On July 6, 2010, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) announced the proposal of regulations to reduce power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) that cross State lines. SO2 and NOx are precursors to the formation of ozone and fine particles (PM2.5), which are widespread problems in the eastern half of the country. The Transport Rule requires power plants in 28 eastern States to reduce annual emissions of SO2 and NOx to address PM2.5 air quality problems in downwind States. Twenty-six States would be required to reduce ozone season emissions of NOx.
The Transport Rule replaces U.S. EPA’s 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) which was overturned by a 2008 court decision, but was allowed to remain in place until U.S. EPA completed rulemaking to address the court’s concerns. U.S. EPA is proposing a cap-and-trade program to meet an assigned emission budget for the affected States. U.S. EPA is proposing several alternatives to their preferred approach.
The proposal will be published in the Federal Register in the next several weeks and U.S. EPA will hold hearings and take written comments for 60 days following proposal. For more information, refer to EPA’s web site or contact EQs Kent Berry at (800) 229-5299 or Jeff Slayback at (800) 229-7495.
On March 3, 2010, the U.S.EPA promulgated changes to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE), 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart ZZZZ, which expanded upon the existing RICE standards by adding standards for:
In addition to the new standards for these source categories, the rule revised the provisions related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction for engines that were previously regulated by these standards. The rule also clarifies that emergency engines may operate as part of emergency demand response programs for a limited number of hours per year in situations where grid failure and blackout are imminent. The compliance date for existing sources is March 3, 2013, and the initial notification date for existing sources is August 31, 2010 (where required). U.S. EPA has recently published two tools to help with the implementation of the RICE rule. The tools are (1) an applicability flow chart and (2) a summary table of requirements.
For more information, contact Sheri Bussard at (800)-229-7495.
On June 28, 2010, the U.S. EPA announced that it is issuing direct final significant new use rules (SNURs) for 17 chemicals, subjecting any proposed manufacture or importation of the substances designated as “new” to 90-day review by the agency.
The 90-day review will give the agency an opportunity to examine manufacturing methods, uses, and potential environmental releases.
Although the direct final rules will take effect immediately, there is a 30-day window during which parties may object or file a notice of intent to object to one or more of the SNURs. If U.S. EPA receives an objection or notice that an objection would be filed, it will withdraw the direct final rule by August 23, 2010, and issue it as a proposed SNUR, according to the notice.
The 17 chemicals have already been reviewed under U.S. EPA's new chemicals program. During the new chemicals evaluation process, called a premanufacture notice (PMN) review, U.S. EPA determined that two of the chemicals--ethylhexyl oxetane and substituted aliphatic amine--could pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. To protect confidential business information about the two compounds, both chemical names are generic.
U.S. EPA was concerned that ethylhexyl oxetane could harm the liver and thyroid as well as cause systemic toxicity throughout the body. The original manufacturer of the compound was required to have workers use certain personal protective equipment and to provide information about the hazards of that substance.
The SNUR would impose the same requirements on any other company making or importing the chemical.
For the substituted aliphatic amine, U.S. EPA said that during the PMN review it determined the chemical could pose an unreasonable risk of injury because of its potential to harm the liver, skin, lungs, and eyes of workers.
U.S. EPA's consent order requires the use of personal protective equipment, including specific gloves and a respirator that could meet the agency's New Chemical Exposure Limit of 0.14 milligram per cubic meter of air over 8 hours (mg/m3).
U.S. EPA did not determine whether the remaining 15 chemicals posed an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. The 15 chemicals are:
Comments on the direct final SNURs should be marked Docket No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0920 and submitted to http://www.regulations.gov.
For more information, contact EQ’s Tom Robertson at (800) 229-5299.
On June 29, 2010, the U.S. EPA announced a final rule that requires facilities in four industrial sectors to report greenhouse gas emissions.
The agency also announced a proposed rule that would make public certain information on greenhouse gas emissions from all reporting facilities, but withhold other information as confidential business information.
The final rule imposes emissions reporting requirements on industrial landfills, industrial wastewater treatment facilities, underground coal mines, and magnesium production facilities with emissions exceeding 25,000 metric tons of carbon-dioxide-equivalent greenhouse gases.
In addition, all underground coal mines that are subject to quarterly or more frequent sampling of ventilation systems by the Mine Safety and Health Administration must report greenhouse gas emissions to U.S. EPA.
The four source categories were excluded when U.S. EPA issued an economywide greenhouse gas emissions reporting rule in October 2009 that applies to sources which emit more than 25,000 metric tons of carbon-dioxide-equivalent greenhouse gases. Facilities covered by that rule had to begin measuring emissions January 1, 2010, and must file their first reports by March 31, 2011 (74 Fed. Reg. 56,260; 40 C.F.R. Subpart 98).
The four source categories must begin monitoring greenhouse gas emissions beginning January 1, 2011. They must submit the first annual report of emissions to EPA by March 31, 2012.
Methane is the primary greenhouse gas emitted from industrial landfills, wastewater treatment facilities, and coal mines. According to U.S. EPA, methane is 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in warming the atmosphere and causing climate change. Sulfur hexafluoride is the primary greenhouse gas emitted from magnesium-production facilities and has thousands of times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide.
U.S. EPA in the final reporting rule also said it will not issue separate requirements for ethanol production and food processing. These facilities are already covered by requirements issued under the economywide rule, the Agency said.
U.S. EPA estimates that approximately 680 facilities, responsible for 1 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, will be required to report emissions under the final rule. The estimated total cost of the reporting is estimated at $7 million for the first year of reporting and $5.5 million in subsequent years.
U.S. EPA will take comments on the confidentiality proposal until August 30. Comments should be labeled with Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0924 and may be submitted at http://www.regulations.gov.
For more information, contact EQ’s Tom Robertson at (800) 229-5299.
On July 22, 2010, the U.S. EPA extended the comment period for the following proposed rules:
This is the second extension of the comment period for three related proposed rules published on June 4, 2010, that amend regulations under 40 CFR 60 and 63. Comments are now due August 23, 2010.
For more information, contact EQ’s Tom Robertson at (800) 229-5299.
Tire manufacturers and other groups say they are concerned that the U.S. EPA will be eliminating an important market for used tires if it decides that whole scrap tires are solid waste when incinerated rather than burned as fuel.
They raised their concerns in early responses--submitted as of July 14--to U.S. EPA's June 4 proposal to classify whole tires as solid waste and regulate their burning under Section 129 of the Clean Air Act. Shredded tires from which the steel has been removed would be excluded from the definition of solid waste--and regulated less stringently--because they would be considered fuel.
As part of the larger process of regulating incinerator emissions, U.S. EPA is examining the question of whether hazardous secondary materials used as fuels or ingredients in combustion units are solid wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (75 Fed. Reg. 31,844; 41 ER 975, 5/7/10).
U.S. EPA proposed the rules following a 2007 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decision striking down the previous air toxics standards for boilers. In the decision, a three-judge panel ruled that EPA had wrongly excluded many industrial boilers from the definition of solid waste incinerators, which have more stringent emissions limits under Section 129 of the Clean Air Act (NRDC v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 04-1385, 6/8/07).
U.S. EPA will continue to accept comments on the proposals at http://www.regulations.gov until August 3.
Comments on the proposed rule to identify nonhazardous secondary materials that are solid waste should reference Docket No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329.
For more information, refer to the EPA website or contact EQ’s Kent Berry at (800) 229-5299.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) introduced legislation July 15 to secure chemical plants and drinking water and wastewater treatment plants from terrorist attacks and require high-risk plants to evaluate and implement, if feasible, the use of safer processes or chemicals.
Plants would be required to assess their vulnerability to attack, develop plans to address those vulnerabilities and respond to an emergency, and provide worker training to carry out the plans.
The legislation was introduced as two separate bills. The Secure Chemical Facilities Act (S. 3599) would be administered by the Department of Homeland Security, while the Secure Water Facilities Act (S. 3598) would be administered by U.S. EPA in cooperation with DHS.
The bills would replace an interim chemical security law that is set to expire October 4. The interim law was enacted as a rider to the 2007 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill and temporarily authorized Chemical Facility Antiterrorism Standards (CFATS), which were set to expire last October but were extended for another year.
The Lautenberg bills are similar to legislation (H.R. 2868) passed by the House in November 2009 (33 CRR 1125, 11/16/09).
For more information, contact EQ’s Tom Robertson at (800) 229-5299.
A Plant Environmental Manager is not only responsible for the environmental compliance of a facility, they are also in a very unique position to foster and champion Sustainability through Compliance with the potential added benefit of cost savings. These measurable savings improve the bottom line, with or without additional revenue generation. The benefits of Sustainability are threefold and include: extending the longevity of a company, maintaining job position(s), and protecting the environment.
Sustainability through Compliance requires compliance as the minimum objective, not the ultimate goal. Establishment of baselines allows for the development of measurable improvements.
Companies can initiate their Sustainability through water and energy conservation, recovery and reuse, and implementation of deduct meter programs.
Sustainability can also be improved by the complete removal of hazardous waste streams by recognizing the potential value of the constituents in the once categorized waste and identifying potential users of those constituents. The material is no longer designated hazardous waste and has generated a revenue stream where it was previously an economic and environmental liability.
To learn how EQ can assist your facility in Sustainability and potential cost savings measures, contact EQ’s John Wentz at (800)-229-7495.
On July 21, 2010, the U.S. EPA announced that it is planning a survey to determine how much the public is willing to pay for reducing the number of fish killed at intake structures that draw cooling water into power plants, manufacturing facilities, and other industrial plants (75 Fed. Reg. 42,438).
The planned survey comes as U.S. EPA is developing a proposed rule to address those structures following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said it can consider costs and benefits of protecting fish and other aquatic organisms.
U.S. EPA said it has designed the survey to provide data to support several objectives including estimating the total value that individuals place on preventing losses of fish and other aquatic organisms caused by cooling water intake structures and understanding how much individuals value preventing fish losses, increasing fish populations, and increasing commercial and recreational catch rates.
Cooling water intake structures are used by industrial facilities to withdraw water for cooling from surface water bodies such as rivers or lakes. The intakes harm and kill aquatic life by entraining small organisms through the plant's heat exchangers and trapping larger fish and wildlife on intake screens.
The Supreme Court held in April 2009 that it was permissible for utility companies and regulators to apply a cost-benefit analysis under the Clean Water Act in determining the best technology available needed to protect fish from being killed by large industrial cooling water intake structures (Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1498, 68 ERC 1001 (2009); 40 ER 770, 4/3/09).
The court essentially left it to U.S. EPA to decide whether and how to compare costs to benefits as it drafts appropriate rules for cooling water structures.
Section 316 of the Clean Water Act requires U.S. EPA to ensure that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available to protect aquatic organisms from being killed or injured by impingement or entrainment.
In September 2009, U.S. EPA announced plans to issue a proposed rule in mid-2010 concerning existing cooling water intake structures at power plants and manufacturing facilities (40 ER 2127, 9/11/09).
For more information, contact EQ’s John Wentz at (800)-229-7495.
Mr. Wentz has been a Senior Project Manager and Engineer since joining EQ in 1997 and currently is EQs’ Wastewater Group Manager. He has over 27 years of experience in the areas of industrial wastewater process engineering, compliance assistance, environmental consulting, and project management in the areas of water, wastewater, hazardous waste, site remediation, industrial environmental management, and sustainability.
Mr. Wentz has focused on the development, design, construction, and operation of water and wastewater treatment systems for potable water, industrial processing and manufacturing, food & beverage processing, pharmaceutical production, emergency response, waste site remedial actions, and innovative treatment technologies for waste. He has assisted industrial facilities in direct and indirect discharge permitting, negotiation of Consent Orders for facilities facing regulatory closure, completing Consent Order requirements, and corporate environmental management consulting..
Mr. Wentz received his B.S. in Civil Engineering from Purdue University and is a Registered Professional Engineer in the States of Ohio, Indiana, and Texas.
John Wentz can be reached at (800) 229-7495
Mr. Robertson has over 35 years of experience in the waste management and environmental protection field. As Director of Multi-media Compliance for EQ, he provides strategic assistance to large and small industrial and manufacturing clients.
Mr. Robertson’s career has included Vice President of Environmental Programs at a fixed-based commercial hazardous waste Incineration facility, Vice President of Eastern Operations for a national environmental consulting company, and Project Engineer at the U.S. EPA. In these positions, he focused on compliance for facilities regulated by the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Toxic Substance Control Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Mr. Robertson received an M.S. in Engineering Management from the University of Kansas and a B.E. in Environmental Engineering from the University of Florida; he is also a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Kansas.
Tom Robertson can be reached at (800) 229-5299
A growing number of businesses are discovering that legitimate eco-friendly initiative can slash turnover, boost productivity, and improve the bottom line. Going green encompasses a holistic focus on the triple bottom line of people, planet, and profit. This includes energy conservation and efficiency, along with water conservation and purity, improving indoor air quality, creating a toxic-free workplace, recycling and waste reduction policies, green purchasing strategies, sustainable travel and transportation, and tax credits and rebates.
Reduce Energy Use: Energy accounts for 50% of office operating costs, so alternative energy sources and areas of savings are crucial. Energy consumption can be reduced by: changing light bulbs to compact fluorescents (CFLs) or light emitting diodes (LEDs), turning off computers at night, using energy-saving smart strips, and installing a programmable thermostat.
Minimize Paper Use: Paper comprises 70% of the office waste stream and costs an average of $300/employee. Reduce this cost by sending electronic copies of memos and documents, using a smaller font, and printing double sided.
Improve Indoor Air Quality: The use of unhealthy furnishings, paints, and supplies has cost many businesses more than just the purchase price, but the expense of escalating health costs, increased sick leave, and decreased productivity. Improve indoor air quality by using toxic-free cleaning products and research the reduction of volatile organic compounds in all areas of the office.
Purchase Green Offsets: A company’s carbon footprint includes employee commuting, company vehicles, and business travel. Lower your impact from company vehicles by ensuring that all vehicles are well maintained (engines tuned, tires inflated, oil changed regularly, etc.) as well as educating drivers on observing speed limits and reducing vehicleidling.
Greening your company will not only save you money, it can lead to more satisfied, productive employees as well as serving to increase your company’s status, resulting in attracting and retaining clients.
To learn more about EQ’s Sustainability Program, visit EQ’s 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 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.