SDWA Compliance - New Enforcement Response Policy & Enforcement Targeting Tool

EPA is proposing a new approach for enforcement targeting under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for Public Water Systems. The new approach is designed to identify public water systems with violations that rise to a level of significant noncompliance by focusing on those systems with health-based violations and those that show a history of violations across multiple rules, This system-based methodology is intended to ensure consistency and the integrity of the PWSS national enforcement program. The new approach includes a revised Enforcement Response Policy (ERP) and new Enforcement Targeting Tool (ETT).

The Enforcement Response Policy and Enforcement Targeting Tool re-emphasize a focus on "return to compliance" (RTC) rather than simply "addressing" a violation. The policy is intended to increase EPA's effectiveness in the protection of public health. Together the ERP and ETT will prioritize and direct enforcement response to systems with the most systemic noncompliance by considering all violations incurred by a system in a comprehensive way. The policy and tool identify priority systems for enforcement response, provide a model to escalate responses to violations; define timely and appropriate actions; and clarify what constitutes a formal action.

In general, the goal of the revised ERP and new ETT is to allow States and EPA to:

• Align public water system violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act within a prioritization that is more protective of public health;
• View public water system compliance status comprehensively;
• Ensure that both EPA and the States act on and resolve drinking water Violations;
• Recognize the validity of informal enforcement response efforts while ensuring that, if these efforts have proven ineffective, enforceable and timely action is taken;
• Ensure that EPA and the States escalate enforcement efforts based on the prioritization approach;
• Increase the effectiveness of state and federal enforcement targeting efforts by providing a "tool" that calculates comprehensive noncompliance status for all systems and identifies those systems not meeting national expectations as set by EPA.

It also provides an additional resource for identifying systems possibly in need of other State/EPA assistance in the areas of Capacity Development and Sustainability.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective compliance management programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

UST Training Requirements - New MPCA Rule 7150

On December 7, 2009, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) published notification its intent to finalize amendments to State rules governing the operation of underground storage tank (UST) systems (Minnesota Rules Chapter 7150). For the most part, these amendments are being made to bring Minnesota Rules into conformance with the Federal UST requirements in Section 1524 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

The revised Minnesota Rules include specific training requirements for the three classes of UST system operators. Class A and B operators must pass an agency-administered examination verifying operator knowledge of the UST system with a score of 75 % or higher. Newly designated Class A and B operators must pass the agency-administered examination within 30 days after being designated by the owner or operator of the tank system.

A Class B operator must retake the examination within 30 days after a change in any of the following tank system components:
(1) tank or piping construction material;
(2) tank or piping release detection method; or
(3) type of cathodic protection system.

Current Class A and B operators must be designated and pass the initial agency-administered examination according to the following deadlines:

(1) operators at UST facilities where the facility telephone area code is 651 or 952 must pass the examination no later than August 8, 2010.
(2) operators at UST facilities where the facility telephone area code is 612 or 763 must pass the examination no later than August 8, 2011.
(3) operators at UST facilities where the facility telephone area code is 507, 218, or 320, or other area code must pass the examination no later than August 8, 2012.

Further information on environmental and EHS Training

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective compliance & training programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009 - H.R. 2868

The House of Representatives recently passed the Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2868). The bill increases security requirements at chemical plants and drinking water and wastewater facilities by establishing risk-based security standards for these critical assets. H.R. 2868 reauthorizes the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program, which is scheduled to expire October 2010. It also authorizes the EPA to establish similar security programs for drinking water and wastewater facilities.

The Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009:

• Makes the DHS CFATS program permanent. The legislation strengthens the chemical security program by requiring the review and, in some cases, the implementation of safer technologies, adding enforcement tools, and protecting the right of workers to participate in developing and implementing chemical facility security plans.
• Authorizes EPA to create a risk-based, performance-based program for the water sector similar to the one established by DHS for chemical plants.
• Requires the riskiest chemical facilities, drinking water facilities, and water treatment works to assess and, when appropriate, implement methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack (also known as inherently safer technologies).
• Strengthens the enforcement of the CFATS program by allowing citizens to bring suit against the Secretary of DHS for failure to perform non-discretionary obligations.
  

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation air, wastewater, stormwater and hazardous waste rules, developing compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EH&S management programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

OSHA Amends Hazard Communication Standard Proposed Rule

The Hazard Communication Standard proposed rule, published in the Federal Register on September 30, 2009, contained eight errors according OSHA — four in the preamble and four that appear in Appendix A: Table A.1.1, Table A.1.2, Table A.2.3, and Table A7.1.

The corrections made are:

• The “For further information contact” information has been corrected to read as follows:
  For general information and press inquiries, contact Jennifer Ashley, Office of Communications, Room N–3647, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693–1999.
  For technical information, contact Maureen Ruskin, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Room N–3718, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693–1950.
• The net benefits OSHA expects that societal welfare will increase as a result of these standards has been changed from, over $500 million annually to over $700 million annually.
• The potential small entities affected by the proposal, based on the definitions of small entities developed by SBA for each industry, has been changed from 4,215,404 to 3,877,457.
• The estimated benefits from the proposed rule has been corrected to accurately reflect the $133 million decline annually. Originally, OSHA said that estimated benefits of the proposed rule would decline from $754 million to $610 million annually. The corrected numbers are $754 million to $621 million annually.

In Hazard Communication Standard Appendix A Table A.1.1: Acute toxicity hazard categories and acute toxicity estimate (ATE) values defining the respective categories have also been amended:

• In Appendix A, Table A.1.2: Conversion from experimentally obtained acute toxicity range values (or acute toxicity hazard categories) to acute toxicity point estimates for use in the formulas for the classification of mixtures has been corrected.
• In Appendix A, Table A.2.3: Concentration of ingredients of a mixture classified as skin Category 1 or 2 that would trigger classification of the mixture as hazardous to skin (Category 1 or 2) has been corrected.
• In Appendix A, Table A.7.1: Cut-off values/concentration limits of ingredients of a mixture classified as reproductive toxicants or for effects on or via lactation that trigger classification of the mixture has been corrected.
  

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the product responsibility, hazard communication, and risk management programs. For more information, go to:

Caltha HazCom, Product Responsibility Consultant Services Webpage

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

Sixty Day Rule - Minnesota Environmental Review Process

With some exceptions, Minnesota Statute 15.99 requires that an agency must approve or deny within 60 days a written request relating to some specific petitions, including

• zoning,
• septic systems,
• watershed district review,
• soil and water conservation district review, or
• expansion of the metropolitan urban service area for a permit, license, or other governmental approval of an action.

Failure of an agency to deny a request within 60 days is approval of the request. If an agency denies the request, it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time that it denies the request.


The “sixty day rule” (MN Statute 15.99) does not apply to projects that are going through the environmental review process. Because environmental review decisions can often take months (and in some cases years) to be reached, environmental review is one of the exceptions to the rule. The clock stops ticking on the “sixty day rule” until environmental review has been completed and, once environmental review has been completed, the clock is reset at 60 days.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to Minnesota project proposers in the completion of Environmental Assessment Worksheets, Environmental Impact Statements, and Environmental Analysis required to determine Categorical Exclusion under NEPA.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

Minnesota Environmental Review - Who is the RGU?

In Minnesota, any environmental review begins by determining what organization will serve as the Responsible Government Unit, or RGU. This includes Environmental Assessment Worksheets (EAW) and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). Minnesota rules list what organizations serve as the RGU for all projects that must undergo some sort of mandatory review. State organizations that serve as RGUs include the Environmental Quality Board (EQB), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Dept. of Natural Resources (DNR), Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) and the Dept. of Health (MDH). The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) serves as the RGU for some types of airport projects. Local units of government serve as the RGU for many smaller scale projects.

If a unit of government orders some form of discretionary environmental review, that unit of government also serves as the RGU. In some instances, the EQB has the authority to change the RGU. The EQB can make this change only if the newly appointed RGU has greater expertise in analyzing the potential environmental impacts of a proposed project.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to Minnesota project proposers in the completion of Environmental Assessment Worksheets, Environmental Impact Statements, and Environmental Analysis required to determine Categorical Exclusion under NEPA.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

Safety Advisory On Transportation of Lithium Batteries

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published a safety advisory on October 7, 2009, alerting shippers and carriers to the importance of transporting lithium batteries safely.

They issued the advisory guidance to:

• Inform persons of recent aviation incidents involving fires aboard both passenger and cargo aircraft and the potential hazards that shipments of lithium batteries may present while in transportation,
• Provide information concerning the current requirements for the transportation of lithium batteries, and
• Inform persons of the actions they have taken to date and plan to take in the future to address the hazards of these batteries.
  

The Hazardous Materials Regulations, or HMR, (49 CFR parts 171-180) include requirements for packaging, hazard communication, and handling lithium batteries. The HMR also impose additional restrictions on the transport of lithium batteries in the air mode, including a limited prohibition on the transport of lithium metal batteries as cargo on board passenger aircraft. Additionally, damaged, defective, or recalled lithium batteries (including those being returned to the manufacturer as part of a safety recall) should not be transported aboard aircraft.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental and hazardous material rules, developing material handling procedures, and preparing cost-effective management programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

Final EPA Greenhouse Gas GHG Rules - Emission Reporting

EPA has issued its final rule that mandates annual reporting of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from several sectors of US industry. Effective Jan. 1, 2010, many US industrial facilities will have to start tracking their greenhouse gas emissions. The gas emissions that will have to be tracked include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and others.

The EPA estimates that about 13,000 industrial facilities nationwide will be regulated under this new rule. Specific industries that will be required to track and report GHG emissions include electric power generation, cement manufacturing, glass makers, iron/steel/ferroalloy producers, lime producers, oil refiners, petrochemical processors, pulp and paper, most suppliers of industrial gases and others.

In addition, large stationary fuel combustion sources like industrial boilers, furnaces and ovens will be affected regardless of the industry in which they are used. This requirement falls only on facilities with aggregate stationary fuel combustion sources that have a total rated capacity of 30 million BTU/hr or greater and that have the potential to emit over 25,000 MTs of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) per year. However, the rule applies regardless of fuel type (coal, natural gas, propane, heating oil, residual fuel, bio-fuels, etc.).

Affected facilities will have to submit their first reports to the EPA for the calendar year 2010 by March 31, 2011 and annually thereafter. These facilities will have to come up with estimates of their GHG emissions and most will have to speciate their emissions (i.e., they cannot just group all GHGs together). EPA is expected to develop some estimating tools but these are not yet available except for certain industries. EPA is offering a series of webinars on the Rule and how to comply with it.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation air, wastewater and hazardous waste rules, developing compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective compliance programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

OSHA - Proposed Globally Harmonized System GHS for MSDS

OSHA has proposed to modify its existing Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) to conform with the United Nations’ (UN) Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). The Agency anticipates this improved information will enhance the effectiveness of the HCS in ensuring that employees are apprised of the chemical hazards to which they may be exposed, and in reducing the incidence of chemical-related occupational illnesses and injuries.

The proposed modifications to the standard include:

• revised criteria for classification of chemical hazards;
• revised labeling provisions that include requirements for use of standardized signal words, pictograms, hazard statements, and precautionary statements;
• a specified format for safety data sheets; and related revisions to definitions of terms used in the standard, requirements for employee training on labels and safety data sheets.

OSHA is also proposing to modify provisions of a number of other standards, including standards for flammable and combustible liquids, process safety management, and most substance-specific health standards, to ensure consistency with the modified HCS requirements.

Written comments by December 29, 2009.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation hazardous material hazards, developing handling procedures, and preparing cost-effective waste management programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

Wastewater Discharges From Power Plants - New Rules Planned

The U.S. EPA has announced plans to revise the existing standards for water discharges from coal-fired power plants. Earlier this year, EPA completed a multi-year study of power plant wastewater discharges. This study concluded that current regulations, which were issued in 1982, have not kept pace with changes that have occurred in the electric power industry over the last three decades. As part of the multi-year study, EPA measured the pollutants present in the wastewater and reviewed treatment technologies, focusing mostly on coal-fired power plants. Many of the toxic pollutants discharged from these power plants come from coal ash ponds and the flue gas desulfurization systems used to scrub sulfur dioxide from air emissions.

Once the new rules for electric power plants is finalized, EPA and States would incorporate the new standards into wastewater discharge permits.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address water quality standards, wastewater permitting and assessing potential impacts of chemicals in the aquatic environment.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

Environmental Management Systems Audit Compared To Regulatory Compliance Audits

Recently, there has been an increased interest in conducting “Systems Audits” especially within businesses or agencies already familiar with “Compliance Audits”. In this article, we will compare Systems Auditing to traditional Compliance Auditing.

Compliance auditing tends to be a straight-forward process. Objective evidence is collected to determine the status of compliance relative to specific requirements. Often these will be regulatory requirements, but compliance audits can be conducted relative to company or agency policies or procedures. To conduct a compliance audit, the auditor needs to know what the specific requirements are. Based on documentation review and observations made by the auditor, compliance with these requirements is evaluated.

Compliance auditing tends to develop a “snap-shot” of compliance on the day the audit was conducted. The purpose is to determine whether or not the auditee is in compliance, and not how compliance is attained.

Systems audits extend beyond strict compliance on the day of the audit. Although compliance with requirements is an important factor in a systems audit, providing an indication of system effectiveness, auditing the process leading to compliance is just as important.

For systems audits, the auditor needs to not only understand the specific compliance requirements, but also needs to understand the system the auditee uses to attain compliance. To pass a systems audit, the auditee must be in compliance with requirements and must demonstrate that an effective system is in place and being implemented to continuously be in compliance.

Systems audits will assess the compliance assurance system, and not simply assess the status of compliance on the day of the audit. Because a systems audit requires more intimate knowledge of the systems being used by the auditee, typically a systems auditor will request more information prior to the audit, including documents such as written plans and procedures, training requirements, etc. Often, systems audits will focus on specific areas, rather than being a site-wide assessment.

Systems audits offer a clear advantage beyond compliance audits – they address the underlying processes in place to assure on-going compliance. Systems audits also require a higher level of effort by the auditor and involve a broader range of personnel at a facility.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the conducting compliance audits and environmental management systems audits, training internal auditors, and preparing cost-effective compliance management programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

WI DNR Environmental Compliance Audit Program

The State of Wisconsin has extended its program to encourage regulated entities within the State to conduct environmental compliance audits and to self-report non compliance issues. The program had been scheduled to sunset on July 1, 2009.

The Environmental Compliance Audit Program (section 299.85) provides enforcement relief to public or private sector regulated facilities if they:
1) Notify the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) at least 30 days in advance of a scheduled environmental compliance audit;
2) Conduct the audit in accordance with WDNR requirements; and
3) Submit the audit report to WDNR within 45 days of completion.

If violations are found during the audit, the audit report would include a plan and schedule for corrective actions.

The WDNR would defer enforcement action for facilities that self report violations and meet their approved plan and schedule to come into compliance.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the conducting environmental compliance audits, developing compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EH&S compliance management programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

State SPCC Spill Prevention Requirements vs EPA 40 CFR 112

The requirement for a formal Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan comes from a federal regulation - 40 CFR 112 ("SPCC Rule"). Certain States may have their own requirements for spill prevention and response, which are in addition to the SPCC Rule. States may also have State above ground storage tank rules, "permit by rule", or individual or general tank permitting requirements, which are outside the scope of the SPCC Rule.

Whether or not a site needs to prepare and implement and SPCC Plan, as defined under the SPCC Rule, will depend on oil storage capacity at the site. If the capacity to storage oils exceeds 1,320 gallons, then an SPCC Plan may be required. State requirements may still apply for facilities with less than 1,320 gallons.

Some key considerations include:

• Oils regulated are not limited to petroleum and fuels - other types of oils, including food oils, hydraulic fluids, etc. may be regulated under SPCC Rules. Additional materials, which might not be regulated as oils may also need to be included to comply with individual State requirements.


• All containers greater than 55-gallons need to be included (which includes 55-gal drum containers)


• Although underground storage tanks may be excluded, the types of oil storage goes well beyond fixed abovegound storage tanks; containers regulated under SPCC Rules can include oil-filled equipment (e.g., gear boxes, reservoirs), oil-filled electrical equipment, and mobile tanks.

Compliance with SPCC Rules begins with careful consideration of 40 CFR 112, the additional requirements for the individual State where the site is located, and an in-depth inventory of regulated materials and containers.

[Read more about recent changes to SPCC Rules]

[Read more about State-specific SPCC Plan Templates]

Have a question regarding SPCC Compliance? Click here to email your SPCC questions to Caltha

Caltha LLP provides expert technical support to clients nationwide needing to comply with SPCC Rules and State spill prevention and response planning requirements.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

Revised SNUR Rule - EPA Amendment to TSCA

EPA is promulgating Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) under section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 23 chemical substances which were the subject to premanufacture notices (PMNs). Four of these chemical substances are subject to TSCA section 5(e) consent orders issued by EPA.

The amended rules require persons who intend to manufacture, import, or process any of these 23 chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by this rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. According to EPA, the notification is needed to provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective compliance management programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

Revised Waste Management Rules for Renovation or Demolition Projects

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has finalized waste and material removal rules that apply to all renovation or demolition projects. According to the revised Rules, the following items and materials must be removed prior to the commencement of renovation or demolition:

A. items that would normally be disposed of as mixed municipal solid waste, such as furniture, carpeting, bedding, mattresses, clothing, small appliances, food, and food waste;
B. household hazardous waste including;
F. items that may contain elemental mercury:
G. items that may contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs);
H. items that may contain chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs):
I. oils, including used oil, hydraulic oils, and oils located in heating oil tanks, piping, sumps, and traps;
J. lead-containing items, including lead-acid batteries, lead pipes, lead sheeting, lead flashing in roof vents, and lead paint that is not firmly adhered to the substrate; and
K. electronic products containing a cathode ray tube, including televisions and computers;

An exemption from this requirement exists for items or materials that are within components of the structure, such as elevators, vertical lifts, or lighting, that need to remain intact are being used during the course of renovation or demolition, provided that the items or materials are removed after use of the component is no longer required for renovation or demolition work.

If the owner, person authorizing renovation or demolition, or person conducting the renovation or demolition knows or has reason to know that portions of the structure may be contaminated by hazardous substances or petroleum based on past uses of the structure, such as a medical building, laboratory, or manufacturing facility, they must obtain appropriate samples and receive results from laboratory analysis as necessary to ensure the proper management and disposal of contaminated structural elements and any resulting debris generated.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the pre-demolition surveys, developing waste handling procedures, and preparing cost-effective waste management programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

Definition of Waters of US - Proposed Revision

The "Clean Water Restoration Act", has been approved by the US Senate Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The proposed law would clarify the scope of the Clean Water Act definition of "waters of the United States". Under the bill, waters of the US would be defined as including:

(A) all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
(B) all interstate waters, including interstate wetlands;
(C) all other waters, such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds;
(D) all impoundments of waters of the United States;
(E) tributaries of the aforementioned waters;
(F) the territorial seas; and
(G) wetlands adjacent to the aforementioned waters;

The draft bill specifically excludes groundwaters from the definition of waters subject to the Clean Water Act.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation of environmental, health & safety rules, developing cost effective compliance procedures, and management programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

US EPA Extends SPCC Rule Deadline

Facilities subject to Spill Prevention, Control & Countermeasure (SPCC) requirements have more time to amend their programs. On June 11, 2009, EPA again extended the compliance date for compliance with the federal "SPCC Rule". Facilities subject to the SPCC Rule now have until to November 10, 2010 to come into either amend their existing SPCC Plan or prepare an inital Plan, if they are newly subject to the Rule.

Facilities must amend or prepare, and implement SPCC Plans by the compliance date in accordance with revisions to the SPCC rule promulgated since 2002. Farms that are also subject to the Rule must also amend or prepare their SPCC Plans, and implement those Plans by the same date.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective compliance programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

NY Proposed Rules for Used Electronic Equipment - CRT

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) is currently drafting a proposed rules for the management of used electronic equipment. Posting of the preliminary draft regulation is anticipated for Spring 2009, followed by further opportunity for public comment.

The resulting proposed rulemaking will amend NYSDEC regulations to streamline the management of used electronic equipment, whether regulated as hazardous waste or solid waste. The main issues to be addressed in the proposed rulemaking are:

• Adopting provisions of the Federal Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Rule


• Adopting management standards for Collectors, Dismantlers, and Recyclers of Used Electronic Equipment


• Adopting provisions of the New York State Wireless Telephone Recycling Act


• Amending the requirements of New York's current Generator "c7" Notification

Currently in NYS, intact CRTs destined for recycling are eligible for the hazardous scrap metal exemption. However, when the CRT glass is no longer adherent to the metal, CRT glass could be regulated hazardous waste. The Federal CRT Rule contains the provisions to conditionally exclude this CRT glass from hazardous waste rules.

The current c7 notification requirements require generators (other than CESQGs) sending used electronics for recycling under the hazardous scrap metal exemption to file notifications. In the rulemaking, the NYSDEC is proposing to change the requirement to “[generators] must maintain on site, for a period of three years from the date of each shipment, the names and locations of the dismantling or recycling facilities and any intermediate receiving facilities."

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation solid waste and hazardous waste rules, developing waste handling procedures, and preparing cost-effective waste management programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

EPA Excludes Water Transfer From NPDES Requirements

EPA is publishing a final rule to exclude water transfers from regulation under the NPDES permitting program. The final rule defines a water transfer as an activity that conveys or connects waters of the United States without subjecting the transferred water to intervening industrial, municipal, or commercial use. This does not apply to pollutants introduced by the water transfer activity itself to the water being transferred.

Water transfers are activities that divert water between waterbodies, typically through the use of pumps or passive redirection through tunnels, channels, and/or natural stream water features. Water transfers are necessary to allocate water resources to meet the water needs of those downstream in the receiving waterbody. Such needs include public water supply, irrigation, power generation, flood control, and environmental restoration.

The Bureau of Reclamation administers significant transfers in western States to provide approximately 140,000 farmers with irrigation water. With the use of water transfers, the Army Corps of Engineers keeps thousands of acres of agricultural and urban land in southern Florida from flooding in former areas of Everglades wetlands. Many large cities in the west and the east would not have adequate sources of water without continuous redirection of water from outside basins. Both the cities of New York and Los Angeles are dependent on water transfers from distant watersheds to meet their municipal demand.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation NPDES permitting rules, water quality standards, and preparing cost-effective compliance management programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

MassDEP Limits Mercury in Industial Wastewater Discharges

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) restrictions on mercury discharges to municipal sewer systems go into effect on May 1, 2009. These rules, promulgated under the Massachusetts Mercury Management Act, limit the maximum concentration of mercury in sanitary sewer discharges from industrial users to less than 1 ug/L (1 ppb). By July 2007, all dischargers were to have determined possible sources of mercury in their discharges and have taken reasonable steps to eliminate them.

[What is 1 ug/L (parts per billion) mercury equivalent to?]

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation water quality and wastewater requirements, NPDES permitting, and preparing cost-effective wastewater programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

Revised NESHAP for Petroluem Refineries

EPA recently released its final amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Petroleum Refineries (40 CFR 63, Subpart CC). EPA is required to review the developments in practices, processed, and control technologies every eight years and update national emissions standards to address the "residual risk" after implementation of the original standards.

The updated NESHAP includes new requirements for storage vessels. All Group 1 external floating roof (EFR) storage tanks will be required to install controls for guide poles and other openings, and additional inspection, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

Heat exchange systems will be required to conduct monthly sampling and analyses for VOC in the cooling water. The amendments to Refinery MACT will require the repair of leaks in heat exchangers within 45 days of the sampling event in which the leak is detected, unless a delay in repair is allowed.

All Group 1 storage vessels and heat exchange systems at existing refineries must be in compliance within 36 months after the Final Amendments are published in the Federal Register.

EPA opted not to promulgate changes to Refinery MACT that would include performance standards and monitoring requirements for enhanced biological units to treat wastewater streams.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the multimedia environmental permitting, regulatory compliance and auditing, and developing cost-effective compliance management programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

North Carolina CAFO General NPDES Permit Renewal

The North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources – Division of Water Quality has revised its general NPDES discharge permits for confined animal feeding operations (CAFO). The current general permits for waste systems at swine, cattle and dairy and wet poultry operations will expire on Sept. 30, 2009. Operators of swine, cattle and poultry farms who come under the state general permits for wastewater systems need to apply for renewal under the new permit before April 1, 2009.

Animal feeding operations that have more than 250 swine, 100 confined cattle or dairy animals, 75 horses or a wet litter operation for more than 30,000 chickens are required to apply for a permit from the state.

General permits set requirements for waste management activities common to facilities of a particular type, and are issued as a class every five years. General permits for animal operations are issued along with certificates of coverage that address specific requirements for each facility.

The new general permits differ from the current permits in some operational, monitoring and reporting requirements. The most substantive change to the current permit is that application of waste must stop within 4 hours of a National Weather Service (NWS) issuing a warning of a hurricane, tropical storm or flood watch for the county in which the CAFO is located.

Looking for other water quality-related topics?, go to:
Water Quality Standards Aquatic Toxicology NPDES Permit Limits

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the NPDES permitting, State and Federal water quality regualtions, and preparing cost-effective compliance management programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

Proposed Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine RICE Rules

Update:  January 2013 - EPA Released Final RICE NESHAP

On March 5, 2009, EPA published new proposed 40 CFR Part 63 rules for reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE). The rules would affect:

• Engines at facilities classified as "Area Sources" with hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions less than 10/25 TPY.
• Engines with horsepower rating less than 500 at major source facilities and constructed/reconstructed before June 12. 2006.
• Engines with horsepower rating greater than 500 at major source facilities and constructed/reconstructed before December 12, 2002.

EPA expects that the new emissions limits would be met by installing "after-treatment" controls such as:

• Existing rich-burn engines would install non-selective catalytic reduction (NSCR).
• Existing diesel engines would install oxidation catalysts and/or catalyzed diesel particulate filters (CDFP).
• Non-emergency engines with greater than 300 horsepower would burn ultra-low sulfur fuel.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the air emission permitting, regulatory compliance support, and preparing cost-effective regulatory compliance programs.
For further information contact Caltha LLP atinfo@calthacompany.com
orCaltha LLP Website

Changes to 2009 Toxic Release Inventory Report Requirements

Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reporting requirements were changed on March 11, 2009 as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009. These changes affect TRI reports due July 1, 2009. The 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act returned TRI reporting requirements back to the rules in effect prior to December 22, 2006.

The change requires that all reports on persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals be submitted on "Form R,", which is the more detailed form. For all other chemicals the shorter form, “Form A” may be used only if the annual reporting amount is 500 pounds or less and that the chemical was manufactured, processed or otherwise used in an amount not exceeding 1 million pounds during the reporting year. EPA will issue a rule shortly revising the regulatory text in the Code of Federal Regulations to reflect these changes. TRI-ME software and other reporting assistance materials are also being revised.

As background, in December 2006 U.S. EPA revised the reporting requirements for releases of listed chemicals (commonly known as 313 chemicals) required under Section 313 of the Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). The revisions made by EPA in 2006 related to the Forms used to report 313 chemical releases. Form R is typically used to report releases, and data submitted on Form R is released to the public. Form A is a streamlined reporting process, used for 313 chemicals released in smaller quantities. Data submitted on Form A is not released to the public. The revision made by U.S. EPA changed the thresholds for when Form A could be used. Form R could always be used to report data, even for small quantities.

The 2006 revision allowed some facilities to use a streamlined reporting process; chemicals reported using the streamlined process would not be included in facility TRI reports released to the public. In response, twelve States filed a law suit against U.S. EPA in November 2007. The suit claims that the revision prevented citizens and communities from having access to the critical information required under EPCRA.

The 2009 changes to TRI reporting only affects how TRI data are reported; it does not change the thresholds used to determine if a TRI report is required. This change only applies to TRI reporters with total releases less than 5,000 lbs/year. No revisions were made by U.S. EPA for reporting 313 chemicals that have releases greater than 5,000 lbs/year.


[Read more about recent changes to TRI reporting for auxiliary facilities]
[Read more about 2008 legislation in Minnesota that reversed 2006 EPA TRI changes for Minnesota TRI sites]

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the EPCRA and TRI reporting, developing hazardous material tracking procedures, and preparing cost-effective regulatory compliance programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

Regulatory Updates - Environmental Management and Compliance

In addition to this ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY COMPLIANCE page, Caltha LLP maintains several websites to provide regulatory updates and discussion of current environmental, health and safety topics, as listed below. Interested parties can register to receive automatic notification when a new topic is posted.

SWPPP - Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans - Stormwater Permits - Stormwater Training
Discussions and comments on stormwater permitting programs in all States, including industrial, municipal (MS4) and construction sites. Topics include general stormwater permits, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans, monitoring, training, spill prevention and control, SPCC compliance.

Water Quality Standards - Aquatic Toxicology - NPDES Permit Limits
Discussion of a variety of topics related to State and Federal water quality standards, ambient water quality criteria, sediment criteria, NPDES & site-specific discharge standards, water quality management, aquatic toxicology, aquatic community impacts, and water quality assessment.

Environmental Sustainability - Sustainable Environmental Management Systems
Discussion of sustainability topics, including pollution prevention, waste reduction, material reuse, environmental management systems, product stewardship, and international environmental standards.

Environmental Due Diligence - Site Assessments - Phase I ESA - Environmental Liability
Discussions and comments regarding environmental due diligence, environmental liabilities, CERCLA liabilities, Phase I environmental site assessments, corporate liabilities, environmental compliance liabilities, quantitative environmental liability assessment.

Regulatory Briefings
Regulatory Briefings are published periodically by Caltha to highlight new or proposed regulations on a wide range of environmental, health & safety topics. These briefings are generally 2- to 4-pages in length and provide an overview of the regulations and discuss potential impacts on the regulated community. Participants must sign up to receive an email link to new Regulatory Briefings as they are posted.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the environmental permitting & compliance, environmental management systems, and preparing cost-effective EHS compliance programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

South Coast AQMD Rules for Thinners and Solvents

The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has recently adopted rules that restrict the VOC content of a wide range of paint thinners and solvents commonly used as consumer products and in commercial and industrial settings. The purpose of the rule (Rule 1143) is to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the use, storage and disposal of consumer paint thinners and multi-purpose solvents commonly used in thinning of coating materials, cleaning of coating application equipment, and other solvent cleaning operations.

The rule applies to anyone who supplies, sells, offers for sale, or manufactures consumer paint thinners and multi-purpose solvents for sale in the SCAQMD, as well as anyone who uses or solicits the use of any consumer paint thinner and multi-purpose solvent within the SCAQMD.

The rule, adopted March 6, 2009, restricts the VOC content of consumer paint thinners and multi-purpose solvent to:

2.5 Lbs VOC/gal (effective 1/1/2010)
0.21 Lbs VOC/gal (effective 1/1/2011)

Some exemptions are included for certain materials and uses.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the environmental permitting, developing pollution prevention procedures, and preparing cost-effective environmental compliance programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

Illinois Clean Air Mercury Rule CAMR Revision

Illinois' Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) provides for the control of mercury from coal-fired electric generating units. Despite the fact that the federal CAMR rule has been vacated, IEPA regards the majority of the rule as in effect. However, because a number of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions simply incorporated the federal CAMR rule by reference, and so are no longer valid, the Illinois rule must be amended.

The proposed rule no longer requires a CEMS, but allows periodic emissions testing as an alternative. Additionally, under the proposed rule, units complying with the Multi-Pollutant Standard or the Combined-Pollutant Standard can elect to comply with these monitoring requirements or with semi-annual emissions testing requirements

Under current rules, emissions monitoring must have commenced by January 1, 2009. However, in the proposed rule, this deadline is extended until July 1, 2009. The proposed rule also amends reporting requirements.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the air emission and NPDES permitting, environmental management systems develpment, and preparing cost-effective regulatory compliance programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

NDEQ Proposed Area Source NESHAP Rule

The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) is proposing that seven area source NESHAPS be adopted and implemented as issued by the EPA. For two EPA standards, however, the NDEQ is proposing additional rules which will allow sources to limit monthly throughputs below the facility’s maximum design capacity in order to avoid the more stringent and costly controls required for facilities with greater monthly throughputs. Sources taking these limits must document their adherence to the agreed upon lower throughputs. The two industry categories for which this option will be offered are bulk gasoline terminals and gasoline dispensing facilities.

• Hospital Ethylene Oxide Sterilizers (Subpart WWWWW)
• Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities (Subpart YYYYY)
• Iron and Steel Foundries Area Sources (Subpart ZZZZZ)
• Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations (Subpart HHHHHH)
• Clay Ceramics Manufacturing (Subpart RRRRRR)
• Glass Manufacturing Area Sources (Subpart SSSSSS)
• Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing (Subpart TTTTTT)

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the environmental permitting, environmental management systems, and preparing cost-effective compliance programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

Pesticide NPDES Permit - NDEQ Proposed Permit By Rule

The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) is proposing a Permit-By-Rule related to the application of pesticides in and near waters of the State.

As background, the Permit-by-Rule is being proposed to address a gap in permit coverage left after a decision by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in January 2009, which vacated the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s pesticide rule.

[Read more about vacatur of EPA pesticide rule]

The NDEQ rule establishes a Permit-by-Rule for the application of pesticides to, over, or near, waters of the state provided that the pesticide applicator:

(1) complies with FIFRA requirements relating to water quality, compliance with all label application directions, buffer zones, application locations, intended targets, protecting threatened or endangered species, times of day, temperature or other application requirements, and proper disposal of pesticide residues; and
(2) retains certain information relating to name of the pesticide, targeted pests or weeds, pesticide label, and details of the application.

The Permit-by-Rule applies to chemical pesticides only; no biological pesticides are allowed under the Permit-by-Rule. NDEQ also requires the applicator to report any adverse impacts to non-targeted species or the environment to the Department within 24 hours.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the wastewater permitting, water quality assessments, and preparing cost-effective compliance management programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

SPCC Rule - 40 CFR 112 - Redefining "Navigable Waters"

In November 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated a final rule to amend a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 311 regulation to change the definition of the term “navigable waters''. This amendment affects compliance with the SPCC Rule, 40 CFR 112.

As background, the SPCC rule was originally promulgated on December 11, 1973. The 1973 SPCC rule defined “navigable waters'' (see below). In 2002, EPA amended the SPCC rule including a revision to the regulatory definition of “navigable waters”.

In 2008, a US District Court ruled that the Agency's promulgation of the revised definition of "navigable waters'' in the July 2002 SPCC rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The court vacated the 2002 definition and specifically restored the 1973 SPCC regulatory definition:

Navigable waters of the United States means "navigable waters'' as defined in section 502(7) of the FWPCA, and includes:
(1) All navigable waters of the United States, as defined in judicial decisions prior to passage of the 1972 Amendments to the FWPCA (Pub. L. 92-500), and tributaries of such waters;
(2) Interstate waters;
(3) Intrastate lakes, rivers, and streams which are utilized by interstate travelers for recreational or other purposes; and
(4) Intrastate lakes, rivers, and streams from which fish or shellfish are taken and sold in interstate commerce.

[Read more about recent changes to SPCC Rules]

[Request information on State-specific SPCC Plans and Template Plans]

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation regulatory requirements & rules, obtaining environmental permits, and preparing cost-effective compliance programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

MDEQ Section 404 Wetlands Program - EPA Program Review

In 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a report on its informal review of Michigan’s EPA-approved Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 wetlands program. Michigan is one of only two States to have received approval to administer the Section 404 program. Michigan’s Section 404 program is implemented by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ).

As background, in 1997 EPA conducted a review of Michigan’s approved CWA Section 404 program and identified deficiencies that required corrective action. In its July 31, 2008 Notice, EPA again identified a number of deficiencies in Michigan’s program. MDEQ has agreed to address the deficiencies listed by EPA through a number of means, including seeking legislative amendments to Michigan’s wetlands statute, Part 303 (Wetlands Protection) of the Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA).

MDEQ committed to initiating the legislative corrective actions in early 2009 and to completing them within 36 months. EPA will review the status of MDEQ’s corrective actions within 36 months after the Notice to determine whether Michigan’s Clean Water Act Section 404 wetlands program approval should be revoked.

EPA took issue with a number of activities that Part 303 exempts from the requirement to obtain a wetlands permit, but that are not exempted from the CWA’s requirements, including exemptions for:

• agricultural activities;


• drain creation and improvement; and


• iron and copper mining tailings basins.

To address these deficiencies, MDEQ has agreed to seek legislative amendments that would limit the agricultural exemptions, delete the agricultural drainage exemptions, delete the exemption for iron and copper mining tailings basins; and to delete the exemption for utility maintenance activities.


Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation water quality rules, wastewater and stormwater permitting, and preparing cost-effective compliance management programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

IEMA EPCRA Tier 2 Reports - Extension of Due Date

Owners or operators of facilities that have hazardous substances on hand in quantities above threshold levels must submit Emergency Preparedness and Community Right-to-know Act (EPCRA) Tier 2 forms by March 1 each year. The Tier 2 report covers the previous calendar year.

The Illinois Emergency Management Agency (IEMA) has extended the reporting deadline for Illinois facilities until March 16, 2009.

The Illinois Emergency Management Agency (IEMA) now requires all regulated facilities to submit Tier 2 information electronically by using Tier 2 Manager, IEMA's Tier 2 on-line filing system. Each facility's username is unique to its physical address. IEMA also requires all EPCRA Section 302 (EHS) and EPCRA Section 311 (MSDS) submissions be made by using Tier 2 Manager. Hard-copy submissions are no longer accepted.

For Reporting Year 2008, there are two new required fields in Tier 2 Manager's Facility Section: 1) drop-down box to select a facility's jurisdictional fire department and 2) addition of a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) number. NAICS is replacing the SIC Code.

Facilities that reported in 2007, but are not subject to reporting in 2008, should make the facility inactive on the Tier 2 Manager Facility Home Page. Facilities that didn't file in 2007, but are reporting for 2008, must contact IEMA for a state-issued User ID and Password.

[Read more about recent changes to EPA EPCRA 311-312 reporting requirements]
[Read more about recent changes to EPA EPCRA 313 – TRI reporting requirements]

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the regulatory reporting requirements, EPCRA compliance, and preparing cost-effective compliance programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

All Appropriate Inquiry - Phase I ESA for Forest and Rural Properties

In December 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued a final rule amending the standards and practices for “All Appropriate Inquiries” under the CERCLA. The changes now to allow the limited use of ASTM E2247-08 “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process for Forestland or Rural Property.” The rule applies to conducting a site characterization or assessment on a large forested or rural property with a brownfields grant and will become effective on March 23, 2009. However, EPA also published a separate proposed rule proposing the same change to the All Appropriate Inquiries regulations.

Conducting environmental site assessments for large tracts of forested or rural lands presents a challenge to strict adherence to the ASTM Standard Method for Phase I environmental site assessments (ASTM E 1527-05). The final rule and the proposed change to the All Appropriate Inquiry requirements will benefit organizations purchasing large tracts of forested lands or large rural properties that may want to claim landowner liability protections as innocent landowners, bona fide prospective purchasers, or contiguous property owners.

[Read more about Landowner Liability Protections – LLPs]
[Read more about All Appropriate Inquiry under CERCLA]

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the environmental due diligence, environmental site assessment, and environmental liability evaluations.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

Aggregation Under New Source Review - Extension of Compliance Date

On January 12, 2009, EPA issued a final rule that revises the agency’s policy on “aggregation” as it relates to New Source Review (NSR) under the Clean Air Act. For the purpose of determining whether NSR applies, this rule directs facilities and permitting authorities to combine, or aggregate, emissions from plant modifications when those projects are related. Therefore, total emissions for the related projects must be considered when permitting authorities determine whether NSR applies.

NSR is a pre-construction permitting program to ensure air quality is maintained when factories, industrial boilers and power plants are built or modified. The program ensures that appropriate emission control technology is installed at new plants or existing plants that are undergoing a major modification. Aggregation refers to the grouping of multiple, related physical or operational changes into a single project for evaluating requirements under the New Source Review program.

On February 9, 2009, EPA extended the effective date of the rule final rule modifying the NSR air permitting program’s “aggregation” policy, to allow for further review. This action is in response to the White House’s January 20, 2009, and the Office of Management and Budget’s January 21, 2009, memoranda regarding regulatory review. EPA also will reconsider one or more of the aspects of this final rule raised by the Natural Resources Defense Council in a petition for reconsideration. To allow time for the review and the reconsideration, EPA will stay the effective date of this rule for 90 days, until May 18, 2009.


Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the air emission review, air emission permitting, and preparing cost-effective air compliance management programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

Pharmaceuticals in Universal Waste Rule - Comment Period Extended

EPA announced that it has added an extra 30 days for the public and stakeholders to comment on the agency's proposal to add hazardous pharmaceutical wastes to the federal universal waste program. (Amendment to the Universal Waste Rule: Addition of Pharmaceuticals). The public comment period will now close on March 9, 2009.

The EPA Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, formerly known as Office of Solid Waste made the extension in response to requests for more time to submit comments on the proposed rule from several stakeholders, including the Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association, Waste Management, PharmEcology Associates LLC, Healthcare Distribution Management Association, Clean Harbors Environmental Services, and the Environmental Technology Council.

[Read more about proposed amendments to the Universal Waste Rule]

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation solid waste and hazardous waste rules, developing waste handling procedures, and preparing cost-effective waste management programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

NPDES General Permit for Vessels - Potential EPA Review

The Environmental Protection Agency has indicated that the agency plans to reconsider rules to control discharges from vessels which were finalized in December 2008 and made effective February 6, 2009. Environmental groups also sued EPA in February 2009, saying the permit did not meet requirements of the Clean Water Act.

In December, the EPA released a general permit for cargo vessels entering the Great Lakes or other US waters from overseas that includes rules for 26 types of discharges, such as ballast, oily bilge water and "gray water", deck runoff and engine cooling water. Beginning on February 6, 2009, vessels ranging from large cruise ships to barges, tankers and many recreational vessels have to obtain permit coverage and meet certain requirements under the terms of the Vessel General Permit (VGP). These new requirements include best management practices and standards that differ depending on the type of discharge and the type of vessel. Recordkeeping requirements, self reporting, training and other obligations are also required for vessel owners and operators.

One of the key goals of the permit program is to control the spread of invasive species. Ballast water is a leading pathway for the spread of zebra mussels and other non-native aquatic species, which can displace native species and result in significant damage. The agency now believes that the VGP may do too little to prevent cargo ships from spreading invasive species. Similar measures have already had been required by Canada and the U.S. Coast Guard, and evidence suggests that they have been ineffective at controlling the spread of invasive species.

On the Great Lakes System, Minnesota and Michigan set up their own discharge permit programs before the EPA completed its VGP. The other Great Lakes states, except Wisconsin, added their own specifications to the EPA rules. Wisconsin state water officials adopted the VGP without amendments.

Caltha LLP assists wastewater dischargers to obtain NPDES permits, evaluate regulatory requirements, and to develop cost effective compliance programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

RIDEM Air Emission Caps - Proposed Amendments

The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) recently proposed to amend Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 29, which regulates the requirements to obtain "Operating Permits".

APC Regulation No. 29 requires that all major sources subject to the regulation obtain an operating permit. However, the regulation does contain certain provisions to allow sources to apply for an emissions cap if they meet certain criteria. An emissions cap must be federally enforceable and include some combination of production and/or operational limitations to ensure that emissions are limited by quantifiable and enforceable means. An emissions cap relieves the stationary source from having to obtain an operating permit.

The current regulation states that emission caps are issued for a term not to exceed 5 years. DEM proposes to amend these conditions so that emission caps will no longer expire and that sources will not be required to renew their emission cap. Emission caps would remain in effect unless they were terminated by DEM. Sources with emission caps will continue to pay an annual compliance/assurance fee.

The public comment period for these amendments ends March 23, 2009.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website