The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) announced the arrest of two men, who face a total of 17 counts for allegedly attempting to defraud the state out of $1 million through “phony and forged” claims of recycled electronic waste. Fourteen of the seventeen counts are felonies.
DTSC criminal investigators arrested John Chen, 38, of Hillsborough, and Jason Huang, 65, of Foster City, in San Mateo County. Joseph Chen, 69, of Hillsborough, is in China and arrangements are being made for him to return to the U.S. for arraignment. Joseph Chen and John Chen are father and son. Investigators working together with the Attorney General’s Office believe the suspects, knowingly submitted false or forged documents in an attempt to obtain money from the State of California. They also allegedly forged checks and violated environmental regulations pertaining to the safe handling of hazardous material.
“These arrests show that DTSC is committed to keeping e-waste out of our landfills and to rooting out those that defraud our system for private financial gain,” said DTSC Acting Director Maziar Movassaghi.
This case began in 2008 after auditors from the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) tipped off DTSC fraud investigators about discrepancies in the claims submitted by the company. The arrests are the result of the close cooperation between DTSC and different law enforcement agencies and the Attorney General’s Office.
“Tung Tai Group attempted to collect $1 million in fraudulent and fictitious state reimbursements for millions of pounds of electronic waste they never actually recycled,” Edmund G. Brown Jr. said. “This brazen scheme is a violation of state law and public trust.
The suspects have also been charged with misdemeanor violations of hazardous waste storage and handling laws. They face up to nine years in prison. Bail has been set at $1 million for each of the men. John Chen and Huang are being arraigned at the San Jose Courthouse on September 9.
Every year California’s e-waste recycling program safely recycles and disposes of tons of outdated computers, televisions and DVD players with cathode ray tubes, and other electronic equipment so that they no longer present a threat to public health or the environment. Businesses who claim to recycle these electronics get paid a fee. DTSC’s e-waste fraud unit, established in 2008, has the responsibility for investigating fraudulent claims.
Advertising Opportunities Available
Environmental Resource Center is making a limited number of advertising positions available in the Environmental Tip of the Week™, the Safety Tip of the Week™, and the Reg of the Day™.
New Regulations Proposed for Reporting of Spills and Discharges in Connecticut
The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is proposing regulations that provide specific requirements for the reporting of releases, such as spills and discharges, to offer clarity for the regulated community.
Connecticut law currently requires reporting of any spill or discharge of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes or petroleum or chemical solid, liquid or gaseous products which pose a potential threat to human health or the environment. The law, however, does not define what constitutes a reportable release and what information needs to be reported in those cases.
“The proposed regulations result from the business community’s long-standing interest in greater definition about when and how discharges and spills must be reported,” DEP Commissioner Amey Marrella said. “No one wants to see a spill or discharge occur—and Connecticut’s business work hard to prevent them from happening. But when these types of incidents do occur, businesses need clear rules on what they must do to comply with Connecticut’s statutory reporting requirements.”
The proposed new regulations clarify the reporting requirements by providing specific notification procedures. These procedures spell out the types of materials for which releases must be reported, based upon either the quantity of the released material, the threats posed as a result of the chemical characteristics of the material, or the combination of the quantity, chemical characteristics, and location venue (i.e., catch basin or storm or sanitary sewer) which may cause public safety concerns.
The proposed regulations will also identify specific details that must be reported as well as identifying exceptions and exemptions to reporting requirements.
In 2007, the Connecticut Business and Industry Association (CBIA) proposed legislation to clarify reporting standards for spills and discharges. This led to discussions with DEP and the formation of an external advisory committee comprised of representatives of the regulated community. The participation of committee members assisted in the development of the proposed regulations.
EPA Policy Restoring Public Right-to-Know About Chemical Hazards Wins Strong Support from Health, Labor, and Environmental Advocates
. That policy and the resulting Agency practice had allowed chemical companies routinely to mask the identity of chemicals when submitting information to the agency about known health and safety impacts.
“EPA’s move brings us toward an age of greater transparency and helps give people the power to make safer choices about what products to bring into their home,” said Earthjustice attorney Marianne Engelman Lado. “If a chemical is known or suspected to be causing cancer or other serious diseases, at the very minimum, the public should be able to find out the name of that chemical. Although it’s the law, in the past it wasn’t the practice.”
The groups’ filing comes as Congress considers legislation that would overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the 1976 law that EPA, health, labor, and environmental groups, and even the chemical industry agree has not adequately protected the public from toxic chemicals. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has declared enhancing chemical safety to be one of her priorities, and announced the agency’s new right-to-know policy in late May. At that time, EPA signaled its intent to deny industry claims seeking to withhold the names of chemicals when submitting health and safety data to the Agency. EPA announced that it will not only deny future claims, but will review and challenge such claims made in the past.
“One of the few positive provisions of TSCA is that it clearly puts chemical health and safety data off-limits for protection as confidential business information,” said Dr. Richard A. Denison, senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund. “Despite this, chemical companies have as a matter of course claimed the identity of the chemical in question to be confidential even when providing EPA data indicating a chemical presents a substantial risk—yielding the perverse outcome that the public learns only that some unnamed chemical may be dangerous.”
One provision of current law requires chemical companies to submit to EPA any studies or data they obtain that indicate a chemical presents a substantial risk to the public or the environment. According to EPA, the identities of more than 40% of the hundreds of chemicals covered by reports submitted in fiscal years 2006 through 2009 have been claimed secret.
On the rare occasions in the past when EPA has reviewed such claims, it has uniformly found they do not actually qualify for protection after all. Yet EPA’s only recourse is to challenge those claims one by one—a highly resource-intensive activity that has hamstrung EPA officials. EPA officials have noted that they review an average of only 14 of the thousands of secrecy claims made under TSCA annually. EPA’s new policy puts companies on notice that they should not make those claims, and that they will be denied except in very rare cases.
“Communities of color and low-income communities are particularly at risk from toxic chemicals,” said Dr. Mark Mitchell, President of the Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice. “Public access to all available health information on chemicals is critical to our communities’ ability to inform and protect ourselves from the disproportionately high exposures to such chemicals that we experience.”
In their comments, the groups urged EPA to take several additional steps in implementing the new policy, including that:
- EPA should implement a system for tracking and publicly reporting the status of all reviewed and challenged claims and should provide that information on EPA’s website in a timely manner.
- In reviewing past claims, EPA should prioritize review of claims for chemicals for which available information indicate cause for concern as to hazard or exposure potential.
- Where EPA determines that a chemical’s identity is not entitled to protection in the context of a health and safety study, it should also remove any such protection for that chemical in the context of its listing on the TSCA Inventory.
- EPA should require the recertification of CBI claims after no more than five years and not allow information to be withheld from the public indefinitely without substantiation.
Juicing up Laptops and Cell Phones with Soda Pop or Vegetable Oil?
Scientists have reported development of a new battery-like device that opens the possibility that people one day could recharge cell phones, laptops, and other portable electronics in an unlikely way—with a sugar fix from a shared sip of soda pop or even a dose of vegetable oil. They described the device, the first fuel cell that produces electricity with technology borrowed from the biological powerhouses that energize people and other living things on Earth, at the 240th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS).
“This is the first demonstration of a new class of biofuel cells,” said Shelley Minteer, Ph.D., who presented the report. “When further developed, these devices have the potential for replacing disposable and rechargeable batteries in a wide variety of consumer electronics and other products. It is the first such device based on one of the microscopic parts of the billions upon billions of cells that make up the body.”
Just as the human body has internal organs like the liver and the heart, cells that make up the body have internal structures termed organelles (“little organs”). For the new biofuel cell, Minteer and colleagues chose one of the most amazing organelles: the mitochondria.
Sometimes called the cell’s own powerhouses, mitochondria transform the calories in food into chemical energy that the body needs to sustain life. Mitochondria use a chemical formed from the digestion of sugar and fats, called pyruvate, to make another substance called ATP (adenosine triphosphate), which stores energy until needed. Each day the mitochondria in a typical person produce and recycle an amount of ATP equal to the person’s body weight. This energy-producing system powered by sugar or fats opens the possibility of refueling a laptop or cell phone with vegetable fats or common oils, said Minteer, a chemist with Saint Louis University in Missouri.
Minteer pointed out that biofuel cells are not new. Scientists have borrowed from Mother Nature to produce a variety of other biofuel cells that use enzymes, for instance, and bacteria to produce electricity. Fuel cells make electricity from the chemical energy in a fuel and oxygen in the air or liquid oxygen. Fuel cells work much like batteries. Unlike batteries, however, fuel cells do not run down or need a recharge. They produce electricity continuously, so long as fuel and oxygen are available. The fuel can be hydrogen, natural gas, alcohol, or other materials.
Minteer and colleagues described the development and successful lab testing of the first mitochondria fuel cell. The device consists of a thin layer of mitochondria sandwiched between two electrodes, including a gas-permeable electrode. Tests showed that it produced electricity using sugar or cooking oil byproducts as fuel.
Other potential applications of mitochondria fuel cells include their use as power sources in wireless sensors for temperature monitoring, motion detection, and monitoring the location of vehicles in a fleet. The new biofuel cells also could serve as a power-source for stamp-sized sensors designed to detect hidden explosives, the scientists said.
Michigan DNR Turns Down Air Permit for New Coal Fired Power Plant
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE) has denied Holland Board of Public Works—James DeYoung Plant’s (HBPW) air quality Permit to Install application for a new 78-megawatt (MW) (gross) circulating fluidized bed solid fuel-fired boiler and associated equipment. The decision follows a thorough review of the permit application under state and federal law.
The state’s decision is based on findings of the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC), which said HBPW failed to demonstrate that the plant was needed to meet future energy supply needs. This was in response to public comment on alternatives to construction of the plant.
Last year, Governor Jennifer M. Granholm asked energy experts at the MPSC to analyze whether there was a need for the proposed Holland facility and if there were alternative methods of meeting their customer demand. The DNRE also considered the MPSC analysis as part of its air permit review process, consistent with the department’s duties under state and federal law.
The DNRE determined that the HBPW had not adequately demonstrated through the alternatives analysis the ability to obtain other sources of power to meet their community’s needs. The MPSC analysis showed there were a number of alternative methods that would allow Holland to adequately supply its customers at a fraction of the cost of constructing a new coal-fired power plant.
Tofu Ingredient Yields Formaldehyde-free Glue for Plywood and Other Wood Products
In a real-life “back to the future” story, scientists have reported that the sustainable, environmentally-friendly process that gave birth to plywood a century ago is re-emerging as a “green” alternative to wood adhesives made from petroleum. Speaking at the 240th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS), they described development of new soy-based glues that use a substance in soy milk and tofu and could mean a new generation of more eco-friendly furniture, cabinets, flooring, and other wood products.
The new adhesive contains soy flour and an additive used to make paper towels resist water. It performs as well as conventional wood adhesives for interior products, the scientists said, and does not produce the harmful formaldehyde vapors released from traditional plywood, particleboard, and other composite products.
“Protein adhesives allowed the development of composite wood products such as plywood in the early 20th century,” said Charles Frihart, Ph.D., who participated in the research project. “Petrochemical-based adhesives replaced proteins in most applications based upon cost, production efficiencies, and better durability. However, several technologies and environmental factors have led to a resurgence of protein, especially soy flour, as an important adhesive for interior plywood and wood flooring.”
Frihart, a research chemist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Products Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin, explained that many of today’s wood products look as if made from solid pieces of wood when they are actually composites, consisting of wood pieces bonded together with petroleum-based adhesives.
Certain petroleum-based adhesives can release formaldehyde, a potential human carcinogen, or substance capable of causing cancer. Formaldehyde fumes from these materials also can cause short-term symptoms, especially in sensitive people. These include watery eyes; burning sensations in the eyes, nose, and throat; and skin irritation. Such problems, combined with high petroleum prices and concerns about sustainability, are spurring wood manufacturers to take another look at soy, Frihart said.
Academic, industrial, and government researchers have developed a wide variety of new soy adhesives in an effort to improve upon old formulas. In lab studies, they tested the glues on wood samples under harsh conditions, including water exposure and high temperatures.
The scientists identified a highly promising soy-based glue composed of soy flour, a special water-resistant additive, and other modifiers. Together these ingredients form a polymer glue for interior wood products that performs as well as the existing petroleum adhesives but does not contain formaldehyde, they said.
In the future, Frihart and his colleagues plan to develop soy adhesives that are even stronger than existing ones. Soy-based adhesives currently make up less than 5% of the wood adhesive market, but Frihart expects their use to increase. The Forest Service is developing the adhesives in partnership with Ashland Hercules and Heartland Resource Technologies.
Electricity Collected from the Air Could Become the Newest Alternative Energy Source
Imagine devices that capture electricity from the air—much like solar cells capture sunlight—and using them to light a house or recharge an electric car. Imagine using similar panels on the rooftops of buildings to prevent lightning before it forms. Strange as it may sound, scientists already are in the early stages of developing such devices, according to a report presented at the 240th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS).
“Our research could pave the way for turning electricity from the atmosphere into an alternative energy source for the future,” said study leader Fernando Galembeck, Ph.D. His research may help explain a 200-year-old scientific riddle about how electricity is produced and discharged in the atmosphere. “Just as solar energy could free some households from paying electric bills, this promising new energy source could have a similar effect,” he maintained.
“If we know how electricity builds up and spreads in the atmosphere, we can also prevent death and damage caused by lightning strikes,” Galembeck said, noting that lightning causes thousands of deaths and injuries worldwide and millions of dollars in property damage.
The notion of harnessing the power of electricity formed naturally has tantalized scientists for centuries. They noticed that sparks of static electricity formed as steam escaped from boilers. Workers who touched the steam even got painful electrical shocks. Famed inventor Nikola Tesla, for example, was among those who dreamed of capturing and using electricity from the air. It’s the electricity formed, for instance, when water vapor collects on microscopic particles of dust and other material in the air. But until now, scientists lacked adequate knowledge about the processes involved in formation and release of electricity from water in the atmosphere, Galembeck said. He is with the University of Campinas in Campinas, S?o Paulo, Brazil.
Scientists once believed that water droplets in the atmosphere were electrically neutral, and remained so even after coming into contact with the electrical charges on dust particles and droplets of other liquids. But new evidence suggested that water in the atmosphere really does pick up an electrical charge.
Galembeck and colleagues confirmed that idea, using laboratory experiments that simulated water’s contact with dust particles in the air. They used tiny particles of silica and aluminum phosphate, both common airborne substances, showing that silica became more negatively charged in the presence of high humidity and aluminum phosphate became more positively charged. High humidity means high levels of water vapor in the air—the vapor that condenses and becomes visible as “fog” on windows of air-conditioned cars and buildings on steamy summer days.
“This was clear evidence that water in the atmosphere can accumulate electrical charges and transfer them to other materials it comes into contact with,” Galembeck explained. “We are calling this ‘hygroelectricity,’ meaning ‘humidity electricity’.”
In the future, he added, it may be possible to develop collectors, similar to the solar cells that collect the sunlight to produce electricity, to capture hygroelectricity and route it to homes and businesses. Just as solar cells work best in sunny areas of the world, hygroelectrical panels would work more efficiently in areas with high humidity, such as the northeastern and southeastern United States and the humid tropics.
Galembeck said that a similar approach might help prevent lightning from forming and striking. He envisioned placing hygroelectrical panels on top of buildings in regions that experience frequent thunderstorms. The panels would drain electricity out of the air, and prevent the building of electrical charge that is released in lightning. His research group already is testing metals to identify those with the greatest potential for use in capturing atmospheric electricity and preventing lightning strikes.
“These are fascinating ideas that new studies by ourselves and by other scientific teams suggest are now possible,” Galembeck said. “We certainly have a long way to go. But the benefits in the long range of harnessing hygroelectricity could be substantial.”
Connecticut Sues Power Plant for Repeated Air Emissions Violations
Blumenthal sued on behalf of Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner Amey Marrella.
“Our legal action follows a repeat environmental violation—excessive emissions of toxic dioxin,” Blumenthal said. “Even following a settlement less than one year ago for a similar violation, Covanta again spewed unpermitted levels of dioxin into the air. While the company has cooperated by shutting down its faulty unit, my office must take action to ensure that future violations are prevented.”
Marrella said, “The DEP is especially concerned over this violation of Covanta’s permitted emissions limits because this is the second occurrence over a short period of time. By referring the matter to the Attorney General, Connecticut is sending a clear message that violating the state’s environmental laws will not be tolerated.”
The DEP issued Covanta a Notice of Violation on July 29 after testing at the company’s Wallingford facility revealed it was emitting dioxin more than two times greater than permitted levels from one of its units. That particular unit has been shut down since July 2.
The Department of Public Health (DPH) and DEP have reviewed and analyzed the ambient concentrations of dioxin associated with the violations and determined that the amount of dioxin in the ambient air did not exceed health standards.
The company has notified DEP that the emissions were due to a malfunction of their dioxin emissions control system in April. The company claims that it has repaired the system and plans to implement additional measures to prevent future emissions violations.
In November 2009, Covanta agreed to pay a $355,000 settlement to the DEP for similar unpermitted dioxin emissions.
Cement Company Gets Reduced Penalty for Self-Reporting Violations after Self-Audit
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has penalized Westfield Ready-Mix, Inc. of Westfield $7,000 to address air pollution control, hazardous waste, and groundwater discharge violations.
In October of 2009, Westfield Ready-Mix, Inc., self reported to MassDEP that it had several noncompliance issues at its facility. As part of a self-audit program, the company disclosed that it had failed to notify MassDEP of its hazardous waste generation status and did not have an air pollution plan approved to operate. A MassDEP inspection of the Paper Mill Road facility revealed other violations, which included the discharge of cement and truck wash water to the ground.
The company fully cooperated with MassDEP and initiated corrective actions immediately after the inspection. Ready-Mix, Inc., has agreed to pay a $7,000 penalty. MassDEP has agreed to suspend $2,000 provided the company complies with the settlement agreement.
DOT Fines Fireworks Company for Improper Hazmat Shipments
The DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) announced a $94,750 proposed civil penalty against Garrett’s Worldwide Enterprises, LLC of Eudora, Kansas, following a PHMSA investigation that uncovered a number of alleged violations by the company, including shipping unapproved and forbidden explosives and using an invalid DOT approval number.
“Safety is our top priority and companies cannot ignore federal requirements that protect U.S. citizens,” said PHMSA Administrator Cynthia Quarterman.
Based on field inspection findings by PHMSA, Garrett’s appears not to meet the overall safety requirements established for U.S. hazardous materials shippers. A suspension is recommended on all of the company’s previously issued approvals, as well as all approval requests currently under PHMSA consideration.
Garrett’s has until August 30, to respond to the proposed enforcement actions for their alleged unsafe activities.
Environmental Impact of Recycling E-Waste
Much of the world’s electronic waste is being shipped to China for recycling and the cottage industry that has sprung up there to recover usable materials from computers, cell phones, televisions, and other goods may be creating significant health and environmental hazards.
Scientists from China and the United States have identified numerous toxic elements in the emissions from an e-waste recycling workshop in southern China, which uses low-tech methods to separate reusable electronic components from the circuit boards. It is not an isolated case, the scientists point out; such methods are used all over China.
Results of their study have been published in the journal Atmospheric Environment. “The most immediate problem is the health of the workers and the people who live in the city,” said Bernd R.T. Simoneit, a professor emeritus at Oregon State University and one of the authors of the study. “But this may also be contributing to global contamination. For example, previous studies have found carcinogens in wind-carried dust from Asia.”
Simoneit is a widely published scientist who has been involved in numerous studies identifying chemical “signatures” for emissions, including coal smoke, biomass burning, petroleum-based fuels, and even the burning of municipal refuse. By using mass spectrometers and other sophisticated instrumentation, the researchers can pinpoint the contributions of specific emissions to the atmosphere.
Their work in China was conducted in Shantou City, a town of 150,000 people located in southern China’s Guangdong Province. They collected samples during four working days, when workers were removing the electronic components by heating the circuit boards over grills on stoves burning coal briquettes.
The workshop had 24 stoves along three walls, and an estimated five tons of circuit boards stacked along the fourth wall for processing. Workers would use the grills to melt the solder, and then remove reusable portions of the circuitry.
The research team included five Chinese scientists and Simoneit, who has dual appointments in OSU’s College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences and the Department of Chemistry. The researchers found that through this “roasting process,” numerous organic chemicals, heavy metals, flame retardants, and persistent organic pollutants (or POPs) were emitted into the air via the smoke. The chemical signature created by this process of roasting or toasting circuit boards “is unmistakable.”
“The next step is to see to what extent this is harming the environment and creating a health hazard for both the workers, and people living in the path of the emissions—either through inhalation, or exposure to the skin,” Simoneit said. “Some of these chemical compounds may be carcinogens; others may be just as harmful because they can act as ‘environmental disruptors’ and may affect body processes from reproduction to endocrine function.”
The Chinese authors of the study are affiliated with the Chinese Academy of Sciences and include lead author Xinhui Bi, with ZhenZhen Wang, Xinming Wang, Guoying Sheng, and Jiamo Fu.
Simoneit also is working with scientists in India to identify chemical signatures from the burning of wire and other materials, which is done to recycle copper and other minerals. And he is working in Saudi Arabia on a different problem—helping develop “green chemistry” methods for recycling that country’s massive urban waste to create methane.
Texas Chemical Plant to Pay Nearly $1.5 Million to Resolve Violations in the Transferring of Acid Waste
Air Products LLC has agreed to pay $1.485 million in civil penalties to resolve hazardous waste mismanagement violations at its Pasadena, Texas, chemical manufacturing facility, the Justice Department, the EPA, and the state of Texas announced last week. The settlement resolves Air Products’ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act () violations in transferring spent acid to the neighboring Agrifos Fertilizer Inc., manufacturing plant.
As part of the settlement, Air Products has agreed to continue to manage the spent acid on-site and not ship it to Agrifos or any other facility not authorized to accept it. Air Products is currently in compliance with the RCRA requirements specified in the settlement. Air Products has agreed to notify EPA and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality in the event that the spent acid is either disposed of or sent off site.
“This settlement eliminates the disposal of spent-acid waste from the Air Products facility into the environment,” said Ignacia S. Moreno, Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “By stopping this source of pollution, this settlement will reduce risks to human health and the environment.”
Air Products, a manufacturer of chemicals used in the manufacture of polyurethane and hydrogen gas, operates its facility on a 105-acre tract of property adjacent to the Agrifos fertilizer plant. For many years, the company purchased sulfuric acid from Agrifos and returned a spent acid stream that Air Products had generated in its operations. In April 2006, inspectors from EPA observed that the return acid stream was a spent acid that was being used in part to make land-applied fertilizer. Agrifos is not authorized to accept hazardous waste from other facilities.
“We are concerned that wastes from mineral processing and associated fertilizer production can pose a serious risk to our nation’s drinking water and the health of families,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “And we’re just as concerned when contaminated wastes from other facilities find their way to these operations. EPA is working to minimize or eliminate risks to communities and the environment from illegal hazardous waste operations at phosphoric acid and other high risk facilities.”
Air Products instituted modifications that will reduce the levels of contamination in the spent acid, and the construction of a $60 million regeneration plant that will stop the acid waste stream altogether. The regeneration plant construction was part of operational changes that were initiated prior to settlement negotiations and became effective as negotiations progressed.
This case is part of EPA’s National Enforcement Initiative for Mining and Mineral Processing. Although Air Products does not conduct mining or mineral processing, it sent the spent acid stream to a facility that does—the Agrifos fertilizer plant. Mining and mineral processing facilities generate more toxic and hazardous waste than any other industrial sector, based on EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory. If not properly managed, these facilities pose a high risk to human health and the environment. Since 2003, EPA has been investigating 20 phosphoric acid facilities in seven states.
In a national enforcement effort, EPA has focused on compliance in the phosphoric acid industry because of the high risk of releases of acidic wastewaters at these facilities, which can cause groundwater contamination and fish kills. A 2007 incident at the Agrifos phosphoric acid facility in Houston released 50 million gallons of acidic hazardous wastewater into the Houston Ship Channel. Another example is the 65 million gallon release of acidic wastewaters from the Mosaic Riverview facility into Tampa Bay, which led to a massive local fish kill.
MPCA Enforcement Actions Total Nearly $350,000 in Second Quarter of 2010
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) concluded 46 enforcement cases totaling $347,236 in penalties during the second quarter of 2010. The cases occurred at facilities in 33 counties throughout Minnesota.
The following is a brief summary of all 46 cases completed during the second quarter of 2010:
- $45,000 – Joe Varner, Clarissa, for feedlot violations
- $45,000 – Universal Circuits Inc., Maple Grove, for hazardous waste violations
- $33,250 – Nexus Diversified Community Service & Nor-Son Inc., Onamia, for stormwater violations
- $27,000 – Minnesota Department of Transportation & Northland Constructors, Duluth, for stormwater violations
- $22,750 – Oak Terrace Sr. Housing of Gaylord LLC & Montag Development Inc., Gaylord, for asbestos violations
- $22,000 – Pro Blast Technology Inc., Pengilly, for hazardous waste violations
- $19,000 – ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine, Inc., Virginia, for air quality violations
- $15,000 – Crow Wing Feeders, Pillager, for feedlot violations
- $10,000 – Stockman Transfer, Pine River, for hazardous waste violations
- $10,000 – Denco LLC, Morris, for water quality violations
- $10,000 – United Taconite LLC, Forbes, for air quality violations
- $9,425 – Kale Construction of the Lakes Inc., West Twin Lake, Detroit Lakes, for solid waste and stormwater violations
- $8,737 – Hoffman Demo Landfill, Sleepy Eye, for solid waste violations
- $8,300 – Itasca County/Bigfork Maintenance Garage, Bigfork, for stormwater violations
- $7,500 – JM Property Preservation, St. Paul, for asbestos violations
- $7,179 – Prep with Paint, Cannon Falls, for hazardous and solid waste violations
- $6,890 – Dustcoating Inc., Savage, for above ground storage tank violations
- $6,427 – Anderson Brothers/J&S Gravel Inc., Crookston, for water quality violations
- $4,450 – Greg Pavek Homes Inc., North Mankato, for stormwater violations
- $4,090 – Perry Rathbun, Wykoff, for hazardous and solid waste violations
- $3,980 – West Lake George wastewater treatment facility, Oak Grove, for water quality violations
- $3,850 – Osmundson Brothers Construction, Adams, for stormwater violations
- $3,500 – Woodland South Development LLC, Mankato, for stormwater violations
- $3,300 – AGCO Corporation of Delaware Inc., Jackson, for hazardous waste violations
- $3,150 – American Crystal Sugar, East Grand Forks, for air quality violations
- $2,500 – Feldman Brothers, Prior Lake, for feedlot violations
- $2,000 – Cannon Falls wastewater treatment facility, Cannon Falls, for water quality violations
- $1,391 – Paul & Sarah Sexton/Pit Stop Portable Outhouses, Stewartville, for individual septic treatment system violations
- $1,343 – Red Rock Rural Water Systems, Windom, for water quality violations
- $1,250 – United Taconite LLC/CT Corp Systems Inc., Forbes, for air quality violations
- $1,250 – Red Rock Rural Water Systems, Jeffers, for water quality violations
- $1,100 – Scott O’Konek, dba Hudek Sewer Service, South Haven, for individual septic treatment system violations
- $850 – City of Ely, for water quality violations
- $577 – B&D Plumbing & Heating Inc., Mankato, for solid waste violations
- $576 – Pinnacle Distributing Inc., Litchfield, for solid waste violations
- $570 – Cedar River Country Club Corp., Adams, for solid waste violations
The penalties for the following cases are all forgivable:
- $3,750 – Waterous Co. Inc., South St. Paul, for air quality violations
- $2,200 – Semper Development Ltd./Walgreen’s, Roseville, for stormwater violations
- $600 – Derald & Lorene Cordes, Hokah, for solid waste violations
- $500 – Steve Erwin, dba Steve’s Staining, Worthington, for solid waste violations
New Pennsylvania Wastewater Standards for Gas Drilling
Pennsylvania’s Environmental Protection Secretary John Hanger has announced that new wastewater treatment standards for total dissolved solids, which will apply to gas well drilling wastewater and that protect aquatic life and drinking water supplies, are now in effect and enforceable.
The combination of this Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Rule and the new rule requiring 150-foot buffers for Pennsylvania’s approximately 20,000 miles of high-quality streams give waters in the state the strongest legal protection in history.
The new permitted limit for discharges of wastewater from gas drilling is 500 milligrams/liter (mg/l) of TDS and 250 mg/l for chlorides. All new and expanding facilities which treat gas well wastewater must now meet these discharge limits.
“DEP’s proposal of these new limits has already driven industry investment in new technologies to treat this wastewater which is high in TDS,” Hanger said. “We are proving that if we hold the environmental bar high, the industry can and will rise to meet Pennsylvania’s expectations.”
Hanger added that since DEP proposed these new rules, some businesses have moved to treat gas well wastewater for recycling by the natural gas industry rather than discharging it to Pennsylvania waterways.
Using a watershed-based approach, the new regulations will also govern other discharges of TDS. This approach will ensure that the level of TDS in streams in the state will not reach levels that will negatively impact downstream users such as drinking water suppliers.
Pennsylvania’s streams receive total dissolved solids from a variety of wastewater sources. Primary sources of these pollutants are stormwater runoff and discharges from coal mines and other industrial activities.
Wastewater from certain industrial operations is high in chlorides (salt) and sulfates which affect the taste and odor of drinking water and, in high concentrations, can damage or destroy aquatic life.
Drinking water treatment facilities are not equipped to treat these contaminants and rely on normally low levels of chlorides and sulfates in surface waters used for drinking water supplies.
The new rules underwent the regulatory process that included public input; review by the Environmental Quality Board; regulatory review by the Independent Regulatory Review Commission; legislative review through the House and Senate Standing Energy and Environmental Resources Committees; and finally, review by the state Attorney General for form and legality.
The final rules became effective and enforceable upon publication in the August 21, issue of the Pennsylvania Bulletin.
EPA Orders Tonawanda Coke to Resolve Clean Water Act Violations
In its ongoing efforts to require Tonawanda Coke Corporation (TCC) to comply with environmental regulations, EPA has ordered the coke manufacturing facility to comply with its Clean Water Act (CWA) permit. Among other violations, TCC is discharging industrial wastewater containing cyanide in excess of its permit limits into the town of Tonawanda’s sanitary sewer system, which ultimately discharges into the Niagara River from the town’s wastewater treatment facility. Cyanide is a toxic chemical compound, and excessive amounts may adversely impact human health, fish, and wildlife. EPA is also ordering TCC to properly monitor and treat the wastewater that results from the coke-making process. Under EPA’s order, TCC is required to complete the overdue installation of pollution controls, improve monitoring, and provide additional information about operations at the facility.
“Cyanide is toxic and cannot be discharged in amounts that exceed the limits specified in the facility’s permit,” said Judith Enck, EPA Regional Administrator. “If left unchecked and uncontrolled, industrial discharges pollute the environment and may threaten public health. We will continue to work with the state to identify and get the company to rectify the many violations of various environmental laws at this facility.”
“Failure to abide by the Clean Water Act can result in chemicals and contamination reaching our waterways,” said DEC Commissioner Pete Grannis. “We will continue to work with EPA to vigorously monitor Tonawanda Coke and ensure that all environmental laws are being followed.”
In 2009, EPA and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) conducted a comprehensive series of inspections of the Tonawanda Coke facility to determine its compliance with federal laws and regulations. The agencies found that TCC was violating the CWA by allowing pipes and storage tanks to significantly degrade and leak, and by failing to provide adequate treatment of polluted stormwater runoff, resulting in illegal discharges of polluted wastewater through storm sewers that lead to the Niagara River. The agencies also found multiple leaks of tar and process wastewater, and substantial corrosion of a tank meant to contain a substance known as “weak liquor,” a toxic by-product of the coke process that contains pollutants such as ammonia, cyanide, and naphthalene. The agencies found other areas that needed to be fixed in order to avoid potentially damaging spills and leaks. As a result of those findings, on December 17, 2009, EPA ordered the company to repair its wastewater pipes, replace its corroded tank, immediately stop unpermitted discharges of its process and non-process wastewater, and adopt other practices to remedy and prevent violations of the CWA.
More than six months later, TCC has completed some work, including replacing its corroded tank, but it has still not fully complied with the December 2009 order and has reported continued and additional violations of the pollution limits set in its industrial user permit. EPA is issuing a new administrative order requiring TCC to complete the outstanding measures required by the original order, perform additional repairs and improvements, better monitor its processes and effluent, and provide additional information to EPA and NYSDEC.
EPA works with the states to establish standards that safeguard the water quality of rivers, lakes, and streams. States with approved CWA programs, such as New York, then issue permits to pollution sources. Those permits require controls and contain discharge limits that protect water quality. The CWA also requires industrial facilities to obtain permits from local municipalities that contain limits on the amount of pollutants that can be discharged to local wastewater treatment plants. Discharging excessive levels of cyanide and other contaminants can damage sewage treatment facilities and lead to the discharge of improperly treated sewage into surface waters, creating a public exposure risk and harming fish and wildlife.
Under this new order, TCC must comply with the original administrative order, certify in writing which of the items have been corrected, and complete all outstanding items. In addition, TCC must comply with the cyanide limits in its permit, improve its best management practices, which are intended to control water pollution at the site, install a flow meter for process wastewater in the correct location, conduct additional auditing to identify any cross connections between process and non-process wastewater sewers, certify that no process wastewater is getting into the cooling and storm systems, install a coal pile runoff treatment system to ensure compliance with effluent limits, and ensure that the required pollution controls are in fact installed and working properly.
On another front, EPA is insisting that TCC take immediate steps to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and New York State’s air pollution plan. The facility recently completed required air testing and results are forthcoming. The company has also violated the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in the improper handling of its coal tar sludge—a hazardous waste, and EPA will ensure that these violations are also corrected. Under the terms of a follow-up agreement, TCC has agreed to remove four damaged tar storage tanks and contaminated soil, cease to dump and mix tar sludge inappropriately and properly recycle or dispose of associated materials. The Agency is also following-up on its recent requirement under the CAA’s General Duty Clause, that TCC investigate and fix recent mishaps that took place at the facility due to power and equipment failures.
EPA is working in close coordination with the NYSDEC on the investigations of Tonawanda Coke’s operations and efforts to bring the company into compliance with environmental laws.
$37,790 Penalty for Failure to Implement Risk Management Program
Bayer CropScience LP, has agreed to pay a $37,790 civil penalty to the United States to settle allegations that it failed to adequately implement a risk management program aimed at preventing and responding to chemical accidents and releases at its pesticide-manufacturing facility in Kansas City, Missouri.
Bayer CropScience LP has also agreed to spend $100,000 on a supplemental environmental project to install a series of air monitors around its facility, located at 8400 Hawthorn Road in Kansas City, Missouri, to aid in the detection of any future chemical releases from the plant. The company produces more than 35 million pounds of pesticides at the facility annually.
According to an administrative consent agreement filed in Kansas City, Kansas, EPA inspected the facility in August 2007 to determine if it was in compliance with federal risk management program regulations. Under the CAA, operations such as Bayer’s must develop a risk management program and submit a risk management plan to assist with emergency preparedness, chemical release prevention, and minimization of releases that occur. Inspectors found that the facility had not adequately implemented those regulations.
Bayer is subject to the risk management regulations because it stores large quantities of regulated substances at its Kansas City, Missouri, plant. The substances include ethyl mercaptan, vinyl chloride, phosphorous trichloride, formaldehyde, 2-methyl-1-butene, carbon disulfide, chlorine, hydrogen chloride, and hydrazine. The facility processes large quantities of the substances, including up to 5.2 million pounds of chlorine per year.
In a separate administrative order on consent, Bayer has agreed to hire a third party consultant to conduct a review of all accidents and chemical releases that have occurred at the facility over the past five years. The consultant will develop recommendations to address issues discovered during the review, including potential changes in processes, administration, training, operation, maintenance, and staffing—all aimed at making the facility safer.
“EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson has declared that accident prevention at large, high-risk facilities such as Bayer’s is a priority for the Agency,” Regional Administrator Karl Brooks said. “Bayer has one of the largest chemical inventories in Region 7, and EPA has an important role in regulating the way that those chemicals are safely stored so that the community is protected.”
Western Sugar Cooperative to Pay $56,736 Penalty for Wastewater Violations
Western Sugar Cooperative, of Denver, Colorado, has agreed to pay a $56,736 civil penalty, and will spend an additional $350,000 on plant upgrades to cut pollution and save water and energy, in order to settle allegations that its sugar beet processing facility in Scottsbluff, Nebraska, had excessively high discharges of fecal coliform bacteria in wastewater.
Western Sugar’s facility at 2100 East Overland Drive in Scottsbluff allegedly violated the federal CWA on at least 14 occasions between December 2007 and January 2010, according to an administrative consent agreement and final order filed in Kansas City, Kansas.
The plant’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit allowed it to discharge a daily maximum limit of 400 colony forming units (CFUs) of fecal coliform per 100 milliliters (mL) of water. However, an EPA inspection of records showed that the Scottsbluff facility reported excessive discharges ranging from 485 to 20,000 CFUs per 100 mL.
Discharged water from the plant flows directly into the North Platte River, which has been officially listed by the State of Nebraska as being impaired by fecal coliform bacteria.
The presence of fecal coliform bacteria in water indicates it may be contaminated with human or animal wastes. Microbes in such wastes can cause stream impairments, as well as short-term health effects such as diarrhea, cramps, nausea, headaches, and more serious symptoms.
In addition to paying a $56,736 civil penalty to the United States, Western Sugar will undertake a supplemental environmental project through which it will spend at least $350,000 to install a non-contact water condenser system at the Scottsbluff plant. The improvements will result in savings on energy and water use, and reductions of pollutant discharges from the facility.
By agreeing to the settlement, Western Sugar has certified that it is now in compliance with the CWA.
$20,000 Fine for Air Permit Violations
Sawbrook Steel Castings Co. (Sawbrook), will pay a $20,000 penalty as a settlement for violating Ohio’s air pollution control regulations. The company also will implement, maintain, and update its preventative maintenance and malfunction abatement plan. The company is located at the intersection of Shepherd and McWorter avenues in Lockland, Ohio. The company is a steel foundry that melts scrap metal to produce carbon and low alloy steel castings that are used to manufacture industrial equipment.
As part of its permitted activities, Sawbrook has a number of regulated air pollution sources, some of which emitted excess air pollutants—especially particulates—during late 2006, early 2007, and 2008, and damaged property of nearby residences. In addition, the company installed additional air pollution sources without first obtaining permits and was late submitting quarterly reports identifying control equipment operating deviations.
Hamilton County Department of Environmental Services (HCDOES) serves as Ohio EPA’s contractor for air pollution permits and complaints about air pollution in Hamilton County. As part of its work, HCDOES documented the violations and worked with the company as it came back into compliance with Ohio’s environmental laws.
The company now is in compliance with Ohio’s air pollution control laws. The $20,000 civil penalty includes $16,000 to administer Ohio EPA’s air pollution control programs (part of which goes to HCDOES) and $4,000 to support Ohio EPA’s clean diesel school bus program.
Environmental News Links
Trivia Question of the Week
What substance can sequester carbon dioxide and help mitigate climate change?
a. Dry water
b. Lemon Pledge
c. Fly ash
d. Orange juice