The DOT Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration recently issued guidance regarding shipments of small lithium metal batteries (< 2.0 grams lithium content) and small lithium ion batteries (< 8 grams equivalent lithium content) sold over the counter at retail locations.
Q1. Are small lithium batteries assembled at retail locations and sold over the counter to customers for personal use subject to the testing requirements outlined in Section 38.3 of the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria?
A1. As specified in § 171.1, the HMR govern the transportation of hazardous materials in intrastate, interstate and foreign commerce. The term “in commerce” means in furtherance of a commercial enterprise. Therefore, hazardous materials that are sold to customers for personal, non-commercial use and transported by such persons in their personal vehicles are not subject to the HMR. However, if the transportation is in commerce, the lithium batteries are subject to the HMR. In that case, each battery must be of a type proven to meet each of the tests in Section 38.3 of the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria prior to transportation.
Q2. Can small lithium batteries transported to customers in personal or company vehicles qualify for the materials of trade exceptions?
A2. Yes. The materials of trade definition in ? 171.8 includes a private motor carrier transporting hazardous materials in direct support of a principal business that is other than transportation by motor vehicle. The materials of trade exceptions in ? 173.6 permit Class 9 materials including lithium batteries.
Q3. Do the testing requirements of the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria apply to lithium batteries transported as materials of trade?
A3. In order to meet the provisions of the materials of trade exception, lithium batteries must be of a type proven to meet the criteria of Class 9 by testing in accordance with the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria. Alternatively, production runs of less than 100 cells or batteries may be transported by motor vehicle without testing provided you meet all of the conditions outlined in ? 172.102(c), special provision 29.
Q4. Can a passenger transport a lithium battery that has not been tested in accordance with the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria in accordance with the passenger and crewmember exceptions specified in ? 175.10?
A4. The exceptions for passengers and crewmembers in ? 175.10(a)(17) do not require lithium batteries to be tested in accordance with the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria. However, all batteries must be packaged in a manner that precludes the generation of sparks or a dangerous quantity of heat. Each spare battery must be individually protected so as to prevent short circuits and carried in carry-on baggage only.
Who Needs DOT Training?
Hattie Mitchell from the Office of Hazardous Materials Standards replied that training is required for the employees that place hazardous materials in packages, mark packages, or label packages because these employees meet the definition of a hazmat employee.
Endangerment Finding for Lead Emissions from Piston-Engine Aircraft Using Leaded Aviation Gasoline
EPA is taking action to respond to a petition submitted by Friends of the Earth (FOE) regarding a proposed endangerment finding for leaded aviation fuel. In the petition, FOE requested that EPA find that lead emissions from general aviation aircraft may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare and that EPA propose emissions standards under the Clean Air Act (CAA) for lead from general aviation aircraft. Alternatively, FOE requested that EPA commence a study and investigation of the health and environmental impacts of lead emissions from general aviation aircraft, if EPA believes that insufficient information exists to make such a finding. In 2007, EPA issued a Federal Register notice seeking comment on FOE’s petition. The notice asked a series of questions seeking information on exposure to lead emissions from general aviation aircraft, lead emission rates from general aviation aircraft, unleaded aviation fuel options, and engine technology.
EPA has long-standing concerns regarding exposure to lead, particularly during childhood. The most recent lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards review, finalized in 2008, found that serious health effects occur at much lower levels of lead in blood than previously identified and did not identify a safe level of lead exposure. Emissions of lead from piston-engine aircraft using leaded aviation gasoline (avgas) comprise over half of the national inventory of lead emitted to air. There are almost 20,000 airport facilities in the U.S. at which leaded avgas is used. EPA is concerned about the potential exposure to lead from piston-engine aircraft emissions. This action will describe the lead inventory related to use of leaded avgas, air quality and exposure information, additional information the Agency is collecting related to the impact of lead emissions from piston-engine aircraft on air quality and will request comments on this information.
EPA Accelerates Access to TRI Data
EPA has engaged a new strategy to speed up public access to information on the release of toxic chemicals in communities across the United States.
In its continued commitment to openness and transparency, EPA is taking this unprecedented step of releasing the raw data prior to completing its own analysis of the data. EPA will publish their national analysis once this process is completed. The 2008 data are being provided earlier than data have ever been provided before in the twenty plus year history of the TRI annual reporting program.
“EPA’s job is to ensure an open and transparent flow of information between Americans and their government, and today’s unprecedented step represents the agency’s commitment to doing just that,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “While we are still analyzing this information, we hope this raw data will be reviewed and used responsibly by stakeholders and the public to help them make informed decisions.”
The TRI database contains detailed information on nearly 650 chemicals and chemical categories that more than 23,000 industrial and other facilities manage through disposal or other releases, recycling, energy recovery, or treatment. The data are collected from industries including manufacturing, metal and coal mining, electric utilities, commercial hazardous waste treatment, and other industrial sectors. Facilities must report their data by July 1 of each year based on their toxic chemical activities that have occurred during the previous calendar year.
EPA is providing the preliminary data in three ways. First, a Facility Locator Tool allows you to access facility-specific information regarding TRI Section 313 chemicals in your community. Second, EPA has provided basic data files that are available for download and include 100 of the most commonly requested data fields. Third, EPA has offered basic plus data, a set of seven downloadable files containing all data submitted to EPA by covered facilities. Detailed data for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds (Form R Schedule 1) are included in the Facility Locator Tool if a facility submitted such data and the data have been processed.
The preliminary data now available accounts for approximately 80–85% of the data expected to be collected and included in the TRI National Analysis in December 2009. EPA will continue to process paper submissions, late submissions, and to resolve issues with the electronic submissions. The agency will update the dataset in September and again in October so that citizens will have complete access to the information.
EPA Invites Comment on the Proposed Changes to Renewable Fuel Standard Program
On May 5, 2009, EPA announced proposed revisions to the RFS2 program as required by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007.
EISA established new renewable fuel categories and eligibility requirements, including setting the first ever mandatory GHG reduction thresholds for the various categories of renewable fuels. EISA also defined the term lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
As part of proposed revisions to the RFS program and in accordance with the EISA definition of GHG emissions, EPA examined the GHG impacts associated with different types of renewable fuels. Several new pieces of analysis were developed to support this lifecycle assessment. EPA decided to initiate an independent peer review to help respond to stakeholder concerns and to ensure that the Agency makes decisions based on the best science available. The results of the expert peer review are being made available to the public for notice and comment to supplement the current record.
Written comments must be received on or before September 25, 2009.
EPA Proposes More Environmentally Friendly Practices for Airport Deicing Discharges
EPA has announced a proposed a new rule that would make deicing practices on aircraft and at airport runways more environmentally friendly while maintaining operational safety. Discharges from deicing operations at airports can have major impacts on water quality, causing reductions in wildlife, contamination of drinking water sources, and impact upon residential areas and parkland. EPA is proposing requirements for control of the wastewater associated with the deicing of aircraft and pavement at more than 200 commercial airports nationwide.
EPA estimates that six major airports, which are among the largest users of aircraft deicing fluid, would likely install centralized deicing pads to comply with the proposed requirements. Airports using lesser amounts of deicing fluid would collect 20% of the spent fluid with technologies such as glycol recovery vehicles. The estimated 50 airports that currently use urea to deice runways would use more environmentally friendly deicers, or reduce the discharges of ammonia from continued use of urea. A number of airports in the country already comply with the proposed requirements.
EPA and states would incorporate the proposed requirements into storm water permits. The EPA has worked closely with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) which has determined that, if implemented, this regulation would have no impact on the safe operation of airplanes or runways that are treated for snow and/or icing conditions.
The proposed rule is open for public comment for 120 days following publication in the Federal Register.
Pipeline Companies Facing More than $3.5 Million in Fines for Ammonia Discharges and Failing to Meet Reporting Requirements
In this action, the United States sought penalties and injunctive relief against Magellan Ammonia Pipeline, L.P., Enterprise Products Operating, L.P., and Mid-America Pipeline Company, LLC (MAPCO).
The complaint alleges that two discharges of anhydrous ammonia occurred in Blair, Nebraska on September 27, 2004, and Kingman, Kansas on October 27, 2004, from an ammonia pipeline owned by Magellan and operated by Enterprise and MAPCO and that the defendants failed to report the discharges in a timely fashion to the National Response Center.
Pursuant to the proposed Consent Decree, the settling defendants will pay to the United States $3,650,000 in penalties for the discharges and reporting inadequacies. Magellan, which now both owns and operates the ammonia pipeline, will undertake injunctive measures aimed at reducing the likelihood of such discharges in the future and at improving its detection of and response to such discharges if they do occur.
Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., to Pay More than $2 Million for Discharges at Nebraska Meat Packing Plant
Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., the world’s largest supplier of premium beef and pork, has agreed to pay a $2,026,500 civil penalty to settle allegations that it violated terms of a 2002 consent decree and a federally-issued pollution discharge permit at its meat processing facility in Dakota City, Nebraska.
In April 2002, Tyson Fresh Meats, known as IBP Inc., until May 2003, entered into a consent decree with the federal government and the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to bring wastewater discharges at its facility into compliance with state and federal law. Tyson discharges an average of five million gallons of treated effluent from its Dakota City facility into the Missouri River each day.
The 2002 consent decree required IBP to complete a supplemental environmental project (SEP), specifically a $2.9 million nitrification system that was intended to reduce the amount of ammonia in its wastewater discharges to the Missouri River.
The 2002 consent decree also provided that once the installation of the nitrification system was complete, the United States would begin to enforce certain limits of a new National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit relating to toxicity and ammonia levels in the facilities treated wastewater discharge.
The government alleges that from July 2003 through March 2004, Tyson failed to properly operate the nitrification system as required by the 2002 consent decree, and as a result, had numerous discharges of fecal coliform and nitrites in violation of its 2002 NPDES permit. Specifically, nitrites in the discharge caused high levels of toxicity to aquatic life in the Missouri River.
“This penalty serves as an example that we take violations of these agreements seriously and we will take appropriate steps to insure that their provisions are followed,” said John C. Cruden, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division.
“We expect companies to live up to their settlement obligations, and when they don’t, they can expect that EPA will take action to assure compliance,” said William Rice, Acting Regional Administrator for EPA’s Region 7.
Two Manufacturers Agree to Settle Clean Air Act Claims Resulting from Explosions at Plants in Kentucky and Mississippi
Two manufacturing companies, in separate settlements, have agreed to pay civil penalties and take corrective measures to settle Clean Air Act (CAA) violations resulting from explosions at two plants in 2002 and 2003 in Louisville, Kentucky, and Pascagoula, Mississippi.
D. D. Williamson and Co. and First Chemical Corp. will pay a combined total of $1,331,000 in civil penalties and will implement corrective measures to settle CAA claims resulting from a 2003 explosion at D.D. Williamson’s Kentucky plant and a 2002 explosion at First Chemical’s Mississippi plant.
“Today’s settlements are a forceful reminder to the regulated community that the failure to adhere to the Clean Air Act’s general duty obligations can lead to serious, even deadly, accidents and harm to the environment,” said John C. Cruden, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Environmental and Natural Resources Division. “Today’s settlements also demonstrate the Justice Department’s continuing efforts to ensure the public safety, and protection of the environment, by holding industry to the duty to maintain safe facilities.”
“This case demonstrates that a failure to fulfill obligations under the law can have serious consequences,” said Stan Meiburg, EPA Acting Regional Administrator in Atlanta. “EPA will continue to aggressively pursue those who fail to comply with the laws that protect our environment, and we will hold them accountable.”
The complaints allege that the two companies failed to adhere to the CAA’s general duty of care provision. The general duty of care requirement obligates companies handling extremely hazardous substances to take steps to identify and reduce the risks associated with the use of these chemicals, including providing layers of protection on their equipment, such as pressure relief valves, automatic shut-off valves or temperature alarms; ensuring the mechanical integrity of their equipment and piping; and properly training employees to monitor and address emergencies.
The complaint filed against D.D. Williamson, a caramel coloring manufacturer, alleges the company failed to comply with the CAA and its regulations. The 2003 incident at the plant resulted in the death of one employee and the release of an ammonia cloud in a nearby residential neighborhood. Specifically, the complaint alleges that D.D. Williamson failed to comply with the general duty of care imposed on users of extremely hazardous substances and also failed to comply with the chemical accident prevention provisions also known as the risk management program. The risk management program outlines specific safety management requirements for certain extremely hazardous substances, such as ammonia, that are used in amounts over specific limits.
D.D. Williamson has agreed to pay $600,000 in civil penalties to be divided equally between the United States and the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District, which enforces the risk management program regulations. After the 2003 explosion, D.D. Williamson took steps to improve its Louisville plant by building a new facility that housed its manufacturing operations. Under the consent decree, D.D. Williamson is required to use an outside engineering consultant to complete a full hazard operability study of its manufacturing operations and implement the study’s recommendations, and to train its managers in process-hazard assessment techniques.
The complaint filed against First Chemical, which makes extremely hazardous mononitrotoluene (MNT), asserts the company similarly failed to meet the general duty requirement, leading to the 2002 explosion that resulted in the release of over 1,200 pounds of MNT into the air. First Chemical has agreed to pay the United States $731,000 in civil penalties, complete an ongoing comprehensive hazard analysis of its MNT process, and to implement all recommendations resulting from the analysis.
The consent decrees are each subject to a 30-day public comment period and must have the approval of the U.S. District Court where each has been filed.
Two Tennessee Enforcement Cases for Air Quality Violations Including a Record Penalty of $600,000
The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) has announced two recent enforcement orders involving violations of the Tennessee Air Quality Control Act.
One of the cases involved Stabilit America, Inc., in Moscow, Tennessee, which resulted in a Technical Secretary’s Order and a record $600,000 assessment of civil penalties from DEC’s Division of Air Pollution Control. The maximum civil penalty for a violation of the Tennessee Air Quality Control Act is $25,000 per violation per day.
Stabilit America exceeded a permit condition limiting emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) for its two reinforced fiberglass panel production lines. This exceedance was discovered in stack emissions testing the company was required to perform in 2008 by the Division of Air Pollution Control. The results of the stack testing showed an actual measured emissions rate much higher than the permit limit allows. The higher emissions discovered during testing also showed that the company failed to comply with requirements effective in April 2006 under federal regulations for existing plants in this type of industry.
Also noteworthy about the Stabilit America case was the coordination with the department’s Division of Financial Responsibility, which used a computer model to determine the economic benefit of non-compliance resulting from delay in purchase and installation of air pollution control equipment for a little over three years and avoidance of operating costs during that time.
In addition to the civil penalty, the Stabilit America order required that the facility have a regenerative thermal oxidizer in operation by July 5, 2009, with testing of that equipment to be performed within 75 days.
The second air pollution case involved demolishing and burning a building containing asbestos in Fentress County. The private owner of the former Clarkrange Elementary School failed to thoroughly inspect the facility for the presence of asbestos prior to the demolition and did not follow required procedures for asbestos handling and air emissions control—both required by state regulations. Additionally, the debris was burned, which is a violation of open burning regulations. The case was settled by an Agreed Order with a civil penalty of $14,000.
While most contractors and businesses are aware of the asbestos regulations, many private individuals are not. By ensuring the public is made aware of these cases and continuing outreach efforts in the community, the department can maximize its efforts to educate the public and potentially discourage future unpermitted activity.
Prior to the 1980s, asbestos was commonly used in school construction until the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act became federal law in 1986. This law led to the inspection of schools throughout the country and the development of Operation and Maintenance Plans, which did not necessarily require removal of asbestos. If the asbestos was intact and not friable (i.e., easily crumbled or pulverized into powder by hand), then the asbestos remained and was not an exposure risk to students and faculty. While there was such a plan for the old Clarkrange Elementary School buildings, asbestos was an issue that should have been properly addressed before demolition after the school was closed and sold as surplus property.
Luxury Home Developer to Pay $513,740 for Storm Water Discharge Violations at Multiple Construction Sites
Cooper Land Development, Inc., a luxury home development company headquartered in Rogers, Arkansas, has agreed to pay a civil penalty and implement a storm water compliance program at its construction sites to settle allegations that it violated the CWA.
According to a consent decree filed in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Missouri, Cooper Land Development has agreed to pay a $513,740 civil penalty to settle the allegations that it failed to properly manage construction site storm water runoff and implement erosion control at five of its housing developments located in Missouri, West Virginia, and Arkansas. The penalty will be paid in four annual installments, plus interest, according to the consent decree.
Additionally, the consent decree requires Cooper Land Development to implement a company-wide storm water compliance program that provides for improved environmental performance and increased oversight of its operations at all of its current and future construction sites.
The settlement resolves a civil complaint filed September 22, 2008, in which the United States alleged that inspections in 2006 found Cooper Land Development had violated the terms of separate National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits issued by respective state environmental authorities for its Creekmoor housing development in Raymore, Missouri, and the Glade Springs Village housing development near Daniels, West Virginia.
The CWA requires that construction sites have controls in place to prevent pollution from being discharged with storm water into nearby waterways. These controls include simple pollution prevention techniques such as silt fences, phased site grading, and sediment basins to prevent common construction contaminants from entering the nation’s waterways.
EPA estimates that by implementing the terms and conditions of the settlement, approximately 8.67 million pounds of construction sediments will be kept from polluting the nation’s waterways.
Besides causing soil erosion and clogging streams with sediment, construction site storm water runoff can pick up other pollutants such as debris, pesticides, chemicals, solvents, and other substances. Sediment-laden runoff can result in the loss of in-stream habitat for fish and other aquatic species, killing fish directly, destroying their spawning beds, and blocking sunlight, which can result in reduced growth of beneficial aquatic grasses.
“Storm water discharges from construction sites cause serious degradation of our nation’s waterways,” said John C. Cruden, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “This agreement will result in better management practices that will ultimately lead to a cleaner environment.”
“The failure to properly control storm water runoff at construction sites can have serious consequences for the environment,” said William Rice, acting administrator for EPA Region 7. “EPA will enforce the laws and regulations to ensure that storm water runoff is properly managed in a way that protects our fragile ecosystems.”
Improving compliance at construction sites is one of EPA’s national enforcement priorities. Construction projects have a high potential for environmental harm because they disturb large areas of land and significantly increase the potential for erosion. Without onsite pollution controls, sediment-laden runoff from construction sites can flow directly to the nearest waterway and degrade water quality. In addition, storm water can pick up other pollutants, including concrete washout, paint, used oil, pesticides, solvents, and other debris. Polluted runoff can harm or kill fish and wildlife and can affect drinking water quality.
This settlement is the latest in a series of enforcement actions to address storm water violations from construction sites around the country. Similar consent decrees have been reached with companies like Home Depot and four major home building companies.
The consent decree, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, is subject to a 30-day public comment period and approval by the federal court.
Three Facilities Agree to Pay Penalties Totaling $226,132 for Failing to Meet Oil Spill Planning Requirements
Three southern New England facilities that store over a million gallons of oil each agreed to pay penalties for failing to take adequate precaution to prevent and contain oil spills. Specifically, EPA alleges that the following oil storage facilities had failed to adequately prepare and maintain Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure plans () and/or Facility Response Plans (): DDLC Energy of New London, Connecticut; Taylor Energy of Broad Brook, Connecticut; and Northeast Products Co. Inc., of Fall River, Massachusetts.
DDLC Energy had developed an SPCC and FRP plan, EPA alleges the plans have certain deficiencies. In addition, DDLC Energy was unable to adequately respond to simulated oil spill to the satisfaction of EPA, U.S. Coast Guard, and Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP) during a surprise drill. As a result, the U.S. Coast Guard issued an order prohibiting the facility from receiving barge shipments of oil and EPA filed a penalty action against the company. To settle the case, DDLC has agreed to pay a $75,000 penalty. DDLC personnel have worked cooperatively with EPA since the case was filed, correcting noted deficiencies and subsequently “passing” a second drill at the facility. The U.S Coast Guard order has been lifted following steps taken by the company to address noted deficiencies.
Taylor Energy has the capacity to store over one and half million gallons of oil. During an inspection it was determined the facility failed to fully prepare, maintain, and implement an SPCC plan. In addition, the FRP was outdated and had not been revised to reflect the current operating conditions of the facility. Also, the company had failed to implement an adequate spill response training and drill/exercise program. To settle the case, Taylor Energy has agreed to pay a $70,000 penalty. Taylor Energy personnel have worked cooperatively with EPA and have made significant investments to the facility to correct the noted deficiencies.
Northeast Products Co. Inc., includes a commercial warehouse building utilized for the processing and packaging of lubrication oils and a bulk oil farm. At the time of EPA’s inspection, the company had failed to develop an adequate FRP. More specifically, the plan failed to provide evidence of contracts or other approved means for ensuring availability of personnel and equipment in the event of a spill. In addition, there were no records of testing, inspection, or deployment of response equipment. Also, the company failed to comply with certain notice requirements under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (). To settle this case, the company has paid an $81,132 penalty.
Every year, thousands of gallons of oil are spilled from large and small oil storage facilities, polluting New England waters. SPCC plans and FRPs are critical to ensuring that such spills are prevented and, if they do occur, are adequately addressed.
Federal law requires that facilities with the potential for spills, like these companies, take every step possible to prevent oil discharges to the nation’s rivers, lakes and oceans through implementation of SPCC plans. Any facility with more than 1,320 gallons of aboveground oil storage capacity and meeting certain other criteria must develop and implement SPCC plans to prevent and contain spills, such as by installing impervious secondary containment around storage tanks and transfer areas.
The law recognizes that it is equally important that facilities know how to minimize environmental damage when spills do occur, and therefore requires response planning and spill preparation especially for facilities with more than one million gallons of storage capacity, like these facilities. To ensure that a facility can adequately respond to a spill, it must have effective employee training, spill response equipment, and a contingency plan for containing and cleaning up a release.
Oil storage facilities subject to the FRP rules must prepare and implement spill response plans for worst-case discharges from their facilities, which can be upwards of tens of millions of gallons of oil. EPA will continue to pay unannounced visits to facilities throughout New England.
Heritage Environmental Services to Pay $125,000 Penalty to Resolve Violations from Chemical Fire
Heritage Environmental Services, a Coolidge, Arizona hazardous waste facility, will pay $125,000 under a consent judgment with the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality for violations incurred when eight pallets of waste nitrocellulose film burned in 2006.
The consent judgment includes a $75,000 civil penalty and $50,000 to fund an SEP in which Heritage will perform chemical cleanup work in schools in the area.
The fire occurred on August 5, 2006 when the pallets of film and film canisters ignited after being exposed to the sun. Four nearby homes were evacuated but no one was injured.
ADEQ issued a Notice of Violation to the company for storage of hazardous waste in a non-permitted area of the facility; failure to take precautions to prevent accidental ignition and minimize the possibility of fire, explosion, or release of hazardous waste; and misidentification of hazardous waste on a shipping manifest.
“Their chemical fire put residents at risk so the penalty is steep but the company is stepping up to improve operations and help community efforts to reduce chemical exposure in schools,” said ADEQ Director Benjamin H. Grumbles.
“This was a serious incident requiring a serious response,” said Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard. “Companies handling hazardous wastes must know that Arizona will hold them to the law so that the public is protected.”
Port of L.A. Refueling Facility Fined $74,473 for Storm Water Violations
EPA has proposed that General Petroleum Corporation pay a penalty of $74,473 for allegedly failing to obtain a storm water permit for its facility at the Port of Los Angeles.
Between October 1, 2004 and December 4, 2007, the General Petroleum Corporation discharged pollutants in storm water at its petroleum bulk storage facility without first obtaining a storm water permit, a violation of the CWA and California’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements.
“Facilities such as these industries can control storm water pollution by following good housekeeping and continued maintenance,” said Alexis Strauss, Water Division director for the EPA’s Pacific Southwest region. “Controlling storm water pollution is essential to the ongoing improvement of Southern California water quality.”
Polluted runoff is a major cause of water pollution that can carry pollutants, such as metals, oil and grease, acidic wastewater, bacteria, trash, and other toxic pollutants, from industrial sources into nearby water sources. The EPA requires industrial facilities to prevent water pollution by complying with federal and state water pollution requirements.
This action is part of a larger enforcement initiative focusing on ports to ensure that ports, as well as their tenants, comply with storm water requirements. EPA and the Los Angeles Regional Quality Control Board conducted a storm water audit of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach in May 2007, and issued 20 administrative orders to the Ports’ tenants in November 2007, including General Petroleum Corporation.
Two Kansas VA Hospitals Agree to Pay Civil Penalty and Implement Plan to Manage Hazardous Wastes
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Eastern Kansas Health Care System has agreed to pay a $51,501 civil penalty and spend nearly a half-million dollars on a plan to manage pharmaceutical and chemical wastes, all in an agreement to settle alleged violations of hazardous waste laws at its hospitals in Leavenworth and Topeka, Kansas.
The agreement resolves a series of violations noted during inspections of the Dwight D. Eisenhower Veterans Medical Center in Leavenworth, Kansas, in January 2006, and the Colmery O’Neil Veterans Medical Center in Topeka, Kansas, in April 2006.
A three-count complaint filed January 19, 2009, accused DVA of one count of failure to perform hazardous waste determinations; one count of operation of a hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facility without a permit; and one count of offering hazardous waste for shipment to a transporter without a manifest, and offering hazardous waste to an unregistered transporter.
The complaint alleged that the 2006 inspections by EPA Region 7 staff found multiple RCRA violations including:
- Failure to perform proper hazardous waste determinations at Leavenworth and Topeka.
- Failure to properly manage hazardous waste satellite accumulation containers in the Histology Lab and Lab Storage Room at Leavenworth.
- Failure to properly mark hazardous waste containers in the Histology Lab storage room, a paint waste storage room, and one other room at Leavenworth.
- Failure to keep proper emergency information posted near telephones at both facilities.
- Failure to document all weekly inspections of hazardous waste storage areas at Leavenworth.
- Failure to conduct weekly inspections of an area storing large quantities of acute hazardous waste at Topeka.
- Failure to make proper advance arrangements with local fire and police departments and other emergency responders for responding to emergencies at both facilities.
- Failure to develop a proper emergency contingency plan for the Topeka facility.
- Failure to document a personnel training plan for the Topeka facility.
- Failure to store incompatible wastes without proper segregation at Leavenworth.
- Unpermitted on-site incineration of some hazardous wastes at both facilities.
- Unlawful shipping of hazardous waste between the two facilities without proper manifests, including the transportation of hazardous waste from Leavenworth to Topeka by an unauthorized waste transporter.
Besides paying a $51,501 civil penalty to the U.S. Treasury, the Department of Veterans Affairs Eastern Kansas Health System must spend at least $482,069 on an SEP to develop and implement a program to properly identify, segregate, and manage its pharmaceutical and chemical wastes at the Leavenworth and Topeka hospitals.
The SEP will have at least three phases, including analysis of waste streams present at the facilities, development of current reference material including the implementation of pharmaceutical waste software, and risk assessment to define processes and identify needs.
DVA plans to develop software and hire additional personnel to track all chemicals and pharmaceuticals at both hospitals. This in turn will identify areas where product substitution, employee training and recycling can be implemented, potentially eliminating the disposal of hundreds of pounds of hazardous waste annually at each facility.
Two Boat Manufacturers Pay Over $50,000 for Failing to Report Styrene Under SARA Title III, TRI Reporting Requirements
Two Puget Sound area boat manufacturers, Fluid Motion, LLC, and Delta Marine Industries, have reached an agreement with the EPA to pay fines for failure to submit timely reports of their use of the toxic chemical styrene under the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reporting requirements of SARA Title III.
Fluid Motion, LLC, located in Kent, Washington, will pay a penalty of $2,850 for failure to submit reports by the TRI reporting deadline for its styrene use during the years 2004, 2006, and 2007. Styrene, a chemical component of resins used to manufacture boats, is released into the air during the spraying and curing process.
In addition to paying the fine, Fluid Motion will perform an SEP valued at $10,700. The SEP requires Fluid Motion to purchase and install new equipment and to train employees in controlled spraying techniques that will reduce styrene emissions into the environment and surrounding community.
Delta Marine Industries, a yacht manufacturer located in Seattle, Washington, also failed to submit reports by the reporting deadline for its use of styrene for reporting years 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2007. The company agreed to pay a penalty of $37,050.
“The Toxics Release Inventory is a resource for the public, but it is not effective without accurate chemical reporting,” said Rick Albright, the Director of EPA’s Office of Air, Waste & Toxics in Seattle. “Accurate data in the Toxics Release Inventory allows the public to hold companies accountable and make informed decisions about toxic chemicals present in their communities.”
EPA and New York City Establish Groundbreaking Audit Program in Reaching a Settlement
In a move that will ensure the proper handling of many thousands of bulbs that contain toxic mercury and computer monitors that contain lead in New York City, the EPA has reached an agreement with the city requiring it to pay $50,000 in penalties and launch a comprehensive program to properly manage such wastes. Inspections of several buildings managed by the Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS), an agency of the city, revealed improper disposal of mercury-containing light bulbs as well as used computer monitors. The city agreed not only to comply with requirements, but also to surpass them by spending at least $300,000 on a multi-facility, self-audit program to assess compliance with hazardous waste management requirements.
“Mercury and lead from such wastes can pose severe threats to people’s health if they are released into the environment when they are haphazardly tossed out,” George Pavlou, EPA Acting Regional Administrator said. “We are very happy that the city is taking steps to prevent these types of substances from entering the environment and is going beyond compliance to establish a very extensive self-monitoring project.”
The comprehensive audit program will cover more than 800 buildings owned or operated by the City of New York. The program will play a critical role in protecting human health and the environment by identifying, correcting, and preventing violations of environmental regulations. Under the agreement, the city has also committed to attempt to increase the recycling of spent bulbs and used computer monitors at their facilities.
Violations of hazardous waste disposal regulations were discovered from 2003-2005 during inspections of seven facilities managed by DCAS. Based on observations EPA made during the inspections and subsequent responses to requests for information, EPA concluded that DCAS had failed to make a hazardous waste determination with regard to spent fluorescent lamps or used computer monitors at the inspected facilities. Additionally, EPA observed that DCAS had failed to meet labeling requirements and had failed to package the waste properly to prevent damage or release into the environment.
Exposure to mercury, a component of fluorescent bulbs, can adversely affect human nervous systems, and exposure to high levels can permanently damage the brain and kidneys. Short-term exposure can result in lung damage, increased blood pressure, and rashes. Exposure to lead, found in computer monitors, may cause delayed neurological development in children and other adverse health effects in adults, including increased blood pressure, nephritis, and cerebrovascular disease.
Both computer monitors and fluorescent bulbs can be recycled or disposed of in a manner that lowers the risk of release into the environment.
City of Maryville, Missouri, to Settle Allegations of Failing to Properly Operate Its Industrial Wastewater Pretreatment Program
The City of Maryville, Missouri, has agreed to pay a civil penalty valued at $33,000, including a cash payment of $20,400 to the United States, and to install a new energy-efficient water pump at the city’s sewage treatment plant, to settle allegations that it failed to properly operate its industrial wastewater pretreatment program.
According to a civil complaint and consent agreement filed August 12, 2009, in Kansas City, Kansas, EPA Region 7 determined that the city failed to conduct required annual inspections of seven local industries, identified as “significant industrial users” of the city’s wastewater treatment system, during 2005 and 2006. Those users included LMP Steel and Wire, Federal-Mogul Corporation, Deluxe Printing, Eveready/Energizer Battery Company, Kawasaki Motors Manufacturing Company, Laclede Chain Manufacturing Company, and St. Francis Hospital.
Although EPA identified violations of Maryville’s pretreatment program by the seven significant industrial users, those incidents do not appear to have caused or contributed to any violations of the city’s effluent limits.
“This settlement is an important step in protecting water quality in northwest Missouri,” said William Spratlin, director of EPA Region 7’s Water, Wetlands, and Pesticides Division. “Cities implementing the pretreatment program must realize their important role in keeping toxic pollutants out of our streams and rivers.”
The industrial pretreatment program provides pretreatment standards that are designed to control pollutants from industrial users at the source, before they reach the city’s sewage treatment plant. Without proper implementation of the pretreatment program, these pollutants have the potential to pass through the city’s plant and into receiving streams without adequate treatment. Such pollutants may also interfere with the effectiveness of the sewage treatment plant and contaminate the plant’s sewage sludge.
Besides paying the $20,400 civil penalty to the United States, Maryville has also agreed to perform a SEP, involving the installation of a new water pump at its treatment plant. The new centrifugal pump with variable frequency drives should result in significant improvements to energy efficiency for the city. Unlike the pump that it will replace, the new pump is designed to operate at variable speeds and shut down when not in use. The increased energy efficiency will reduce the city’s energy consumption and associated generation of greenhouse gases.
EPA Fines Guam Waterworks Authority $19,000 for Failing to Complete Water Tank Assessment
EPA has fined the Guam Waterworks Authority $19,000 for failing to fully comply with a 2003 court order to make improvements to its drinking water system. GWA was penalized for failing to meet a December 2008 deadline for completing a condition assessment to determine the structural stability and soundness of the highest priority steel tank water reservoirs.
“Water storage tanks are a critical component of the GWA water system, as they help ensure water pressure and adequate flow throughout the system. Many of the over 30 tanks located around the island are in poor condition which underscores the need to complete the assessments and address the deficiencies as required by the court order,” said Alexis Strauss, Water Division director for the EPA’s Pacific Southwest region. “The fines are a consequence of GWA’s failure to meet the court order requirements and complete the necessary improvements to provide reliable drinking water service to residents.”
The condition assessment of GWA water reservoirs was to be performed in two phases. The highest priority tanks were to be assessed by December 2008 and all other tanks by December 2009. Although GWA did an initial, visual inspection of all tanks in 2008, it has not completed the required, full structural assessments of any tanks to date.
Guam’s water system is being upgraded and improved to ensure the proper management, treatment and delivery of safe drinking water. The order provides for penalties if established deadlines are missed, and for additional penalties until the work is complete.
Seven California Companies Penalized For Failing to File Biennial Reports
EPA has fined seven California companies for not filing biennial hazardous waste reports with the Agency. The companies, listed below, are located throughout the state:
- Achaogen, Inc., South San Francisco
- Ameriflight, Inc., Burbank
- Bioneer Inc., Alameda
- Ceradyne, Inc., Irvine
- Copper Clad Multilayer Products, Inc., Anaheim
- Golden State M & P Lab, Inc., Arleta
- Heath Ceramics, Sausalito
Even in very small amounts, hazardous waste can cause severe health effects. RCRA requires companies that generate more than 2,200 pounds of hazardous waste a month, or more than 2.2 pounds of acute hazardous waste a month, to report to EPA every other year regarding the quantities, types, and dispositions of their hazardous wastes.
As a result of these actions, the seven companies reported more than 285 tons of hazardous waste to the EPA. In addition to filing their missing biennial hazardous waste reports, each company has also paid a fine of $2,500.
“The biennial reports provide the EPA, the state, and local communities with important information on what hazardous wastes are generated and stored in their communities,” said Jeff Scott, director of the EPA’s Waste Management Division for the Pacific Southwest region. “We would like to see all companies meet the upcoming March 1, 2010 deadline rather than be subject to enforcement and fines for failing to report.”
The reports collect information about the changes in waste volume and toxicity that can be used to measure the impact of the EPA’s efforts in the area of pollution prevention and waste minimization. The data is also used to evaluate the effect of regulations and policies on companies that generate hazardous waste.
In 2008, approximately 2,400 California companies filed their 2007 reports. The deadline for filing the 2009 report is March 1, 2010.
Town of Fort Gay, West Virginia Sued to Stop Discharges of Untreated Sewage
The Justice Department, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, and the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources have sued the town of Fort Gay, West Virginia, to stop the town from discharging untreated sewage from pipes, manholes, and pumping stations into Mill Creek.
The complaint, filed on behalf of the U.S. EPA and the state agencies alleges the discharges pose a threat to human health because of potential contamination of the town’s drinking water. The complaint also alleges numerous violations of the CWA, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the West Virginia Water Pollution Control Act.
According to the government’s complaint, on numerous occasions since January 2007, Fort Gay discharged untreated sewage from several of its pumping stations into Mill Creek, a tributary of the Tug Fork River. The intake to the Fort Gay Water Works, which provides water for the town, is located along the Tug Fork River less than a half-mile downstream from Mill Creek.
The complaint also alleges that the untreated sewage has flowed into residential yards, basements, streams, and the river; that Fort Gay has failed to take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge and; that the town failed to comply with a 2003 EPA order to take actions to prevent these discharges. Overall, the complaint alleges that the town did not properly operate and maintain its sewage treatment system.
Untreated sewage contains viruses and protozoa as well as other parasites. People coming in contact with these organisms can suffer adverse health effects ranging from minor ailments such as sore throats, stomach cramps, and diarrhea; to life-threatening illnesses such as cholera, dysentery, infectious hepatitis, and severe gastroenteritis. Children, the elderly, people with weakened immune systems, and pregnant women are more at risk of illness.
The complaint seeks an injunction directing Fort Gay to eliminate or minimize the risk to human health posed by the discharge of raw sewage, and come into compliance with federal requirements and its state-issued pollution discharge permit.
Fort Gay could be subject to financial penalties for the violations. Penalties are assessed based on the seriousness of the violations, the economic benefit from non-compliance, compliance history, the economic impact of the penalty, and other factors.
Environmental News Links
Trivia Question of the Week
Trace amounts of this material has been found in the drinking water of 41 million Americans.
a. Perchlorate, a rocket fuel derivative
b. Perfluorocarbons, a component of non-stick coatings
c. Polychlorinated biphenyls
d. Pharmaceuticals