Registration Permit Review For New Facility In Minnesota

Caltha LLP Project Summary

Project: Option D Permit Review For New Process
Client: Food Manufacturing Processing Facility
Location(s): Minnesota

Key Elements: Air permitting, Air permit compliance, Air emission estimates, Control equipment efficiency

Overview: Caltha LLP was retained by this food manufacturing processing facility to conduct an evaluation to determine if a new project planned at the facility would require a modification to the existing air emission permit issued by MPCA or if prior notifications would be required for the project. Caltha staff reviewed project plans to determine added air emissions resulting from the new project. These estimates were added to emission estimates for all other permitted sources at the facility to determine if any permit actions were required. Based on the technical evaluation, it was determined that the project could be constructed with no permit modifications or notifications.

For more information on Caltha LLP services, go to the Caltha Contact Page

TSCA section 8(a) and TSCA section 8(d) Reporting Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals

EPA has announced plans to develop an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) and initiate a stakeholder process to provide input on the design and scope of the TSCA reporting requirements for Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals. This would include chemical information reporting under TSCA section 8(a) and health and safety data reporting under TSCA section 8(d). EPA anticipates that states, industry, public interest groups and members of the public will be participants in the stakeholder process.

No proposed schedule for the ANPRM was released.

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

Revised Environmental Radiation Protection Standard For Nuclear Power Operation

In 1977, the EPA Office of Radiation Programs issued "Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations". Since issuance of the standards, the understanding of radiation risk and dose to humans has advanced and new methodologies have been developed to calculate radiation doses.

In view of the developments over the past decades, EPA is evaluating how to update the Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations in 40 CFR Part 190. An updated rule would draw on updated science and clarify how safety should be demonstrated. EPA expects to issue an ANPRM to solicit public input on general questions and approaches on what aspects of the rule should be updated. EPA anticipates issuing an advanced notification of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in February 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

New SNUR Reporting For Glymes In Consumer Products

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to require companies report new uses of chemicals known as glymes in consumer products. EPA’s proposed action is based in part on the agency’s concerns that additional uses of these 14 chemicals in consumer products could lead to harmful reproductive and developmental health effects. Glymes are chemicals used in a wide array of applications including printing ink, paints and coatings, adhesives, household batteries and motor vehicle brake systems.

The proposed regulatory procedure is known as a significant new use rule (SNUR) under the Toxic Substances Control Act. The SNUR is intended to ensure that, prior to the manufacture, import, or processing of these chemicals for a significant new use, EPA will have 90 days to evaluate potential risks, and prohibit or limit the activity if warranted.

Comments on the proposed SNUR must be received on or before September 9, 2011.

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 Revokes TSCA Confidential Business Information CBI For Certain Chemicals

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has made public the identities of more than 150 chemicals contained in 104 health and safety studies that had previously been claimed confidential by industry. For these 104 studies, the chemical identity will no longer be redacted. The chemicals involved are used in dispersant formulations and consumer products such as air fresheners, non-stick and stain resistant materials, fire resistant materials, nonylphenol compounds, perfluorinated compounds, and lead.

In 2010, EPA requested that the industry voluntarily declassify unwarranted claims of confidential business information (CBI). The agency also issued new guidance outlining plans to deny confidentiality claims for chemical identity in health and safety studies under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Based on this guidance, EPA notified a number of companies in February 2011 that the agency had determined that their CBI claim was not eligible for confidential treatment under TSCA and that EPA intended to make the information public. The health and safety studies include some declassified by the agency and other voluntary declassifications by companies in response to EPA’s 2010 request.

In addition to these actions, EPA has recently taken other steps to make chemical information more readily available. The agency has provided the public with free access to the consolidated TSCA Inventory on the EPA and Data.Gov websites. EPA also launched a new chemical data access tool gives the public the ability to electronically search EPA’s database of more than 10,000 health and safety documents on a wide range of chemicals.

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

For further information contact Caltha LLP at

info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website

NESHAP Residual Risk - Technology Review For Primary Aluminum Reduction

US EPA is currently beginning its Residual Risk and Technology Review of the Primary Aluminum Reduction National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). The existing NESHAP for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants (40 CFR part 63, subpart LL) applies to the owner or operator of each new pitch storage tank or new or existing potline, paste production plant, or anode bake furnace associated with primary aluminum production and located at a major source as defined in 40 CFR Section 63.2. The existing subpart LL does not apply to any existing anode bake furnace that is not located on the same site as a primary aluminum reduction plant.

Section 112(f)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to conduct risk assessments on each source category subject to maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards pursuant to a NESHAP and determine if additional standards are needed to protect human health. The section 112(f)(2) residual risk review of a source category is to be performed within 8 years after promulgation of the associated NESHAP. Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to review and revise the MACT standards as necessary taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies. The technology reviews of a NESHAP are to be performed no less often than every 8 years after promulgation of that NESHAP. The NESHAP for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants was first promulgated in 1997. The amendments will address possible residual risks and advancements in technology. EPA anticipates that the Notice of Preliminary Rule Making for this action will be published in November 2011.

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

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