Revisions to the Emergency Response Guidebook

 The ERG2012 will supersede the ERG2008. The development of the ERG2012 is a joint effort involving the transportation agencies of the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

PHMSA is soliciting answers to the following questions:

1. In what way(s) does the ERG achieve its purpose to aid first responders in quickly identifying the specific or generic hazards of the materials(s) involved in the incident, and protecting themselves and the general public during the initial response phase of the incident?

2. How can the ERG be made more user-friendly for emergency responders? Please provide examples.

3. In what way(s) can the pictures, pictograms, and symbols shown in the ERG be used more effectively and efficiently?

4. What format(s) of the ERG are being used (hardcopy, electronic, on-line, etc.) and why?

5. How often is the ERG used in a hazmat emergency?

6. Is the most useful information emphasized effectively in the ERG2008 for its intended purpose?

7. How could the ERG be enhanced to better assist with go/no-go decision making while staying focused on its stated purpose? Please provide examples.

8. Have users experienced inconsistent guidance between utilizing the ERG and other sources of technical information? How could these inconsistencies be reconciled?

9. Are there ways the White Pages could be improved or enhanced?

For example:

• How could or should sections of the ERG be combined or merged? Please explain and provide examples.
• What additional identification charts should be added, if any? What other subject matter should be addressed?
• Is the information provided in the Table of Placards, Rail Identification Chart and Road Trailer Identification Chart appropriate and correct? How could this information be made more useful and clear?
• Should other information be included or removed? If so, what information?
• Could current charts, and the information provided by those charts, be formatted in a more effective manner? How could they be improved to be more easily read and used?
• How could the Protective Clothing section be improved or enhanced? What additional information could be included or removed?
• In what way(s) could the information provided on chemical, biological, and radiological differences be improved upon or enhanced?
• What information could be included or removed?
• Are the terms listed in the Glossary appropriate and current? What additional terms should be added? What terms should be removed or changed?
• Are the sections of the White Pages in the appropriate sequence? If not, how should the information be organized?

10. Have any identification numbers or material names been incorrectly assigned or cross-referenced to each other in the Yellow or Blue Pages of the ERG2008?

11. In the Yellow or Blue Pages of the ERG2008, has any identification number and/or material name been assigned to an incorrect Guide number? If so, please note the identification number, material name, and the Guide number, and provide the correct information and reason for this change.

12. Are the recommendations and responses provided in each of the Orange Guide Pages appropriate to the material it’s assigned to? If not, please explain and recommend a correction.

13. How could Table 1—``Initial Isolation and Protective Action Distances’’ and Table 2—”Water Reactive Materials Which Produce Toxic Gases,” or the Introduction and Description of each Table be modified or improved?

14. When calling any of the Emergency Response Telephone Numbers listed in the ERG2008, have there been any experiences with a busy telephone line, disconnection, or no response?

15. In terms of the usefulness of the ERG2008, has the type and quality of information been appropriate for the response needs? Please explain.

16. Are there emergency response providers not shown in the ERG2008 that have been used and found to be reliable that should be listed in the Emergency Response Telephone Numbers section? If so, who and why?

Toxic Chemicals Safety Act to Strengthen TSCA

The legislation would amend the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 to ensure that the public and the environment are protected from risks resulting from chemical exposure.

• Establishes a framework to ensure that all chemical substances to which the American people are exposed will be reviewed for safety and restricted where necessary to protect public health and the environment.
• Requires the chemical industry to develop and provide to the EPA essential data, and improves EPA’s authority to compel testing where necessary.
• Ensures that non-confidential information submitted to EPA is shared with the public and that critical confidential information is shared among regulators, with states, and with workers in the chemical industry.
• Establishes an expedited process for EPA to reduce exposure to chemical substances that are known to be persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic.
• Creates incentives and a review process for safer alternatives to existing chemicals, promoting innovation and investment in green chemistry.
• Creates a workforce education and training program in green chemistry, promoting and ensuring long-term viability of American jobs.
• Encourages the reduction of the use of animals in chemical testing.
• Allows EPA to exempt chemicals already known to be safe from requirements of the Act.
• Promotes research to advance understanding of children’s vulnerability to the harms of chemicals.
• Directs EPA to address community exposures to toxic chemicals in certain “hot spot” locations.
• Requires EPA to engage in international efforts to control dangerous chemicals.
• Ensures that EPA actions are transparent, open to public comment, and subject to judicial review, without unreasonable procedural burdens.
• Gives EPA the resources needed to carry out the law.

Section 8 of the bill imposes several new reporting requirements on chemical manufacturers, including disclosure of the following information to EPA:

• Chemical identity
• The name and location of any facility that manufactures, processes or distributes the chemical
• Current health and safety studies
• Intended uses
• Risks from exposure
• Number of people exposed
• Production volume
• Identity of any byproducts resulting from the chemical’s manufacture or processing
• Any restrictions on the product, be they regulatory or voluntary

SPCC Compliance Date Extended for Certain Facilities

The agency is also announcing that certain facilities will not be eligible for the one year extension and will have to comply by the current date of November 10, 2010.

Last year, EPA amended the SPCC rule to strengthen certain provisions. Regulated facilities are required to amend and implement these changes as part of their overall SPCC plans. The purpose of the SPCC rule, which was finalized in 1973, is to establish requirements for facilities to prevent a discharge of oil into navigable waters or adjoining shorelines. EPA has no SPCC jurisdiction over drilling, production or workover facilities seaward of the coastline.

This latest SPCC rule amendment extends the dates in 40 CFR 112.3 by which the owners or operators of certain SPCC regulated facilities must prepare or amend and implement an SPCC Plan, and reconciles the proposed compliance dates for new production facilities. The proposed compliance date for certain facilities is November 10, 2011. EPA is also proposing to delay the compliance date for facilities with milk containers, associated piping and appurtenances that are constructed according to the current applicable 3-A Sanitary Standards, and subject to the current applicable Grade “A” Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO) or a State dairy regulatory requirement equivalent to the current applicable PMO.

Types of facilities not eligible for the proposed extension that must comply by November 10, 2010 include: drilling, production or workover facilities that are offshore or that have an offshore component, and onshore facilities required to have and submit facility response plans (FRPs), due to the threats these facilities could pose of significant oil spills to navigable waters or adjoining shorelines.

Types of facilities that may be eligible for the proposed one year extension include: oil production, farms, electric utility plants, petroleum refining and related industries, chemical manufacturing, food manufacturing, manufacturing facilities using and storing animal fats and vegetable oils, metal and other manufacturing, real estate rental and leasing, retail trade, contract construction, wholesale trade, other commercial, transportation, arts entertainment & recreation, other services (except public administration), petroleum bulk stations and terminals, education, hospitals & other health care, accommodation and food services, fuel oil dealers, gasoline stations, information finance and insurance, mining, warehousing and storage, religious organizations, military installations, and government facilities.

In summary, the proposed rule would:

• Extend the date by which the owners or operators of certain facilities must prepare or amend and implement an SPCC plan by one year to November 10, 2011
• Delay the compliance date for facilities with milk containers that are constructed according to the current applicable 3-A sanitary standards, and subject to the current applicable grade “A” pasteurized milk ordinance (PMO) or a state dairy regulatory requirement equivalent to the current applicable PMO until one year after EPA finalizes a rule for these facilities.
• Maintain the current November 10, 2010 compliance date for drilling, production and workover facilities that are offshore or that have an offshore component, and for onshore facilities required to have and submit FRPs
• Reconcile the proposed compliance dates for new production facilities

The proposed amendments do not remove the regulatory requirement for owners or operators of facilities in operation before August 16, 2002 (other than facilities with milk containers described above), to maintain and continue implementing an SPCC plan in accordance with the SPCC regulations then in effect. EPA is seeking comment on whether a shorter extension period (6 to 9 months) is warranted for facilities rather than the proposed one year extension. In considering a shorter compliance extension period, EPA is requesting comments on the criteria to consider, such as discharge history, size and type of facility, potential risk posed, and ability to come into compliance.

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™.

Making Eco-Friendly Diesel Fuel from Butter

The search for new raw materials for making biodiesel fuel has led scientists to an unlikely farm product—butter. In a new study in ACS’ bi-weekly Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry: “Butter as a Feedstock for Biodiesel Production,” they report that butter could be used as an eco-friendly feedstock, or raw material, for making diesel fuel.

Michael Haas and colleagues cite rising global demand for biodiesel, and the desire to expand the feedstock base, as motivating factors for their research. The United States alone has committed to producing 36 billion gallons of biofuel by 2022, a major increase from the current annual production level of about 11 billion gallons. Most of that was ethanol. Biodiesel production, now approaching 1 billion gallons annually in the U.S., is also slated to increase. As researchers seek additional and affordable feedstocks for biodiesel production, these scientists turned to butter, one billion pounds of which are produced annually. Could surplus, spoiled, or nonfood-grade butter be used to make biodiesel at competitive prices?

In an effort to find out, the scientists recovered the fat from a quarter-ton of butter and converted it into the fatty acid esters that constitute biodiesel. They found that the resulting material met all but one of the official test standards for biodiesel. The study concluded that with further purification or by blending with biodiesel from other feedstocks butter biodiesel could add to the supply of biobased fuel for diesel engines.

EPA To Hold Listening Sessions on Potential Revisions to Water Quality Standards Regulation

The current regulation, which has been in place since 1983, governs how states and authorized tribes adopt standards needed under the Clean Water Act to protect the quality of their rivers, streams, lakes, and estuaries. Potential revisions include strengthening protection for water bodies with water quality that already exceeds or meet the interim goals of the Clean Water Act; ensuring that standards reflect a continued commitment to these goals wherever attainable; improving transparency of regulatory decisions; and strengthening federal oversight.

Water quality standards are the foundation of the water quality-based approach to pollution control, including Total Maximum Daily Loads and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits. Standards are also a fundamental component of watershed management.

The public listening sessions will be held via audio teleconferences on August 24 and 26, 2010, from 1 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. EDT. At the sessions, EPA will provide a review of the current regulation and a summary of the revisions the agency is considering. Clarifying questions and brief oral comments (three minutes or less) from the public will be accepted at the sessions, as time permits. EPA will consider the comments received as it develops the proposed rulemaking.

EPA will also hold separate listening sessions for state, tribal and local governments.

EPA expects to publish the proposed revisions to the water quality standards regulation in summer 2011.

New Illinois Laws to Reduce Harmful Mercury Exposure

On July 26, 2010. Governor Pat Quinn signed into law three bills that will further reduce the amounts of mercury in the environment that can be harmful to residents, especially young children. Illinois already leads the nation in reducing the public’s exposure to mercury.

“Mercury exposure poses a threat to our waterways and environment, and to the public’s health,” said Governor Quinn. “These bills expand our efforts to significantly reduce the amounts of mercury in our environment by eliminating non-essential uses.”

Senate Bill 3346, sponsored by Sen. Heather Steans (D-Chicago) and Rep. Karen May (D-Highwood), requires thermostat manufacturers to maintain a statewide program to collect, transport and manage mercury-switch thermostats for recycling when they are taken out of service. Senate Bill 3347, also sponsored by Sen. Steans and Rep. May, phases out the sale and use of lead and mercury wheel balancing weights in Illinois on January 1, 2012.

House Bill 6201, sponsored by Rep. May and Sen. Terry Link (D-Waukegan), extends the sunset date for the automakers’ current state program that collects and recycles mercury light switches from end-of-life vehicles before they are processed as scrap metal to January 1, 2017.

Mercury can escape into the environment when improperly disposed or burned. If a mercury-containing device breaks and the spill is not cleaned up properly, the mercury forms into an odorless vapor, potentially reaching dangerous levels in indoor air. Methylmercury, an organic form of mercury, can accumulate up the food chain in lakes, streams and rivers, which results in high concentrations in the tissues of older and larger fish.

People are most frequently exposed to mercury through the consumption of contaminated fish or by inhaling vapors from spilled mercury or leaking equipment. Mercury poses a significant health risk, especially to young children and fetuses. Prolonged, low-level exposure may cause learning disabilities by impairing children’s ability to think and read. Adults who have been exposed to high levels of mercury may experience trembling hands and numbness or tingling in their lips, tongues, fingers and toes.

Acute mercury poisoning, especially through ingestion, can damage the brain, liver, kidneys and even cause death. Mercury can harm wildlife that eats contaminated fish, particularly bald eagles, loons and other fish-eating birds and mammals.

Ohio EPA Introduces Draft Changes to Antidegradation Rules

Comments on the draft antidegradation rules are due by August 19, 2010.

The three rules are time-sensitive because they are the result of a Joint Stipulation and Settlement Agreement from an Environmental Review Appeals Commissions (ERAC) appeal which set an August target date for proposing antidegradation amendments. To achieve this, the three changes need to proceed through the rulemaking process ahead of the rest of the rules.

The three draft changes include:

• specifying the rule exemptions that apply when existing sources discharge to waters of the state
• specifying the reserve portion of a water body’s pollutant capacity allocation where outstanding state waters and superior high quality waters exist; and
• listing specific petition procedures when revising the allowable set aside percentages for a water body’s pollutant capacity.

The antidegradation rule establishes a procedure to determine that a discharge is necessary before authorizing it. The antidegradation rule is required by the Clean Water Act and must be part of state water quality standards. Antidegradation sets up provisions to be followed before authorizing any increase in activity for a water body that could result in lowering the water quality, including an increase in the discharge of a regulated pollutant or activities that may significantly alter physical habitat.

These three changes have been pulled out of a draft that was previously under review in October 2008, due to time sensitive requirements. The rules were originally part of four interrelated rules packages (water quality standards, 401 water quality certification, antidegradation and stream mitigation).

After the comment period closes, Ohio EPA will review the comments received and make necessary changes. Then the rules would be formally proposed, with another comment period and a public hearing. Ohio EPA will again review comments received, make any necessary changes and then adopt the final rule.

EPA Rejects Claims of Climate Change Skeptics

The petitions to reconsider EPA’s Endangerment Finding claim that climate science cannot be trusted, and assert a conspiracy that invalidates the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. After months of serious consideration of the petitions and of the state of climate change science, EPA finds no evidence to support these claims. In contrast, EPA’s review shows that climate science is credible, compelling, and growing stronger.

“The endangerment finding is based on years of science from the U.S. and around the world. These petitions—based as they are on selectively edited, out-of-context data and a manufactured controversy—provide no evidence to undermine our determination. Excess greenhouse gases are a threat to our health and welfare,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “Defenders of the status quo will try to slow our efforts to get America running on clean energy. A better solution would be to join the vast majority of the American people who want to see more green jobs, more clean energy innovation and an end to the oil addiction that pollutes our planet and jeopardizes our national security.”

The basic assertions by the petitioners and EPA responses are:

Claim: Petitioners say that emails disclosed from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate global temperature data.

Response: EPA reviewed every email and found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets. Four other independent reviews came to similar conclusions.

Claim: Petitioners say that errors in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report call the entire body of work into question.

Response: Of the alleged errors, EPA confirmed only two in a 3,000 page report. The first pertains to the rate of Himalayan glacier melt and second to the percentage of the Netherlands below sea level. IPCC issued correction statements for both of these errors. The errors have no bearing on Administrator Jackson’s decision. None of the errors undermine the basic facts that the climate is changing in ways that threaten our health and welfare.

Claim: Petitioners say that because certain studies were not included in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC itself is biased and cannot be trusted as a source of reliable information.

Response: These claims are incorrect. In fact, the studies in question were included in the IPCC report, which provided a comprehensive and balanced discussion of climate science.

Claim: Petitioners say that new scientific studies refute evidence supporting the Endangerment Finding.

Response: Petitioners misinterpreted the results of these studies. Contrary to their claims, many of the papers they submit as evidence are consistent with EPA’s Finding. Other studies submitted by the petitioners were based on unsound methodologies. Detailed discussion of these issues may be found in volume one of the response to petition documents, on EPA’s website.

Beyond this, evidence of climate change is seen in melting ice in the Arctic, melting glaciers around the world, increasing ocean temperatures, rising sea levels, shifting precipitation patterns, and changing ecosystems and wildlife habitats.

The consistency among these and previously issued assessments only serves to strengthen EPA’s conclusion.

$165,000 Penalty for TRI Reporting Violations

High Steel Structures, Inc. and its sister company High Concrete Group, LLC, have settled with EPA for alleged violations of toxic chemical reporting requirements at their plants in Lancaster, Williamsport and Denver, Pennsylvania.

EPA cited the companies for violating the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (), which requires companies that manufacture, use or process more than a threshold amount of listed toxic chemicals to file an annual toxic chemical release form with EPA and the state. Under EPCRA, companies must also report both routine and accidental releases of toxic chemicals, as well as the maximum amount of any listed chemicals at the facility and the amount contained in wastes transferred off-site.

These annual reports are used to compile the Toxic Release Inventory, a publicly available EPA database that contains information on toxic chemical releases and waste management activities. This inventory informs the public about toxic chemicals and releases in their community. 

The alleged violations at the Lancaster plant, located at 1853 William Penn Way, were uncovered during an EPA inspection in 2009. The company did not report releases for lead, chromium and zinc dust for the years 2005, 2006 and 2007. The company has since submitted these reports and agreed to pay a civil penalty of $165,000.

At the Williamsport facility, located at 3501 W. Fourth Street, and the Denver facility, located at 125 Denver Road, the companies voluntarily disclosed reporting violations in April 2010. Under EPA’s self-disclosure policy, which encourages companies to monitor environmental compliance, and promptly report and correct violations, the company was eligible for 100 percent mitigation of the penalties, which could have been $227,717 at the Williamsport plant and $98,866 at the Denver facility.

As part of the settlements, the companies did not admit liability for the alleged violations. However, High Steel and High Concrete have indicated that they have developed and implemented systematic toxic release inventory reporting processes and will conduct annual reviews to prevent violations from recurring.

$450,000 Fine for VOC Emissions

EPA, the U.S. Department of Justice and the South Coast Air Quality Management District announced that Lifoam Industries, Inc. will pay $450,000 in fines, claiming the company violated the federal Clean Air Act and state air quality laws at its polystyrene manufacturing facility at 2340 E. 52 Street in Vernon, California.

Under the terms of a settlement, Lifoam Industries is required to pay a $450,000 penalty and must vent all of its manufacturing emissions through an air pollution control device.

“The effects of illegal air pollution in the Los Angeles basin are insidious, and local residents suffer a disproportionate impact,” said Jared Blumenfeld, EPA’s Regional Administrator for the Pacific Southwest. “To protect public health and the environment, we will vigilantly track down violators and bring them into compliance.”

“Since Southern California has the worst air pollution in the nation, for the sake of public health we must ensure that all businesses are operating in compliance with air quality regulations and doing their part to help improve our air,” said Barry Wallerstein, Executive Officer of the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

The city of Vernon is one of several densely populated communities closest to the I-710 Freeway, where the effects of pollution are disproportionately higher than in other areas of Los Angeles County. Approximately 1 million people, about 70% of whom are minority and low-income households, are severely impacted by pollution from industrial activities in the area and goods movement along the freeway.

Federal, state and local regulatory agencies have formed an Enforcement Collaborative to focus resources over a multi-year effort to ensure that businesses and industries in this area are complying with environmental laws. U.S. EPA is joining forces with Cal/EPA, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Air Resources Board in the Enforcement Collaborative, which is partnering with other local government and non-profit organizations to improve environmental and public health conditions in these communities.

Lifoam Industries manufactures expanded polystyrene foam products that contain pentane, a volatile organic compound that contributes to ozone pollution, or smog.

According to EPA, Lifoam Industries failed to ensure that the volatile organic compound emissions were less than 2.4 pounds of volatile organic compounds per 100 pounds of raw materials, a violation of the Clean Air Act. The South Coast Air Quality Management District, which oversees air regulations in the Los Angeles Air Basin, allows polystyrene foam product manufacturers to meet this federally-enforceable emissions limit by using raw materials that release less volatile organic compounds or through the use of an adequate air pollution control device.

Both federal regulators and the South Coast Air Quality Management District also assert that Lifoam installed and operated air-pollution-emitting equipment without obtaining the necessary permits and that the facility did not properly vent volatile organic compounds to air pollution control equipment.

Volatile organic compounds react with other pollutants such as nitrogen oxide and, in the presence of sunlight, can form ozone, or smog. Smog can cause respiratory problems, including coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath and chest pain. People with asthma, children and the elderly are especially at risk, but these health concerns are important to everyone.

Birds Eye Foods Agrees to Resolve Environmental Contamination Issues

“This settlement represents a significant achievement benefitting the citizens of the Fennville area,” said DNRE Director Rebecca A. Humphries. “The actions to be taken will provide safe drinking water to affected area residents and fully address the environmental issues in the area, while assuring the continued presence of Birds Eye as an important component of the local economy.”

The work to be completed by Birds Eye under the terms of the ACO will be coordinated with the completion of the city of Fennville municipal water supply extension to residences in the area affected by groundwater contamination downgradient of the Birds Eye facility. The water supply extension is the result of efforts of the Michigan Department of Agriculture, the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC), the city of Fennville, and the townships of Clyde and Manlius. The water supply extension is funded by a Community Development Block Grant to the city and administered by the MEDC. The ACO requires that Birds Eye also contribute monetarily to the water supply extension.

Under the terms of the ACO, Birds Eye will construct a new wastewater treatment system. Wastewater from the new treatment system will be sprayed on agricultural fields during the growing season under the terms of the groundwater discharge permit, and will be discharged to surface water via the city of Fennville municipal wastewater treatment system during the winter to avoid discharge to the groundwater when treatment by agricultural crops and the soils is minimal. Birds Eye has also agreed to address its obligations under the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act for environmental contamination at and near the Fennville facility.

The ACO requires Birds Eye to complete a remedial investigation to determine the full nature and extent of groundwater contamination, and to perform any necessary response activities to address the contamination. Birds Eye will continue to supply bottled water to residents whose water supplies have been identified by the DNRE to exceed health-based drinking water criteria until the Fennville municipal water supply extension is completed.

In conjunction with entry of the ACO, the DNRE has placed a proposed draft groundwater discharge permit for Birds Eye on public notice. A public hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, August 17, from 7 to 9 p.m. in the Fennville High School auditorium. The public comment period will extend through August 20, 2010. A copy of the public notice will be published in the Allegan County News’ July 22 edition, and will be posted at the Birds Eye facility, the Clyde and Manlius township halls, Fennville City Hall, the Fennville Public Library and the Fennville Post Office.

Aboveground Diesel Tanks Without Containment Must be Removed

Attorney General Michael Delaney and Commissioner Thomas S. Burack of the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, announce that, on July 26, 2010, the Hillsborough County Superior Court (Northern District) issued a preliminary injunction ordering J.A. Bourque & Sons, Inc., of Manchester to drain its seven above-ground petroleum storage tanks (ASTs), and take them out of service until secondary containment structures are installed. The order requires J.A. Bourque & Sons, Inc. to complete the process of draining the ASTs and removing them from service by August 9, 2010.

Pursuant to state law, all ASTs were required to have installed secondary containment by May of 2008. Secondary containment for ASTs is a system that is designed to prevent petroleum products from entering the environment, if an AST were to leak.

The injunction was sought by the State in connection with a lawsuit filed on June 21, 2010 by the State of New Hampshire against J.A. Bourque & Sons, Inc. The State’s petition alleges that J.A. Bourque & Sons, Inc. failed to install secondary containment for its AST facility at 30 Ohio Avenue in Manchester. The AST facility at 30 Ohio Avenue consists of seven tanks holding primarily diesel fuel and No.2 fuel oil. A leak in any of these ASTs may result in a discharge to nearby surface waters or to the groundwater. In addition, the facility is within the drinking water source protection area for the Pennichuck Water Works.

Attorney General Michael Delaney stated, “The waters of this State are a precious resource and this Office will continue to seek enforcement of the secondary containment rules for ASTs to reduce the risk of discharge.” DES Commissioner Thomas Burack said, “The secondary containment rules for ASTs provide an important safeguard against accidental discharges of oil. This injunction will reduce the risk of a petroleum discharge at the facility.”

$2.1 Million Penalty for Waste Oil Discharge

Offshore Vessels LLC (OSV) has entered a plea of guilty to knowingly discharging waste oil from one of its vessels, in violation of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS), the Justice Department announced. OSV, based in Louisiana, entered the plea in U.S. District Court in New Orleans.

OSV owned and operated the R/V Laurence M. (L.M.) Gould (R/V Gould). The R/V Gould is a 2,966 gross ton American-flagged vessel that served on a contractual basis as an ice-breaking research vessel for the National Science Foundation on research voyages to and from Antarctica. OSV admitted that on or about September 8, 2005, on the high seas, R/V Gould crew members knowingly discharged oily wastewater from the bilge tank of the ship overboard, in violation APPS. Regulations under APPS require that oily wastewater be discharged only after it has been processed through an oily water separator, to ensure that the concentration of oil in the wastewater is below the legal limit.

OSV’s plea agreement with the Justice Department requires the company to pay a criminal fine of $1.75 million and remit a payment of $350,000 as community service to the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation, to be used for study of polar water pollution and protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems in the Antarctic region. OSV will also serve a period of probation for three years, during which it will be subject to an Environmental Compliance Plan.

“The Department of Justice will vigorously pursue all vessel companies, American and foreign, that deliberately violate the laws enacted to protect the oceans,” said Assistant Attorney General Ignacia S. Moreno. “This case is particularly egregious because the defendant is an American company tasked with providing passage for the National Science Foundation in order for it to perform important environmental research in Antarctica.”

The case was investigated by the U.S. Coast Guard Investigative Service and was prosecuted by Senior Trial Attorney Daniel Dooher, Environmental Crimes Section, Department of Justice; and Assistant U.S. Attorney Dorothy Manning Taylor, Eastern District of Louisiana.

MassDEP Penalizes Willard Street Collision of Quincy $6,100 for Air Quality and Hazardous Waste Management Violations

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) penalized Willard Street Collision of Quincy $6,100 for air quality, hazardous waste and industrial waste water violations. The violations were observed during an unannounced inspection by MassDEP in September 2009 following a complaint regarding nuisance odors.

“Automotive shops have to be especially careful in meeting compliance with environmental regulations because there are inherent risks to the environment from the mismanagement of oil and hazardous materials,” said Richard Chalpin, director of MassDEP’s Northeast Regional Office in Wilmington. “The potential for negative impacts, as is evidenced by this case, can run the gamut of air, soil and water if they do not pay attention to details.”

MassDEP determined that the facility’s automobile paint spray booth was not properly ventilating its emissions. Further, the facility at 248 Willard Street did not have the required emission data on site, failed to register as a generator of hazardous waste and failed to keep documentation that demonstrated it had properly trained its spray paint operators. In addition, the facility was washing vehicles outdoors on its asphalt parking lot, discharging the runoff into the ground without a permit to do so.

As a result of MassDEP’s enforcement action, Willard Street Automotive has reconfigured its spray booth exhaust stack to conform to applicable regulations, conduct its car wash activities at appropriate facilities and maintain its facility in compliance with all required environmental regulations.

MassDEP is responsible for ensuring clean air and water, safe management and recycling of solid and hazardous wastes, timely cleanup of hazardous waste sites and spills, and the preservation of wetlands and coastal resources.

First Ever Energy-Efficiency Reverse Auction

Missourians will realize significant energy savings as 23 companies competed Wednesday, July 28 in what is believed to be the first-ever reverse auction held for energy efficiency, in which companies competed to provide the greatest energy savings at the lowest public cost.

The reverse auction was held as part of the Energize Missouri Industries program, an initiative of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources and funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The overall goal of the online auction is to provide industries and commercial entities with the opportunity to realize measurable energy savings that will result in reduced energy costs and increased market competitiveness.

When all the winners fully implement their programs, Missouri could save up to 75 million kWh (kilowatt-hours) of energy, equivalent to powering 6,537 homes for a year or taking 10,299 cars off the road for a year.

The online reverse auction allowed pre-qualified providers to bid on $3 million in incentives on a $/kWh saved basis for expected energy efficiency projects. Available incentive dollars were allocated based on a lowest-price obtained, thus increasing the cost-effectiveness of the program and allowing the Department to spread the dollars further.

“We have new, hard evidence that some energy-efficiency investments in Missouri can cost less than the current cost of power,” said Mark N. Templeton, Director of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. “Innovative procurement tools can help Missourians save real dollars. These grants are an investment in this state’s long-term energy savings and industrial competitiveness.”

The winning bidders were:

$500,000 grants

• AmerenUE, St. Louis, $$0.0325/kWh for a projected total of 15.4 million kWh saved
• The Gasket Guy and Green Energy Masters, Jefferson City, $0.0325/kWh for a projected total of 15.4 million kWh saved

$250,000 grants

• 8760 Energy Engineering, LLC, St. Louis, $0.0294/kWh for a projected total of 8.5 million kWh saved
• Eco Engineering, LLC, Cincinnati, OH, $0.0299/kWh for a projected total of 8.3 million kWh saved
• Missouri Enterprise, Rolla, $0.0275/kWh for a projected total of 9.1 million kWh saved
• Murphy Company Mechanical Contractors, St. Louis, $0.0275/kWh for a projected total of 9 million kWh saved

$100,000 grants

• HTE Technologies, St. Louis, $0.0900/kWh for a projected total of 1.1 million kWh saved
• Innovative Facilities Solutions, St. Louis, $0.950/kWh for a projected total of 1.1 million kWh saved
• Schaeffer Marketing Group, Inc., St. Louis, $0.100/kWh for a projected total of 1.0 million kWh saved
• Arctic Solar Engineering, LLC, Chesterfield, $0.100/kWh for a projected total of 1.0 million kWh saved
• Ozark Energy Services, Joplin, $0.1050/kWh for a projected total of 952,381 kWh saved
• Energy Solutions, Inc., University City, $0.1050/kWh for a projected total of 952,381 kWh saved
• Zeller Technologies, Inc., St. Louis, $0.1098/kWh for a projected total of 910,747 kWh saved
• Metropolitan Energy Center, Kansas City, $0.1100 kWh saved for a projected total of 909,091 kWh saved
• Environmental Dynamics, Inc., Columbia, $0.1100 kWh saved for a projected total of 909,091 kWh saved
• Blue Sky Lighting Products, LLC, Wentzville, $0.1100 kWh saved for a projected total of 909,091 kWh saved

The 16 reverse auction winners will have two years to identify industrial and commercial customers to implement energy efficiency projects to expend their allotment of incentive funds and fulfill their energy savings obligation to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources.

The Department will work closely with the reverse auction winners to assist with funding efforts that support energy efficiency projects as well as provide a financial savings. The winning bidders must have their energy-savings plans reviewed by the department before implementation.

Second Draft Document Related to the Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter

 This chapter is based on the Particulate Matter Urban-Focused Visibility Assessment (UFVA) which was finalized later than originally anticipated. As a result, the Agency is extending the comment period by two weeks to provide stakeholders and the public with adequate time to conduct appropriate analysis and prepare meaningful comments on chapter 4 of the second draft Policy Assessment.

The original extended comment period for chapter 4 will now close on 30 August 2010. 

City to Pay $60,000 Settlement on Wastewater Overflows

The city of Lee’s Summit has agreed to pay nearly $60,000 as part of a settlement negotiated with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources related to a series of wastewater overflows during 2008 and 2009, the department announced.

The settlement, part of an abatement order on consent, also requires the city to take a number of steps to limit the negative environmental effects of future wastewater overflows.

“This agreement holds Lee’s Summit accountable for wastewater overflows into Missouri’s waters,” said Department of Natural Resources Director Mark N. Templeton.

The city also agreed to install and operate an alarm system to all of its pump stations, lift stations and other sewage handling facilities, and agreed to immediately respond and take appropriate action every time an alarm is triggered.

The department cited a series of 2008-2009 wastewater overflows in the order, including the September 4, 2009, release of more than 100,000 gallons of sewage from its Tudor Road lift station into Prairie Lee Lake.

The department considers discharges of wastewater from sanitary sewer collection systems to be potential threats to public health and the environment. Such discharges have the potential to contaminate lakes and streams, causing serious water quality problems.

Con Edison Pays Penalty After Fire in Wake of Fire and Explosion at Yonkers Substation

Con Edison has agreed to fund a $700,000 settlement package and to make important operational changes in the wake of a fire and explosion at one of its substations in Yonkers last fall, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Pete Grannis announced.

The fire and explosion occurred on November 4, 2009, at Con Edison’s Dunwoodie substation, releasing about 15,000 gallons of a type of oil called dielectric fluid. Some of that oil was burned in the fire, some was contained and collected on site, and some of the oil impacted a six-mile stretch of the Bronx River. A DEC investigation linked the accident to the failure of an oil-water separator system—which had been flagged as problematic by a Con Edison consultant four months before the incident.

Under DEC supervision, Con Edison immediately responded to, took responsibility for and cleaned up oil-contaminated debris from the Bronx River in the three weeks following the November spill.

Under this settlement, Con Edison acknowledged not repairing the oil-water separator system until after the fire and explosion, agreed to make changes to prevent future malfunctions and consented to a comprehensive review/audit of its similar facilities in the Hudson Valley.

Con Edison also agreed to:

• Pay $409,000 penalty.
• Pay a $91,000 in natural resource damages, based on impacts to aquatic life and riparian vegetation in the Bronx River.
• Fund $200,000 worth of environmental benefits projects in the local community.

Further, the settlement calls for $185,000 in penalties that can be collected if the company fails to meet a compliance schedule for making operational changes.

“Our investigation found that Con Edison failed to properly operate and maintain its facility, including failing to correct a known problem which resulted in a preventable spill of oil and a negative impact to public health and the environment,” DEC Regional Director Willie Janeway said.

“The good news is the company has worked cooperatively to clean up the spill, pay an appropriate penalty, fund environmental restoration of the Bronx River and create a solution that will hopefully prevent a repeat occurrence. The outcome of this case is the result of the collaborative work of numerous DEC personnel, including Region 3, the spills response team, law-enforcement investigators and staff from legal and water divisions and the natural resource damages unit.”

EPA Takes Penalty Actions Against 10 Wastewater Treatment Plants for Clean Water Act Violations

The 10 plants’ Clean Water Act discharge permits require them to periodically reevaluate their industrial pretreatment programs and submit information from that reevaluation to state and federal regulators. The complaints allege in part that the plant operators failed to conduct the sampling needed to reevaluate the pollution limits they set for industrial users. The penalties range from $22,000 to $32,000.

“Wastewater treatment plants are the last line of defense against the disposal of harmful pollutants into our rivers and streams,” said EPA Regional Administrator Shawn M. Garvin. “Uncontrolled discharges of Pollution can result when municipalities don’t update their pretreatment programs to protect our waterways as the law requires.”

Federal and State regulations require sewage treatment plants and plant operators to develop local limits, establishing maximum acceptable levels of pollutants to ensure that they do not create a threat to human health and to waterways. The regulations also require industrial facilities discharging toxic pollutants to municipal sewer systems to provide pretreatment to avoid wastewater problems.

Because wastewater treatment plants are not designed to treat toxic pollutants in industrial wastes, pollutants may pass through local wastewater treatment plants into receiving streams, posing serious threats to aquatic life, recreation, and consuming fish and shellfish. These pollutants can also interfere with operating the treatment plant, causing sewage and other wastewaters to pass through without proper treatment. EPA and the states enforce pretreatment regulations to avoid these problems at municipal wastewater plants, ensuring that industrial wastewater is properly treated before being discharged into local waterways.

Nine of the 10 POTWs are located in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. These actions are part of the Agency’s strategy to improve water quality in local waterways and the Bay.

Municipalities or POTWs receiving the orders are:

Berwick Area Joint Sewer Authority, Columbia County: Derry Township Municipal Authority, Dauphin County; Greater Pottsville Area Sewer Authority, Schuylkill County; Borough of Huntingdon, Huntingdon County; Borough of Tyrone, Blair County; Shamokin-Coal Township Joint Sewer Authority, Northumberland County; University Area Joint Authority, Centre County; Wyoming Valley Sanitary Authority, Luzerne County; Altoona City Authority-Easterly WWTP, Blair County; and. Altoona City Authority-Westerly WWTP, Blair County.

EPA Publishes Latest TRI Data

 The database contains environmental release and transfer data on nearly 650 chemicals and chemical categories reported to EPA by more than 21,000 industrial and other facilities.

“It is vital that every community has access to information that impacts their health and environment,” EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said. “The data we’re releasing provides critical insights about pollution and polluters in the places where people live, work, play and learn. Making that knowledge available is the first step in empowering communities to protect the environment in their areas.”

The preliminary dataset allows communities to find out about releases and transfers of chemicals at the local level. Examples of industries that report to TRI include manufacturing, metal mining, electric utilities, and commercial hazardous waste treatment facilities among others. Facilities must report their data by July 1st of each year.

The preliminary dataset includes more than 80 percent of the data expected to be reported for 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 August and again in September so citizens will have complete access to the information. EPA encourages the public to review and analyze the data while EPA conducts its own analysis, which will be published later this year.

EPA Releases Rulemaking Guidance on Environmental Justice

The rulemaking guidance is an important and positive step toward meeting EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson’s priority to work for environmental justice and protect the health and safety of communities who have been disproportionately impacted by pollution.

“Historically, the low-income and minority communities that carry the greatest environmental burdens haven’t had a voice in our policy development or rulemaking. We want to expand the conversation to the places where EPA’s work can make a real difference for health and the economy,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “This plan is part of my ongoing commitment to give all communities a seat at the decision-making table. Making environmental justice a consideration in our rulemaking changes both the perception and practice of how we work with overburdened communities, and opens this conversation up to new voices.”

The document, Interim Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of an Action, seeks to advance environmental justice for low-income, minority and indigenous communities and tribal governments who have been historically underrepresented in the regulatory decision-making process. The guidance also outlines the multiple steps that every EPA program office can take to incorporate the needs of overburdened neighborhoods into the agency’s decision-making, scientific analysis, and rule development. EPA staff is encouraged to become familiar with environmental justice concepts and the many ways they should inform agency decision-making.

EPA is seeking public feedback on how to best implement and improve the guide for agency staff to further advance efforts toward environmental justice.

Environmental News Links