EPA’s Navigable Waters Protection Rule Defines Waters of the U.S.

EPA’s Navigable Waters Protection Rule Defines Waters of the U.S.

Jan 30, 2020

EPA and the U.S. Army have finalized their definition of the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) through a new final rule called the Navigable Waters Protection Rule.

The definition of WOTUS has been at the point of contention between regulators, industry and environmental groups since the Clean Water Act amendment in 2015.   The definition has been at the heart of a number of legal battles, and an item of regulatory enforcement uncertainty.

“[The Navigable Waters Protection Rule] clearly delineates where federal regulations apply and gives states and local authorities more flexibility to determine how best to manage waters within their borders,” said EPA in a published fact sheet about the new rule.

What is Included?

Once proposed as six categories, the final rule was narrowed to four major categories of waters to be included:

Territorial Seas and Traditional Navigable Waters

Included are bodies of water such as the Atlantic Ocean, Mississippi River, Great Lakes, large rivers and lakes, tidal waters, tidally influenced waterbodies including wetlands, along coastlines — used in interstate or foreign commerce.

Tributaries

These are rivers and streams that flow to traditional navigable waters either directly or through other non-jurisdictional surface waters.  The flow must be perennial (flowing continuously) or intermittent (flowing continuously during certain times of the year), not just when it rains.

These tributaries can connect through structures such as culverts, spillways, and debris piles.  Ditches can be tributaries if they satisfy the perennial or intermittent flow requirements and could be considered an artificial channel used to convey water when they are tributaries or built in adjacent wetlands.

Lakes, Ponds and Impoundments of Jurisdictional Waters

These are included when they are traditional navigable waters like the Great Salt Lake in Utah or where they contribute a perennial or intermittent flow of water.  Lakes and ponds flooded by an included WOTUS in a typical year would be included.

However, lakes, ponds and impoundments must have a surface water connection to a jurisdictional water body.  If they are only flooded by stormwater runoff from fields, or if they lose their water only through evaporation, underground seepage or use, they wouldn’t be included.

Adjacent Wetlands

Wetlands are adjacent and included if they:

  • Physically touch other included WOTUS;
  • Are separated from an included WOTUS by a natural berm, bank or dune;
  • Are flooded by an included WOTUS in a typical year;
  • Are separated from an included WOTUS by an artificial dike, barrier or similar structure that allows direct connection between the wetland and the WOTUS through a culvert, flood gate, pump, or similar; or,
  • Are separated by a road or similar structure where there is an allowance for direct surface connection during a typical year.

What is NOT Included?

The below are not included as long as they do not meet the above definitions, and are upland and in non-jurisdictional areas.

  • Groundwater, including drains in agricultural lands;
  • Ephemeral features: springs, streams, swales, gullies, rills and pools;
  • Stormwater: diffuse stormwater runoff and directional sheet flow over upland as well as stormwater control features excavated or constructed in upland to convey, treat, infiltrate, or store stormwater runoff;
  • Farm and roadside ditches;
  • Prior converted cropland (except in the case where the cropland has been abandoned/not used for agricultural purposes in the previous five years and has reverted to wetlands);
  • Artificially irrigated areas including flooded fields for agricultural purposes;
  • Artificial lakes and ponds including water storage reservoirs and farm irrigation, stock watering and log cleaning ponds;
  • Water-filled depressions incidental to construction or mining and pits for fill, sand, and gravel;
  • Groundwater recharge, water reuse, and wastewater recycling structures (detention, retention and infiltration basins and ponds); and,
  • Waste treatment systems, that is, lagoons, treatment ponds, settling and cooling ponds, and all components designed to convey or retain, concentrate, settle, reduce or remove pollutants either actively or passively from wastewater or stormwater prior to discharge.

Representatives of the agricultural community see this new rule as a win for them as it provides some clarity for their industry and relieves some of the potential impacts the 2015 version would have put on them.  Many of the non-included features are agricultural-based.

What’s a Typical Year?

The phrase “typical year” is used widely throughout the definitions.  In this rule, typical year means the normal periodic range of precipitation and other climactic variables based on data for the past 30 years.  So, some areas which have non-typical flooding or non-typical drought during some calendar years may or may not be included depending on what is “typical.”

What Really Matters:  What Are Your Local Laws?

The Navigable Waters Protection Rule defines the requirements of federal law.  However, some states like California have developed their own regulations and definitions that are stricter and the federal law allows for that.  Be aware of what’s required locally, and that’s the rule you’ll need to follow.  However, having this clearer definition of the federal law may be a help in determining what the differences are locally.

U

Need Help?

Do your industrial activities affect an included WOTUS?  iSi can assist with determinations, permits, reports, sampling and more!

Get Help Here
t

Questions?

Does this apply to your company?  Do you have questions?  Contact us!

Ask a Question

Receive News to Your Inbox

We send our articles by email whenever we add a new one.  Don’t miss out!  Sign up for our blog today.

Subscribe to This Blog

Request a Quote

iSi can provide assistance in this area. How can we help?  Ask us for a price quote.

Request Pricing

EPA Rule Adds PFAS Chemicals to the TRI Report

EPA Rule Adds PFAS Chemicals to the TRI Report

Jan 24, 2020

EPA has added certain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to the list of chemicals which need to be tracked annually on your EPA Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) report (below).   This rule is effective 1/1/2020, so you’ll need to start tracking and collecting data on their usage immediately.

PFAS chemicals (aka PFOS and PFOA because these are the most common PFAS chemicals) have been widely used in industrial processes and can be found in many consumer products including firefighting foam, pizza boxes, cookware, paints and polishes, electronics manufacturing, fuel additives and more.

The new rule was signed into law through the National Defense Authorization Act on December 20, 2019.  Reporting threshold is only 100 pounds, far less than typical TRI chemicals.  The de minimis concentration for PFOA is 0.1% and all other chemicals have a de minimis level of 1%.

Because PFAS chemicals come in so many shapes and sizes and in so many industries and consumer products, it’s thought that an alarmingly high percentage of people have been exposed to them.  Contaminated drinking water is the most documented source, but food, house dust, and workplace exposure are among the top as well. In communities with contaminated drinking water, human health effects that have been found include higher cholesterol, increased uric acid, lower birth weight, lower response to vaccines, diabetes, and cancer.

As a result, dealing with PFAS issues has become an EPA focus.  There have already been other efforts by EPA recently to develop methods and guidance for drinking water monitoring and laboratory testing, development of a PFAS Management Plan, conducting toxicity reviews, development of recommendations for addressing groundwater already contaminated with PFAS, and other actions.

If you need assistance with determining if this new requirement affects your facility, we can help.  Contact us today!

PFAS Now on TRI List

Click here to go to EPA’s list of PFAS chemicals that you need to start tracking now for your TRI report.

NAICS Codes Affected

EPA lists the NAICS codes of industries subject to TRI reporting.  Is your company affected?  Click here to go to EPA’s list of NAICS codes.

i

What is a TRI Report?

TRI, Form R and SARA 313 are all names for the same report.  What is it and does it pertain to you? Click here to find out.

t

Need Help?

Do you need help sorting out this regulation?  What about TRI reporting?  Contact us for more information or a price quote.

brady gerber
brady gerber

Contributing:

Brady Gerber

Environmental Field Services Supervisor | Project Manager

Brady Gerber has over 13 years’ experience working in environmental site investigation and remediation projects and various environmental compliance regulations pertaining to stormwater, fuel storage, hazardous waste, wastewater discharge, spills, emergency response, and brownfields.

Email  |  LinkedIn

EPA Finalizes Aerosol Can Universal Waste Regulation

EPA Finalizes Aerosol Can Universal Waste Regulation

Dec 19, 2019

As we first reported here in April 2018, and is now final, EPA is allowing generators to handle aerosol cans as a universal waste rather than a hazardous waste.   The rule becomes effective February 7, 2020.

The final rule looks a bit different than the proposed ruling, and has clarified some issues, especially in the puncturing and draining of cans.

The goal of classifying aerosol cans as universal waste is to reduce regulatory costs, ease regulatory burdens on retail stores and other businesses that discard aerosol cans, promote the collection and recycling of the cans, reduce the amount of cans going to landfills, and save over $5.3 million per year.

Who’s Affected?

The new aerosol can universal waste rule applies to all persons that generate, transport, treat, recycle or dispose of aerosol cans.  It does NOT apply to very small quantity generators or households.

Aerosol Can Definition

In terms of what can be included as an aerosol can, EPA decided to broaden its definition to be more in line with DOT regulations.  Their definition:

“…aerosol can is defined as a non-refillable receptacle containing a gas compressed, liquefied or dissolved under pressure, the sole purpose of which is to expel a liquid, paste, or powder and fitted with a self-closing release device allowing the contents to be ejected by the gas.…Because compressed gas cylinders, unlike aerosol cans, require special procedures to safely depressurize, it would not be appropriate to include them in the final rule.”

Labeling

Each aerosol can, or a container in which contains aerosol cans, must be labeled or marked with any of the following phrases: “Universal Waste—Aerosol Can(s),” “Waste Aerosol Can(s),” or “Used Aerosol Can(s).”

Storage

Handlers must ensure their management of universal waste aerosol cans do not create releases to the environment.

  • Cans must be accumulated in containers that are structurally sound and compatible with the contents of the can, and show no evidence of leaks, spills, or damage that could cause leaks.
  • Universal waste can be stored for up to one year.
  • Handlers may sort aerosol cans by type and consolidate intact aerosol cans in larger containers.
  • Handlers can remove actuators to reduce the risk of accidental release.
  • Cans may be punctured and drained when the emptied cans are to be recycled.
  • Leaking and damaged cans must be packaged in a separate closed container, overpacked with absorbents, or punctured and drained.

Puncturing/Draining Written Procedures

Puncturing and draining must be conducted by a device specifically designed for that purpose, and must effectively contain the residual contents and any resulting emissions. Commercially-manufactured and custom designed or retrofitted machines are acceptable, as long as they meet acceptable engineering and design standards are met and that specific procedures are followed.

To ensure the process and devices safely puncture cans, effectively contain residual contents, and control emissions, EPA is requiring handlers to develop and follow written procedures that take the necessary precautions to protect human health and environment.  The procedures require:

  • Operation and maintenance of the unit (e.g., including manufacturer’s and state guidances);
  • Segregation of incompatible wastes;
  • Proper waste management practices (e.g., ensuring that ignitable wastes are stored away from heat or open flames, wearing proper PPE, keeping containers closed, not overfilling containers, etc.);
  • Maintain a copy of manufacturer’s instructions onsite; and,
  • Ensure employees operating the machines are trained in proper procedures.

Handling

  • It will be the handler’s responsibility to ensure wastes are compatible with each other for worker safety, environmental safety, and fire prevention purposes.
  • Puncturing equipment must be placed on solid, flat surfaces in well-ventilated areas.
  • The hander must immediately transfer contents from the can to a container or tank.
  • The handler becomes the generator of the waste and should manage it in accordance with RCRA guidelines. As such, after transfer of contents to the container/tank, a hazardous waste determination should be made.

Spill and Leak Prevention Written Procedures

The aerosol can universal waste rule requires written procedure be in place in the event of a spill or leak.  In addition, a spill clean-up kit should be provided. All aerosol can spills or leaks should be cleaned up promptly.

Land Disposal Restriction

Aerosol cans, as other universal wastes, will be exempt from land disposal restriction requirements.  Aerosol can universal waste will be added to the LDR requirements.

Wait – Be Aware of Your State Requirements

EPA considers this rule less stringent than current federal programs, and thus, states will not be required to adopt this rule.  However, EPA says that many states already recognize aerosol cans as universal waste, and they are encouraging states to adopt this recognition.  Check the regulations in your state and their stance on incorporating this final rule before adopting these policies.  Depending on your state regulations, you will still need to treat them as hazardous waste until your state incorporates these changes into their own regulations if they differ.

Questions?

If you have questions about the new aerosol can universal waste regulation or about your company’s compliance with it, contact us today!  If you need to learn more about hazardous waste regulations in general, check out our hazardous waste management and RCRA Refresher class schedule or arrange for one at your facility!

More Info

Need help sorting out your hazardous and universal waste issues?

Get Pricing
iSi's HW Services
EPA Issues Air Permitting Updates for New Sources, PSD and Title V Air Permits

EPA Issues Air Permitting Updates for New Sources, PSD and Title V Air Permits

Dec 13, 2019

​EPA has issued air permitting updates in order to help companies save time and reduce paperwork and compliance burdens.

Air Permitting Update:  Definition of Adjacent Areas

As we first reported here last fall, EPA was considering changing the interpretation of the word “adjacent” for its EPA Title V air permit and New Source Review (NSR) air permits for new construction or modifications.  That interpretation change is now final.

In the regulations, the word adjacent comes into play when determining if a facility qualifies for permits.  When determining sources, a building, structure, facility or installation must be under the control of the same person, belong in the same industrial grouping, and located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties.  When it came to “adjacent”, EPA had been also considering “functional interrelatedness,” that is, grouping together facilities with similar functions, even if they were miles apart.

According to the new rule, for all industries other than oil and natural gas production and processing, adjacent is physical proximity only.  EPA makes additional comments on the word “contiguous” as well, noting the difference between adjacent and contiguous.  Operations do not have to be contiguous to be adjacent.  That is, operations that do not share a common boundary or border, not physically touching each other will be adjacent if the operations are nearby.  If there is proximity (neighboring or side-by-side operations where the “common sense notion of a plant” can be deduced) that will be considered adjacent.  Railways, pipelines and other conveyances will not determine adjacency.

Please note that states with their own air permitting programs aren’t required to follow the new interpretation, so be aware of the regulations in your own state.

More information about EPA’s change can be found here.

Air Permitting Update:  Revised Exclusions for Ambient Air

EPA has broadened the exclusions industrial facilities can take from the ambient air regulations.

The Clean Air Act sets standards that affect ambient air quality, that is, that portion of the atmosphere, external to buildings, to which the general public has access.  In the air permitting process, companies are required to make air quality analyses of how their operations, (or changes to operations) will affect the ambient air quality.  Within that requirement, there’s been an exclusion for areas that the public didn’t have access to.  That is, you didn’t have to count the effects to the air quality of the areas of your facility that the public didn’t have access to as long as your company owned or controlled that area.

Until now, fences and other physical barriers have been the determining factor on public access.

In the updated regulations, EPA is allowing for other types of measures to which deter public access.  Some examples could include:

  • Signage
  • Security Patrols
  • Remote Surveillance Cameras
  • Drones
  • Natural Barriers Such as Cliffs or Rugged Terrain (case-by-case basis)

Your company will still need to have the legal authority to prevent the public from going onto that property.  Please note that in this case as well, states with their own air permitting programs aren’t required to follow the new interpretation, so be aware of the regulations in your own state.

For more information, check out the EPA’s guidance page here.

How Does This Apply to Your Facility?

Need help determining where you stand on air compliance? Let iSi’s environmental team help you with your site-specific obligations.

Get Help Here

iSi can help you with air permits & determinations – Contact us today!

Get Pricing
Ask a Question
iSi's Environmental Services

SPCC Plans: What Are They and Does Your Company Need One?

SPCC Plans: What Are They and Does Your Company Need One?

Oct 4, 2019

Need an SPCC Plan?

iSi can help you determine if this applies to your company, and then we can help you write the plan.  Contact us today! 

Get Pricing

If your company uses or stores large quantities of oil, you may be subject to EPA’s Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures, or SPCC regulation and be required to have a plan to prevent discharges of that oil into navigable waters.

Who Needs to Comply with SPCC?

SPCC regulations cover all types of oils, including petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, vegetable oils, mineral oils and synthetic oils.  If your facility has the capacity aboveground of 1,320 gallons or more or underground capacity of 42,000 gallons or more, you quality for this regulation. 

To count capacity, add together everything that can store 55 gallons or more of petroleum.  This includes drums, totes, tanks, or any other storage vessel.  Also included in the total is the capacity from equipment such as hydraulic systems, lubricating systems, gear boxes, coolant systems, heat transfer and transformers, circuit breakers and electrical switches. 

Therefore, all types of industries are included within this regulation, including, but not limited to:

  • Industrial and Commercial Facilities Using or Storing Oil
  • Oil Exploration and Production
  • Refining and Storage
  • Airports
  • Marinas
  • Power Transmission, Generation and Distribution
  • Construction
  • Waste Treatment

What’s the Purpose of SPCC?

SPCC planning is the practices, procedures, structures, and equipment used at the facility to prevent spills from reaching and contaminating navigable waters.  Most facilities will discharge to navigable waters because this often includes ditches, storm sewers, and other drainage systems that can lead to streams, creeks and other bodies of water.

SPCC planning includes three basic functions:

1)  Practices devoted to the prevention of spills,
2)  Planning for containments should a spill occur, and
3)  Removal, cleanup, and disposal of spilled materials. 

These basic functions are incorporated into the SPCC Plan.

What’s Included in an SPCC Plan?

A SPCC Plan has several required elements, including:

  • Petroleum-related chemical quantities and locations;
  • Release prevention structures;
  • Release prevention procedures;
  • Procedures in place to respond to a spill, should it occur;
  • Equipment used to prevent or respond to a spill;
  • Key personnel;
  • Training programs;
  • Spill history; and,
  • Certification.

In most cases, the certification of the SPCC Plan needs to be completed by a professional engineer. 

Compliance Deadlines

If you make changes to your facility, such as adding containers, secondary containment structures, or installation of piping, you must update your SPCC Plan within six months of the change. 

Per requirements, review your SPCC Plan every 5 years and make changes accordingly.

Where Do You Send the SPCC Plan?

Unless you’re asked for it, your plan stays onsite and is not required to be submitted to EPA or your state office.  Some states do have SPCC requirements in addition to the EPA requirements.  EPA says that if the facility the SPCC Plan covers is staffed at least 4 hours per day, the Plan needs to be maintained there.  If the facility is not staffed 4 hours per day, then it can be maintained at the nearest field office.

###

Do you need an SPCC Plan?  If you have one, when was the last time it was reviewed?  iSi has worked with hundreds of plans and we’d like to help.  Contact us today!

Does this apply to your facility?  Do you need help writing or updating your SPCC Plan? — Contact us today!

iSi's Environmental Services
Get Project Pricing
Ask Us a Question

Citation Case Study: Fluorescent Lamps Hazardous Waste Violation

Citation Case Study: Fluorescent Lamps Hazardous Waste Violation

Sep 26, 2019

U

Haz Waste Audits

iSi conducts audits and inspections to find potential environmental violations, including hazardous waste.  Let us give you that second set of eyes to make sure your company is on track.

Schedule Inspection

The following is an example of a fluorescent lamp hazardous waste citation given to a manufacturing facility by a state’s environmental regulatory agency.  The company appealed to the state’s Office of Administrative Hearings.  Although this particular citation was from a state regulatory agency, the citation referenced a federal hazardous waste regulation and thus this issue may be cited in any location.

Can this scenario be found at your facility?

Scenario:

A company was found with one spent 8’ fluorescent lamp on a shelf. 

The Citation:

40 CFR 273.13(d)(1), 273.14(e), and 273.15(c)

The company was cited with hazardous waste violations for

1)  Failure to containerize lamp;
2)  Failure to label lamp as Universal Waste; and,
3)  Failure to mark lamp with accumulation start date

The company tried to prove that the lamps used are non-hazardous (do not contain mercury above the TCLP limit) and were purchased from Lowe’s by providing receipts.  However, receipts found were from 4’ lamps and not 8’ lamps.

The company also stated that a marked container was indeed present for lamps (and the state environmental agency acknowledged a container marked “Universal Waste – Lamps” was present in their notes from the inspection).  The company argued that therefore, they should not be cited for the container violations of failure to label and failure to date, only the failure to containerize.

The Ruling in Appeal:

It was found that while the fluorescent lamp was ultimately placed in the container as required, that it did not detract from the fact that, upon inspection, the spent lamp had not been placed in a container. Moreover, since the lamp was not in a labeled container, the regulation requires that the lamp itself be labeled. If the lamp was not in that container then it must be labeled, according to the regulation.

Likewise, the fluorescent lamp needed to be dated to indicate when it became waste.  While the there was a labeled and dated container in the facility, the lamp in question was not in that container.  Because the lamp was not in the container maintained by the facility, the company was in technical violation of all three regulations.

###

Are you maintaining your fluorescent lamps properly?  What about the other wastes at your facility?  iSi can help you determine what you’re currently doing correctly and which areas need changes.  Let us come take a look at your facility today!

How does your hazardous waste program look?  Let our experts do a walkthrough to see what could be potential violations!

Get Project Pricing
Ask Us a Question
iSi's Environmental Services

Phase I ESAs: Reveal the Hidden Truths Behind Your Next Property Acquisition

Phase I ESAs: Reveal the Hidden Truths Behind Your Next Property Acquisition

Sep 5, 2019

n

Phase I ESAs

iSi conducts Phase I ESAs, as well as Phase II ESAs which include sampling of water, groundwater, soil and more.  Add us to your list of potential vendors for your next property transaction!

Get Pricing

Imagine this scene:  your company just purchased a prime piece of property and has proceeded to establish your business on that land.  Your company uses few chemicals and those you do use are carefully managed.  Ten years later, chemicals commonly used to degrease parts appear in private wells in the area.  Upon investigation, it’s found that 30 years ago, a previous owner of the land operated a printing plant on the site.  This company used hundreds of gallons of the same chemical to clean their presses and they disposed of the remaining chemical on the ground.  The groundwater is now contaminated.  You didn’t put it there, but you own the land. And the printing company is out of business.

Who’s going to clean all of the wells?  According to the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), or Superfund, your company, as the landowner, can be held responsible for the cleanup.  EPA will either order your company and other potentially responsible parties on the chain of ownership to clean the site or they will clean it themselves and sue you for reimbursement.  What defense does your company have?

What is a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment?

Because current owners can be held liable for environmental damage on their land, even when they didn’t cause it, lenders and insurance providers will usually protect their assets by requiring an environmental inspection of the property prior to its purchase.  Commonly called a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), this inspection provides the “due diligence” necessary to assess the environmental conditions of the property with reasonable confidence.

Innocent Landowner Defense

Superfund only recognizes three defenses to a landowner’s liability in such a case: an act of God, an act of war, and the “innocent landowner” defense.  An innocent landowner is one who used “due diligence” to determine if there was a potential for contamination on the site before buying it, and the Phase I will meet this requirement. 

However, for a Phase I to have any meaning in establishing an innocent landowner defense, it must be produced following guidelines established by the American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM).  The guidelines are voluntary, but they are a consensus among lenders of what research is necessary to provide a satisfactory evaluation of a property’s environmental condition.

What’s Included in a Phase I ESA?

  • History of Site Usage: A title search, interviews of past owners and neighbors, map analysis, historical document analysis should be conducted.
  • Review of Public Records: A search of federal, state and local information to identify nearby regulated facilities that could impact the property (e.g., underground storage tanks, hazardous materials generation amounts) should be evaluated.
  • Site Reconnaissance of Property and Adjacent Properties: A walkthrough site inspection should be completed to identify recognized environmental hazards such as disposal sites, leaks, storage tanks, water or gas wells, and sumps or the obvious presence of asbestos, lead, or transformers that contain PCBs.  In addition to the physical inspection, the topography, geology, and hydrology of the site and surrounding region should be researched and evaluated to determine the potential for a neighbor’s contamination to migrate to the property.

What Kind of Transactions Require a Phase I ESA?

There are a number of instances where a Phase I ESA can be very beneficial:

  • Purchasing Property:  A Phase I can alert the buyer to possible contamination before the purchase of property.  It can also serve as documentation of the condition of the property at time of purchase.
  • Leasing Property (As the Tenant):  A Phase I can serve as documentation of the environmental condition of the property before the lease begins and after lease termination.  Without the assessment, the tenant may be held liable for contamination caused by past or future tenants.
  • Leasing Property (As the Landlord):  A Phase I should be conducted before and after a tenant occupies the property. Prior to leasing, the Phase I can serve as a baseline of the condition of the property, and after the tenant leaves, the Phase I can properly document and address any environmental issues left by the tenant.
  • Disposal of Property:  A Phase I can serve as a baseline of the condition of the property at time of disposal.  This will help protect the disposer from future liability.
  • Other Transactions:  Use Phase I ESAs for land swaps, right-of-way purchases, easements and special use permits (i.e., public recreation, grazing, mining, etc.)

Are you planning a real estate transaction in the next few months?  Let iSi conduct your Phase I ESA for you, or provide one of our other real estate or new facility services.  Contact us today!

Selling or purchasing property?  Let iSi conduct the Phase I ESA — Contact us today!

iSi's Real Estate Services
Get Project Pricing
Ask Us a Question

Citation Case Study: Paint Drippings on the Ground a Hazardous Waste Violation

Citation Case Study: Paint Drippings on the Ground a Hazardous Waste Violation

Aug 22, 2019

U

Haz Waste Audits

iSi conducts audits and inspections to find potential environmental violations, including hazardous waste.  Let us give you that second set of eyes to make sure your company is on track.

Schedule Inspection

The following is an example of a hazardous waste citation given to a manufacturing facility by a state’s environmental regulatory agency.  The company appealed to the state’s Office of Administrative Hearings.  Although this particular citation was from a state regulatory agency, the citation referenced a federal hazardous waste regulation and thus this issue may be cited in any location.

Can this scenario be found at your facility?

Scenario:

A company had paint drips on the ground outside by their dumpster.  The paint drips had accumulated over time since the company had been in the same location for over 10 years.

The Citation:

40 CFR 265.31

The company was cited for violation of hazardous waste rules for “Failure to prevent the possibility of fires, explosions or sudden releases of hazardous waste.” 

The company tried to prove the paint drips came from exempt containers that were RCRA empty at the time of disposal into the dumpster, and the paint drips had accumulated over time.

The Ruling in Appeal:

In this appeals process, a judge reviewed the work of the state inspector and heard testimony by the cited company. 

The first consideration was whether all wastes were removed from the can that could be removed, as required by regulation in order for the remaining contents to be exempt. KDHE and the Administrative Judge found that if the contents were able to drip from the cans upon transport to the dumpster, and in the quantity dripped, not all of the wastes were removed from the paint cans that could have been removed. As a handler of hazardous wastes, the company had a responsibility to take precautions to ensure that hazardous materials were not subject to a release “to air, soil, or surface water which could threaten human health or the environment.”  

The judge noted that spills were understandable; however, the failure to clean up the spills and mitigate the release is crucial. 

With the premise that the hazardous waste contents of the paint cans were no longer exempt once they exited the paint can(s), the question is then whether the spills identified during the inspection violated 40 CFR 265.31.  The regulation states: “Facilities must be maintained and operated to minimize the possibility of a fire, explosion, or any unplanned sudden or non-sudden release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents to air, soil, or surface water which could threaten human health or the environment.”  The judge found that the company did not minimize the possibility of a fire or release of hazardous waste, and took the least restrictive means’ of handling a hazardous waste, resulting in spills.

Possible Solution:

During the hearing a question was posed to the inspector as to what could have been done to prevent the spills. The inspector mentioned the possibility of using better bags for disposal or even double bagging the paint containers, and landfills are constructed to avoid release of hazardous wastes into the environment.

The company was told it must take precautions to mitigate release, at the very least until the waste reaches the landfill and the citation was upheld.

How does your hazardous waste program look?  Let our experts do a walkthrough to see what could be potential violations!

Get Project Pricing
Ask Us a Question
iSi's Environmental Services

EPA’s National Compliance Initiatives Show Enforcement Priorities

EPA’s National Compliance Initiatives Show Enforcement Priorities

Aug 1, 2019

Does This Apply To You?

We can help determine which of these apply to your facility, and help you make sure you’re on the right track if you’re inspected.

Subscribe

Just like OSHA has national emphasis programs for areas they want to target in their enforcement, EPA has its own national emphasis targets.  Called the National Compliance Initiatives (NCI), EPA has listed 7 priority areas to target for enforcement for Fiscal Years 2020-2023. 

So what’s on the EPA NCI Target List?

Air – Reducing Air Emissions at Hazardous Waste LQGs and TSDFs

EPA has found that facilities that generate a greater amount of hazardous waste have air emissions issues.  Their focus will be on air emissions at Large Quantity Generators (LQGs) and Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs).  This emphasis item was in the agency’s last list of NCIs, and inspectors have found there is still significant noncompliance at these facilities.  EPA wants improved compliance in controlling organic air emissions from certain management activities.  They will especially be looking at the following areas in which they are continuously finding problems:

  • Leaking or open pressure relief valves;
  • Tank closure devices;
  • Monitoring; and,
  • Recordkeeping.

Water – Reducing NPDES Permits Noncompliance

EPA will be looking at your facility’s NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permits to see if you’re in compliance.  NPDES permits are for water discharges, whether they be wastewater, stormwater or otherwise.  In 2018, 11,000 permits had violations totaling 4 billion pounds of pollutants above permitted limits, and EPA wants to crack down on that.  Out of 40,000 facilities with NPDES permits, EPA estimates 29% are in significant noncompliance.  EPA’s goal is to cut that in half by fall 2022.  EPA specifically mentions failure to submit required reports and significant exceedances of limits as two of the most violated areas.

Air – Reducing Excess Emissions of HAPs and VOCs from Stationary Sources

EPA wants a focus on reducing emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).   They will be focusing on sources of VOCs that may have substantial impact on an area’s attainment or non-attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards.  EPA will also be focusing on areas with a greater concentration of HAP sources.  EPA has listed over 180 chemicals that are HAPs, including mercury, asbestos, toluene, cadmium, chromium, benzene, perchloroethylene, and lead.

Hazardous Chemicals – Reducing Risks of Accidental Releases at Industrial and Chemical Facilities

This was on EPA’s list last time, and is continuing.   This NCI not only applies to facilities subject to Risk Management Program requirements (for accidental chemical releases at facilities that store certain chemicals above a certain threshold).   EPA cites a General Duty Clause in their Clean Air Act to cover all facilities with regulated substances and extremely hazardous substances, regardless of quantity.  They’ll be using that General Duty Clause (Clean Air Act Section 112(r)) which requires companies:

  • Identify hazards that may result from accidental releases by using appropriate hazard assessment techniques;
  • Design and maintain a safe facility;
  • Take steps to prevent releases; and,
  • Minimize the consequences of the accidental releases that occur.

It will be important that your facility not only has conducted the proper hazard assessments and has plans and controls in place, but has documentation that has occurred.  This exercise and documentation will help you with both EPA and OSHA compliance.

Air – Stopping Aftermarket Defeat Devices for Engines

This is a new item on EPA’s list.  They will be looking to stop the manufacture, sale and installation of defeat devices on engines.  Often called tuners, these devices bypass the engines’ emissions control systems in order to improve engine performance or fuel efficiency.  The systems modify the exhaust system or electronic chips within the vehicle.   EPA has been levying fines on car manufacturers for a number of years in this area.  One of the most famous cases is the recent Volkswagen emissions scandal where vehicles were rigged to recognize regulatory emissions testing, but operated differently in real world driving conditions.  Now EPA is going after the aftermarket manufacturers and have already started.  However, the emphasis isn’t just limited to vehicles on the road, it’s for any engine, including non-road vehicles and engines.

Water – Noncompliance with Drinking Water Standards at Community Systems

This is a new NCI area for EPA.  EPA says that out of 50,000 Community Water Systems that serve water to the same people year-round, 40% violated at least one drinking water standard in 2018.  Also at these facilities, 30% had monitoring and reporting violations and 7% had health violations.  EPA’s goal is to reduce this noncompliance by 25% by having EPA’s Office of Water work to increase capacity within the states and tribes to address these violations.

Lead – Child Exposure to Lead

This one is an unofficial NCI emphasis because it will be treated as a directive but not be a part of the official NCI enforcement list as a separate program.  EPA has an overall initiative for lead, and the NCI guidance documents affirm enforcement commitment to participating in that initiative.   Plans for EPA’s overall lead initiative include:

  • Increasing compliance with and awareness of lead-safe renovations with the Renovation, Repair and Painting rule;
  • Developing a mapping tool to identify communities with higher lead exposures;
  • Targeted geographical initiatives; and,
  • Public awareness campaigns on lead issues.

What’s Next:  Regional Plans

Each region is to develop a strategic plan on how they will be accomplishing these EPA NCI goals.  Within these plans the regions are to determine how they’re going to allocate resources to these NCIs and how much investment will be put into each one.  The plans are due August 1.   

These NCIs are the goals for Fiscal Year 2020-2023, thus they will go into effect October 1, 2019.

Does your facility fall under these targets?  We can help you determine that, and get you ready — Contact us today!

Get Project Pricing
Ask Us a Question
iSi's EPA-Related Services

EPA’s “Once In, Always In” May Be Officially on the Way Out

EPA’s “Once In, Always In” May Be Officially on the Way Out

Jun 28, 2019

EPA has proposed a rule that would officially eliminate the air regulations rule of “Once In, Always In” for major source hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions.  As a result, EPA is estimating reduced regulatory burden for thousands of locations, and thousands of others could now have a better incentive to reduce air emissions.

Background: Air Emissions Regs

Locations that emit one or more of the 187 named hazardous air pollutants above a certain threshold are classified as a “major source.”  As a result, they become subject to a number of additional regulatory obligations.  They are required to follow certain rules established by their related Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rules and are required to complete annual Title V Air Emissions permitting. 

If locations have HAP air emissions below the stated threshold, they are classified as “area sources.”  The regulatory requirements at this level are much less burdensome.

What’s Once In, Always In?

EPA’s Once In, Always In policy stated that once a location reaches that major source classification, they were always going to be a major source, not matter what – even if the company took steps to reduce emissions below that threshold.  It was developed in 1995 as a guidance memo and originally intended to only be in place until the agency could propose amendments, but it stayed in permanently. 

As part of the 2017 Executive Order for agencies to review and reduce regulations, EPA looked at Once In, Always In.  They determined the Clean Air Act really did not specify or support time limits.  As a result, EPA issued its own interpretation memo saying there was no basis for major sources to have that classification permanently.  These sources should have the ability to reclassify as area sources if they implemented the controls and reductions necessary to become area sources.

This new proposed rule is the formal step to make this interpretation final.

The Benefits

This rule will benefit companies that have already implemented technologies to control HAP emissions, and companies whose processes or operations have changed to the degree that they no longer emit or have the capabilities to emit HAPs above the thresholds. 

EPA estimates that out of 7,920 major sources, approximately half will now be eligible to reclassify as an area source.  Besides the lessened compliance burden, EPA estimates costs savings of $168.9 million in the first year, and $163-$183 million each year after.

Those companies who are still major sources will also now have a concrete incentive to make changes to operations that would further reduce HAP emissions.

Public Comment

Find out more information about this rule here.  EPA is also soliciting public comment at regulations.gov.  They want to hear about all aspects of their proposal including their interpretation of Once In, Always In, requirements for establishing effective HAP limits, allowing limits issued by states/local/tribal agencies as effective as long as they are legally and practically enforceable, and ideas for safeguards to ensure emissions are not increased.

Which Source Are You?

Is your site a major source or an area source? Can you reclassify?  Let us help!

Get Help Here

iSi can help you with air emissions determinations & compliance — Contact us today!

Get Pricing
Ask a Question
iSi's EPA-Related Services

What are Lab Packs and How Could Your Facility Use Them?

What are Lab Packs and How Could Your Facility Use Them?

Jun 20, 2019

Casey Moore, iSi Environmental

About the Author: iSi’s Casey Moore has more than 25 years of experience in the hazardous waste industry including working for hazardous waste carriers and operating hazardous waste facilities in California and Arizona.

I’ve never been a fan of “spring” cleaning, but it’s a necessary part of good housekeeping around the home or at your facility. When was the last time your facility did a “spring cleaning” walkthrough to see if there are any materials around your workplace that are expired, or you don’t need?  Flammable cabinets, chemical storage, research/QC labs and maintenance shops are likely places these items accumulate.

What is a Lab Pack?

Since most of the items in these locations are likely to be in smaller containers, they aren’t treated like regular waste streams. Lab packs are a practical solution. Lab packs are consolidation packaging of “like” materials from the smaller containers into larger containers to satisfy proper DOT shipping and EPA RCRA hazardous waste management.

The lab pack was designed for managing expired materials in labs, however, it’s something that can be used for any facility that needs to do a cleanout of smaller containers usually less than 10 gallons each.

What Items Are Candidates for a Lab Pack?

Look for jars, jugs, vials and cans of hazardous materials, including chemicals, solvents, paints, thinners, acids, cleaners, strippers, inks and more. These are typically out of date, off-specification, partially used, and no longer needed.

Who Does Lab Packing?

There are strict regulations about who is qualified to do lab packing. These persons need to determine which containers can be put together and which ones may cause harmful reactions when mixed. Typically, hazardous waste carriers provide this service.

How is Lab Packing Accomplished?

First, items are segregated, that is, sorted, for combining into one larger container.  Items are segregated by:

  • Hazard class — most common are flammables, corrosives, and toxics
  • Type of material — liquids, solids, etc.
  • Compatibility

“Paper pack” is the term used to show the segregation by container. An initial inventory list is converted into lab pack inventory sheets (what goes into each container). This is what waste companies use to create approval numbers for compliance under RCRA. It is also how they establish price. Pricing is based on disposal, transportation and labor associated with packaging.

Packaging is accomplished by:

  • Putting the segregated materials into their respective larger containers;
  • Filling with a packing material (vermiculite is most common) to create stability and containment while shipping;
  • Vermiculite will be in the base and surrounding each of the internal containers; and,
  • The smaller containers are placed into the larger container vertically, so the label with the double arrows pointing up is on the outer packaging.

RCRA Regulation Implications

A lab pack counts towards your waste generation status if you’re a Very Small Quantity Generator (VSQG) or a Small Quantity Generator (SQG), so be mindful of the amount of hazardous waste generated in the process.

For states that have already adopted the Generator Improvements Rule, this is a good use of the episodic event and would not count against your generator status.

If you have any questions regarding lab packs or hazardous waste regulations, contact us!

iSi can help with hazardous waste compliance and facility walkthroughs to find environmental and safety issues.  Contact us today!

Contact Us!

EPA’s Mercury Inventory Report Due July 1

EPA’s Mercury Inventory Report Due July 1

May 9, 2019

Any person, company or organization who manufactures or imports mercury or mercury-added products, or intentionally uses mercury in a manufacturing process are required to file a report to EPA by July 1, 2019. 

Called the “Mercury Inventory Reporting Rule,” it is a part of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  The final rule for this was published in June 2018.  TSCA requires EPA to publish an inventory on mercury supply, use and trade every 3 years.  EPA’s next inventory is due in 2020, so as a result, they are requiring those use and import mercury to get their data submitted by July 1, 2019.

Requirements

If you fall under this requirement, it doesn’t matter how much mercury you use, you still need to report to EPA.  Reporting is done through EPA’s Central Data Exchange.

The data you’ll use in the report are quantities from calendar year 2018.  Some of the items required to be reported include:

  • Amount of mercury produced, imported, stored, used, sold, or exported;
  • Types of products made;
  • Types of manufacturing processes and how mercury is used;
  • Business sectors to which mercury or mercury-added products are sold;
  • Country of origin of imported mercury or mercury-added products; and
  • Destination country for exported mercury or mercury-added products.

Once submitted, you’ll be required to submit this report again every 3 years.  EPA will not publish names or identifying information once they publish the results.

Exemptions

There are a few exemptions to reporting.  In the following instances you won’t need to report:

  • Your mercury activity isn’t for commercial advantage;
  • The mercury you use is only as an impurity;
  • You’re generating, handling or managing mercury-containing waste only (and not recovering it for commerce purposes)
  • The mercury is in an assembled product that contains a mercury component (EPA gives the example of a mercury light bulb for a car manufacturer); or,
  • You manufacture assembled products that contain a component that’s a mercury-added product but you didn’t manufacture or import that component.

EPA Webinar

EPA is having two webinars to explain this Mercury Inventory Reporting Rule.  One is Tuesday May 21, the other is Thursday May 23.  Click on those dates to go to the signup page for each.

Need Help?

Does this apply to you? What other environmental reports apply to you?  We can determine that for you!

Get Help Here

iSi can help determine if this applies to you, and what other environmental reporting applies to you too. Contact us today!

Get Pricing
Ask a Question
iSi's Environmental Services

PFAS Chemicals: What Are They and Where Are They Found?

PFAS Chemicals: What Are They and Where Are They Found?

Apr 18, 2019

EPA has announced its first ever comprehensive nationwide Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Action Plan. This action plan attempts to address two of the most common PFAS chemicals; PFOA and PFOS.  Despite having called this press conference, no definitive regulations have yet been set in place.  This has led to some frustrated state regulatory agencies deciding to move on without EPA in fear that EPA regulations may take 10 years or more to materialize and finalize, if ever.

So far, 8 states have adopted bills regarding PFAS chemicals and other states are already trying to determine what to do about them.  Because regulations may be seen on the state level before the federal, we believe an awareness of this issue – what is it, why is it important – will prove to be highly beneficial.  

In seminars and conferences, we’ve even heard these mentioned as potentially “the new asbestos” in terms of prevalence of exposure and need for elimination.

SO WHAT ARE PFAS CHEMICALS?

Simply put, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances are a class of man-made chemicals that are widely used in industrial processes and can be found in many consumer products. They are split into two groups: Polymers and Non-polymers. To be a bit more specific, PFAS chemicals are chains of carbon atoms that are bonded by fluorine atoms. The chemistry is very complex, which is what allows for there to be thousands upon thousands of variations existing in commerce today.

WHERE CAN PFAS BE FOUND?

It would almost be easier to say where they aren’t found!  PFAS chemicals can be found anywhere; in pizza boxes, cookware, paints, polishes, electronics manufacturing, fuel additive, and more! There are even cases of the direct release of PFAS products into the environment. The use of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) for fire fighting, chrome surfacing facilities, landfills, and wastewater treatment all contribute to the release of PFAS chemicals in the environment.

Some applications where PFAS-containing materials are used include:

  • Water and stain resistance in textile and paper coating
  • Plastics manufacturing
  • Reducing surface tension in surface coatings
  • Stabilizing agents for metal finishing and electroplating
  • Industrial rinse agents
  • Solder wetting agents and coatings in semiconductors
  • Cable and wiring manufacturing
  • Building and construction
  • Anywhere that uses fire fighting foams (military, oil refineries, manufacturing, airfields)
  • Recovery in metal mining and oil extraction


WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?

Some PFAS chemicals are known to be persistent in the environment, bioaccumulative in organisms, and toxic at relatively low levels. The fact that PFAS chemicals come in so many shapes and sizes and in so many industries and consumer products means that an alarmingly high percentage of people have been exposed to PFAS chemicals. Contaminated drinking water is the best documented source of known human exposure pathways, but food, house dust, and workplace exposure are amongst the top as well. In communities with contaminated drinking water, human health effects include higher cholesterol, increased uric acid, lower birth weight, lower response to vaccines, diabetes, cancer, and more.

EPA’s ACTION PLAN

EPA’s Action Plan covers a number of different areas.  However, most of these plans are in the development, research, and pre-regulatory phase.  They are focusing efforts on developing rules and tools for Cleanup, Monitoring, Research, Communication, and Drinking Water.  For more information on PFAS chemicals , visit EPA’S PFAS data and tools website at https://www.epa.gov/pfas/epa-pfas-data-and-tools.

Get Our Articles Each Week!

We send out our weekly compliance articles each week via email.  Sign up below to get our updates sent directly to your inbox!

Sign Up Here

Which EPA environmental regulations apply to your facility?  iSi can help determine which ones apply and what you need to do next!

Get Pricing
Ask a Question
iSi's Environmental Services

Methylene Chloride Banned for Consumer Use, Industry Use Continues

Methylene Chloride Banned for Consumer Use, Industry Use Continues

Mar 29, 2019

Update:  As of November 23, 2019 it is now against the law for any person or retailer to sell or distribute paint removal products containing methylene chloride for consumer use, including online sales.

—

EPA has issued a final rule to ban the use of methylene chloride for consumer use.  This rule applies to the manufacture, import, process, and distribution of methylene chloride for consumer use.  Industrial use, for now, is still allowed.

Methylene Chloride, also known as dichloromethane, is a key ingredient used in paint strippers.  It also can be found in some acrylic cements for hobbyists.

EPA has been evaluating high-hazard chemicals through the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA.  EPA found the hazards associated with the methylene chloride to be an unreasonable risk.  The fumes are heavier than air and can stay in an unventilated area for several hours.  The fumes can rapidly cause dizziness, loss of consciousness, and death due to nervous system depression.

Retailers have 180 days after the rule finalization to be in compliance.  However, many retailers made pledges to stop selling it long before the rule was finalized.  Lowes, Home Depot, AutoZone, PPG and Sherwin Williams agreed to stop selling methylene chloride-containing products by the end of 2018.  Walmart agreed to stop selling products online and in stores by the end of February 2019 and Amazon targeted March 2019.  Ace Hardware is targeting the end of July 2019.

Industrial Usage Continues

In industry, methylene chloride is used not only as a paint stripper, but for general cleaning, automotive care, bath tub refinishing, metal cleaning and degreasing, lubrication, pharmaceutical manufacturing, and lithography.

EPA is still allowing usage in industry in industry at this time, but are is soliciting public comment for future rulemaking which may include training requirements, limited access rules, and/or certification.

On the employee protection side, methylene chloride usage in industry is also subject to OSHA’s Methylene Chloride Standard.  This standard lines out specific requirements for usage, medical surveillance, respiratory protection, training, hygiene facilities, protective clothing, recordkeeping, and control measures.

Occupational Exposures

Which chemicals are your facility using and have you determined all of your employee exposure responsibilities?  Let us help!

Get Help Here

iSi can help you with worker exposure plans, sampling and strategies — Contact us today!

Get Pricing
Ask a Question
Industrial Hygiene Services

The Federal Shutdown: EPA, OSHA and DOT

The Federal Shutdown: EPA, OSHA and DOT

Jan 11, 2019

We were working on preparing price proposals for two separate federal agencies this week and one greeted with a return email saying it was closed, while the other is still open.  This prompted the question…what about the other regulatory agencies we work with such as EPA, OSHA and the DOT?

EPA

In short, part of EPA is open while the other is closed.  Those functions still open involve ensuring there are personnel necessary to respond to emergencies involving safety of human life or the protection of property. 

Functions Still Open at EPA

  • Activities essential to ensure safe continued public health and safety including safe use of food and drugs and safe use of hazardous materials;
  • Superfund projects, where failure to maintain operations would pose an imminent threat;
  • EPA labs where it’s necessary to ensure physical integrity of research property and research conditions;
  • Law enforcement, legal counseling and criminal investigations;
  • Protection of federal lands/buildings/equipment; and,
  • Emergency response readiness and disaster service.

Functions Closed at EPA

  • Inspections;*
  • Non-emergency environmental site sampling;
  • New contract obligations;
  • Existing contract obligations and task orders;
  • Existing grant, cooperative agreement and interagency agreement obligations;
  • Payment activities including contracts, grants and payroll;
  • Travel;
  • New hiring; and,
  • Non-mission critical IT systems.

*While federal inspectors are on hold, please note that state environmental inspections are likely to continue using other sources of funding. 

For more information on EPA’s shutdown, take a look at their contingency plan.

OSHA

At OSHA, it is business as usual because their agency is funded through September of this year.   The same goes for MSHA, so inspectors for both agencies are still out and active. 

DOT

At DOT, some agencies of DOT are busier than others are. 

It’s business as usual for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the Federal Highway Administration because they’ve already been funded by multi-year appropriations. 

Functions Closed at DOT

At other DOT agencies, about half of the staff has been furloughed.  Much of what is closed has been administrative such as rulemaking and program development, training, research, purchasing, and grants.   

Functions Open at DOT

Those functions still operational include:

  • Hazardous materials (hazmat) inspections of shippers and carriers;
  • Hazmat enforcement activities;
  • Hazmat testing facilities and cylinder reconditioning facilities;
  • Hazmat approvals and permits for emergencies only;
  • Pipeline safety regulation inspectors;
  • Those who manage rail and pipeline accidents/incident investigations; and,
  • Pipeline operations/systems inspectors.

For more information about all the DOT shutdown activities, download their Shutdown Contingency Plan.

Free Webinar

Catch our free webinar on EPA environmental reporting!

Watch

We can help with EPA, OSHA & DOT concerns — Contact us today!

Get Pricing
Ask a Question
iSi's Safety Services

iSi’s Environmental Reporting Webinar

iSi’s Environmental Reporting Webinar

Jan 10, 2019

osha-silica-dust-construction-general industry-webinar

Webinar

Attend our webinar to determine how these regulations apply to your organization.

Watch!
osha-silica-dust-construction-general industry-webinar

Webinar

Attend our webinar to determine how these regulations apply to your organization.

Register

There are a number of environmental reports companies in general industry must prepare on an annual basis.

Some like EPA’s SARA Tier II, SARA Form Rs, Air Emissions Inventories and Hazardous Waste Biennial Reports have set dates.  Others for air, hazardous waste, wastewater, stormwater and boilers may be guided by your state or your permit itself. 

In this webinar, we’ll cover the basics of the most common reports you may be required to prepare for your facility each year and the due dates you need to know.  

Need help sorting out your reporting requirements? Let iSi help!

Request Pricing for Reporting
Request More Info About Reporting
iSi's EPA Compliance Services

What is an ISO 14001 Environmental Management System?

What is an ISO 14001 Environmental Management System?

Nov 8, 2018

The International Organization for Standardization, or ISO, determines internationally agreed upon standards for businesses.  ISO standards that end in “001” are management systems. ISO 14001 is for environmental management systems as ISO 9001 is the standard for quality management systems and 45001 is for safety and health management systems.

Standards in the “ISO 14000 family” relate to environmental management.  There are actually other standards in the 14000 family such as 14004, 14006 and 14064-1 that complement ISO 14001 or take it a step further.

Who Is Required to Have ISO 14001 Certifications?

ISO 14001 is voluntary; however, many national and international companies are increasingly requiring their suppliers to become certified. 

Having the certification signals that your company conforms to pre-approved standards of environmental performance and has procedures in place for compliance and improvement. It also shows your company is committed to certain environmental objectives like waste minimization, pollution prevention and climate change mitigation as well as has perspective on the effects of life cycle and the value chain of a product/service.

What’s the Process for Creating an Environmental Management System?

An ISO 14001 environmental management system (EMS) is all about developing and documenting objectives and processes, implementing them, monitoring and measuring their success, reporting results, maintaining them, then taking actions to continuously improve upon them. 

Some of the elements of the EMS include developing procedures for:

  • Scope of the EMS
  • Leadership and commitment;
  • Defining and documenting your environmental policy;
  • Organizational roles and responsibilities;
  • Identifying risks, threats and opportunities
  • Identifying environmental aspects and impacts;
  • Establishing environmental objectives and plan for achieving them;
  • Resources;
  • Competence, training records, skills, experience and qualifications;
  • Internal and external communication;
  • Document control;
  • Operational control;
  • Emergency preparedness and response;
  • Compliance obligations and evaluation;
  • Monitoring and measuring results;
  • Internal auditing the EMS and the results from this;
  • Management review results;
  • Nonconformity and corrective action; and,
  • Continual improvement.

How Do You Become Certified?

Once you have your procedures developed, you will need to conduct an internal audit of the procedures.  From here, tweaks are made and deficiencies are corrected.  An external audit is next, that is, a third-party auditor such as iSi will review your system to verify it complies with the requirements.  After the external audit, corrections are made before an ISO certification agency does the final certification audit.

ISO 14001:2015

The most current version of ISO 14001 is 14001:2015.  Any company with the original 2004 certification had until September 15, 2018 to upgrade to the newest version.  Thus, the 2004 version is now out of date.

As with newer ISO standards such as safety standard 45001, the 2015 revision increases emphasis on commitment from company leadership.  ISO is required to be more prominent in an organization’s strategic direction and stakeholder-focused communication is important.  Other revisions require proactive initiatives for protecting the environment from harm and degradation and requires companies to consider life cycle, that is, how the entire process from development to end-of-life can affect the environment.

Benefits of an EMS

Even if you are not required to have ISO 14001 certification, developing an environmental management system can be beneficial to your company.  Having procedures in place can help improve your overall environmental compliance.  It can help give your company personnel a roadmap of how to manage environmental issues, which can be helpful in times of employee turnover.  An EMS will help ensure systems are continuously improved and evaluated.  In addition, there may be additional cost benefits through pollution prevention, increased efficiencies, consistency, better resource management, and good public relations.

ISO Audit

iSi can help you create your EMS and has the auditors to inspect it.

Get More Info

How can an environmental management system help your compliance? Let iSi help you put the pieces together!

Get Pricing
Ask a Question
ISO 18001

Semiannual Regulatory Priorities Set by EPA and OSHA

Semiannual Regulatory Priorities Set by EPA and OSHA

Oct 26, 2018

Twice a year each of the President’s cabinets and executive agencies submits a regulatory agenda for the upcoming months.  It’s a list of priorities and which regulatory areas they intend to focus on.  The following items were listed as priorities in EPA’s agenda and in the OSHA portion of the Department of Labor’s agenda.

EPA – Air Quality

  • New Source Review and Title V Permitting – EPA hopes to simplify the New Source Review process (preconstruction air permits). There are two memos EPA wants to make law.  The first is EPA won’t second guess preconstruction analysis that complies with procedural requirements.  The other is the rescinding of the “once in always in” rule. A rule change will allow companies who are major sources to become area sources if their potential to emit falls below thresholds, reducing regulatory requirements.
  • Electric Utility Greenhouse Gas Rules – Recently EPA proposed a new rule for greenhouse gas emissions called the Affordable Clean Energy Rule. They will continue to look at this alternative approach to the Clean Power Plan Rule.
  • Oil and Gas New Source Performance Standards – EPA has been reviewing the rule including regulation of greenhouse gases through emissions limits on methane. A proposal for public comment will be issued.
  • Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule – EPA will hold public hearings on their August 2018 proposal to amend and establish new Corporate Average Fuel Economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks for model years 2021-2026.

EPA – Water Quality

  • National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper and Perchlorate – EPA will be looking at the lead and copper drinking water rule in order to clarify, reduce complexity, modernize and strengthen it to make it more effective and enforceable. They will also be working on drafting a regulation for regulating perchlorate in drinking water.
  • Peak Flows Management – EPA will be updating permitting regulations for publicly owned treatment works that have separate sanitary sewer systems to deal with the excess wastewater collection that comes with wet weather.
  • “Waters of the U.S.” – EPA will be working on step 2 in the redefining of the term waters of the United States with a reevaluation of the definition, including redefining the term “navigable waters”.
  • Clean Water Act Section 404(c) – EPA will update the regulations concerning its authority in the permitting of dredged and fill material discharges. In reducing its power to veto a permit for any reason, it hopes to help increase predictability and certainty for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, landowners, investors, and businesses.
  • Steam Electric Power Generating Point Sources – EPA will publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for reconsideration of the Steam Electric Effluent Limitations Guidelines rule.

EPA – Waste and Land Contamination

  • Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances – The use of these chemicals have been prevalent in a wide variety of items such as stain resistant fabrics and carpets, cosmetics and fire-fighting foam. EPA is set to designate them as hazardous substances and is yet to determine which mechanism to use, whether it be CERCLA or the Clean Water Act.
  • Accidental Release Prevention Regulations Under Clean Air Act – EPA has proposed changes to the Risk Management Plan rule to better coordinate with OSHA and DOT rules, lessen security concerns of sharing information with local emergency planning and response organizations and ease the economic burden caused by some provisions. In the next few months, public comment will be solicited on rule changes.
  • Disposal of Coal Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities – EPA is planning to modify the final rule on disposal of coal combustion residual (CCR) as solid waste and will be amending certain performance standards to give additional flexibility to states.

EPA – Chemical Safety

  • TSCA Amendments – 2016 TSCA amendments require EPA to evaluate existing chemicals for health risks to vulnerable groups and workers who daily use them. This action will be funded by user fees from chemical manufacturers and processors when they submit test data for EPA review, manufacture or use a new chemical, or process one subject to risk evaluation.  These fees will go into effect in 2019.  Also, EPA is on a deadline to do risk evaluations and issue any new proposed rules for persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals by June 2019.
  • Lead Dust Hazards – EPA has proposed strengthening lead hazard standards on dust from floors and window sills in child-occupied facilities. Final action will be June 2019.
  • Pesticide Safety – EPA is considering changes to Certification of Pesticide Applicators regulations from 2017 and agricultural Worker Protection Standard regulations from 2015.

OSHA

  • Electronic Reporting – After requiring certain employers to submit OSHA recordkeeping information to a website which would provide publicly available data, OSHA realized it couldn’t guarantee that personally identifiable information from the 300 and 301 logs wouldn’t be published. Thus, OSHA is proposing to change the Improved Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses Rule to just include the OSHA 300A summary data.
  • Beryllium – After revising the beryllium standard, OSHA realized exposure in shipyards and construction was limited to a few operations so some of the provisions required within the standard wouldn’t improve worker protection and could be redundant with other standards. OSHA will be working to revise the rule.
  • Standards Improvement Project (SIP) – OSHA will be working on Phase IV of their SIP. SIPs are used by OSHA to fix standards to correct errors, update technical references, account for new technologies and practices, delete duplicate information and fix inconsistent information.  SIPs can affect one or a number of standards.  For example, items for SIP IV include removing the requirement to put social security numbers on records and allowing for storing digital copies of x-rays rather than on film only.

Want more details?  Read the full regulatory agenda for EPA here and for OSHA here.

Want us to write an article in more detail about any of these issues?  Email our team and let us know what you’d like to see!

u

Need Help?

Do you need help determining which regulations apply to your facility? Contact us today!

Get Help Here

iSi can help you determine which regulations apply to your facility. Contact us today!

Get Pricing
Ask a Question
iSi's Environmental Services

Who Regulates Hazmat Shipments?

Who Regulates Hazmat Shipments?

Sep 21, 2018

In the environmental and safety world, it’s pretty simple to determine who’s the regulatory authority. For safety, in most cases it’s OSHA, and if you’re in a “state plan” state or if you’re a public entity, your state has an additional safety regulatory agency. For environmental issues, it’s EPA and for many states there is an additional state agency which covers environmental regulations plus you have municipal environmental rules. However, when it comes to shipping hazardous materials, it gets a little more complicated.

In the U.S., the shipment of hazardous materials is covered by federal regulation 49 CFR. 49 CFR addresses the shipment of hazardous materials by ground, air and vessel. The Department of Transportation (DOT) is responsible for enforcing 49 CFR.

DOT contains a variety of agencies which are responsible for ensuring specific parts of 49 CFR are being followed:

  • Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Security Administration (PHMSA);
  • Federal Aviation Administration (FAA);
  • Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA); and,
  • Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).

In addition to the federal agencies, there are additional state agencies with the authority to enforce DOT regulations. For example, this could be your state’s department of transportation and additional agencies which govern the highway patrol, rail lines or pipelines. Thus, you could receive inspections from a variety of state officials and highway patrol in additional to the federal agencies.

If there was one arm of DOT which takes the lead in hazardous materials, it’s PHMSA. PHMSA’s focus is safe shipments and it creates and publicizes regulations. Thus, if you wanted to learn new information about shipping hazardous materials, start with PHMSA.

When it comes to air and vessel shipments, you’ll find that although 49 CFR has rules regarding these types of shipments, in parts, 49 CFR defers to two other agencies, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) and the International Maritime Organization who publishes the International Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG). These are international organizations, as the shipment of hazardous materials will often cross country boundaries via ocean or air. Thus, when you’re required to have training, you need the training of both 49 CFR and IATA or IMDG. IMDG can also be applicable to shipments within in the U.S. when shipping to Hawaii, Alaska or Puerto Rico.

Radioactive materials shipments are regulated under the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

Both OSHA and EPA mention and defer to DOT within its regulations. Thus, you need to be aware AND trained in both the regulations of OSHA/EPA and DOT when dealing with environmental or safety issues.

49 CFR regulations can become very confusing. If you need help determining which regulations apply to you and how you need to ship your hazardous materials, contact us and we’d be happy to help!

Need Help?

Need help sorting out your hazmat shipping requirements? What about your required training?

Get Help Here
Hazmat Training

iSi can help you with hazmat shipping regulations — Contact us today!

Get Pricing
Ask a Question
Hazmat Shipping Training

New Clean Air Act Interpretation May Affect Facility Air Permitting

New Clean Air Act Interpretation May Affect Facility Air Permitting

Sep 13, 2018

Facilities required to have an EPA Title V air permit, New Source Review (NSR) air permit, or a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) air permit may soon be affected by a proposed new interpretation of the word “adjacent”.

Adjacent Properties

In the regulations, the word adjacent comes into play when determining if a facility qualifies for permits.  When determining sources, a building, structure, facility or installation must be under the control of the same person, belong in the same industrial grouping, and located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties.  When it came to “adjacent”, EPA wouldn’t give a determination on how far apart the properties needed to be and said that it would be determined on a case by case basis.  Besides physical proximity, EPA has been considering “functional interrelatedness” in its adjacent determinations.

Companies determine how their facilities should be permitted within the rules, whether there is one combined source, or whether there are separate sources.  In one court case, EPA disagreed with a petroleum company that it had separate sources.  EPA said the company’s operations and wells were adjacent, even though they were miles apart.  EPA was considering the operations, pipelines and wells as having functional interrelatedness.  The petroleum company sued EPA, and the court found in favor of the petroleum company.  The court said the definition of “adjacent” was simple and meant only physical proximity.

After the court ruling, EPA tweaked interpretation rules by region to include functional interrelatedness, and they were also thrown out by courts in other lawsuits and challenges.

The New Interpretation

EPA has issued a draft guidance for the interpretation of adjacent and it’s available for public comment.  The new interpretation says for all industries other than oil and natural gas production and processing, adjacent is physical proximity only.  EPA makes additional comments on the word “contiguous” as well, noting the difference between adjacent and contiguous.  Operations don’t have to be contiguous to be adjacent.  That is, operations that don’t share a common boundary or border, not physically touching each other will be considered adjacent if the operations are nearby.  If there is proximity (neighboring or side-by-side operations where the “common sense notion of a plant” can be deduced) that will be considered adjacent.  Railways, pipelines and other conveyances will no longer be used to determine adjacency.

What’s Next

The interpretation will be used from now on for new sources only.  Operations already considered one source will remain that way as long as common control and industrial grouping code (SIC) criteria exists.  States with approved NSR and Title V permitting programs aren’t required to follow the new interpretation but EPA recommends it for greater uniformity in permitting decisions.

Read EPA’s memorandum regarding adjacent properties here.

How Does This Apply to Your Facility?

Need help determining where you stand on air compliance? Let iSi’s environmental team help you with your site-specific obligations.

Get Help Here

iSi can help you with air permits & determinations – Contact us today!

Get Pricing
Ask a Question
iSi's Environmental Services

What is EPA’s Affordable Clean Energy ACE Rule?

What is EPA’s Affordable Clean Energy ACE Rule?

Aug 24, 2018

EPA has proposed a new rule for greenhouse gas emissions at power plants called the Affordable Clean Energy Rule (ACE) Rule. This rule is a replacement for the controversial Clean Power Plan (CPP) Rule.

The CPP Rule was developed by the Obama Administration, and it put some definite limits in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at power plants. The rule created quite a bit of controversy and EPA was taken to court by a number of parties. The Trump Administration and EPA put the CPP on hold in order to review it for potential repeal and replacement. The new ACE Rule is the result of this review.

With the new ACE Rule, EPA hands over greater power to the states to set their own limits. According to EPA, ACE will reduce greenhouse gas emissions through four actions:

  1. Defines a “Best System of Emission Reduction”, for existing power plants based on heat rate efficiency improvements;
  2. Provides states with an example list of technologies that may be used in their rules to establish standards of performance;
  3. Updates the New Source Review permit program to further encourage efficiency improvements; and,
  4. Puts the regulation in Clean Air Act section 111(d) to give states time to develop their own plans.

Opponents of the original CPP Plan say that while limiting greenhouse gas emissions is very important, the makeup of the CPP Plan went too far. It would create burdensome regulation and a tremendous negative economic impact. Coal industry advocates are happy with the ACE Rule in that it will save coal industry jobs. Also, giving the responsibility back to the states will allow states to customize their rules for the conditions and economies around them.

Critics of the new ACE Rule say the new regulations will not nearly reduce the emissions the CPP would have. There is some fear it’ll allow states to write less strict regulations that the power companies will be able to get around. Other say the new rule appears to be an appeasement to the coal industry.

EPA says that replacing CPP with ACE will save $400 million in net benefits and $400 million in compliance burden, will still reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and may reduce carbon dioxide emissions even as much as 33-34% from 2005 which is even more than what CPP projected.

The ACE Rule is available for comment and there will be a public hearing scheduled. The D.C. Circuit Court will also have to determine if it is a suitable replacement for the CPP rule, which is still on hold with the court.

b

Get Our Articles Each Week!

We send out our weekly compliance articles each week via email.  Sign up below to get our updates sent directly to your inbox!

Sign Up Here

Which EPA environmental air regulations apply to your facility?  iSi can help determine what applies and help you get the paperwork completed!

Get Pricing
Ask a Question
iSi's Environmental Services

EPA Superfund Task Force Sees Successes

EPA Superfund Task Force Sees Successes

Aug 10, 2018

In a previous blog we discussed the plans EPA had for expediting the cleanups of Superfund sites in hopes of reducing costs, reducing delays caused by long studies, and speeding up the timeline for getting the lands turned over for redevelopment, reuse and community revitalization. On its one-year anniversary, EPA has published a progress report on the efforts of their Superfund Task Force.

Among the successes within the past year:

  • “Substantial progress” has been made on cleanup of 21 sites which were targeted for immediate and intense action;
  • Seven sites were deleted from the program and 2 were partially deleted. There are an additional 10 sites currently proposed to be added to that list;
  • Sites with human exposures are being tracked in real time on a dashboard-style webpage. An additional 24 sites were added to the list as having human exposures under control;
  • EPA listed 31 sites with the greatest reuse potential, and as a result, they received over 120 redevelopment-related prospective purchaser inquiries for these;
  • EPA and the Department of Justice engaged a national team of redevelopment experts on the issue of liabilities for third-party developers and issued a new policy that encourages more frequent consideration of Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser Agreements and Prospective Purchaser Agreements to help get cleanup and reuse moved forward; and,
  • EPA held 1,370 public meetings and 3,190 in-person meetings and interviews with people living near Superfund sites to obtain their input.

Within the next year, the task force wants to implement any remaining recommendations from the original 42. Other goals include:

  • Continue to model enforcement language to reduce responsible party cleanup negotiation timeframes and shorten Potentially Responsible Party lead cleanups.
  • Encourage private investment in cleanup and reuse by developing new work agreements and comfort letters to create certainty and assist third parties in identifying investment opportunities at the sites;
  • Continue to expedite cleanups and moving sites to deletion from the program;
  • Use more adaptive management principles where possible; and,
  • Complete an evaluation of groundwater beneficial use policies.

A video of success stories has been developed. More information about the Task Force program can be found here.

Environmental Assistance

Need an extra hand to get your environmental tasks done? Need help interpreting a regulation?  Contact our environmental team today!

Get Help Here

Need an extra hand to get it all done? Contact us today!

Get Pricing
Ask a Question
Environmental Services

EPA Proposing Changes to Aerosol Can Hazardous Waste Regulations

EPA Proposing Changes to Aerosol Can Hazardous Waste Regulations

Apr 2, 2018

EPA is proposing to allow generators to handle aerosol cans as a universal waste rather than a hazardous waste. As a result, EPA hopes to encourage more recycling, ease regulatory burdens on generators, reduce the amount of cans going to landfills, and save over $3 million per year.

The Current Aerosol Can Hazardous Waste Regulation

Aerosol cans, when discarded, are handled as hazardous waste. Entities with these are required to follow all hazardous waste rules regarding them. The number of days you can store these cans ranges from 90 to 270 depending on generator status and transportation. Retail stores who discard aerosol cans must also follow all hazardous waste rules. In some states, generators can recycle the cans for scrap metal by puncturing them and draining the contents into other containers. The can becomes non-hazardous, but the container of leftovers may be considered hazardous waste. Some states don’t allow the puncturing and recycling of cans at all, even under carbon filtration.

The Proposed Aerosol Can Hazardous Waste Regulation

The proposed regulation would make discarded aerosol cans a universal waste. Other EPA universal wastes include batteries, mercury-containing equipment, and hazardous waste mercury lamps. Universal wastes can be stored and collected for up to one year and don’t need a hazardous waste manifest as long as they’re properly packaged and labeled.

As for aerosol can recycling, the proposed rule would encourage generators to collect and send their cans to a centralized hazardous waste handler for recycling. Any company recycling aerosol cans would be subject to special requirements. Only approved commercial devices for safely puncturing cans could be used. These facilities would also be required to have written procedures for operations and maintenance of the machines, how incompatible wastes would be segregated, proper hazardous waste management practices to be followed, and what emergency spill procedures would be followed.

EPA’s intent is to ease the retailer’s burden of managing aerosol can as hazardous waste, ease the generators’ burden of managing aerosol cans as hazardous waste, and to encourage more states and more entities to recycle aerosol cans.

Gaps

There are still some gaps and unknowns within the regulations such as: What is the exact definition of an aerosol can, that is, would cans that do not aerate (such as shaving gel cans), be included? At what point between full, empty, “RCRA empty”, and used would the cans be eligible for universal waste consideration? Should there be a size limit on the cans; would cylinders be included? Would the equipment that some generators have already invested in to puncture and recycle their own cans be suitable under the new regulation?

EPA is accepting comments until May 15, 2018. To read more about the proposed regulation and where to send your comments, read here.

More Info

Need help sorting out your hazardous and universal waste issues?
Get Pricing
iSi's HW Services
Hazardous Waste e-Manifest System Coming in June

Hazardous Waste e-Manifest System Coming in June

Feb 8, 2018

EPA is establishing a nationwide electronic hazardous waste tracking system, and it hopes to have it up and running by June. The system will be known as e-Manifest, and will allow shippers to complete electronic manifests and destination/receiving facilities the opportunity to electronically upload manifests.

All states will be required to implement e-Manifest and incorporate it into their hazardous waste programs as an option. The system will be linked to RCRAInfo, a separate site which collects information on hazardous waste sites.

Right now, the using e-Manifest will be optional. Paper manifests will still be accepted from generators for the foreseeable future, and from destination/receiving facilities for up to three years. EPA hopes that by using electronic means, significant gains in cost, time, accuracy, notification, and monitoring effectiveness can be realized by all who use the system. Electronic manifests will be just as legal as paper ones, except they’ll be completed and signed electronically.

Using e-Manifest will satisfy EPA, RCRA and DOT 3-year recordkeeping requirements. EPA is also working with DOT to ensure e-Manifest will produce a proper shipping paper. DOT will still be requiring hard copies to be sent with the shipment, so those using e-Manifest will be able to print out a copy of their manifest for DOT purposes.

In the future, the e-Manifest system may link to the Biennial Hazardous Waste Report, and potentially replace it.

The fees for the system will be paid by the destination or receiving facility, which more than likely will be passed down to the generator. Fees will be per manifest, and fees for electronic manifests will be lower than the paper ones.

The target date for e-Manifest roll-out is June 30, 2018.

Need Help?

Need guidance or support with hazardous waste? Do you have your required training and reporting complete?

Get Help Here

Need Help?

Need guidance or support with hazardous waste? Do you have your required training and reporting complete?

Get Help Here

EPA is establishing a nationwide electronic hazardous waste tracking system, and it hopes to have it up and running by June. The system will be known as e-Manifest, and will allow shippers to complete electronic manifests and destination/receiving facilities the opportunity to electronically upload manifests.

All states will be required to implement e-Manifest and incorporate it into their hazardous waste programs as an option. The system will be linked to RCRAInfo, a separate site which collects information on hazardous waste sites.

Right now, the using e-Manifest will be optional. Paper manifests will still be accepted from generators for the foreseeable future, and from destination/receiving facilities for up to three years. EPA hopes that by using electronic means, significant gains in cost, time, accuracy, notification, and monitoring effectiveness can be realized by all who use the system. Electronic manifests will be just as legal as paper ones, except they’ll be completed and signed electronically.

Using e-Manifest will satisfy EPA, RCRA and DOT 3-year recordkeeping requirements. EPA is also working with DOT to ensure e-Manifest will produce a proper shipping paper. DOT will still be requiring hard copies to be sent with the shipment, so those using e-Manifest will be able to print out a copy of their manifest for DOT purposes.

In the future, the e-Manifest system may link to the Biennial Hazardous Waste Report, and potentially replace it.

The fees for the system will be paid by the destination or receiving facility, which more than likely will be passed down to the generator. Fees will be per manifest, and fees for electronic manifests will be lower than the paper ones.

The target date for e-Manifest roll-out is June 30, 2018.

iSi can help you with hazardous waste compliance — Contact us today!

Get Pricing
Ask a Question
iSi's HazWaste Services

EPA to Change the Way It Handles Lawsuits

EPA to Change the Way It Handles Lawsuits

Oct 17, 2017

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has announced EPA will be ending practice of “sue and settle.”

In sue and settle, a third-party group sues a federal agency, asking the courts to require the agency to change statutory duties or to enforce specific timelines written within laws. In the past, EPA has settled out of court with these groups through a consent decree or settlement agreement. EPA says the resulting negotiations would often change regulations, causing unreasonable deadlines or commitments to actions which weren’t part of the existing regulations.

These consent agreements were negotiated privately and any new requirements were not eligible for public comment. On top of that, the agency would pay tens of thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees and litigation costs of the groups which were suing them.

Going forward, EPA promises further transparency and public engagement when it comes to considering any settlement or consent decree, including:

  • Establishing procedures to publish lawsuits, complaints, and petitions which have been filed against them or their state agency counterparts;
  • Publishing a list of consent decrees and settlement agreements, including attorney’s fees paid;
  • Providing sufficient time for public comment on any action which would modify a proposed or final rule, and publishing proposed and modified decrees and settlements for public comment;
  • Not entering into any consent decree that exceeds the authority of the courts; and,
  • No longer paying attorney’s fees and litigation costs of the groups who are suing them.

To learn more, see EPA’s announcement.

 

How can iSi help your company with EPA compliance? Check us out!

iSi's EPA Compliance Services
Request More Information on iSi Services
Request Pricing for a Service

EPA to Propose Repeal of Clean Power Plan

EPA to Propose Repeal of Clean Power Plan

Oct 6, 2017

power plant
A number of news agencies have obtained a document outlining EPA’s plans to propose a repeal of the Clean Power Plan. The announcement from EPA may come early this week and then a formal proposal will be issued in the Federal Register.  The plans include a 60-day comment period to solicit ideas on alternatives or a replacement approach.  Plans also include a cost-benefit analysis of a repeal, estimating $33 billion in compliance cost savings.

The Clean Power Plan rule was developed by the previous administration as a way to lower carbon emissions from existing power plants by 2030.  Opponents have contended that the rule’s compliance and equipment requirements will create massive costs on the power sector and its consumers, that EPA overreached its authority to regulate emissions under the Clean Air Act, and it invaded the powers of the states, who’ve traditionally managed and regulated the energy sector. Over 27 states, 24 trade associations, 37 rural electric Co-Ops and 3 labor unions have sued EPA over the rule.  A bipartisan group of over 200 Senators and House members also filed a briefing against it.

How can iSi help your company with air compliance issues?
Check us out!

iSi's EPA Compliance Services
Request More Info on Air Compliance
Request Air Compliance Pricing

Chemical Manufacturers & Importers: Ensure You’re on EPA’s Active Chemical List

Chemical Manufacturers & Importers: Ensure You’re on EPA’s Active Chemical List

Sep 18, 2017

In compliance with updates to the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), EPA is updating its inventory of the chemicals manufactured or imported in the U.S.  Called the Inventory Reset Rule, EPA is making an “Active” chemical list and an “Inactive” chemical list.

If your company manufactured or imported a chemical between June 21, 2006 and June 21, 2016, you will need to make sure it’s on the list and marked “Active” in order to continue to produce or import it after February 7, 2018.  If you reported your chemicals in the 2012 or 2016 TSCA Chemical Reporting Rule, they’re already marked Active on the list, as are chemicals added after June 22, 2016.  However, for many companies TSCA reporting is for large quantities.  This effort includes chemicals in small quantities as well.

If you’re a chemical processor, you have until October 5, 2018 to report chemicals as Active.  However, for you it’s voluntary reporting and more of a protection in case one or more of your raw materials doesn’t get reported by the manufacturer.  A chemical processor is a company which takes the additional step of preparation with a chemical substance or mixture.  this could be repackaging it, manufacturing a mixture, or producing an article with it.  (If you’re unsure whether you’re a manufacturer or processor, contact iSi.)

Reporting is to be done through Notice of Activity forms on EPA’s Central Data Exchange.  There are a few exemptions to reporting including naturally occurring substances, substances currently produced under TSCA 5(h) exemptions, byproducts, research and development substances, chemicals for export only or test marketing, and chemicals already reported by someone else/already on the list.

After the deadline passes, a chemical marked as Inactive will be able to be reactivated, however, there will be an official approval process to go through in order to do that.

Is your chemical already on the list?  Check out the current Active list here.  Does this apply to you or do you need assistance?  Contact us!

iSi can help your company with TSCA compliance!

iSi's EPA Compliance Services
Request Pricing
Request More Info on Chemical Reporting

Oklahoma Stormwater in Construction Regs Updated

Oklahoma Stormwater in Construction Regs Updated

Aug 24, 2017

The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) updated its Multi-Sector General Stormwater Permit for industrial activities last month, and now ODEQ has updated its stormwater permit for construction activities.

The new “General Permit OKR10 for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities” will go into effect on September 12.  Anyone under the current permit, and anyone seeking to obtain a new one, will need to be covered under this new permit in order to discharge stormwater from construction activities.

Stormwater activities are federally covered under EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).  In most areas, stormwater permitting is handled by the state(s) you’re operating in, and then each state can have additional requirements. Permits have limits on what you can discharge, monitoring and reporting requirements and other requirements.

As a reminder, if your company falls under the Oklahoma stormwater permit for industrial activities, remember you will need to reapply for a new authorization before October 3, which is only a little over a month away.  As part of this you’ll need to revise your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWP3), file a new Notice of Intent (NOI) and submit fees.

If you need assistance with anything related to stormwater, including plan updates, compliance determinations, or NOIs, please contact iSi and we’d be happy to help!

iSi can help with stormwater permitting, training and compliance, check us out!

iSi's Enviromental Compliance Services
Request Pricing
Request More Info on Stormwater Compliance

EPA Superfund Task Force Sees Successes

Superfund Cleanup Speed and Property Reuse Focus of EPA Task Force

Jul 27, 2017

There are over 1,300 Superfund sites currently in various stages of cleanup.  Cleanup, and the studies associated with it, can be a drawn out process, leaving property reuse and community revitalization on hold for years.  In May, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt established a task force to look at improving and streamlining the Superfund cleanup process.

The task force worked on a number of goals: finding ways to expedite site cleanup and reuse, engaging partners and encouraging private investment, promoting redevelopment and community revitalization, and reinvigorating potentially responsible parties’ (PRPs) efforts for cleanup and reuse.

The task force had 42 recommendations, and Pruitt has narrowed the list to a handful of priority tasks.  Some highlights:

  • Each EPA region is to:
    • Submit cleanup status and reuse potential for each site in their region.
    • Submit total indirect costs charged to PRPs for 2016 and 2017 and what formula they use to determine that number.
    • Make a list of sites to be proposed for deletion or deleted within the next 12 months in order to expedite that.
    • Identify and prioritize sites where the risk of human exposure is not fully controlled.
  • Prevent years of delays by using more early/interim response actions for migration and risk, and less long studies.  Where possible, allow portions of sites for reuse while more detailed evaluations of the other portions are carried out.
  • Focus resources on the sites with the most reuse potential, and Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Studies (RI/FS) for sites which require more immediate action.
  • Encourage PRPs, state and local governments and real estate to work together to identify opportunities for reuse.
  • Use enforcement authorities and unilateral orders more actively to discourage drawn out negotiations over response actions.

View Pruitt’s full priority list here.

 

How can iSi help your company with environmental site investigation and remediation? Check us out!

iSi's Site Remediation Services
Request Pricing
Request More Info on Environmental Remediation

New Oklahoma Stormwater Regs Require NOI and SWP3 Updates

New Oklahoma Stormwater Regs Require NOI and SWP3 Updates

Jul 6, 2017

The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) has replaced its Multi-Sector General Stormwater Permit with a new version which is effective July 5, 2017. This permit governs the stormwater activities of industrial facilities and makes a number of changes from its previous permit, issued in 2011.

Any company authorized under the 2011 permit will need to reapply to ODEQ for a new authorization within the next 90 days, that is, before October 3, 2017. This includes revising the facility’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWP3), submitting a new Notice of Intent, and submitting application fees.

Any company must have authorization from ODEQ prior to discharging stormwater from industrial activities. Allowable and non-allowable activities have been updated in the new permit as well as limits, types of facilities, types of activities, and covered discharges. Other changes include clarified NOI requirements, procedures for permit coverage, control measures and effluent limits, and conditions which need corrective action.

Two additional monitoring requirements have been added: impaired waters monitoring, which is to occur once per year, and “other monitoring” which is additional monitoring ODEQ can require for your facility.

There have been eight changes to the SWP3 requirements as well. Among those, permittees must now describe the type and location of the control measures chosen to comply with effluent levels as well as how they chose each of those measures. The SWP3 must also document the evaluation process for the presence of any unauthorized non-stormwater discharges and include a certification.

For more information regarding the 26 overall changes incorporated into new permit, for help in sorting out how this updated regulation will affect your facility, or for assistance in updating your plan before the deadline approaches, please contact our team and we’d be happy to assist you.

We can help update your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans and file NOIs. Contact us today!

Request SWP3 Update Pricing
Request More Info on Stormwater Compliance
iSi's Environmental Compliance Services

Pin It on Pinterest