vol. 20, no. 3, september 2012 the rt revie · thomas varlan finds tva negligent in coalash...

Picking up on a smaller year to year netemissions change from 2008 to 2009, green-house gas/carbon dioxide releases into theatmosphere more recently have fallen to a20-year low in the U.S. The surprising dis-closure, which came from a little-noticedU.S. Energy Department report, was attrib-uted by government officials to power plantoperators switching to cheap and plentifulnatural gas from coal. Many of the world’sleading climate scientists didn’t see the dropcoming, apparently because it happened dueto market forces rather than direct govern-ment action against carbon dioxide, a heat-trapping gas. “There’s a very clear lessonhere. What it shows is that if you make acleaner energy source cheaper, you will dis-place dirtier sources,” said a University ofColorado climate expert.

Michael Mann, director of the EarthSystem Science Center at Penn StateUniversity, said the shift away from coal isreason for "cautious optimism" about poten-tial ways to deal with climate change. Hesaid it demonstrates that "ultimately peoplefollow their wallets" on global warming.

While conservation efforts, the laggingeconomy and greater use of renewableenergy are factors in the CO2 decline, thedrop-off is due mainly to low-priced naturalgas, the agency said.

Both government and industry expertssaid the biggest surprise is how quickly theelectric industry turned away from coal. In2005, coal was used to produce about half ofall the electricity generated in the U.S. TheEnergy Information Agency said that fell to34 percent in March, the lowest level since itbegan keeping records nearly 40 years ago.

The question is whether the shift is justone bright spot in a big, gloomy picture, or apotentially larger trend.

Coal and energy use are still growingrapidly in other countries, particularlyChina, and CO2 levels globally are rising,not falling. Moreover, changes in the mar-ketplace — a boom in the economy, a fall incoal prices, a rise in natural gas — couldstall or even reverse the shift. For example,

U.S. emissions fell in 2008 and 2009, thenrose in 2010 before falling again last year.

The International Energy Agency said theU.S. has cut carbon dioxide emissions morethan any other country over the last sixyears. Total U.S. carbon emissions fromenergy consumption peaked at about 6billion metric tons in 2007. Projections forthis year are around 5.2 billion, and the 1990figure was about 5 billion.

(Associated Press/SF Chronicle – 8/17/2012)

A few comments from readers:• The report does not take into account the

number of coal fueled power plants thathave upgraded to cleaner burning technolo-gy and better air emissions control. It seemsto only dirty coal burning plants are thosethat are using air pollution credits. Whenthose credits are taken away from thosecompanies, they too will upgrade or convertto another energy source.

• Don't underestimate the role of regula-tion in this, the cost of complying with SO2reduction, mercury emission reduction etc.is significant ... plus the handwriting is onthe wall requiring CO2 sequestration, all ofwhich makes natural gas more economicalby comparison.

Market forces are the best way to addressg.w., but the market needs to reflect truecosts ... a typical coal fired plant emits moreradiation than a well-functioning nuclearplant, for example, and that's not evenaccounting for radon released in mining, abig problem in some parts of the country.

Factor in those health costs and similarand then coal is a disaster . . . if you've everbeen to a coal producing region, you'd haveto be blind not to see that.

Page 1

Vol. 20, No. 3, September 2012

The Latest on Environmental Issues From YourSolution-Oriented Environmental Services Firm

The RT ReviewRTENV.COM

TABLE OF CONTENTSStaff and Project News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2NJ Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 & 11Federal Regulatory Updates . . . . . . . . 4-9Technology Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-11PA Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-13

During one of the world’s worst envi-ronmental disasters, millions of tons ofcoal ash flowed from a Tennessee permit-ted disposal facility in 2008, into wetlands,embayments, onto private residential prop-erty, and the Emory and Clinch Rivers inTennessee. After being retained by theLaw Firm of Villari, Brandes and Gianonein Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, GaryBrown, RT’s President, visited the site, andthe RT Team reviewed documents goingback to expansions of the coal ash facility,dating to the 1970s.

RT prepared an expert report, and GaryBrown delivered testimony in federalcourt. Mr. Brown used his environmentalmanagement experience, as well as hisexperience in the design, management andoperation of waste facilities, as a basis forhis testimony.

Items of key concern at the TVA facilityincluded:

- Promises to the State RegulatoryAgency – TDEC, to monitor water levelson all slopes at the wet coal ash disposalfacility were not met.

- TVA made statements to TDEC thatthe wet material would consolidate,between divider berms, but in oneinstance, a key divider berm was simplyfilled over. This means that the coal ashplaced in the facility could not drybetween pumping cycles, increasingpressure on perimeter berms.

- TVA first promised to keep the facil-ity dry, and not pond water, near berms,but later a technique called “rim ditching”was used, wherein berms were built out ofthe coal ash material, and wet ditches con-structed right next to the outer berms.

Consultants including Worley Parsonsand Geosyntec, studied and made recom-mendations regarding slope failures whichoccurred at the facility, but despite there

FEDERAL JUDGETHOMAS VARLAN FINDS TVA

NEGLIGENT IN COAL ASHDISPOSAL FACILITY OPERATION;

GARY BROWN’S TESTIMONYCITED IN OPINION

SWITCH TO NATURAL GAS FUELS LEADS TOBIG REDUCTION IN CARBON EMISSIONS

(continued on page 3)

(continued on page 3)

DIRECTORYCorporate Headquarters

215 West Church RoadKing of Prussia, PA 19406

Phone: (610) 265-1510FAX: (610) 265-0687

E-mail: [email protected] Wide Web: HTTP://RTENV.COM

24 HOURURGENT LINE SERVICE

800-725-0593Gary Brown, P.E., President

Phone: (610) 768-0232E-mail: [email protected]

Craig Herr, P.G.Phone: (610) 265-1510 Ext. 215Hydrogeology Group Manager

E-mail: [email protected]

Walter HungarterPhone: (610) 265-1510 Ext. 238

General ManagerE-mail: [email protected]

New JerseyGlennon C. Graham, Jr., P.G.

Phone: (856) 467-2276 Ext. 122E-mail: [email protected]

Suite 306, Pureland Complex510 Heron Drive, P.O. Box 521

Bridgeport, NJ 08014Phone: (856) 467-2276FAX: (856) 467-3476

Southwest PennsylvaniaJustin Lauterbach

E-mail: [email protected] East Maiden StreetWashington, PA 15301Phone: (724) 206-0348FAX: (724) 206-0380

Regional PartnersMassachusetts

Andy IrwinPhone: (508) 653-8007FAX: (508) 653-8194

MichiganMichael Carlson

Phone: (248) 585-3800FAX: (248) 585-8404

North CarolinaPhil Rahn

Phone: (336) 852-5003

Page 2


RT STAFF AND PROJECT NEWS

Articles in the RT Review are for informational purposes only and maynot be reused w ithout the permission of the original author; as such

articles do not constitute engineering or legal advice.

RT’s professional staff is very busy, aswe now have 45 sites in the New JerseyLicensed Site Remediation ProfessionalProgram. Gary Brown, RT’s President,obtained his permanent L.S.R.P. Licenseduring the summer.

Current projects include:-A former drum reconditioning facility in Camden County.-A former quarry with non-native fillbackfill, also in Camden County.-A site with large historic oilreleases, in Morris County.-A commercial strip center with releases of petroleum constituents and perchlorethylene, near a day carefacility, in Camden County.-A former petroleum station groundwater cleanup site being redevelopedfor educational use in Atlantic County.-No. 2 Petroleum Oil release site in Hudson County.-Two former commercial sites with historic fill in Cumberland County.

RT ramped-up on all of the NewJersey requirements under the extensiveremediation rulemaking changes whichbecame effective on May 7th. All keyRT Technical Staff attended NJDEPfinal rule training at Rutgers Universityin late Spring, and this is backed bytopic-by-topic internal RT training forRT New Jersey staff members includingGlenn Graham, Chris Ward, Jacci Evans,Cortney Savidge, Ahren Ricker, andLisa Nocco.

Other projects include:- Justin Lauterbach and Chrissie Leewere completing an Act 2 assignmentinvolving a former coal gas manufactur-ing site being redeveloped for educa-tional purposes, at a site in Washington,Pennsylvania. - Josh Hagadorn was busy at work onlarge-scale remediation projects, includ-ing a landfill site being closed inPhillipsburg, New Jersey, and a river-front site in Salem County where indus-

trial buildings were being demolished,asbestos abated and the site capped.- Craig Herr and Walter Hungarter wereat work updating the overall conceptualmodel for the Henderson Road site aswell as addressing vapor concerns.- Tony Alessandrini was undertaking aseries of asbestos abatement projects, inSoutheastern Pennsylvania, and also atsites in Northern New Jersey andSouthern New Jersey.- Gary Brown, RT’s President, wasreceiving accolades from government,collegiate, and private sector officialsfor his expert work in federal court onthe 2008 Christmas time TVA coal ashspill, which is considered one of theworld’s worst environmental disasters ofits kind. Intensive review of environ-mental documents at the coal ash dispos-al site adjacent, to power plants inKingston, Tennessee was completed toreach opinions on environmental stan-dard of care, not following permitrequirements, and making promises to astate regulatory agency that were notkept. The Court ruled that the TennesseeValley Authority was negligent when 5million cubic yards of coal ash werereleased, substantial quantities of whichflowed into the Emory and ClinchRivers, tributaries to the Mississippi andTennessee Rivers. Unfortunately, about500,000 cubic yards remain in thebottom of the Emory and Clinch Rivers.

In 2011 and 2012, RT has seen asubstantial rise in stormwater litigation,and we now have many projects underour belts, including stormwater work atPennsylvania sites along two tributariesalong the Delaware River, and atSusquehanna River sites nearHarrisburg, and in the Pennsylvanianorthern tier. At RT Review press time,we were also retained for expert work ata site in Eastern Virginia, along theWashington D.C. Beltway.

As always, RT appreciates the oppor-tunity to be of service to our clients.

Gary Brown, President

The RT Review

Page 3

being consultants who came and went, evenwhen water level data was collected on anongoing basis at locations where slopefailures had already occurred, no competentprofessional engineering review of the dataon an ongoing basis was apparentlycompleted. It was also found, based ondiscovery and testimony from other experts,that although annual inspections wereconducted by professional engineers, therewas no training, recommendations were notfollowed-up on, much of the information inthe reports on annual inspections was

simply copied from year to year.A vast majority of disposal facilities in the

United States, which have state environmen-tal program oversight, operate safely, andhave in depth monitoring, to assure lack ofimpact to groundwater, human health and theenvironment. Unfortunately, detailed reviewof the history of the facility in Kingstonshowed lack of concern and/or disregard, ofsound environmental engineering and man-agement programs for landfill facilities aswell as disregard of: promises made to thestate environmental agency, TDEC; recom-

mendations by TVA’s own consultants; andpermit requirements.

Federal Judge Thomas Varland’s Opinion,which is 130 pages in length, was verydetailed, and well thought out, given the verylarge volume of documents produced duringthe discovery process, and extensive testimo-ny provided.

If one takes the time to read the Findingsin Judge Varlan’s Opinion, one would ques-tion whether TVA should be considered qual-ified to hold environmental permits for landdisposal facility operations.

Gary Brown

FEDERAL JUDGE THOMAS VARLAN FINDS TVA NEGLIGENT IN COAL ASH DISPOSAL(continued from page 1)

SWITCH TO NATURAL GAS FUELS LEADS TO BIG REDUCTION IN CARBON EMISSIONS(continued from page 1)

• This is good news for our nation, exceptCalifornia, which already uses mostly naturalgas for electrical energy. It is too bad that it isoutlawed to modify your own vehicle enginesin our state to natural gas or LP gas. Then weto can clean up our atmosphere as well. It ishard to understand the logic of our state leg-

islature. May be they have not found a way totax it, without the vote of the people, so theywill stop the people from creating their owninnovation. We are not free in California.

• There's a very clear lesson here. What itshows is that if you make a cleaner energysource cheaper, you will displace dirtier

sources," said Roger Pielke Jr., a climateexpert at the University of Colorado.

Old Roger, He's a real rocket scientist.Imagine that, people act in their own self-interest!

• Too bad China and India are cancelingout everything we do, and then some.

The Pennsylvania Permit Extension Law has been renewed,giving residential and commercial developers some extra relief asthe economy slowly continues to come out of recession.

In New Jersey, a similar law is awaiting a signature fromGovernor Christie.

The renewed act in Pennsylvania will give developers who haveobtained nearly any kind of state or local permit, whether it’s build-ing, water, sewer or road, until July 2, 2016, to break ground on aproject or use that permit without having to secure a new one.Governor Tom Corbett signed the act into law.

The Pennsylvania Homebuilders Association pushed for extend-ing the measure. It was signed into law in 2010, and under that, ifa permit was valid on Jan. 1, 2009, it was automatically extendeduntil July 2, 2013. It was implemented so a developer wouldn’thave to go through the approval and entitlement process again.

“When that was adopted, there was hope that by 2013 real estatewould be moving again,” said John C. Snyder, a real estate lawyerwith Saul Ewing.

It became apparent that 2013 was not enough time to completethe work under the existing permits. “Development is still not mov-ing forward and money is still not available,” Snyder said.

The law addresses several issues. It gives developers a cushionof time for the economy to pick up and support new construction.It will protect the value of development parcels and preserve the taxratables on those sites since approved land is taxed at a higheramount. It also assures sites will be shovel-ready when develop-ment financing returns, and helps the building trades have membersat the ready to fill jobs when a project is kicked off.

The extension offers some help for builders, but it’s not perfect.“It’s a big deal except it has one big hole,” Snyder said. “It doesn’tapply to approvals issued to comply with federal law.”

The Pennsylvania legislature in modeled after a law passed in

New Jersey in 2008. At the time, permits issued in the Garden Statethat were in effect in January 2007 were extended by two years to2010 and then extended again to the end of this year.

“Now we’re coming up on that,” said Jason R. Tuvel, a landdevelopment attorney at Gibbons.

New Jersey lawmakers have signed off on a two-year permitextension with a new expiration set at December 31, 2014, Tuvelsaid. It sits on Governor Chris Christie’s desk waiting for hissignature.

Different permits expire at different times and during the periodthey are valid, they are protected from zoning, subdivision or otherchanges that may have taken place. Now, development projectswould not be subject to new regulations, including planning orzoning changes that have been implemented between the time apermit was issued or expired.

The New Jersey Chapter of the Sierra Club called the state’s per-mit extension act “worse than ever” and said it takes the sides ofdevelopers rather than considering environmental ramifications.

The act allows “builders to evade updated environmental protec-tions,” the group said. “This legislation is even worse than beforebecause it includes the Highlands and Pinelands and the ‘DraculaClause,’ which would bring back bad projects where permits andapprovals have expired. With this bill we will see increased flood-ing, water pollution, and other environmental problems. TheBarnegat Bay, the Highlands, and Pinelands will be the hardest hitby this legislation.”

In Pennsylvania, the homebuilders association wanted a five-year extension around but instead got three.

“Hopefully, when this expires in 2016, we’re good and rollingagain,” said Fadullon of the BIA. “It’s a little up in the air wherewe are headed.

(By Natalie Kostelni, Philadelphia Business Journal, 7/20/12)

BUILDERS GET EXTRA TIME TO USE PERMITS IN PA AND MAYBE NEW JERSEY


FFEEDDEERRAALL RREEGGUULLAATTOORRYY UUPPDDAATTEESS NEW VAPOR INTRUSION PATHWAY –REPRIORITIZING SUPERFUNDCLEANUPS?

EPA says its upcoming rule adding vaporintrusion from underground sources of conta-mination as a pathway for determiningwhether a site should be placed on theSuperfund National Priorities List (NPL) islikely to reprioritize its cleanup programtoward those sites because thay may pose ahigher risk than other sites without such path-ways.

The rulemaking would update the agency’sHazard Ranking System (HRS), the scoringsystem used to evaluate whether sites qualifyfor the NPL, to allow sites to be placed on theNPL solely for vapor intrusion – a move sup-ported by environmentalists and some statesbut opposed by industry and the DefenseDepartment (DOD), who argued last year thatthe NPL process is not well suited to address-ing toxic vapor sites (Superfund Report, April18, 2011).

The agency last year asked for public com-ment on whether to include a vapor intrusioncomponent in the HRS, and the EPA fiscalyear 2013 National Program Manager’sGuidance for the Office of Solid Waste &Emergency Response (OSWER), releasedApril 27, says the agency plans to move aheadwith a formal rulemaking.

“In order to reflect the science that evolvedover the past two decades and to protect pub-lic health, in FY 2013, EPA will continue tomove forward to add this pathway to theHRS,” the program manager’s guide says,“The EPA does not expect that this additionwill result in additional site assessments beingconducted per year. However, because sub-surface intrusion sites have the potential topose a higher level of risk than other exposureroutes, EPA expects that there will be arealignment and reprioritization toward sub-surface intrusion evaluations.”

Elsewhere in the guidance, EPA includesadding a vapor intrusion pathway to the HRSas one of “several significant rulemakings” theagency plans to make progress on in FY13.The other rulemakings include the revised def-inition of solid waste for hazardous secondarymaterials, standards for coal combustionresidues and finalncial assurance requirementsunder the Superfund law.

Adding vapor intrusion as a pathway wouldbe the first time since 1990 that EPA hasupdated the HRS. The move could add 37new sites to the NPL, according to a 2010Government Accountability Office report thatsaid that EPA was failing to adequatelyaddress vapor intrusion. The HRS uses infor-mation from preliminary assessments and siteinspection to assess the relative potential ofsites to pose a threat to human health or theenvironment. The NPL is designed for the

highest priority sites that need long-termremedial action.

The move to potentially add vapor intrusionsites t the NPL comes as the agency is beingforced to reprioritize its Superfund activities inlight of budget cuts to the program. As part ofEPA’s FY13 budget request, the Superfundremedial program absorbed more than $33million in cuts from the FY12 enacted budget,a reduction that comes after the agencyabsorbed more than $40 million in cuts to thebudget in FY12, the FY13 program manager’sguidance says.

(Superfund Report, 5/14/2012)

EPA REVISES NEW SOURCEPERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR NITRIC ACID PLANTS

EPA issued a final rule revising New SourcePerformance Standards (NSPS) for nitric acidplants. Under the revised standards, new, mod-ified, and reconstructed nitric acid plants arerequired to meet a nitrogen oxides (NOX)limit of 0.50 lb NOX per ton of nitric acid pro-duced, calculated using a 30-day averageemission rate.

The revised limit also applies during peri-ods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. Inaddition to meeting the revised NOX limit,sources are required to install, calibrate, main-tain, and operate continuous emission moni-tors to measure NOX. EPA is not taking finalaction to establish a limit for greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions under the revised NSPS, butencourages nitric acid plants to consider tech-nologies that reduce both NOX and nitrousoxide (N2O).

(Environmental Resource Center, 5/21/2012)

EPA, INDUSTRY SEEK DATAMONITORING PACT FOR KEYPLASTICS INGREDIENT

EPA is entering negotiations to gain moredata on certain siloxane chemicals – datawhich could be used in crafting risk assess-ments for the chemicals – the latest move bythe agency as it attempts to better regulate theplastics ingredient that has proven problemat-ic because of its potential benefits in medicaldevices and other applications.

In the May 24 Federal Register, EPAannounces that it is seeking to “negotiate anenforceable consent agreement (ECA) tocollect certain environmental monitoring dataon octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) anddecamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5) with theSilicone Environmental Health and SafetyCouncil (SEHSC) and other stakeholders in aneffort to created “efficient means of develop-ing the data.”

EPA is hosting a June 27 public meeting toallow other stakeholders to participate in thenegotiations over the agreement, according tothe notice.

SEHSC, the industry trade association, hasalready proposed a model consent decree toEPA that would govern an environmentalmonitoring and data disclosure program.“Under the proposed EnvironmentalMonitoring Program, monitoring will be con-ducted at four locations that correspond toD4/D5 [manufacturing sites owned/operatedby SEHSC member companies that are directdischargers of process wastewater. At each ofthe designated locations, there will be twosampling events involving the collection andanalysis for D$ and D% effluent at the [manu-facturing] site’s outfall and in sediment,surface water, and biota (benthic and fishspecies) in the receiving waters,” according toa March 1 letter to EPA. Monitoring programswill also be conducted at a handful of munici-pal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs).

EPA has crafted similar monitoring agree-ments in the past, including a 2005 agreementwith manufacturers of perfluorooctanoic acid,a chemical with broad application in consumerproducts.

D4 and D5 are both forms of silicone plas-tics that are high production volume chemicalsand have uses in a slew of industrial, commer-cial and consumer products including person-al care products, sealants and adhesives,among others. But many regulators are con-cerned over the chemicals’ potential neurolog-ical and developmental harms.

EPA has long sought to require more testingand greater oversight of siloxanes. In 2010,officials proposed a chemical action plan tobetter regulate siloxanes under its existingToxic Substances Control Act authority.However, the proposal drew significant oppo-sition from industry and other groups, whichcharged it would impose a significant burdengiven the chemicals’ wide range of applica-tions, including in manufacturing, medicaldevices production and the aerospace industry.


HIGH COURT RAISES BAR FORCRIMINAL PENATIES IENVIRONMENTAL CASES

The Supreme Court has ruled that juries, notjudges, must set limits for criminal penalties incases brought under the ResourceConservation & Recovery Act (RCRA), set-ting a higher bar for EPA as it seeks to enforcefines on polluting companies under a host ofenvironmental laws.

In a 6-3 decision in the case, SouthernUnion Company v. USA, the justices agreed

FEDERAL UPDATES• EPA SO2 Limits, pg. 5• Rail Car Special Permits, pg. 5• Landfill Air Standards, pg. 6• EPA TCE Limit, pg. 6

The RT Review

with the company, the U.S. Chamber ofCommerce and defense lawyers that a priorcourt precedent requiring prosecutors to obtainjury rulings when seeking enhanced sentenc-ing should also apply to criminal penalties.

“The Sixth Amendment reserves to juriesthe determination of any fact, other than thefact of a prior conviction, that increases acriminal defendant’s maximum potential sen-tence,” the majority said in its ruling. “Wehave applied this principle in numerous caseswhere the sentence was imprisonment ordeath. The question here is whether the samerule applies to sentences of criminal fines. Wehold that it does.”

By applying jury sentencing to enhancedcriminal fines, the court is setting a muchhigher bar for prosecutors to meet in seekingpenalties. While judges make determinationsbased on the preponderance of evidence, juriesare held to the “beyond a reasonable doubt”standard, which is considerably more burden-some.

The case could also force the government inenvironmental pollution cases to prove that thedischarge occurred on each of the allegeddays, a higher standard than the current bar ofproving that a discharge occurred in a certainperiod of time.

While the case at issue considered actionsunder RCRA, industry lawyers have arguedthat the ruling could also have a bearing inwater pollution, toxic substances and mineralmining cases, whose governing statutes aresimilar to the waste management law.

Industry and other lawyers said the rulingwill now require government lawyers to proveto juries the facts necessary to justify thepenalties they are seeking. “In the future that’sgoing to have a significant impact on the waycases are charged and prosecuted, and it’sgoing to pose a burden on the government toprove the size of the fine, and make it poten-tially more difficult to obtain very high finesbecause it appears the government would haveto prove how many days of violation therewere,” one source says. In the past, the gov-ernment was tasked with showing that a viola-tion occurred over a certain time frame, so theruling sets a much higher burden of proof, thesource adds.

The source says the ruling could alsochange how the government seeks criminalfines, pushing them toward seeking retributionunder the Criminal Fines Act – which allowsprosecutors to obtain twice the cost of damagefrom the violation – instead of under the per-day fine system of many environmentalstatutes. “You might see [the government] usethe alternative fines provisions even more, butthey would still have to prove that the loseswere…and those are facts that would have tobe proven at trial instead of to a judge duringsentencing.”


NEW EMISSION STANDARDS FORAIRCRAFT AND AIRCRAFT ENGINES

EPA is adopting several new aircraft engineemission standards for oxides of nitrogen(NOX), compliance flexibilities, and otherregulatory requirements for aircraft turbofanor turbojet engines with rated thrusts greaterthan 26.7 kilonewtons (kN). EPA has alsoadopting certain other requirements for gasturbine engines that are subject to exhaustemission standards, as follows. First, EPA hasclarified when the emission characteristics of anew turbofan or turbojet engine model havebecome different enough from its existingparent engine design that it must conform tothe most current emission standards.

Second, the Agency has adopted a newreporting requirement for manufacturers ofgas turbine engines that are subject to anyexhaust emission standard to provide us withtimely and consistent emission- related infor-mation. Third, EPA has established amend-ments to aircraft engine test and emissionsmeasurement procedures. EPA actively partic-ipated in the United Nations’ InternationalCivil Aviation Organization (ICAO) proceed-ings in which most of these requirements werefirst developed. These regulatory requirementshave largely been adopted or are activelyunder consideration by its member states.

By adopting such similar standards, there-fore, the US maintains consistency with theseinternational efforts. These final rules wereeffective on July 18, 2012.


EPA TO UPDATE AND EXTENDDEADLINE FOR 2010CEMENT STANDARDS

In response to a federal court ruling and datafrom industry, the EPA is proposing changes toits 2010 air standards for the Portland cementmanufacturing industry. The proposal wouldcontinue the significant emission reductionsfrom the 2010 standards while providingindustry additional compliance flexibilities,including more time to implement the pro-posed updates by extending the compliancedate for existing cement kilns from September2013 to September 2015.

In December 2011, the US Court of Appealsdetermined that EPA’s standards were legallysound, but asked the agency to account forrules finalized after the cement standards wereissued. The proposed updates to certain emis-sions limits, monitoring requirements, andcompliance timelines—which are expected toresult in additional cost savings for industry—are being made in response to this courtremand and petitions for reconsideration ofEPA’s 2010 final rule, which will dramaticallycut emissions of mercury, particle pollution(PM), and other air toxics from cementproduction.

Based on new technical information, EPA isproposing to adjust the way cement kilns con-tinuously monitor for particle pollution andwould set new particle pollution emissionslimits and averaging times to account for thesechanges. The proposed rule would not apply tokilns that burn non-hazardous solid waste;those kilns would be covered by other stan-dards. The proposed extended compliance datewould allow industry to reassess their emis-sion control strategies in light of the proposedchanges to the PM limits and monitoringmethods.

EPA will accept comment on the proposedchanges for 30 days after the proposal is pub-lished in the Federal Register. The agency willhold a public hearing if requested to do so.EPA will finalize the rule by December 20,2012.


RAIL CAR SPECIAL PERMITSINCORPORATED INTO HAZARDOUSMATERIAL REGULATIONS

The DOT’s Pipeline and HazardousMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA)has merged the provisions of seven widely-used special permits for railroad tank cars intothe Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR),in accordance with the agency’s ongoing ini-tiative to reduce regulatory burdens withoutlowering safety standards.

In a final rule published in the FederalRegister, PHMSA has amended the HMR toallow certain practices that previouslyrequired a special permit, for companies to beable to follow. PHMSA received public com-ments on the then-proposed rulemaking for 60days beginning August 18, 2011.

Incorporating special permits like these intothe HMR will provide users with greater flex-ibility, eliminate the need for numerous renew-al requests, reduce paperwork burdens, andfacilitate commerce while maintaining anappropriate level of safety.

Special permits are used to approve hazmattransport not explicitly authorized in theHMR, provided an equivalent level of safety ismaintained. For more information, see the2010 document by PHMSA’s Office ofHazardous Materials Safety titled Plan forConverting Special Permits into Regulationsof General Applicability.


COURT LEAVES EPA SULFUR DIOXIDELIMITS IN PLACE

The US Court of Appeals for the District ofColumbia Circuit has ruled to uphold a cleanair standard that limits dangerous intensebursts of sulfur dioxide pollution from powerplants, factories, and other sources, rejectingchallenges by polluting industries. Thestandard will prevent thousands of prematuredeaths, hospital admissions, and emergency

FFEEDDEERRAALL RREEGGUULLAATTOORRYY UUPPDDAATTEESS ((CCoonnttiinnuueedd))


room visits, and over 50,000 asthma attackseach year.

Sulfur dioxide pollution causes a variety ofadverse health impacts including breathingdifficulties, aggravation of asthma, andincreased hospital and emergency room visitsfor respiratory illnesses.

Sulfur dioxide pollution causes a variety ofadverse health impacts including breathingdifficulties, aggravation of asthma, andincreased hospital and emergency room visitsfor respiratory illnesses. This stronger stan-dard will protect the health of millions of peo-ple at risk from sulfur dioxide, especiallyseniors, children, and people with asthma.


EPA TO REVIEW LANDFILLAIR STANDARDS

The EPA filed a proposed consent decree toestablish legal deadlines to review whether itsoutdated new source performance standards(NSPS) for municipal solid waste landfills arestill effective. Under the decree, EPA says itwill determine by May 1, 2013, whether toupdate the municipal solid waste landfillNSPS, last revised in 1996, and, if merited,issue a final rule by May 1, 2014. It wouldresolve a lawsuit brought last year byEnvironmental Defense Fund (EDF), repre-sented by Earthjustice against EPA (EDF v.Jackson) over the agency’s failure to updatethe standard as required every eight yearsunder the Clean Air Act (CAA).

EDF in October of 2008 filed a notice-of-intent-to-sue EPA over its failure to update the1996 landfill NSPS, where it laid out adetailed case for why the agency shouldinclude methane limits, saying that landfillsregulated by the current NSPS are significantsources of methane, accounting for 22.6% ofall domestic methane emissions in 2006. Thereview could also call into question whetherthe agency should adopt first-time limits onlandfill greenhouse gas (GHG) methane.


EPA POSTPONES MERCURYAIR TOXICS RULE

On February 16, 2012, the EPA issued theNational Emission Standards for HazardousAir Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-firedElectric Utility Steam Generating Units andStandards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small Industrial-Commercial Institutional Steam GeneratingUnits, generally referred to as the mercury andair toxics standards (MATS Rule), whichestablished emissions standards for new andexisting coal- and oil-fired electric utilitysteam generating units.

The EPA received petitions, pursuant tosection 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act

(CAA), from a number of interested partiesrequesting reconsideration of certain issues inthe rule. On July 20, 2012, the EPA issued aletter, stating its intent to grant the petitions forreconsideration on certain new source issuesrelated to the emission standards issued underCAA section 112, including measurementissues related to mercury and the data set towhich the variability calculation was appliedwhen establishing the new source standardsfor particulate matter and hydrochloric acid.In its letter granting the petitions for reconsid-eration, the EPA stated that it intended to exer-cise its authority under section 307(d) to staythe effectiveness of those new source stan-dards for 3 months.

The stay was published in the August 2,2013 Federal Register.


COMPROMISE ON SENATE COALASH DISPOSAL BILL BOOSTSBIPARTISAN SUPPORT

A bipartisan group of senators has intro-duced a long-sought compromise coal ash dis-posal bill to limit EPA’s authority to regulatedisposal of waste by giving states primaryauthority over ash, boosting Senate support forthe measure but sparing outcry from activistswho say its sets weak standards and restrictsEPA too much.

The bill unveiled Aut. 2 has the support of12 Democrats and 12 Republicans, includingRepublican Sen. John Hoeven (ND) andDemocratic Sen. Max Baucus (MT), whosesupport has been seen as crucial to anyprospect for moving a consensus ash bill.Baucus was said to be working on a compro-mise measure that would set the parameters ofa bill addressing EPA’s pending ResourceConservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) coalwaste disposal rules (Superfund ReportApril 2).

Prospects for the legislation, however,remain uncertain at best, as the bill would needto pick up additional senators to have a chanceof passing the upper chamber. In the House,Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), a key critic ofEPA’s ash rules, said that lawmakers continueto look for legislative vehicles to attach coalash legislation before the November elections.However, the Senate is running out of time tomove bills, and will recess from August 6 toSeptember 7.

EPA proposed in 2010 to regulate coal ashas either solid waste under RCRA subtitle D oras hazardous waste subject to stricter controlrequirements under subtitle C. Activists backsubtitle C rules, while industry and manystates favor subtitle D, warning that hazardouswaste rules will be costly and could harm theash reuse industry.

The compromise legislation builds off a billthat Hoeven introduced earlier this year, S.

1751, which was similar to a measure passedby the House largely barring EPA from regu-lating coal ash disposal. Instead, the Housebill and original Hoeven measure would givestates primary authority to control ash undermunicipal solid waste rules.

The new bill includes a host of requirementsnot included in the earlier Hoeven bill, includ-ing ash pond lining and enclosure require-ments, likely aiming to prevent leaching andspills like the 2008 Tennessee Valley Authorityash spill that prompted EPA’s rulemaking. Italso appears to include groundwater monitor-ing mandates not in the earlier measure.

Those changes appear to have brought sev-eral senators on board with the compromise.

The bill also revives several provisions thatwere in the original measure, including givingstates power to enforce the waste rules.Hoeven said the bill “provides strong stateoversight for storage and management of coalresiduals, while empowering industry to safe-ly recycle it into useful and less-expensiveconstruction materials.”

“The new legislation enables states to set uptheir own permitting programs, but they mustbe based on federal standards for the manage-ment, disposal and oversight of coal ash inorder to protect human health and the environ-ment. States and industry would have the pre-dictability they need to manage residualsunder the bill because the benchmarks forwhat constitutes a successful managementprogram will be set aside in statute,” Hoevensaid.


INDUSTRY FEARS EPA’s PROPOSEDTCE LIMIT WILL SLOW DEVELOPMENT,SPUR SUITS

Industry officials are concerned that if EPAapproves a novel proposed regulatory limit toprevent cardiac birth defects and other harmsdue to acute inhalation of the ubiquitous sol-vent trichloroethylene (TCE), it could slowbrownfields redevelopment, spur personalinjury claims and drive up mitigation costs atworkplaces near waste sites.

“This will be insurmountable from a regula-tory perspective,” says one long-time industrytoxicologist.

A second industry source says EPA adop-tion of the proposed limit will create a misper-ception that short-term inhalation exposurescause harmful effects, leading to lawsuitsagainst property owners who may be accusedof allowing unsafe environments for workers,tenants or even neighboring businesses.

Officials at EPA headquarters are reviewinga proposal from Region IX to set a first-timeRemoval Action Level (RAL) of 15 micro-grams per cubic meter (ug/cu.M.) of TCE forshort-term exposures at indoor constructionsites at the Middlefield-Ellis-WhismanSuperfund (MEW) site in Mountain View, CA,

FFEEDDEERRAALL RREEGGUULLAATTOORRYY UUPPDDAATTEESS ((CCoonnttiinnuueedd))

The RT Review

FFEEDDEERRAALL RREEGGUULLAATTOORRYY UUPPDDAATTEESS ((CCoonnttiinnuueedd))where developers are building new offices forGoogle, Inc. and others (see related story).

The proposed regulatory limit is derived inpart from EPA’s recently finalized IntegratedRisk Information System (IRIS) assessmentfor TCE, which set a reference concentration(RfC) – or the amount of the substance EPAanticipates can be inhaled daily over a lifetimewithout causing adverse health effects – of 2ug/cu.M. to protect against non-cancer risks,including cardiac birth defencts.

But industry groups are strongly criticizingthe region’s proposal, saying the science is toouncertain, the method for crafting the limit isat odds with agency policy and the limit isorder of magnitude stricter than similar levelscrafted by other agencies.

The proposed limit is especially worryingfor industry because of EPA and states’ grow-ing focus on addressing risks of vapor intru-sion in indoor air from underground sources ofcontamination, such as volatile compoundslike TCE.

EPA is poised to issue guidance on assess-ing and mitigating the effects of vapor intru-sion from chlorinated solvents and petroleumhydrocarbons and is also planning a rule toallow regulators to list contaminated sites onthe Superfund National Priorities List (NPL)based solely on the presence of vapor intru-sion. EPA says its upcoming rule addingvapor intrusion as a basis for listing sites onthe NPL is likely to reprioritize its cleanupprogram toward those sites because they maypose a higher risk than sites without suchpathways.

Although industry officials have criticizedthe level as orders of magnitude stricter thansimilar levels crafted by other agencies, anenvironmental and community advocate hassuggested the proposed RAL for the MEW sitealso be considered at nearby Moffett Field, aformer naval air station, where TCE levelswere recently measured at levels that exceedboth proposed and existing standards.

In a May 31 statement, the Center for PublicEnvironmental Oversight’s (CPEO) executivedirector Lenny Siegel tells members of a list-serv that Moffett Field’s Building 10, whereTCE concentrations of 50 ug/cu.M. wererecently measured, “might also become a testcase for EPA Region IX’s proposed RemovalAction Level, capping short-term concentra-tions in commercial buildings at 15 ug/cu.M.”Siegel previously supported the RAL in a May29 letter to EPA, provided it is backed byscience.

A site remediation professional from NewJersey says stricter standards always leads tomore remediation, and increased costs, but insome states, the source says, the impact mightnot be significant. New Jersey, for example,already has a similar short-term standard,called a Rapid Action Level, of 20 ug/cu.M.,

the source says.While some industry officials are suggest-

ing the RAL is overly strict and will hurt busi-ness, the environmentalist has suggested thatRAL ant MEW should also be consideredfor nearby Moffett Field, which is alsocontaminated with TCE by co-mingledgroundwater contamination from industry andthe Navy.

(Superfund Report – June 11, 2012)

NEW RULE ON SOLVENT-CONTAMINATED WIPES ANDTOWELS EXPECTED SOON

In 2003, EPA proposed to modify the haz-ardous waste regulations for management ofsolvent-contaminated industrial wipes to con-ditionally exclude laundered wipes from thedefinition of solid waste.

Based on comments received on the propos-al, EPA revised its risk analysis used to evalu-ate the risks to human health and the environ-ment if solvent-contaminated wipes or laundrysludge are disposed of in a municipal solidwaste landfill.

EPA’s revised rule was sent to the Office ofManagement and Budget on April 23. Whenfinalized, this regulation will impact the man-agement of both wipes disposed of in landdisposal units or by combustion after use, andwipes that are laundered after use to removethe solvent and then are used again.

(Environmental Resource Center,5/14/2012)

DOT TO SIMPLIFY HAZARDOUSMATERIALS REGULATIONS FORREVERSE LOGISTICS

The DOT’s Pipeline and HazardousMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA)recently announced its intent to simplify thehazardous materials regulations for reverselogistics. Reverse logistics is the process thatis initiated when a consumer product goesbackwards in the distribution chain. It may beinitiated by the consumer, the retailer, oranyone else in the chain. The process mayinvolve consumers, retainers, manufacturers,and even disposal facilities.

Following the publication of an advancenotice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM),PHMSA anticipates publishing an NPRM thatwill propose to simplify the regulations forreverse logistics shipments and provideavenue means for regulatory compliance thatmaintains transportation safety. To fullyengage the broad spectrum of stakeholdersaffected by reverse logistics, the ANPRMsolicits comments and input on several ques-tions in the context of reverse logistics.Comments must be received by October 3,2012.

EPA TO KEEP GREENHOUSE GASREGULATORY FOCUS ONLARGEST EMITTERS

The EPA announced that it will not revisegreenhouse gas (GHG0 permitting thresholdsunder the Clean Air Act (CAA). This finalrule is part of EPA’s phased-in approach toGHG permitting under the CAA, announcedin 2010 and recently upheld by the US Courtof Appeals. The final rule maintains a focuson the nation’s largest emitters that account fornearly 70% of the total GHG pollution fromstationary sources, while shielding smalleremitters from permitting requirements. EPA isalso finalizing a provision that allows compa-nies to set plant-wide emissions limits forGHGs, streamlining the permitting process,increasing flexibilities, and reducing permit-ting burdens on state and local authorities andlarge industrial emitters.

A fact sheet is available at:www.epa.gov/nsr/documents/20120702fs.pdf

After consulting with the states and evaluat-ing the phase-in process, EPA states that itbelieves that current conditions do not suggestthat the Agency should lower the permittingthresholds. Therefore, EPA will not includeadditional , smaller sources in the permittingprogram at this time.

The final rule affirms that new facilitieswith GHG emissions of at least 100,000 tonsper year (tpy) carbon dioxide equivalent(CO2e) will continue to be required to obtainPrevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)permits. Existing facilities that emit 100,000tpy of CO2e and make changes increasing theGHG emissions by at least 75,000 tpy ofCO2e, must also obtain PSD permits.Facilities that must obtain a PSD permit, toinclude other regulated pollutants, must alsoaddress GHG emission increases of 75,000 tpyor more of CO2e. New and existing sourceswith GHG emissions above 100,000 tpy CO2emust also obtain operating permits.

The GHG Tailoring Rule will continue toaddress a group of six GHGs: carbon dioxide(CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O),hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons(PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). ThePSD permitting program protects air qualityand allows economic growth by requiringfacilities that trigger PSD to limit GHGemissions in a cost effective way.

(Environmental Resource Center – 7/9/12)

EPA REVISES TIER II FORMS FOREPCRA REPORTING

EPA is adding some new data elements andrevising some existing data elements on theEmergency and Hazardous ChemicalInventory Forms (Tier I and Tier II) underSection 312 of the Emergency Planning andCommunity Right-to-Know Act. (EPCRA).State and local implementing agenciesrequested that EPA add the new data elements


FFEEDDEERRAALL RREEGGUULLAATTOORRYY UUPPDDAATTEESS ((CCoonnttiinnuueedd))since the additional information would be use-ful to develop or modify their communityemergency response plans. EPA is also revis-ing some existing data elements in the chemi-cal reporting section of the Tier II Inventoryform to make reporting easier for facilities andmake the form more user-friendly for state andlocal officials.

This final rule, which becomes effective onJanuary 1, 2014, is requiring facilities to reportthe latitude and longitude and the identifica-tion numbers assigned under TRI and the riskmanagement program. Also, the Tier I and IIinventory forms will require facilities to indi-cate if the location where the hazardous chem-icals are stored is manned or unmanned. Inaddition, instead of requiring facilities toreport the maximum number of full-timeemployees, EPA is requiring facilities to reportthe maximum number of occupants that maybe present at the facility at any one time. EPAdecided not to require the facility phone num-ber on the Tier I and Tier II forms, but willinclude it as an optional data element on therevised inventory forms.

The rule is requiring facilities to providecontact information for facility emergencycoordinator, Tier I and Tier ii contact informa-tion, as well as the email addresses of theowner or operator and emergency contacts(s).EPA is also adding data elements to indicate ifthe facility is subject to EPCRA section302and if the facility is subject to Clean Air Act(CAA) section 112®, also known as the RiskManagement Program (RMP) . Page one ofthe revised Tier II inventory form would alsoinclude the table of range codes and amountsfor reporting maximum amount and averagedaily amount.

The final rule is adding separate data fieldsfor reporting pure chemical and mixtures inthe chemical reporting section of the Tier IIinventory form, as proposed. In addition, thisfinal rule requires facilities to provide adescription for the storage types and condi-tions rather than reporting codes.

(Environmental Resource Center –7/16/2012)

HOUSE PASSES BILL STREAMLININGENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTINGFOR MINING

The House has passed mining industry-backed legislation to streamline environmentalpermitting for mining rare earth minerals usedto produce electronic, energy-efficiency andother products, despite strong opposition fromthe Obama administration and Democraticlawmakers who charged it would also lift envi-ronmental protections for nearly all types ofharrock mining on federal lands.

In a 256-160 vote July 12, lawmakersapproved H.R. 4402, the National Strategicand Critical Mineral Production Act. The billis one of several measures intended to increase

production of rare earth elements that isprompting EPA to step up its efforts to assessthe elements’ risks, as well as the potentialimpact of related mining and recycling activi-ties for the critical materials.

The bill broadly defines strategic and criti-cal minerals as those necessary for nationaldefense, energy infrastructure, manufacturing,housing, agriculture, telecommunications,healthcare and transportation infrastructure,and for national economic security and thebalance of trade.

Critics say the bill would also considersand, gravel and crushed stone rare and strate-gic minerals, and would apply to virtually anymine, including silver, uranium and coalmines, on public lands. The bill would alsolimit total environmental review times to 30months for issuing mineral exploration ormine permits, set 60-day time restrictions onlawsuits challenging mineral mining projectsand effectively allow permitting documentsthat provide “procedural and substantivesafeguards” to substitute for NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews.

During floor debate July 12, Democraticlawmakers failed in their attempts to pare backthe bill’s reach, while Republicans succeededin expanding it to retroactively allow miningcompanies to apply the legislation to permitsfor which they have already applied, and toeffectively waive the Forest Service’s “road-less rule” for the purpose of mineral develop-ment.

Republicans argued on the House floor thatthe bill would help the U.S. Economy. “Thisbill is a bipartisan plant that cuts red tape bystreamlining the permitting process for miner-al development, which will create jobs andhelp grow the economy,” Rep. Doug Lamborn(R-CO) said July 12. The bill would shortengovernment approval times for projects fromas long as 10 years down to a little more thantwo years, he said.

The bill, however, has received significantcriticism, with the Obama administration July10 announcing that it “strongly opposes” thebill, but stopping short of threatening to vetothe legislation. In its Statement ofAdministration Policy, the administration saysthe vaguely worded bill “would undermineand remove the environmental safeguards, for,at a minimum, almost all types of hardrockmines on Federal lands.” The bill would elim-inate “appropriate review” under NEPA andcircumvent public involvement in formulatingalternatives to mining proposals, it says. Theadministration says it also opposes the legisla-tion’s “severe restrictions on judicial review,”which it says include an extremely shortstatute of limitations and “vague constraintson the scope of prospective relief.”

Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA), who arguedJuly 12 that supporters of the bill were “usingstrategic and critical minerals as a pretext for

gutting environmental protections relating tovirtually all mining operations,” failed in hisattempt to get an amendment passed thatwould have required mining companies to paya 12.5 percent royalty on the value of hardrockminerals mined on federal lands. Revenuefrom the royalty payments, which Markeypredicted would generate nearly $400 millionover 10 years, would have gone toward clean-ing up abandoned hardrock mines that havecontaminated soils and waterways. TheGovernment Accountability Office estimatesthat there are more than 160,000 abandonedhardrock mines in the western United States,Markey said. His amendment failed on a163-253 vote.

(Superfund Report – 7/23/12)

HAZARDOUS WASTE FINESDOUBLED TO $40,000

Congress has increased fines for haulinghazardous wastes without proper registration.

House Bill 4838, approved by the Houseand the Senate, and signed by the President,increases the fine for hauling hazardouswastes without a permit from “not more than$20,000” to “not less than $20,000, but not toexceed $40,000.”

Also, part of the legislation is the approvalof a hazardous material technical assessment,research and development, and analysis pro-gram. The program would be aimed at reduc-ing the risk associated with the transportationof hazardous material and identifying andevaluating new technologies to facilitate thesafe, secure, and efficient transportation ofhazardous materials.

(Environmental Resource Center – 7/23/12)

EPA FINALIZES EPCRA FORMCHANGES

EPA has finalized revisions to itsEmergency Planning & Community Right-toKnow Act (EPCRA) reporting requirements,narrowing the codes for how much of ahazardous material is stored on site and clari-fying how chemical mixtures are reporteddespite opposition to the changes from some inindustry.

EPA made the changes to the EPCRA emer-gency and hazardous chemical inventoryforms – known as Tier 1 and II reporting forms– to better aid state and local emergency plan-ners by adding new data elements to make theforms more useful and to revise existing dataelements to ease reporting. The agency final-ized the changes July 3, and the rule becomeseffective on 1/1/14.

The revisions respond to stakeholders’requests, are intended to clarify reportingwhile upholding environmental protection,and may add minimal reporting burden ontofacilities, EPA says. Specifically, the agency isadding new data requirements, such as the

The RT Review

Page 9

FFEEDDEERRAALL RREEGGUULLAATTOORRYY UUPPDDAATTEESS ((CCoonnttiinnuueedd))latitude and longitude of facilities, number ofemployees and contact information for a facil-ity’s emergency coordinator, and allows vol-untary reporting of hazardous chemicalsbelow reporting thresholds.

EPA explains in the final rule that the exist-ing codes were “very broad,” and “not as use-ful as specific quantity information for effec-tive emergency response planning. In orderfor States, local agencies and emergencyresponse officials to have information on themaximum amount and average daily amountthat are closer to the actual amounts present at

the facility, EPA proposed to narrow theranges,” it says. The final ranges, for instance,change range code 02 on Tier II forms fromreporting a range of 100 to 999 pounds, toinstead reporting a range of 100 to 499pounds.

EPA notes the law requires only ranges beused but explains that the reporting thresholdfor extremely hazardous substances (EHSs)can vary anywhere from 500 pounds for manychemicals down to 1 pound-levels for others.

The agency says in the final rule that it“believes it is necessary to narrow the ranges

so that [local emergency planners] wouldobtain information on the amount of EHSs thathave very low [threshold planning quantity(TPQ)] in a range most likely closer to theactual amount present at the facility,” EPAsays.

EPA also finalized proposed changes toclarify how chemical mixture information isreported. EPA is requiring separate data fieldsfor reporting pure chemicals and mixtures inorder to maintain consistency in reportingmixtures under EPCRA section 311, EPA says.

(Inside EPA – 7/9/12)

TBA – AT SERVICE STATION REMEDIATION SITES, WHEN SHOULD WE WORRY ABOUT IT?An expansive body of evidence is causing environmental managers to reach the conclusion that Ter tiary Butyl Alcohol (known as TBA), at sig-

nificant concentrations, can inhibit normal bioremediation, where aerobic biodegradation using injection techniques, is used to address petro-leum releases at service station sites.

Commonly accepted information is that TBA is a degradation product of MTBE (methyl ter tiary butyl ether), but such is not always the case.For many years, TBA was used as an oxygenate as an additive ingredient to gasoline, in high concentrations, before MTBE was used as an oxy-genate. TBA was widely used from about 1980 , but tended to fall out of favor, by the ear ly 1990s, when MTBE was more frequently used.

An FAQ document, prepared by API makes it clear that MTBE and TBA rapidly biodegrade, both in situ, and ex-situ, under aerobic conditions.Conversely, there is significant evidence, that where conditions are not maintained, and anaerobic conditions predominate, the cleanup site canbecome “stuck”, with fur ther biodegradation of oxygenates and BTEX compounds, no longer occurr ing.

As histor ically, TBA could have been added at the refinery to gasoline, well up into the percentage range, and significant quantities of conta-minants are lef t behind at service stations with ear ly 1990 ’s underground storage tank removals, aerobic bioremediation techniques may sim-ply not reach an acceptable endpoint. When this problem is found, much work is needed to maintain aerobic conditions, than or iginally planned.The remedial cost may go way up. Oxygen injection may be a better remedial approach at sites with high TBA concentrations in groundwater.

For more information, go to: www.api.org / ~ / media / files / ehs / clean_water / bulletins / 26_bull.ashx

EMAIL BLAST ARICHIVES

Post Date Title - Download Description

TVA Is Liable For 2008 Coal Ash Spill

Switch to Natural Gas Fuels Leads to Big Reduction in Carbon EmissionsOpting Out Rule for Renovation ofBuildings Containing LBP

Ambient Air

Giant Eagle Wins PEC Award

Bacteria Linked to Indoor MoldWater-DamageChlorinated Solvent Contamination: NewChallenges for Properties

PA UST Operator Training Deadline

EPA Proposes Fine Particles in AirNAAQS ReductionToday Is D-Day PADEP Site Redevelopment &Stormwater Issues

8/24/12

8/23/12

8/2/12

7/11/12

7/3/12

7/2/12

6/29/12

6/26/12

6/18/12

5/7/124/26/12

In a ruling on one of the world’s worst environmental disastersi nvolving a massive coal ash spill in December 2008.Greenhouse gas/carbon dioxide releases into the atmosphere Big Reduction inCarbon Emissions more.recently have fallen to a 20-year low…On June 22, 2012, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit upheld upheld the USEnvironmental Protection Agency's (EPA) removal of the opt-out provision for workthat disturbs lead-based paint in pre-1978 housing.Based on its review of the air quality criteria and the national ambient air qualitystandards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM).Giant Eagle, a Pittsburgh grocery retailer for more than 80 years, is one of thelargest, privately-owned and family-operated companies in the United States.In a new study, a University of Cincinnati (UC) environmental health research teamfound evidence linking two specific strains of bacteria... For properties where chlorinated solvents have been released, new regulatorychallenges and related liability concerns are increasing as a result of controversialhuman health studies recently published by the federal Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).PA rules require that underground storage tank operators (UST) operators must bedesignated by tank owners and trained no later than Aug. 8, 2012.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed that allowable levels ofsoot in the nation's air be reduced to protect public health. New Jersey have to retain a Licensed Site Remediation Professional (LSRP).The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection recently issued Guidancein the form of an update to its statewide Erosion and Sediment Control manual.


ASTDR URGES EPA TO STRENGTHENLEAD ASSESSMENT AT SMALLARMS RANGES

A federal health agency is urging EPA tostrengthen soil sampling procedures andland use controls for addressing lead left atformer military small arms ranges, some ofwhich are accessible to children, saying thatcurrent policies have not adequately pre-vented harmful exposure at an elementaryschool located at Tyndall Air Force Base inFlorida.

“Current environmental regulations, poli-cies, standard operating procedures, andmethods employed during the environmen-tal investigations of Tyndall ElementarySchool have failed to address the majorhealth concern and hazard to children – thedirect ingestion of lead shot,” the Agencyfor Toxic Substances & Disease Registry(ATSDR) says in a June 13 report. Thereport is available on Inside EPA.com. Seepage 2 for details. (Doc ID: 2403843)

While the investigation focused on expo-sures at Tyndall, where an elementaryschool is now located on the site of a formermilitary target shooting area, the report callsfor EPA to strengthen its policies to limitexposures and for the military to change itspractices across its facilities.

ASTDR’s calls could also bolster effortsby environmentalists who are urging EPA toregulate lead shot and fishing tackle underthe Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)as a way to prevent harmful exposures towildlife, though agency officials have so farrejected their efforts.

The health agency’s call for EPA tostrengthen sampling and control require-ments is the latest from federal officials toprevent lead exposures in the wake of find-ings by advisors to the Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention (CC), who found thelong-held standard – a blood lead level ofconcern of 10 micrograms per deciliter ormore – may not adequately protect childrenfrom adverse effects of lead exposure.(Superfund Report, May 28)

The advisors recently urged policymakersto do more to prevent exposures due to theirreversible harms that occur due to evensmall exposures to the metal. In response,EPA and federal health officials are planningto meet to address the advisors’ recommen-dations.

In the case of Tyndall, ATSDR found thatEPA’s current sampling methods and report-ing procedures failed to account for directingestion of lead fragments or shot. Instead,EPA and the Air Force Center forEnvironmental Excellence recommend leadsampling methods to characterize only solu-ble lead and fine lead particles, which they

consider the primary source of lead expo-sure, according to a March 2011, ATSDRletter.

But ATSDR says this approach fails toaccount for “direct ingestion of lead shot bya curious child who intentionally picks upthe small bead (lead shot) and puts it in hisor her mouth” as well as lead that hasleached from the shot into the soil matrix,where it can stick to children’s hands.

“The soil sampling protocol conducted inaccordance with environmental regulationsfor soluble lead does not address both typesof hazards presented by lead shot, and there-fore, provide[s] incomplete hazard charac-terization,” ATSDR says. “This may havejeopardized the safety of children who usedthe area.”

The agency adds that remediation deci-sions based solely on the results of solublelead analysis may indicate that lead levelsare too low to require clean up, leading to amischaracterization of the site hazard andallowing lead shot to remain in the soil.ATSDR says that was the case in a 1992incident when a child at the Tyndall sitebrought lead shot home but analysis of sol-uble lead concentrations were too low towarrant cleanup. Therefore, no furtheractions were taken until 2009, it adds.

ATSDR calls the approach to a “healthhazard loophole.”

The agency is also proposing a three-pronged approach that includes engagingthe military services to proactively takeadministrative actions, engaging EPA andstate health agencies to develop an advisoryplan, and seeking to educate the public.


NANOTUBE SPONGE HAS POTENTIALIN OIL SPILL CLEANUP

A carbon nanotube sponge that can soakup oil in water with unparalleled efficiencyhas been developed with help from compu-tational simulations performed at the DOE’sOak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL).

Carbon nanotubes, which consist ofatom-thick sheets of carbon rolled intocylinders, have captured scientific attentionin recent decades because of their highstrength, potential high conductivity andlight weight. But producing nanotubes inbulk for specialized applications was oftenlimited by difficulties in controlling thegrowth process as well as dispersing andsorting the produced nanotubes.

ORNL’s Bobby Sumpter was part of amulti-institutional research team that set outto grow large clumps of nanotubes by selec-tively substituting boron atoms into theotherwise pure carbon lattice. Sumpter andVincent Meunier, now of Rensselaer

Polytechnic Institute, conducted simulationson superconductors, including Jaguar atORNL’s Leadership Computing Facility, tounderstand how the addition of boron wouldaffect the carbon nanotube structure.

“Any time you put a different atom insidethe hexagonal carbon lattice, which is achicken wire-like network, you disrupt thatnetwork because those atoms don’t neces-sarily want to be part of the chicken wirestructure, “ Sumpter said. “Boron has adifferent number of valence electrons,which results in curvature changes that trig-ger a different type of growth.”

Simulations and lab experiment showedthat the addition of boron atoms encouragedthe formation of so-called elbow junctionsthat help the nanotubes grow into a 3-D net-work. The team’s results are published inNature Science Reports.

“Instead of a forest of straight tubes, youcreate an interconnected, woven sponge-likematerial,” Sumpter said. “Because it isinterconnected, it becomes three-dimension-ally strong, instead of only one-dimension-ally strong along the tube axis.”

Further experiments showed the team’smaterial, which is visible to the human eye,is extremely efficient at absorbing oil incontaminated seawater because it attracts oiland repels water.

The material’s mechanical flexibility,magnetic properties, and strength lend itadditional appeal as a potential technologyto aid in oil spill cleanup, Sumpter says.

(Environmental Resource Center,5/14/2012)

MAKE MOLD MITIGATION TOPPRIORITY IN FLOOD CLEANUP

Your basement was flooded during therecent storm – and now what? You can haulaway the soggy cardboard boxes, the water-logged family room furniture and the ruinedfurnace and water heater and begin the hardwork of cleaning up. But there is an oftenhidden and far more insidious interloperfollowing a storm or flood – mold.

Excess moisture and standing water con-tribute to the growth of mold in homes andother buildings, and the Center for DiseaseControl (CDC) urges homeowners thatwhen returning to a home that has beenflooded, be aware that mold may be presentand pose a serious health risk for yourfamily.

TECHNOLOGY UPDATESTECHNOLOGY UPDATES• TBA at Service Station Sites, pg. 9• Small Arms Ranges, pg. 10• Nanotubes . . . Oil Cleanup, pg. 10• Mold Mitigation/Flood Cleanup, pg. 10

The RT Review

What sort of a threat does mold present?The Minnesota Department of Health

(MDH) says mold spores can germinate andgrow in a moist or damp environment onany surface that contains organic matter. Ahome that’s been flooded can provide idealconditions for the growth and proliferationof mold.

According to the CDC, people with asth-ma, allergies, or other breathing conditionsmay be more sensitive to mold. People withimmune suppression (such as people withHIV infection, cancer patients takingchemotherapy, and people who havereceived an organ transplant) are more sus-ceptible to mold infections. People who aresensitive to mold experience stuffy nose,irritated eyes, wheezing, or skin irritation.People allergic to mold may have difficultybreathing and shortness of breath. Peoplewith weakened immune systems and withchronic lung diseases such as obstructivelung disease, may develop mold infectionsin their lungs. If you or your family mem-bers have health problems after exposure tomold, contact your doctor or other healthcare provider as soon as possible.

In addition to health complaints, theMDH states that mold damages buildingmaterials, goods or furnishings when itgrows on them. Mold growth and moisturemay eventually compromise the building’sstructural integrity as well. Because ofpotential health concerns and damage toproperty, molds should not be allowed togrow and multiply indoors.

How will I know if it’s mold?The CDC suggests that there are basical-

ly two ways to determine if there is moldgrowth in your home:

• Sight (are the walls and ceiling discol-ored, or do they show signs of mold growthor water damage?)

Smell (do you smell a bad odor, such as amusty, earthy smell or a foul stench?)

The Department of Health says to lookfor visible mold growth (which ay appearcottony, velvety, granular or leathery andhave varied colors of white, gray, brown,black, yellow, green). Mold often appearsas discoloration, staining or fuzzy growth onthe surface of building materials or furnish-ings.

Homeowners are advised to search areaswith noticeable mold odors.

Look for signs of excess moisture orwater damage. Look for water leaks, stand-ing water, water stains and condensationproblems. For example, do you see anywatermarks or discoloration on walls,ceilings, carpet, woodwork or other buildingmaterials?

Search behind and underneath materials(carpet pad, wallpaper, vinyl flooring, sink

cabinets), furniture or stored items.Sometimes destructive techniques may beneeded to inspect and clean enclosed spaceswhere mold an moisture are hidden – open-ing up a wall cavity, for example, to get tothe moldy area.

Is there any way I can prevent the spreadof mold?

• Clean and dry out the building quickly(within 24 to 48 hours) says the CDC. Opendoors and windows. Use fans to dry out thebuilding. Remove all porous items thathave been wet for more than 48 hours andthat cannot be thoroughly cleand and dried.These items can remain a source of moldgrowth unless removed. Porous, non-clean-able items include carpeting and carpetpadding, upholstery, wallpaper, drywall,floor and ceiling tiles, insulation material,some clothing, leather, paper, wood, andfood. Removal and cleaning are importantbecause even dead mold may cause allergicreactions in some people.

To prevent mold growth, the CDCadvises you clean wet items and surfaceswith detergent and water.

If there is mold growth in your home, youshould clean up the mold and fix any waterproblem, such as leaks in roofs, walls, orplumbing. Controlling moisture in yourhome is the most critical factor for prevent-ing mold growth.

To remove mold growth from non-poroushard surfaces such as walls, floors andtables, Carlton County Emergency ManagerBrian Belich suggests you scrub first withsoap and water and rinse with water. Thenmix one-fourth cup to one-half cup ofbleach with a gallon of water, wipe surfaceswith this bleach mix and allow to air dry.This mixture can hurt your skin and lungs,so use with caution. Wear gloves and oldclothes that cover your skin as well asprotective eye wear. Open windows anddoors and use a fan to blow the air outside.Use dehumidifiers.

Belich cautioned that homeowners shouldnot mix bleach with other products, and useit with caution.

If you plan to be inside the building for awhile or you plan to clean up mold, the CDCstates you buy an N95 mask at your localhardware or home supply store and wear itwhile in the building. Make certain that youfollow instructions on the package for fittingthe mask tightly to your face. If you go backinto the building for a short time and are notcleaning up mold, you do not need to wearan N95 mask.

Non-porous materials can be saved if theyare properly cleaned and dried and then keptthat way.

Do not use the bleach mix for dishes,children’s toys or surfaces that hold food,and do not use on porous surfaces like

carpet or ceiling tile. Look for mold onporous items that May have absorbed mois-ture – including sheet rock, insulation, plas-ter, carpet/carpet pad, ceiling tiles, wood(other than solid wood), and paper products.If you see evidence of mold, these itemsshould be removed, bagged and thrown out.Porous materials that may have been in con-tact with sewage should also be bagged andthrown away.

Do not eat, drink or smoke in the contam-inated area, since disease-causing organismsfrom sewage or floodwater may be present.

What’s next?The MDH suggests enclosing moldy

items in plastic before you carry them out,urging that when transporting moldy materi-als, use the shortest path into and out of thebuilding. It might be a good idea to hangplastic sheeting to seal off the work area,and be sure to remove the outer layer ofyour work clothes before leaving the workarea. Bay any contaminated clothes or washthem separately, and damp clean all surfacesin and around the work area to remove anyfine dust.

In the days ahead, the MDH urges affect-ed homeowners to be vigilant in continuingto keep an eye out for signs of moisture ornew mold growth, paying special attentionto areas where mold grew previously. If themold returns, repeat the cleaning process,and consider using a stronger disinfectingsolution. The MDH says new mold growthmay mean that the contaminated materialshould be removed, or that you still have amoisture problem.

Above all, be patient about rebuildingyour home or getting new furnishings. Waituntil everything has been completelycleaned and dried – and remember that dry-ing out wet building materials may take along time.

(Pine Journal – 7/7/12)

NJ’S LSRPPROGRAM UPDATE

New Jersey’s LSRP programis moving smartly forward.Intensive training through thespring and summer broughthundreds of professionals toRutgers and Burlington Countytraining locations.

Also, Gary Brown is trainingMunicipal Engineers in Lineauconstruction activities this fall.RT has 45 LSRP projects inprogress.


Page 12

PPAA UUPPDDAATTEESSGAS DRILLERS IN PA REDUCEENVRIONMENTAL VIOLATIONS

Natural-gas drillers in Pennsylvania'sMarcellus shale reduced the rate of blowouts,spills and water contamination by half since2008, according to a study based on state-agency actions.

State regulators issued environmental viola-tions at 27 percent of the wells drilled in thefirst eight months of 2011, 54 percent belowthe full-year rate in 2008, according to a studyfrom the University at Buffalo's ShaleResources and Society Institute.

Stronger regulations, tougher enforcementand improved industry practices helped trimthe violations, researchers found.

"It's pleasing to me, and it should be pleas-ing to everyone," former state Department ofEnvironmental Protection Secretary JohnHanger said responding to the study.

The DEP reports more than 4,000 wellssince 2009 were drilled by hydraulic fractur-ing, a technique that pumps millions of gallonsof chemically treated water to crack under-ground rock and free trapped gas.

Of 845 incidents that caused measurableamounts of pollution from that drilling, 25involved major impacts to air, water and landresources, according to the report. Of those,environmental impacts weren't corrected in sixcases, the study found.

Pennsylvania managed "the brisk pace ofunconventional gas development, whilepreserving the economic opportunity thatdevelopment has afforded the community,"according to the study's authors.

John Martin, who formerly studied environ-mental issues surrounding shale gas for theNew York State Research and DevelopmentAuthority, is the institute's director and helpedwrite the report. His co-authors wereUniversity of Wyoming professor Timothy J.Considine and Pennsylvania State Universityprofessor emeritus Robert W. Watson, whohave previously written studies commissionedby the Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industrygroup.

Martin has said this report was funded onlyby the university, university spokesman CoryNealon said. Martin could not be reached forcomment on Wednesday.

Blowouts, fires and spills have happenedperiodically across the state. The state leviedits record fines during the same time period in2011 targeted by the study. On the same day inMay 2011, Chesapeake Energy Corp. receiveda $900,000 fine for contaminating privatewater wells in Bradford County and $188,000fine for a tank fire in Washington County thatinjured three subcontractors.

Those actions, combined with four separatepackages to update drilling regulations pushed

drillers toward better safety practices, Hangersaid. Local investments from multinationalcompanies with strong safety cultures andtechnological advancements from the compa-nies operating here helped, Hanger said.

(By Timothy Puko; Pittsburgh Tribune –Review, 5/17/12)

NEW DOCUMENT – EPAOPTIMIZATION EVALUATION, NORTHPENN AREA 6 SUPERFUND SITE,LANSDALE, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA (EPA 542-R-11-012)

The North Penn Area 6 Superfund Site(NPA6 Site) addresses multiple sources ofcontamination and a broad contaminant plumethat underlies a large portion of Lansdale,Pennsylvania. Tetrachloroethene (PCE),Trichloroethene (TCE), and associated degra-dation products are the primary contaminantsof concern. EPA originally identified 26 facil-ities in the Lansdale area as possible sources ofcontamination due to their use of site-relatedsolvents. These 26 properties were groupedinto two operable units (OUs) for soil contam-ination that would address source controlthrough soil remediation. OU1 addressed 20properties where EPA would perform remedialactivities. OU2 will address the six remainingproperties where the owners/operators willcomplete the work with EPA oversight.

The groundwater contamination underlyingthe area is addressed in the OU3 Record ofDecision (ROD) signed in August 2000. OU3includes groundwater extraction and treatmentof the contaminated groundwater at 10 sourcelocations. Of these 10 locations, six arefunded by Superfund (Fund-lead) and four arefunded by potentially responsible parties(PRPs). Groundwater remedies for five of theFund-lead locations have been constructed andare the focus of this optimization evaluationreport. EPA Region 3 requested that anoptimization evaluation be conducted toidentify potential opportunities to improvethese five OU3 systems and to identify poten-tial options for replacing or supplementing theexisting remedies (April 2012, 146 pages).View or download at:http://clu-in.org/techpubs.htm.

PA DEP IMPLEMENTS PERMITDECISION GUARANTEE

On July 24, 2012, Governor Corbett issuesExecutive Order 2012-11, requiring DEP toimplement a Permit Decision Guaranteeimmediately by:

• Assessing how best to make timely per-mitting decisions;

• Providing clear expectations for applicantsto improve the quality of applications;

• Establishing performance measures forreview staff; and

• Developing, improving and encouragingelectronic permitting tools.

For the last 18 months, DEP has beenreviewing all existing permitting proceduresand now is prepared to make several effectiveimprovements. Providing regulatory certaintyto local governments, non-profit organizationsand businesses is critical and must be the rulegoing forward. DEP’s focus will be on receiv-ing complete and adequate applications andthe amount of time it should take to reviewthem.

Executive Order 2012-11 rescinds a 1995Executive Order establishing the Money BackGuarantee. The attached draft “Permit ReviewProcess and Permit Decision Guarantee” poli-cy replaces the former Money Back Guaranteepolicy. The draft policy will be published fora 30-day public comment period beginning inearly September.

Permit Applications Executive Order WillBetter Protect Environment

By MIKE KRANCERGovernor Tom Corbett promised to bring

reform to the way government operates inPennsylvania. Good government means theefficient delivery of government services,which includes permitting decisions by theDepartment of Environmental Protection.There is no question that both DEP and thepublic we serve saw room for improvement.Our own review confirmed it.

We have to start with insisting upon top-quality permit applications from businesses,nonprofit organizations, local governmentsand these groups' consultants. That is animportant basis and starting point of the gov-ernor's recently signed executive order, uponwhich DEP will build the permit guaranteeprocess.

It is an important point that media commen-tary so far on the executive order has missed.Our study of applications and permit proce-dures revealed that about 40 percent of permitapplications submitted to DEP are deficient,meaning information important to making adecision was missing.

In addition, a former DEP secretary report-ed that of about 125,000 permits or authoriza-tions issued from 1995 to 2002, less than twodozen "money-back guarantee" refunds wereissued. So permits were being issued, eventu-

PA UPDATES• North Penn 6 Update, pg. 12• Reduced Driller Emissions, pg. 12• Central PA Project Award, pg. 13• Permit Applications Decision Guarantee,

pg. 12

The RT Review

PPAA UUPPDDAATTEESS ((CCoonnttiinnuueedd))ally, but only after months or years of themerry-go-round of taking applications "off theclock" and then back "on the clock" and thenback "off the clock" - until finally, they wereready for a decision to be made. Often, DEPpermit review personnel spent much timedoing the work for applicants to get theirapplications to the "complete" stage. Thatprocess caused frustration both internally andexternally and, importantly, wastes the time ofboth DEP personnel and the public we serve.

The draft Permit Decision Guarantee policydocument that will be published for publiccomment in the coming weeks is being devel-oped by DEP personnel at all levels who havedone permitting work for years. The newprocess will free DEP personnel from themerry-go-round and allow them to spend moreof their time reviewing quality, complete

permit applications and, thus, concentrate onprotecting the environment. The system willwork better and more efficiently, and the envi-ronment will be better protected. At the sametime, the process will deliver to the regulatedcommunity a more predictable and efficientmanner of permit application review anddecision.

The draft policy, which comes from theexecutive order, will be built upon four coreprinciples:

1) Complete and quality permit applicationsare crucial to DEP's ability to guarantee atimely decision;

2) Every full and complete permit applica-tion will receive a thorough review in anefficient manner;

3) DEP will not issue any permit that doesnot meet all legal and statutory requirements to

protect the environment and public health andsafety; and 4) DEP will make decisions based on the law,facts and sound science. We encourage the public and all stakeholdersto give it a fair and open-minded review andoffer feedback to us once it is published forpublic comment. ------ Mike Krancer is secretary of the PennsylvaniaDepartment of Environmental Protection.This article recently appeared in the localChambersburg, PA newspaper.

CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA PROJECT WINS AWARDBased on an RT design, with construction by Keystruct Construction, Inc., an award was issued by the Associated Builders and

Contractors, Inc. organization, in Central Pennsylvania. The project involved retrofit and upgrade of heavy duty concrete pitsused for receipt and mixing of waste materials. Rebar materials in the concrete were upgraded, from a previouslyconstructed pit floor design, to minimize creep, and, special toppings were used to maximize design life.

The three new side by side pits went into operation, early this year.

MARYLAND STORMWATER USER FEES LAW RECEIVES NATIONAL ATTENTIONLegislation has been passed in Maryland, which gives authority for a watershed protection and restoration program, to be implemented by

counties or municipalities throughout the State.Allowed under the new legislation are:

- Local watershed protection and restoration funds.- Stormwater remediation fees. Fees may be collected from individual properties, based on a:

o A flat rate;o An amount that is graduated, based on the amount of impervious surface on each property; or o Another method of calculation selected by the county.

New policies and procedures to be followed in implementing the new legislation include:- Guidelines for determining which on-site systems, facilities, services, or actifities may be the basis for a fee reduction,

including guidelines:o Relating to properties with existing advanced stormwater Best Management Practices;o Relating to agricultural activities or facilities that are otherwise exempted from stormwater management requirements by the county

or municipality; and o That account for the costs of, and the level of treatment provided by, stormwater management facilities that are funded and

maintained by a property owner.There are many areas of the country where stormwater fee imposition is very controversial, so we should keep an eye on

Maryland’s program. Even the federal government is challenging stormwater fees, including the Bonneville Power Administrationin Vancouver, Washington and the U.S. Postal Service, in Renton, Virginia. One aspect of the controversy is that there are frequent-ly allegations when the fees are imposed, that the fees are discriminatory.

We at RT think imposition of reasonable fees for stormwater management are needed, particularly in areas where there is ongo-ing runoff of debris, trash and garbage into navigable waterways, in areas which were historically developed intensive

vol. 20, no. 3, september 2012 the rt revie · thomas varlan finds tva negligent in coalash...

Documents