New Massachusetts Regulations On Hazardous Material Storage

The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) has approved changes to Massachusetts regulations on hazardous materials storage and processing in the state, which includes monitoring of high risk facilities to ensure they are complying with key federal process safety and risk management programs.

The Massachusetts Department of Fire Services has satisfied a key recommendation made by the CSB in its 2008 final report on the 2006 explosion at an ink and paint products manufacturing facility in Danvers, MA. The CSB concluded that an unattended mixing tank overheated in an unventilated building causing the release of flammable vapors which subsequently ignited. The facility stored alcohols, heptanes, other solvents, pigments, resin and nitrocellulose; all of which were destroyed in the explosion. In addition, 24 houses and 6 businesses were destroyed.

An investigation found that the company had increased its quantities of flammable liquids over the years. The additional quantities went undetected by local authorities who had not inspected the facility for over 4 years prior to the time of the incident.

Massachusetts now requires companies storing and handling flammable materials to amend their license and re-register with state or local authorities when increasing their quantities of flammable materials; they must also verify compliance with local and state fire codes and hazardous chemical regulations. The Massachusetts regulations classify hazardous materials into five categories based on threshold quantities. Categories 1–4 must be in compliance with OSHA's Hazard Communication standard. Category 5, under which the ink and paint product manufacturing facility would have fallen, requires companies to certify compliance with the OSHA Process Safety Management standard and with the EPA Risk Management Program regulation.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EH&S compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EH&S management programs.
For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website

Finished Water Storage Facility Inspection Rule

EPA is considering proposing the addition of finished water storage facility inspection (SFI) requirements to the Revised Total Coliform Rule (RTCR). In the preamble to the July 2010 proposed RTCR (75 FR 40926), EPA requested comment on the value and cost of storage facility inspection and cleaning.

EPA received comments regarding unsanitary conditions and contamination that can be found in finished water storage facilities that are not routinely inspected and cleaned, including breaches and accumulation of sediment, animals, insects, and other contaminants. While EPA could finalize such requirements based on the comments received on proposed RTCR, the Agency is considering a proposal in order to allow interested parties to comment and provide relevant information. EPA is considering requirements for public water systems to inspect the interior and exterior of their finished water storage facilities at least once every five years and to correct any sanitary defects found. Any potential requirements would apply to all public water systems that have one or more finished water storage facilities. Like the final RTCR, the proposed storage tank inspection requirements will maintain or improve public health protection by reducing cases of illnesses, and possibly deaths, due to exposure to waterborne pathogens.

EPA current projects a Notice of Proposed Rule Making will be published in the Federal Register in August 2012.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EH&S compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EH&S management programs.
For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) For Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations

EPA has announced it will perform risk and technology review for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) from Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations. EPA is subject to a consent decree requiring proposal of this revised NESHAP by 10/31/2012, and promulgation by November 2013

Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6) require EPA to conduct residual risk and technology reviews. Under the "technology review" provision of CAA section 112, EPA is required to review maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards and to revise them "as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes and control technologies)" no less frequently than every 8 years. Under the "residual risk" provision of CAA section 112, EPA must evaluate the MACT standards within 8 years after promulgation and promulgate standards if required to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or prevent an adverse environmental effect. As part of this NESHAP revision, EPA will also remove startup, shutdown, and malfunction exemptions as required by recent court decisions.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EH&S compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EH&S management programs.
For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website

Severe Weather Emergency Procedures To Minimize Releases

In advance of hurricane season, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)has issued a Hazardous Weather Release Prevention and Reporting alert to remind facility operators of certain regulations that require minimization of chemical releases during process shutdown operations. This alert is designed to increase awareness among facility operators about their obligation to operate facilities safely and report chemical releases in a timely manner.

The alert specifies operational release minimization requirements and clarifies reporting requirements, including exemptions. Unlike some natural disasters, the onset of a hurricane is predictable and allows for early preparations to lessen its effect on a facility. Before hurricane force winds and associated storm surge flooding damage industrial processes, the alert recommends that operators take preventive action by safely shutting down processes, or otherwise operate safely under emergency procedures.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EH&S compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EH&S management programs.
For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website

FERC Policy Regarding Mercury and Air Toxics Standards

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has released a policy statement that outlines how it will advise EPA on requests for extra time for electric generators to comply with the new Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule. FERC says the policy addresses the need for timeliness, fairness, and transparency while respecting FERC's jurisdiction over reliability of the electric power system. FERC notes that the statement is not a policy regarding how it will handle all electric reliability concerns arising from compliance with EPA regulations.
Electric generators have 3 years to comply with the MATS. Some generators will be eligible for a 1-year extension and possibly an additional year if they need to meet specific reliability concerns. FERC's policy statement addresses this final year to comply. The Commission points out that any decision on whether to grant this additional time, and the extent to which FERC's advice is considered, rests entirely with EPA.

The FERC policy statement says:

• Generators should submit copies of their requests to EPA for extra time for compliance to FERC as informational filings.
• FERC's Office of Electric Reliability will lead the review of the filings under the Commission's general investigative authority; the reviews will examine whether compliance with EPA's rule could result in a violation of a FERC-approved reliability standard or other issues within FERC's jurisdiction.
• There are no specifically required analyses to show that operation of a generating unit beyond the compliance date is critical to maintain reliability, though informational filings should provide the types of data used by the Commission to examine potential violations of its mandatory reliability standards.
• The Commission will not seek comments on the informational filings, though EPA requires that requests for extra time contain any written comments by other parties. The EPA policy encourages such comments, which should be included in the informational filings.

When considering extension requests, FERC recommends EPA also seek advice from other reliability experts such as state regulators, regional market operators, planning authorities, and the North American Electric Reliability Corp. and its affiliated regional entities.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EH&S compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EH&S management programs.
For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website

FInal Rule Phasing Out Gas Vapor Recovery Systems For Refueling

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that the systems used at gas station pumps to capture gasoline vapors while refueling cars can be phased out. Modern vehicles are equipped to capture those emissions. This final rule is part of initiatives to ensure that regulations protect public health and the environment without being unnecessarily burdensome.

Beginning later this year, states may begin the process of phasing out vapor recovery systems at the pump since approximately 70% of all vehicles are equipped with on-board systems that capture these vapors. This final rule will ensure that air quality and public health are protected while potentially saving the approximately 31,000 affected gas stations located in mostly urban areas more than $3,000 each year when fully implemented.

Since 1994, gas stations in areas that do not meet certain air quality standards have been required to use gasoline vapor recovery systems. The systems capture fumes that escape from gasoline tanks during refueling. However, as required by the Clean Air Act, automobile manufacturers began installing onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) technologies in 1998, making gas stations’ systems increasingly redundant. Since 2006, all new automobiles and light trucks (pickups, vans and SUVs) are equipped with ORVR systems.

The final rule responds to public comments on EPA’s July 2011 proposal, and will take effect upon publication in the Federal Register.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EH&S compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EH&S management programs.
For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website

BLM Rule On Disclosure Of Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has announced a proposed rule to require companies to publicly disclose the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing operations on public and Indian lands, with appropriate protections for proprietary information. Currently, there is no specific requirement for operators to disclose these chemicals on federal and Indian lands. The proposed rule would require public disclosure of chemicals used during hydraulic fracturing after fracturing operations have been completed.

The draft rule, along with economic analysis and an appendix, also contains two additional, measures:
•Improving assurances on well-bore integrity to verify that fluids used in wells during fracturing operations are not escaping; and
•Confirming that oil and gas operators have a water management plan in place for handling fracturing fluids that flow back to the surface.

In developing the proposed rule, BLM sought feedback from a wide range of sources, governments, industry, members of the public and other interested stakeholders. BLM began formal tribal consultations in January 2012 with tribal governments about the proposed rule's ongoing development, including outreach, communication and substantive discussions. Consultation with tribal leaders remains ongoing and will continue throughout the rulemaking process.

Once the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register, a 60-day public comment period will begin.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EH&S compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EH&S management programs.
For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website

EPA Draft Guidance On Use Of Diesel In Hydraulic Fracturing

US EPA has released draft underground injection control (UIC) program permitting guidance for Class II wells that use diesel fuels during hydraulic fracturing activities. EPA developed the draft guidance to clarify how companies can comply with a law passed by Congress in 2005, which exempted hydraulic fracturing operations from the requirement to obtain a UIC permit, except in cases where diesel fuel is used as a fracturing fluid.

The draft guidance outlines for EPA permit writers, where EPA is the permitting authority, requirements for diesel fuels used for hydraulic fracturing wells, technical recommendations for permitting those wells, and a description of diesel fuels for EPA underground injection control permitting. The draft guidance describes diesel fuels for these purposes by reference to six chemical abstract services registry numbers. The agency is requesting input on this description.

According to EPA, while this guidance undergoes public notice and comment, decisions about permitting hydraulic fracturing operations that use diesel fuels will be made on a case-by-case basis, considering the facts and circumstances of the specific injection activity and applicable statutes, regulations, and case law, and will not cite this draft guidance as a basis for decision. EPA will take public comment on the draft guidance for 60 days upon publication in the Federal Register to allow for stakeholder input before it is finalized.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EH&S compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EH&S management programs.
For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website

PHMSA Notification Regarding Operating Pressure Records

U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has issued an advisory bulletin to reminded gas pipeline facilities to preserve and verify records related to maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) and informed hazardous liquid operators that they should adhere to the same standards for maximum operating pressure (MOP).

The revisions reflect new requirements for reporting procedures in the recent Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, provide key safety data to assist PHMSA in addressing National Transportation Safety Board recommendations, and make other minor changes to improve overall data quality for industry professionals as well as the general public.

The advisory informs operators that records supporting MAOP and MOP should be traceable, verifiable, complete and clearly linked to original information about a pipeline segment or facility. These records must also be verified by complimentary, but separate, documentation. The advisory informs operators that to be complete, pipeline records must display a signature, date, or other appropriate marking to show the operator considers it to be a final document.

The advisory also notifies the public of PHMSA’s intent to gather public input about eliminating a grandfather clause that allowed gas transmission operators to establish the MAOP of pipe installed before 1970 by relying upon historical records. If the grandfather clause were eliminated, these operators would be required to reestablish MAOP using hydrostatic pressure testing. The NTSB recommended the elimination of the grandfather clause.

The advisory follows a Notice issued by PHMSA on April 13, 2011, outlining the agency’s proposals to make several minor updates to accident and incident reporting forms for hazardous liquid, gas transmission, and gas gathering pipeline systems. The Notice also explains PHMSA’s consideration of a number of changes to the annual report form used by operators of natural gas transmission and gathering pipeline systems.

Comments from interested parties are being accepted through June 12, 2012.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EH&S compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EH&S management programs.
For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website

Chemicals Added To Monitoring Requirements For Public Water Supplies

On May 2, EPA published a list of 28 chemicals and two viruses that public water systems will monitor from 2013 to 2015. This effort is part of the Agency's unregulated contaminant monitoring program, which collects data for contaminants suspected to be present in drinking water, but do not have health-based standards set under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

EPA will spend more than $20 million to support the monitoring, the majority of which will be devoted to small drinking water systems. The data collected under the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 3 (UCMR 3) will inform EPA about the frequency and levels at which these contaminants are found in drinking water systems across the country, and will help determine whether additional protections are needed to ensure safe drinking water for Americans. State participation in the monitoring is voluntary. EPA will fund small drinking water system costs for laboratory analyses, shipping, and quality control.

EPA has made it a priority to address hexavalent chromium in drinking water and the list of contaminants to be studied includes total chromium and hexavalent chromium. In January 2011, EPA issued guidance to all water systems on how to assess the prevalence of hexavalent chromium and in the March 2011 proposal for UCMR 3, EPA invited comments on whether the agency should include chromium in the final rule. Public comments received by EPA strongly supported adding total chromium and hexavalent chromium for monitoring.

EPA selected the contaminants by first reviewing the agency's contaminant candidate list, which highlights priority contaminants that need additional research to support future drinking water protections. The contaminants on the list are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems. However, they are not addressed by existing national drinking water standards. Additional contaminants of concern were selected based on current occurrence research and health-risk factors. EPA has standards for 91 contaminants in drinking water, and the Safe Drinking Water Act requires that EPA identify up to 30 additional unregulated contaminants for monitoring every five years.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EH&S compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EH&S management programs.
For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website

Federal Railroad Administration Warning Regarding Odorants In LPG Shipments

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has issued Safety Advisory 2012-01 to remind shippers and consignees of railroad tank cars containing odorized liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) of the importance of taking actions to ensure that a sufficient level of odorant remains in the LPG throughout the entire transportation cycle. FRA issued this notice to raise awareness within the hazardous materials community, of the potential consequences of having LPG reach endusers as under-odorized or essentially non-odorized material due to the diminishment of the added odorant during the transportation cycle (commonly known as “odorant fade”). This safety advisory recommends that shippers and consignees of bulk quantities of odorized LPG review their existing LPG odorization standards and procedures, and take appropriate actions to guard against odorant fade in their shipments.

The Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR), Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 171-180, allow use of the proper shipping name, “liquefied petroleum gas” (or LPG), for a number of petroleum gases with properties similar to propane. Much of the LPG loaded and shipped in the United States by railroad tank car is from bulk suppliers to either industrial end-users or to “midstream” suppliers who then sell and redistribute the LPG to commercial, retail, and general public end-users.

In 2010, LPG represented less than 9% of all loaded hazardous materials tank car shipments originating in the United States. Because LPG is a colorless and odorless gas, odorants are normally added to the material (with the exception of LPG being shipped to industrial end-users) in the liquid phase to enable human detection when its vaporized gases are released in the atmosphere. The majority of LPG produced for non-industrial uses is odorized by bulk providers of the material. The presence of LPG in the consumer supply chain, with either diminished levels of odorant or no odorant present, represents significant safety risks. Absent sufficient odorization of the commodity, LPG leaks can go undetected and ignite.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EH&S compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EH&S management programs.
For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website

Confidential Business Information Regarding Hazardous Waste Imports & Exports

EPA has published notification to affected businesses and is seeking comments on changes to certain aspects of trade secrets in hazardous waste imports and exports. From time to time EPA receives requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for documentation received or issued by EPA or for other data contained in EPA database systems that pertain to the export and import of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste from or to the U.S. This includes the export of cathode ray tubes (CRTs) and spent lead acid batteries (SLABs) from the U.S., and the export and import of RCRA universal waste from or to the U.S. The documents and data may identify or reference multiple parties, or describe specific transactions.

The notice, published in the April 30, 2012 Federal Register, informs affected businesses about the documents or data sought by these types of FOIA requests. Importers and exporters of the RCRA wastes may wish to assert claims that the information sought is entitled to treatment as confidential business information (CBI). These businesses should send comments to EPA informing them of their claims of confidentiality. However, EPA says some businesses do not qualify as affected businesses, if they submitted documents or data to EPA but did not assert a CBI claim at the time of the submission. If another business was referenced in the documentation, that business may have a right assert a CBI claim, and may do so in response to EPA's notice.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EH&S compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EH&S management programs.
For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website

ICR For TSCA Section 4 Testing Rules

US EPA has forwarded an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review and approval. The agency is looking for more information on TSCA Section 4 test rules, consent orders, enforceable consent agreements, voluntary testing agreements, voluntary data submissions, and exemptions from testing requirements. The ICR covers the submission of test data to EPA to support the decision-making process for an industrial chemical under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Under TSCA, EPA has the authority to issue regulations designed to gather health, safety, and exposure information on, require testing of, and control exposure to chemical substances and mixtures. Drugs, cosmetics, foods, food additives, pesticides, and nuclear materials are exempt from TSCA.

Under TSCA Section 4, EPA must assure that appropriate tests are performed on a chemical if it decides that a chemical being considered may pose an “unreasonable risk” or is produced in “substantial quantities that may result in substantial or significant human exposure or substantial environmental release of the chemical.” EPA also requires testing if additional data are needed to determine or predict the impacts of the chemical’s manufacture, processing, distribution, use, or disposal.

The Agency originally sought comments on the ICR in August, 2011. Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 25, 2012, using docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-1010.


Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EH&S compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EH&S management programs.
For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website

EPA Guidance On Aligning Pesticide Labels With GHS Requirements

The US EPA Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) has released a Pesticide Registration Notice (PR Notice) in the April 20 Federal Register entitled “Pesticide Registration Notice 2012-1: Material Safety Data Sheets as Pesticide Labeling.” OPP puts out PR Notices to inform pesticide registrants and others about important policies, procedures, and registration-related decisions, as well as guidance to registrants and OPP personnel.

The Notice provides guidance to pesticide registrants concerning the relationship between EPA-approved labels for pesticides registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS, also known as the Safety Data Sheet or SDS), required by OSHA. It explains how registrants can ensure their FIFRA labeling and SDSs comply with both EPA and OSHA requirements. The New PR Notice is intended to update previous PR Notice 92-4, in which EPA determined that a MSDS that accompanies a pesticide product is considered part of the pesticide’s labeling, but may accompany a pesticide product without notification or approval from the Agency, provided the labeling is consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 156.

OSHA requires SDSs under its Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) at 29 CFR 1910.1200, and is moving to align HCS requirements with the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). OSHA published its final rule for HCS on March 26, 2012, and will begin to accept SDSs that are prepared according to the final rule’s requirements on May 25, 2012.

EPA has not yet moved to amend its labeling regulations to be consistent with the GHS, which leads to differences between EPA’s current requirements and OSHA’s new requirements related to classification criteria, hazard statements, pictograms, and signal words. EPA and OSHA worked together to develop PR Notice 2012-1 to address concerns about those differences. EPA says the PR-Notice is intended to aid registrants in assuring that SDSs for their products are not considered inconsistent with the EPA-approved product labeling for pesticides registered under FIFRA by providing guidance on how a registrant may reconcile an SDS with its associated FIFRA labeling.

EPA is also asking for public comment on the information collection activities and related burden estimates associated with the guidance provided in PR Notice 2012-1. Comments must be received on or before June 19, 2012.


Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EH&S compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EH&S management programs.
For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website