On June 22, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) published a final more stringent National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (SO2). U.S. EPA set a new 1-hour primary (health-based) standard at a level of 75 parts per billion (ppb) and revoked the current annual standard of 30 ppb and the current 24-hour standard of 140 ppb. The form of the 1-hour standard is based on the 99th percentile of 1-hour measurements over a 3-year period. U.S. EPA did not change the current 500-ppb 3-hour secondary (welfare-based) standard, but is considering changes under a separate review.
There are six areas that violate the current primary standards, but under the new 75-ppb 1-hour standard, 60 counties in 24 States and Territories would be designated nonattainment (based on available 2007 to 2009 data). Non-attainment designations under the new standard based on the current monitoring network will be made by June 2012. In addition, U.S. EPA is requiring States to begin monitoring SO2 at over 160 new sites by January 2013, which could result in the designation of additional non-attainment areas in the 2016/2017 timeframe. Also, U.S. EPA is requiring each State to demonstrate, through refined air quality modeling, that major SO2 sources in their State do not cause or contribute to a NAAQS violation throughout the State, regardless of the attainment status of the area.
The final rule will be effective on August 23, 2010. One immediate effect of this action is that Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits issued after the effective date of the new NAAQS must include a compliance demonstration with respect to the new NAAQS.
For more information, refer to the Federal Register notice or contact EQ’s Jeff Slayback at 800-229-7495 or Kent Berry at 800-229-5299.
On June 4, 2010, the U.S. EPA’s revised National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) rules for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers for both major and area sources (see May EQ newsletter) were proposed in the Federal Register. The public comment period on these controversial rules will close on August 3, 2010.
For more information, view the summary PowerPoint on EQ’s website or contact EQ’s Tom Robertson or Kent Berry at 800-229-5299.
On June 4, 2010, EPA finally published the proposal of revised Clean Air Act (CAA) rules for commercial and industrial solid waste incineration (CISWI) units in the Federal Register. Also on June 4, EPA proposed a RCRA rule that clarifies which nonhazardous secondary materials are, or are not, “solid waste” when burned. Sources burning “solid waste” are subject to the CISWI rules if they are not subject to other incinerator rules such as municipal waste incinerator rules. The CISWI rules include new source performance standards (NSPS) for new sources and emission guidelines (EG), to be adopted by the States, to regulate existing CISWI. The CISWI rules would set emission limits for metals (Pb, Hg, Cd), dioxins, 4 criteria pollutants, and HCl and would apply to the 176 existing CISWI. The public comment period on the rules closes on August 3, 2010.
For more information, refer to the Federal Register notices or contact EQ’s Tom Robertson at 800 229-5299.
On May 27, 2010 the White House Office of Management and Budget cleared a draft general plan prepared by the U.S. EPA that would set general conditions for discharges to waters of the United States from the application of certain pesticides. The conditions would be issued by each of U.S. EPA's 10 regions and would cover discharges in areas where U.S. EPA is the permitting authority for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. These areas include several states (most states operate the NPDES program themselves), Indian Country lands, and certain federal facilities. According to Jack Faulk with the U.S. EPA Office of Water, “the draft, which will be subject to a 30-day comment period, could be published in early June.” “The U.S. EPA regions' joint proposal of the permit is normal procedure,” Faulk said. The draft permit would apply to pesticide control of mosquitoes and other flying insects; aquatic weeds and algae; aquatic nuisance animals, including mollusks and lamprey eels; and forest canopy pests, the notice said. Under a general permit, instead of applying for individual permits, dischargers would obtain coverage by filing a notice of intent with the permitting agency. The draft permit is in response to a federal appeals court rejection of a U.S. EPA regulation that excluded pesticide applications from discharge permit requirements.
For more information, contact EQ’s Mike Arozarena at 1-(800)-229-7495.
On June, 8, 2010, the U.S. EPA announced it is withdrawing a final rule that had allowed companies to burn certain hazardous wastes as fuel by exempting the wastes from Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulation. The Emission-Comparable Fuels Exclusion was intended to reduce regulatory costs by reclassifying materials that generate emissions similar to those of fuel oil when burned, the agency said. The reclassification of materials such as waste chemicals meant that they would no longer be regulated as hazardous waste.
The rule has been criticized by industry and environmental groups since it was issued during the final days of the Bush administration in December 2008. U.S. EPA is formally withdrawing the earlier regulation in a final rule. The withdrawal will be effective on the date of publication of the new final rule in the Federal Register. U.S. EPA stated that the rule was issued initially because the agency believed that some of the compounds contained in the waste materials, including benzene, acrolein, naphthalene, and polyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, would be burned off during combustion, leaving emissions of the waste material comparable to those of fuel oil burned in industrial boilers. The agency said it is withdrawing the rule because of the difficulty of ensuring that the emissions would be comparable to emissions from burning fuel oil. “The ECF rule was criticized for potentially allowing hazardous waste to evade the hazardous waste regulatory system, and for being difficult to administer,” U.S. EPA said. “Industry members have also criticized it because of the detailed conditions for reclassification, which they believe will limit the rule's use.” The U.S. EPA said the fuel is “more appropriately classified as a hazardous material and regulated as a hazardous waste.”
For more information, contact EQ’s Tom Robertson or John Miller at 1-(800) 229-7495.
On June 14, 2010, The U.S. EPA announced that it will extend by 4 months the deadline for complying with pesticide container and containment labeling regulations while a proposed rule granting pesticide formulators a year's extension goes through the rulemaking process.
The final rule pushing back the deadline from Aug. 16 to Dec. 16 and the proposed rule extending it until Aug. 16, 2011 are both scheduled to be published in the June 15 Federal Register.
The final rule “will avoid the temporary removal of a significant number of pesticides from the market” while pesticide registrants, U.S. EPA, and states work to update the pesticide labels to comply with label requirements in the container and containment regulations that were initially promulgated in 2006, U.S. EPA said in the final rule notice. It also will allow more time for U.S. EPA to propose and solicit comments on the proposed 1-year extension “to address concerns raised by stakeholders,” the agency said.
The potentially affected industry pesticide formulators includes establishments that mix and prepare insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, or other pesticides from technical chemicals or concentrates produced by pesticide manufacturing establishments, U.S. EPA said. Most label changes have likely been submitted and approved, the agency said. But there are at least 1,000 labels and potentially several thousand remaining pesticide product labels that the agency said it still needs to review.
For more information, contact EQ’s Tom Robertson at (800) 229-5299.
On June 15, 2010, the U.S. EPA notified 12 States of the areas it intends to designate as nonattainment with respect to the more stringent National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead promulgated in October 2008 (see the November 2008 EQ newsletter). Based on air quality monitoring data from 2007 to 2009, U.S.EPA indicated that it intends to designate 17 nonattainment areas covering 20 partial counties in the 12 affected States. U.S. EPA will formally propose these designations in the Federal Register shortly and intends to finalize them by October 2010. For further information, contact EQ’s Kent Berry at (800) 229-5299.
For more information, refer to the EPA website or contact EQ’s Kent Berry at (800) 229-5299.
Between May 27 and June 2, 2010, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) published a number of clarifications and technical guidance documents relating to the registration of chemical substances under the European Union’s REACH (registration, evaluation, and authorization of chemicals) legislation. ECHA also made available an upgraded version of the REACH-IT online registration tool, enabling earlier submission of registration dossiers in some cases. The guidance published by ECHA covered methodologies for testing substances in order to obtain exposure data as well as guidelines for avoiding unnecessary animal testing. The exposure scenarios guidance was divided into three parts: approaches to assessing the consequences of exposure to chemical substances, guidance on estimating occupational exposure, and guidance on estimating environmental exposure. ECHA said the animal testing guidance was intended to “promote alternative methods for hazard assessment” as required under REACH (EC No. 1907/2006).When testing substances, industry should “consider all possible alternative methods for data generation … to make sure that testing on vertebrate animals shall only be undertaken as a last resort,” the agency said.
'Intermediate' Clarification
ECHA also sought to clarify the meaning of the term “intermediate” under REACH, meaning a substance that is used only for manufacturing other substances, and which is absorbed or transformed in the process.
Intermediates must be registered under REACH, but are subject to lesser data collection and submission requirements than non-intermediate substances. Some “industry positions” on intermediates “appear not to be in line” with the definition agreed to by EU countries and authorities, ECHA said.
ECHA highlighted guidance finalized in February 2008 as containing the definitive position on intermediates. The first REACH registration deadline falls on Nov. 30, 2010, by which time registration dossiers must be submitted for substances manufactured in, or imported into, the European Union in volumes of 1,000 metric tons or more per year, and for some hazardous substances at lower volumes.
REACH-IT Upgrades
ECHA stated that upgrades had been made to the online registration tool (REACH-IT) so that “parallel joint submission” of registration dossiers is possible. This was a response to industry concerns about a clause in the REACH regulation that could have introduced a 3-month delay for some companies attempting to register their substances. Under REACH, companies producing or importing the same substance must prepare a joint registration and nominate a lead registrant who will submit the registration dossier to ECHA. REACH procedures foresaw that ECHA would then have up to 3 months to screen the dossier for completeness and to process the registration fee before issuing a registration number. However, companies other than the lead registrant participating in a joint registration would not be able to lodge their own registration requests without first receiving the registration number, potentially leading to delays while ECHA screened the dossier. ECHA said the latest release of REACH-IT makes it “possible for the members of a joint submission to submit their dossiers as soon as the lead dossier has been accepted for processing.” This means that “members of a joint submission do not need to wait until the lead registrant has been informed that his dossier is complete and received the registration number before members can submit their dossiers,” ECHA said.
For more information, contact EQ’s Tom Robertson at (800) 229-5299.
U.S. EPA released the draft report entitled, "EPA's Reanalysis of Key Issues Related to Dioxin Toxicity and Response to National Academy of Science (NAS) (EPA/600/R–10/038A).” The purpose of the release is to allow for independent external and public review and comment (75 FR 28610). The NAS made their original comments in 2006. The public comment period is open until September 20, 2010.
This report includes new analyses on potential human effects that may result from exposure to 2, 3, 7, 8–tetrachlorodibenzo–p–dioxin (TCDD). These analyses have not been in previous versions of reports related to U.S. EPA's dioxin reassessment activity. This comprehensive human health and exposure risk assessment on dioxin aims to protect the health of the American public. This report addresses the explicit recommendation of the NAS to develop a quantitative risk estimate for non-cancer effects that may result from long-term (chronic) oral exposure to dioxins. Thus, this draft report includes an oral reference dose (RfD) for TCDD.
Dioxin is a general term that describes a group of hundreds of chemicals that are highly persistent in the environment. Dioxins are formed during combustion or burning. Sources of dioxins include commercial or municipal waste incineration, process heaters, and boilers and natural processes such as forest fires. Over the past few decades, U.S. EPA has aggressively looked for ways to reduce and control dioxins in the environment. Collectively, these actions have resulted in strict controls on all of the known and quantifiable major industrial sources of dioxin releases. As a result of U.S. EPA's efforts, along with efforts by state governments and private industry, known and quantifiable industrial emissions in the United States have been reduced by more than 90% from 1987 levels. Additional rule making affecting boilers, furnaces, and incinerators has recently been proposed (June 4, 2010) by U.S. EPA. If and when these new (MACT/GACT) emissions limitations are adopted, existing stationary combustion sources will be required to collectively reduce the amount of dioxin being emitted by an additional 0.5 pound per year. Because the MACT/GACT standards are technology driven, the risk associated with the allowable emissions has not yet been quantified.
If the conclusions and recommendations of the reanalysis report are adopted, facilities that are conducting risk assessments will need to include an additional exposure pathway (oral ingestion) and all other things being equal, the aggregate risks will be higher than that previously determined. U.S. EPA has indicated that it will re-evaluate cleanup decisions at Superfund, Federal Facilities, Brown Fields, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) sites to ensure that cleanups are protective. EQ notes that RCRA permit writers in Regions 4, 5, 6, and 7 have casually indicated that they believe that many of the RCRA risk assessments that have been completed as part of the incinerator and BIFF permitting decisions must also be revisited because dioxin was a contaminant of concern and it was frequently the single largest contributor to the aggregate risk when direct and indirect multi-pathway human health risk assessments were being conducted.
For more information, see http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea or contact EQ’s Tom Robertson at (800) 229-5299.
The U.S. EPA is proposing minor amendments to its Clean Water Act (CWA) regulations to codify that under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, only "sufficiently sensitive" analytical test methods can be used when completing an NPDES permit application and when performing sampling and analysis pursuant to monitoring requirements in an NPDES permit.
This proposal is based on requirements in the CWA and existing U.S. EPA regulations. It also would codify existing U.S. EPA guidance on the use of "sufficiently sensitive" analytical methods with respect to measurement of mercury and extend the approach outlined in that guidance to the NPDES program more generally. Specifically, U.S. EPA is proposing to clarify the existing NPDES application, compliance monitoring, and analytical methods regulations. The amendments in this proposed rulemaking affect only chemical-specific methods; they do not apply to the Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) methods or their use.
The revisions affect only chemical-specific methods. Comments are due Aug. 9, 2010. Contact: Kathryn Kelley, U.S. EPA, Office of Wastewater Management (202-564-7004)
For more information, contact EQ’s John Wentz at (800)-229-7495.
Mr. Slayback has over 24 years of experience in the environmental engineering profession, predominantly in the fields of air quality and pollution control. He directs EQ’s private sector engineering and consulting division, overseeing a staff of over 50 professionals located in five offices throughout the U.S.
Mr. Slayback’s experience includes a broad range of programs including regulatory compliance enforcement, and major and minor source permitting. He has extensive knowledge of a wide variety of air quality programs including those involving Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment, state and federal air toxics analysis and risk assessment, RACT and BACT assessments, case-by-case MACT determination, and State Implementation Plan (SIP) preparation.
Mr. Slayback received a B.E.T. in Environmental Engineering from the University of Dayton and is a Registered Professional Engineer in Ohio and a Registered Environmental Professional.
Jeff Slayback can be reached at (800) 229-7495.
Mr. Zody was formerly a Civil Engineering Officer in the U.S. Air Force where he provided 26 years of service at various Air Force installations worldwide. His career has focused on the design, construction, and operation and maintenance of a wide range of engineering and remedial construction projects.
Mr. Zody puts his nearly 40 years of experience in the management and conduct of environmental remediation and construction projects to use as Program Manager for EQ’s $60M/year Remediation and Construction Projects division. His clients include the Department of Defense, NASA, U.S. EPA, local and state governments, and private sector manufacturing companies throughout the world. Projects he has workd on include small-scale single-site remediation, large multi-task order and site remediation and construction, and large-scale capital improvement construction.
Mr. Zody received a B.S. in Civil Engineering from Montana State University, an M.E. in Civil Engineering (Geotechnical) from Texas A&M University, and an M.A. in Business from Webster College.
Jim Zody can be reached at (800) 229-7495.
In conjunction with saving money by providing additional insulation, rooftop gardens can offer an escape from the city and can be a way to transform unused space into food-producing gardens and eco-friendly community spaces.
A rooftop garden, or “Green Roof,” consists of layers that work together to protect the building while lessening its impact on the environment. The bottom-up layered construction of a green roof consists of:
1st Layer: Roof deck, insulation and waterproofing: Generally made from concrete, wood, or metal, the roof deck provides the foundation of the green roof, and is topped with insulation and waterproofing layers.
2nd Layer: Protection and storage layer: Often made of PVC, the protection and storage layer prevents roots from infiltrating the roof’s foundation.
3rd Layer: Drainage layer: A layer of gravel or stones drains the excess water the plants don’t use.
4th Layer: Filter layer: A semi-permeable filter cloth separates the growing media from the drainage layer to avoid clogging.
5th Layer: Growing media: The growing media is usually a layer of inorganic materials, such as sand or pebbles, mixed with a small amount of organic compost.
6th and Top Layer: Vegetation: Plants that are hardy, low-growing, shallow- rooted, perennial, and rely less on nutrients than typical plants are planted as the garden.
These rooftop gardens serve to add a layer of insulation to the roof, extend the life of the roof by protecting the roof membranes from ultraviolet light and mechanical damage, and lower energy costs by lowering the roof temperature. Many cities now have incentive programs that offer low interest loans or grants for the development and installation of roof gardens.
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 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.