271.4(c).
For more information, contact EQ’s Tom Robertson at (800) 229-5299.
In the February 26, 2010 issue of the Federal Register (75 FR 8871), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) proposed that the Ohio and Indiana portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton air quality planning area be redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The proposed redesignation is based on 2007, 2008, and 2009 air quality monitoring data. The areas affected by this notice include Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn County in Indiana, and Butler, Clermont, Clinton, Hamilton, and Warren Counties in Ohio. U.S. EPA notes that proposed redesignation for the Kentucky portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton region will appear in the FR under a separate action. U.S. EPA accepted comments through March 29 and is expected to promulgate the final redesignation by Summer 2010. One immediate impact of this action is that permits for major new or modified sources involving emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) or NOx that are issued after the final redesignation would be under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) rules rather than the Nonattainment New Source Review requirements.
For further information, refer to the Federal Register notice or contact EQ’s Kent Berry at (800) 229-5299 or Jeff Slayback at (800) 229-7495.
In the February 19, 2010 issue of the Federal Register, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) announced that it is seeking to alter its procedures for negotiating binding agreements that require chemical makers to conduct toxicity testing, proposing among other things to set a firm deadline for ending talks that are not likely to result in an agreement. The proposal generally would require negotiations to terminate automatically after 6 months, at which point the agency could pursue a formal test rule for a substance under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This proposal would alter regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 790 that were promulgated in 1986.
In addition, U.S. EPA has for the first time made available the public portion of the TSCA inventory free online. Until now, the public portion of the TSCA inventory has been available only by purchase from sources such as the Department of Commerce’s National Technical Reports Library. The inventory consists of a public or “non-confidential” section and a confidential section that protects information that could harm a company’s ability to sell its product. U.S. EPA’s announcement said that more than 84,000 chemicals are listed on the comprehensive inventory.
For more information, refer to the Federal Register notice or contact EQ’s Tom Robertson at (800) 229-5299.
In the February 26 Federal Register, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) announced that a 16-year-old administrative stay on a requirement for industrial facilities to report releases of hydrogen sulfide should be lifted. The stay applies to a 1993 rule requiring power plants, petroleum refineries, mining operations, and other industrial facilities to annually report releases of hydrogen sulfide.
U.S. EPA listed hydrogen sulfide under Section 313 of the Emergency Planning Community Right-to-know Act of 1986 on December 1, 1993, in response to a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council and the State of New York.
U.S. EPA will accept comments on its consideration of lifting the administrative stay until April 26, 2010. Comments may be submitted to http://www.regulations.gov and should reference docket No. EPA-HQ-TRI-0844.
For more information, contact EQ’s Tom Robertson at (800) 229-5299.
On March 3, 2010, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that it is writing legislation to reauthorize the chemical facility security program to requires the use of safer chemicals and more stringent security measures at water system facilities.
The provision, known as “inherently safer technology” (IST), was included in a bill that passed the House of Representatives in November. This bill would strengthen and expand existing interim security standards and make them permanent. The Chemical Facility Antiterrorism Standards (CFATS) were established as interim rules under a 2006 appropriations bill. Authority of the CFATS program expired in 2009, but was extended for another year. Under the rules, DHS required high-risk chemical facilities to complete security vulnerability assessments, develop site security plans, and implement protective measures necessary to meet DHS-defined risk-based performance standards.
For more information, contact EQ’s Mike Arozarena at (800) 229-7495.
On March 22, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) announced that it has selected four regulated chemicals as candidates for rule revisions under the agency's 6-year review of primary drinking water regulations.The four are the common solvents trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene and two impurities that show up in drinking water treatment, epichlorohydrin and acrylamide.
Those were selected from among 71 regulations considered under the Safe Drinking Water Act, which mandates the 6-year reviews. This was the agency's second 6-year review. U.S. EPA explained that it did not select some notable rules for revision because they are the subject of recent and ongoing regulatory actions, as in the case of the lead and copper rule and the total coliform rule.
Trichloroethylene is widely used as a degreasing compound. Cynthia Dougherty, director of the U.S. EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, told a meeting of the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies that the agency concluded that improvements in analytic feasibility were reason enough to revise the trichloroethylene rule.
Tetrachloroethylene, also called perchloroethylene, is used for dry cleaning and is a common solvent in the textile industry as well as being used to degrease metals. Epichlorohydrin and acrylamide get into the polymers that water utilities use in the coagulation process, which causes particles to clump together so that filtration can more easily remove them. Most metropolitan water agencies use such coagulant polymers, Dougherty said.
Various health problems have been associated with chronic exposure to the four chemicals. In terms of cancer risk, U.S. EPA classes epichlorohydrin and acrylamide as probable carcinogens, while the agency is less settled on classifications for the two chlorinated solvents. EPA is working on an update of its trichloroethylene health assessment (15 DEN A-7, 1/26/10).
For more information, contact EQ’s John Wentz at (800) 229-7495.
On February 22, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) announced new enforcement goals and the National Enforcement Initiatives for fiscal years 2011-2013. During this time period, the U.S. EPA has determined it will use National Enforcement Initiatives to address the following six environmental and public health problems:
U.S. EPA selects these priority areas every 3 years in order to focus federal resources on the most important environmental problems where noncompliance is a significant contributor.
For more information, contact EQ’s Tom Robertson at (800) 229-5299.
In May 2008, Ohio passed the third-most-aggressive standard (the Ohio Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard) in the US calling for 25% of electricity consumed in Ohio by 2025 to be advanced/renewable. Therefore, there is expected to be approximately 6,000 megawatts (MW) of wind energy development in the next 15 years based on Ohio’s historical 7 MW of wind power. State regulators have approved construction of the first large wind turbine farms in Ohio.
The Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) last week approved three separate projects in western Ohio after about a year of review and hearings. The siting board is still reviewing three additional wind farm projects.
Hardin Wind Energy LLC is approved to construct up to 200 wind turbines with a generation capacity of about 300 MW. JW Great Lakes Wind LLC is approved to build up to 27 wind turbines in Hardin County, and Buckeye Wind LLC is approved to construct up to 54 wind turbines in Champaign County northeast of Dayton. This means there could be an impact to Ohio employment at least in the Hardin/Marion county area where it is estimated that the wind farm projects will generate hundreds of short-term jobs. Additionally the wind farms will produce about 10 permanent jobs in operation and maintenance. Construction of both Hardin County wind farms is expected to begin this year, with the 27-turbine farm beginning commercial operation in mid-2011.
The Buckeye wind project application process has stretched on since April of last year, and mixed reactions have followed the OPSB decision. Those who are in favor of the turbines have said the project could bring new jobs and investment to the county, while those opposed have raised concerns that the turbines are not set back far enough from homes in the county. For others, the state’s decision means the project can finally get under way. Michael Speerschneider, director of development for Everpower, said Everpower will still need to conduct additional engineering and survey work, as well as a cultural and historical survey of the area, among other requirements. He said the turbines should be able to produce electricity in 2011.
Pat Davies, Morrow County's director of operations, estimates that the wind farm project being considered in Morrow County would create 50 to 100 construction jobs and 10 to 12 long-term positions. That wind farm was projected in 2008 to include 33 to 100 wind turbines.
The windswept Great Lakes hold huge promise for wind power, experts say. Until recently, most attention in the United States was focused on land-based wind power. But now it appears that offshore wind power is not far off, and some states and the province of Ontario are racing to bring wind power to the Great Lakes. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) rates the wind on the Great Lakes as "outstanding" in certain places. Overall, the DOE rates the wind on the Great Lakes as equal to or better than the wind on the Great Plains.The Great Lakes region has several new offshore wind farm possibilities for the near future as U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Governor Ted Strickland joined Cleveland leaders on March 29 to outline plans to advance offshore wind energy projects. Michigan has been planning to capitalize on its wind power potential for some time. New York has ambitious plans for wind power as well.
For more information, go to http://ourmidland.com/articles/2010/03/26/local_news/2519184.txt, or contact EQ’s Colleen Lear at 1-800- 229-7495.
In its March 2010 issue, the Journal of Air & Waste Management Association published a technical paper prepared by EQ’s John Kominsky and Fred Hall in conjunction with representatives from Research Triangle Institute International, and the U.S. EPA’s National Risk Management Research Laboratory and Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. The paper titled “Development of the Releasable Asbestos Field Sampler” details the development of a sampling device that offers an alternative to activity-based sampling (ABS). The releasable asbestos field sampler (RAFS) utilizes a raking motion to provide the energy that releases particulate material from the soil and aerosolizes the asbestos fibers. A gentle airflow laterally transports the generated aerosol inside of a tunnel to one end where filter sampling cassettes or real-time instruments are used to measure asbestos and particulate release. RAFS provides a direct measurement of asbestos emission from soil in situ without consideration of meteorology and personal activity on the asbestos transport to the breathing zone.
For more information, see the entire technical paper “Development of Releasable Asbestos Field Sampler” on EQ’s website or contact John Kominsky or Fred Hall at 1-800- 229-7495.
On September 21, 2009, EQ was awarded a task order valued at $1,150,000 under a U.S. EPA Region 9 Emergency Response and Remediation Services contract for demolition of existing buildings at the Halaco Engineering Superfund site in Oxnard, California. From 1965 through 2004, Halaco Engineering operated a secondary metal smelter at the site for recovery of aluminum, magnesium, and zinc from scrap metal. Previous investigations determined that, in addition to a number of physical structures, an estimated 700,000 cubic yards of waste remain at the site. EQ crews initiated demolition activities at the site on February 8, 2010. The project included the decontamination and demolition of three on-site structures. Decontamination efforts included the removal of lead and asbestos, capture of free-standing dust from a baghouse and smelter buildings, filling of concrete vaults, and removal of numerous aboveground storage tanks.
In the end, the demotion operations generated 909.96 gross tons of scrap metal export for recycle, with a total estimated reimbursement of $224.800.
For additional information, contact Ron McManamy at (425) 673-2900.
EQ’s Mike Arozarena and Julie Wagner presented technical sessions at the 19th Annual MEC Environmental Symposium in Cincinnati at the Duke Energy Center on March 24 and 25, 2010.
Mr. Arozarena’s session titled “SPCC Regulations Update & New Tank Integrity Testing Requirements…Best Management Practices to Prepare for the November 10, 2010 Deadline” was an interactive presentation that communicated how to cost-effectively comply with the new aboveground storage tank integrity testing requirements by the November 10, 2010 deadline. Regulatory requirements and available tank testing standards were presented as well as instructions on how to perform the testing including a demonstration using the most up-to-date instrumentation.
Ms. Wagner’s session titled “Impacts of Proposed Climate Change Legislation on Energy, Environmental, and Regulatory Management & Compliance with the Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule with First Reports Due in 2011” highlighted recent climate change legislation developments as well as the potential effects and consequences of cap and trade policies. These developments include implementation of the new GHG rule and mechanisms for emissions quantification, monitoring, and data collection. Insights to the ongoing changes in Washington were also presented by Ms. Janet McCabe from U.S. EPA’s Office of Air & Radiation.
For more information or copies of these presentations, contact EQ’s Mike Arozarena or Julie Wagner at (800) 229-7495.
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.