Proposed Safe Chemicals Act of 2011

The Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 (S. 847) was approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee on July 25 in a party-line vote. Introduced by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), the legislation would modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA) and give EPA authority to require health and safety testing of toxic chemicals. The bill would place the burden on industry to prove their chemicals are safe. Currently, EPA can call for safety testing only after evidence surfaces showing a chemical is dangerous.

In brief, the Safe Chemicals Act would:

• Require manufacturers to develop and submit safety data for each chemical they produce, while avoiding duplicative or unnecessary testing.
• Prioritize chemicals based on risk, so that EPA can focus resources on evaluating those most likely to cause harm while working through the backlog of untested existing chemicals.
• Place the burden of proof on chemical manufacturers to demonstrate the safety of their chemicals.
• Restrict uses of chemicals that cannot be proven safe.
• Establish a public database to catalog the information submitted by chemical manufacturers and the EPA's safety determinations.
• Promote innovation and development of safe chemical alternatives, and bring some new chemicals onto the market using an expedited review process.

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

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

 

Review Of Mercury and Air Toxics Standards MATS

EPA has announced that it is reviewing new technical information used to develop emission limits for new power plants under the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), provided by industry stakeholders after the rule was finalized. According to EPA, the review will have no impact on the standards already in place for existing power plants and is intended to provide greater certainty for five planned future facilities in Georgia, Texas, Kansas, and Utah.

EPA will review monitoring issued related to the MATS and will address other technical issues on the acid gas and particle pollution standards for new power plants. The Agency's review is not expected to change the types of pollution controls new power plants will install to reduce air pollution.

The Agency often uses reconsiderations such as this review to ensure that its standards incorporate all relevant information when information comes to light after a rule has been promulgated. EPA says it will follow an expedited, open, and transparent process that includes public comment on any proposed changes. The agency will complete the rulemaking by March 2013 and will also use its Clean Air Act authority to stay the final standards for new power plants for three months during this review.

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

 

Court Upholds EPA Nitrogen Dioxide Air Quality Standards

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has ruled that EPA is within its authority to limit nitrogen dioxide (NO2) emissions near major roads and other urban locations. The American Petroleum Industry, various utilities, and other industry groups had petitioned the court for a review of EPA's 2010 final rule adopting new, one-hour primary national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for NO2. The groups claimed EPA was arbitrary and capricious in adopting the NAAQS, and that the rule went too far and was unlawful because it was more stringent than was requisite to protect the public health.

The court upheld EPA's primary NAAQS rule for NO2, saying the petitions had not proven it was either arbitrary or capricious or in violation of the CAA.

EPA established the first primary NAAQS for NO2 in 1971, with 53 parts per billion (ppb) for the annual average in any given area. NO2, along with the broader category of nitrogen oxides, is generated mainly through combustion processes, especially those occurring in automobile and truck engines and electric generating plants.

EPA had revised the primary NAAQS in 2010 based on new studies showing the adverse health effects from exposure to NO2 occurred at lower concentrations of NO2 and for exposures of much shorter durations than had previously been thought. The new one-hour primary NAAQS requires the three-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the daily maximum one-hour concentration be less than or equal to 100 ppb. EPA has stated that it intends to redesignate areas of the country as either in attainment or nonattainment in 2016 or 2017 once it fully deploys its planned monitoring network for NO2.

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

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

New EPCRA Tier I and Tier II Reporting Requirements

In the July 13, 2012 final rule, US EPA has added new reporting requirements to Tier I and Tier II reporting forms it believes will be helpful for state and local agencies to develop or modify their community emergency response plans EPA is adding new data elements and revising existing data elements on the Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Forms under Section 312 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). In addition, EPA is revising the chemical reporting section of the Tier II inventory form to make reporting easier for facilities and make the form more user-friendly for state and local officials.

The rule will take effect on January 1, 2014.

Under EPCRA Section 312, if a facility has hazardous chemicals at or above the reporting threshold specified at 40 CFR Part 370, the facility owner or operator is required to submit an emergency and hazardous chemical inventory form (either Tier I or Tier II) to the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC), the local emergency planning committee (LEPC), and the local fire department by March 1 each year. The Tier I reporting form requires facilities to report on the general types and locations of hazardous chemicals present at the facility. Tier II inventory forms require facilities to report specific information on the amounts and locations of hazardous chemicals present at the facility. Currently, all states require facilities to submit the federal Tier II inventory form or a state equivalent form.

What is the difference between Tier 1 EPCRA Report Forms and Tier 2 EPCRA Report Forms?

Read about State EPCRA Tier II Reporting support services

EPA will now require facilities to report their latitude and longitude as well as the identification numbers assigned under the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) program and the risk management program. Also, they will be required to indicate whether chemicals are stored at a manned or unmanned location. Another change involves reporting on the number of occupants that are expected to be in the facility at any one time rather than the maximum number of employees. EPA decided to allow facilities the option of including the facility phone number on the revised forms, as well as contact information for the facility parent company. However, facilities will be required to provide emergency contact information.

Facilities must now indicate if they are subject to EPCRA Section 302 and Clean Air Act Section 112(r), also known as the Risk Management Program.

The final rule adds separate data fields for reporting pure chemical and mixtures in the chemical reporting section of the Tier II inventory form along with a new requirement to provide a description for the storage types and conditions. The rule revises the Tier II inventory form for facilities to report any additional state or local reporting requirements or to voluntarily report hazardous chemicals below the reporting thresholds.

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

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

What Are Legal and Other Requirements Under ISO 14001?

One of the more challenging aspects of conforming to the ISO 14001 standard for Environmental Management Systems (EMS) is addressing “other requirements” The term “other requirements” is always associated with “legal requirements” within the standard and has the same obligations. An organization must identify its “other requirements” and periodically assess compliance.

Legal requirements are more easily understood by most organizations; these are identified in laws, rules, regulations, and in permits that the organization is subject to. However, “other requirements” are those obligations the organization has taken on that go beyond legal requirements. Some examples may be trade organization standards for responsible care of chemicals, agreements for labeling of products, or voluntary industry product stewardship programs.

It is important to recognize that under ISO 14001, once an organization makes a commitment to meet these types of requirements, they have the same importance as legal requirements under ISO 14001. This means that the organization must periodical assess its compliance (i.e, audit) with these other requirements.


Caltha LLP provides expert technical assistance to organizations wanting to become registered under ISO 14001 or to improve their EMS. For more information go to ISO 14001 and Environmental Management Systems Services website.

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

 

Chemical Safety Board (CSB) 2012 - 2016 Strategic Plan

The U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) has released its 2012 - 2016 Strategic Plan. The new strategy updates the 2007 - 2012 CSB Strategic Plan, including the CSB's strategic goals, objectives, and associated measures for managing and evaluating agency operations.The final version of the plan features a "CSB Most Wanted Program" that serves to focus CSB outreach initiatives for key CSB recommendations.

The plan contains measurable objections and concentrates on three main goals:

1. Conduct incident investigations and safety studies concerning releases of hazardous chemical substances. This goal fulfills the core missions of the Board by ensuring that CSB selects and completes incident investigations that have the potential to generate recommendations with high preventative impact. It also directs the CSB to develop and complete safety studies with an emphasis on emerging safety issues.
2. Improve safety and environmental protection by ensuring that CSB recommendations are implemented and by broadly disseminating CSB findings through advocacy and outreach. CSB says its successful safety videos are an important component of its dissemination efforts.
3. Preserve the public trust by maintaining and improving organizational excellence. CSB endeavors to use best practice project management in all agency processes, including administration and service functions.

The CSB is an independent federal agency charged with investigating industrial chemical accidents. CSB investigations look into all aspects of chemical accidents, including physical causes such as equipment failure as well as inadequacies in regulations, industry standards, and safety management systems. The Board also makes safety recommendations to plants, industry organizations, labor groups, and regulatory agencies such as OSHA and EPA.


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

Rulemaking On Hazardous Materials In Reverse Logistics

The Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) is seeking public comment to assist in forming a reverse logistics policy to address the unique requirements of the hazardous materials transportation. PHMSA is working to develop a cost-effective logistical solution that maintains the agency's safety standards. The advanced notice of public rulemaking seeks comment on whether providing a clear definition of reverse logistics will promote the safe transport of hazardous materials. Comments must be submitted by October 3, 2012.

Reverse logistics is the process initiated when a consumer product goes backwards in the supply chain, such as an item being returned to a store by a customer, or when a local retailer sends unused merchandise back to a regional distributor. While returns are a fairly straightforward process for most products, the effort is complicated when a consumer needs to return paint, batteries, or other regulated hazardous materials. That difficulty is multiplied for retailers trying to manage multiple returns to various suppliers at the same time.

Because many reverse logistics shipments contain regulated hazardous materials, shippers may unknowingly violate the hazardous materials regulations, which apply to consumers as well as those involved with the commercial transportation of goods. By clarifying the guidelines for hazmat reverse logistics and increasing public awareness, PHMSA hopes to greatly reduce the occurrence of improperly packaged and inappropriately congregated hazmat items being shipped, as well as the risks for danger when this happens.

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

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

Step 3 of Tailoring Rule Released

On July 3, EPA announced Step 3 for the GHG Tailoring Rule, and stating that the agency will not revise greenhouse gas (GHG) permitting thresholds under the Clean Air Act. The Agency issued a final rule to retain the GHG permitting thresholds that were set in Steps 1 and 2 of the Tailoring Rule, which was established in 2010, and were recently upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. EPA believes current conditions do not suggest that it should lower the permitting thresholds; therefore, the Agency will not include additional, smaller sources in the permitting program at this time.

The final rule continues to focus on the largest emission sources, or those that account for nearly 70% of the total GHG emissions from stationary sources. In addition, EPA is finalizing a provision to allow companies to set plant-wide emissions limits for GHGs. According to the Agency, this will streamline the permitting process, increasing flexibility, and reducing permitting burdens on state and local authorities and large industrial sources.

The new final rule confirms that new facilities with GHG emissions of at least 100,000 tons per year (tpy) carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) will continue to be required to obtain Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits. Existing facilities that emit 100,000 tpy of CO2e and make changes increasing GHG emissions by at least 75,000 tpy of CO2e must also obtain PSD permits. Facilities that need to obtain PSD permits that include other regulated pollutants must also address GHG emission increases of 75,000 tpy or more of CO2e. Finally, new and existing sources with GHG emissions above 100,000 tpy CO2e must obtain title V operating permits.

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

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

 

EPA Removes Refrigerant From List of Regulated VOC

On June 22, EPA released a final rule to revise the definition of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The revision adds trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234ze) to the list of compounds excluded from the definition of VOC. The final rule is effective on July 23, 2012.

According to the Agency, it is removing the compound from the list because it “makes a negligible contribution to tropospheric ozone formation.” As a result, the Agency says if a facility is subject to certain federal regulations limiting emissions of VOCs, its emissions of HFO-1234ze may not be regulated for some purposes. EPA's action may also affect whether the compound is considered a VOC for state regulatory purposes, depending on whether the state relies on EPA's definition of VOC.

The rule will affect industries that manufacture or use refrigerants, aerosols, propellants, and blowing agents for insulating foams. EPA notes that the use of HFO-1234ze remains subject to other restrictions under the CAA. The use of the compound as an aerosol propellant, blowing agent, refrigerant, or any other use in which it would substitute for chlorofluorocarbons, or their substitutes, is regulated under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. The SNAP program accepts HFO1234ze as an "acceptable foam and refrigerant substitute and as an aerosol propellant."

EPA policy has been to exclude these slow-forming compounds from the regulatory VOC definition “so as to focus VOC control efforts on compounds that do significantly increase zone concentrations.” EPA also contends that these exemptions create an incentive for industry to use negligibly reactive compounds in place of more highly reactive ones. The Agency lists compounds that it has determined to be negligibly reactive in its regulations at 40 CFR 51.100(s).


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

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

OSHA Alert On Silica Exposure During Fracing Operations

The Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) has issued a hazard alert regarding potential overexposure to silica as a health hazard to workers conducting hydraulic fracturing operations. As noted in the alert, respirable silica is a hazard common to many industries and industrial processes.

Since large quantities of silica sand are used during hydraulic fracturing, NIOSH began a cooperative effort in January 2010 to collect data regarding silica exposure at hydraulic fracturing operations. Working in cooperation with oil and gas industry partners to sample the air at 11 sites in five states where hydraulic fracturing operations were taking place, NIOSH identified seven primary sources of silica dust exposure during fracturing operations:

• Dust ejected from thief hatches (access ports) on top of the sand movers during refilling operations while the machines are running (hot loading).
• Dust ejected and pulsed through open side fill ports on the sand movers during refilling operations
• Dust generated by on-site vehicle traffic.
• Dust released from the transfer belt under the sand movers.
• Dust created as sand drops into, or is agitated in, the blender hopper and on transfer belts.
• Dust released from operations of transfer belts between the sand mover and the blender; and
• Dust released from the top of the end of the sand transfer belt (dragon's tail) on sand movers.

It also found that workers downwind of sand mover and blender operations, especially during hot loading, had the highest silica exposures. Transporting, moving, and refilling silica sand into and through sand movers as well as along transfer belts and into blender hoppers, can also release dust into the air containing up to 99% silica that workers breathe.

The alert describes how a combination of engineering controls, work practices, protective equipment and product substitution, where feasible, along with worker training, can protect workers who are exposed to silica. According to OSHA, engineering controls and work practices provide the best protection for workers.


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