Energy and Environment Monitor

Proposed Addition to the TRI Chemicals List

On April 6, 2010, the US EPA proposed to add sixteen chemicals to the list of toxic chemicals subject to reporting under section 313 (TRI) of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986 and section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA)[FR April 6, 2010 17333]. These chemicals have been classified by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) in their 11^th Report on Carcinogens (RoC) as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.” 

 

EPA believes that these sixteen chemicals meet the EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) criteria because they can reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer in humans. EPA adopted a production volume screen for the development of this proposed rule to screen out those chemicals for which no reports are expected to be submitted. Based on a review of the available production and use information, these sixteen chemicals are expected to be manufactured, processed, or otherwise used in quantities that would exceed the EPCRA section 313 reporting threshold.  

 

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) is an interagency program within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) headquartered at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The mission of the NTP is to evaluate chemicals of public health concern by developing and applying tools of modern toxicology and molecular biology. The mission of the NTP includes the evaluation of chemicals for their potential to cause cancer in humans. The 11^th Report on Carcinogens (RoC) is available here.  

 

The substance profiles for each proposed chemical can be reached by clicking the name. The substance profile provides information on carcinogenicity, additional information relevant to carcinogenicity, properties, use, production, exposure, regulations and guidelines, and references.   

 

The proposed chemicals are: 

 

Individual Listings:

 

Chemical Name	CAS #
1-Amino-2,4-dibromoanthraquinone	81-49-2
2,2-bis(Bromomethyl)-1,3-propanediol	3296-90-0
Furan	110-00-9
Glycidol	556-52-5
Isoprene	78-79-5
Methyleugenol	93-15-2
o-Nitroanisole	91-23-6
Nitromethane	75-52-5
Phenolphthalein	77-09-8
Tetrafluoroethylene	116-14-3
Tetranitromethane	509-14-8
Vinyl Fluoride	75-02-5

 

Additions to the Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds (PACs) category:

 

Chemical Name	CAS#
1,6-Dinitropyrene	42397-64-8
1,8-Dinitropyrene	42397-65-9
6-Nitrochrysene	7496-02-8
4-Nitropyrene	57835-92-4

 

Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds category is consider a persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemical and therefore have a lower reporting threshold of 100 pounds.

 

EPA estimates that 175 facilities will be affected by this proposed rule. These 175 facilities are expected to file 186 reports containing release and waste management data for the 16 chemicals being proposed for addition. 

 

Comments on the proposed additions to the toxic chemicals list subject to EPCRA section 313 must be received on or before June 7, 2010.

 

This article was excerpted from publically available information, and was authored by Joyce Gentry, Acacia Environmental Group LLC.  For more information on the author see here.

How Will Proposed CCR Rules Affect the Disposal of Coal Ash at Mine Sites?

As previously mentioned on this blog, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  issued a pre-publication copy of its proposed rule to regulate the disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCRs) from electric utilities and independent power producers under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).  See  EPA PROPOSES ALTERNATIVE REGULATORY SCHEMES FOR COAL ASH UNDER RCRA by James Snyder.  A copy of the proposed rules can be viewed at http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr-rule/ccr-rule-prop.pdf.  To recap, the combustion of coal in coal-fired power plants produces several materials, including: fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and flue gas desulfurization material. Together, these materials represent what is generally referred to as coal ash, or sometimes as coal combustion residuals.  Although CCRs are a waste product, they have many beneficial uses, including as an additive to improve soil chemistry for surface mine reclamation purposes. 

 

The rule does not address placement of CCRs at mine sites.   At first glance then, this would not appear to have a direct impact on coal mine operators.  However, the proposed rules would apply CCRs generated at power plants.  It is fairly common industry practice for mine operators to agree—pursuant to “haulback” provisions in sales contracts with the utilities to whom they sell coal—to take coal ash back from the utility and dispose of it at the mine site.  This practice reduces the utility’s cost of disposing of the ash.  The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (“WVDEP”) has a process for approving the mine-site disposal if it determines that the ash will have a beneficial use as a soil amendment.  Hence, these proposed rules may concern the coal industry to the extent that they would modify this practice.

 

To the extent EPA decides to apply these rules to CCRs disposed of at mine sites, the proposed rules continue to provide for the beneficial use of coal ash as long as its use provides a functional benefit.  One example EPA provides of a “functional benefit” is the use of coal ash as a soil amendment to adjust the pH of soil in order to promote plant growth.  See Proposed Rules, pp. 142-143.  EPA specifically excludes, however, CCRs used in amounts that exceed scientifically-supported quantities for enhancing soil properties from the definition of “beneficial use.”  If excessive volumes of CCRs are used—i.e., greater than were necessary for a specific project—EPA believes that could be grounds for a determination that the use was subject to regulations for disposal.  While mine operators will still be allowed to place coal ash at mine sites, these new rules may require greater consideration to the amounts used if an operator wishes to avoid having the RCRA regulatory scheme applied to the use of coal ash at mine site reclamations.

 

This article was authored by Chris M. Hunter, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author see here.

EPA Proposes Alternative Regulatory Schemes for Coal Ash under RCRA

    On May 4, 2010, EPA made available a 563 page pre-publication proposal for two approaches to address the risk of coal ash management under the nation's primary law for regulating solid waste, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"). Under the first proposal, EPA would list Coal Combustion Residuals ("CCRs") as Special Wastes in a newly created section of the Subtitle C regulations of RCRA when they are destined for disposal in landfills or surface impoundments. Under the second proposal, EPA would regulate coal ash under Subtitle D of RCRA, dealing with non-hazardous waste.

 

Under current law, these wastes are considered exempt from hazardous waste regulation under §3001(b)(3)(A)(i) of RCRA (known as the Bevill exclusion). This provision excluded certain large-volume waste generated primarily from the combustion of coal or other fossil fuels from being regulated as hazardous wastes pending completion of a Report to Congress required by §8002(n) of RCRA. In 1993, EPA published a Regulatory Determination that Subtitle C regulation of fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag and flue gas emission control waste from the combustion of coal by utilities and independent power producers was not warranted. Again, EPA in 2000 concluded that Subtitle C regulation was not warranted. In its latest determination, EPA noted that there were potential risks which warranted continued scrutiny of CCR use and disposal.

 

After extended discussion of the risks for groundwater contamination presented by CCRs and the potential for large scale releases such as occurred at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston, Tennessee facility, EPA concluded that the review of information developed over the past ten years confirms EPA's original risk concerns and raises significant questions regarding the accuracy of the agency's predictions regarding anticipated improvements in management and regulatory oversight. Therefore, EPA concluded that a reconsideration of whether regulation of CCRs under Subtitle C is necessary in light of the most recent information.

 

This will involve an analysis of the eight study factors set forth in RCRA §8002(n). These factors include: the source and volumes of CCRs generated per year; present disposal and utilization practices; potential danger to human health and the environment from the disposal and reuse of CCRs; documented cases in which dangers to human health and the environment from surface run-off or leaching have been proven; alternatives to the current disposal methods; the cost of such alternatives; the impact of alternatives on the use of coal and other natural resources; and the current potential utilization of CCRs. 

 

EPA noted the following key differences between the Subtitle C and Subtitle D options:

 

1. Effective Date: Under the Subtitle C option, the timing will vary from state to state as each state must adopt the rule individually. EPA knows that this can take from one to two years. The Subtitle D option would be through federal rule and would become effective six months after the final rule is promulgated for most provisions.

 

2. Enforcement. Under the Subtitle C proposal, both the state and federal agencies would have enforcement authority. Under the Subtitle D proposal, enforcement would be through citizens suits with states having status to act as citizens.

 

3. Corrective Action. Under the Subtitle C proposal, corrective action would be monitored and authorized by both the states and EPA. Under Subtitle D, corrective action would be self-implementing.

 

    4. Financial Assurance. Financial Assurance would be required under the Subtitle C proposal. Under the Subtitle D proposal, EPA is considering a future rule using CERCLA 108(b) authority to impose financial assurance requirements.

 

    5. Permit Issuance. Under the Subtitle C proposal, permits would be issued by states. Under Subtitle D, no permit would be required.

 

    The proposed rule would apply to all coal combustion residues generated by electric utilities and independent power producers. The rule does not address placement of CCRs at mine sites. EPA's notice indicates that EPA and the Department of Interior will address the management of CCRs at mine sites in a separate regulatory category. Neither alternative impacts the status of CCRs that are beneficially used. However, beneficial use is defined to exclude CCRs used in excess quantities placed as fill in sand and gravel pits or used in large scale fill projects such as restructuring the landscape. 

 

According to EPA, under the Subtitle C proposal, CCRs would be regulated from the point of their generation to the point of final disposition including during and after closure of any disposal unit. Included are requirements for the generator and transporter of the CCRs as well facilities managing the CCRs such as siting requirements, liners, run-on and run-off controls, groundwater monitoring, fugitive dust controls, financial assurance, corrective action and closure requirements and requirements for post-closure care. 

 

The Subtitle C option would also regulate disposal in sand and gravel pits and other large fill operations. EPA is also proposing regulations for dam safety and stability. 

 

Under the Subtitle D proposal, regulations would establish national criteria to ensure the safe disposal of CCRs similar to solid waste disposal facilities. Disposal units would be subject to location standards, composite liner requirements (new landfills and surface impoundments would require composite liners – existing facilities would have five years to retrofit or close), groundwater monitoring and corrective action standards for releases, closure and post-closure care requirements and requirements to address the stability of surface impoundments. The Subtitle D option would not regulate the generation, storage or treatment of CCRs prior to disposal. The Subtitle D proposal would not require permits and would only be enforced by states and citizens under RCRA citizen suit authority. States could also enforce any regulation under their independent state enforcement authority.

 

EPA is seeking public comments on its proposals within 90 days. In the preamble, it identified several major issues on which comments with supporting information data are specifically requested. Some of these are:

 

1. Whether regulatory criteria should be established individually for the four Bevill wastes (fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag and flue gas desulfurization sludges).

 

2. The degree to which CCR management practices have changed and the impacts of those changes on groundwater monitoring and use of liners.

 

3. Information and data on CCRs generated by non-utility industries (such as volumes, characteristics and whether they are comingled with other waste).

 

4. A series of specific questions regarding risk assessment techniques, liners, beneficial use and stigma (suggestions on methods by which the EPA could reduce any stigmatic impact that might directly arise if CCRs are regulated as special waste).

 

This article was authored by James R. Snyder, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author see here.

USEPA Proposes to Add 16 Chemicals to the Toxics Release Inventory Program

On April 6, 2010, United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) proposed to add 16 chemicals to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) list of reportable chemicals. The TRI program is a database containing information on toxic chemical releases and waste management activities from federal facilities and certain industries, which is publically available. This is the first time chemicals have been proposed to be added to the TRI program in more than 10 years.

The proposed chemicals have been classified as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen” by the National Toxicology Program in its Report on Carcinogens document. Therefore, USEPA believes they meet the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act section 313(d)(2)(B) listing criteria. Four of the proposed chemicals are polycyclic aromatic compounds (PAC) and are of special concern because; they are persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic chemicals that are likely to remain a long-term environmental and human health concern.

 

USEPA is accepting comments on or before June 7, 2010. For more information, please see 75 Fed. Reg. 17333 (2010) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 372)

 

This article was authored by Laura G. Swingle, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author see here.

TSCA, USEPA Reassessment of PCB Use Authorizations

Under an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) dated April 7, 2010, the USEPA is now accepting comments through July 6, 2010 for the use and distribution in commerce of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and PCB Items and certain other areas of the regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Specifically, USEPA is reassessing its TSCA PCB use and distribution in commerce regulations to address the following:

 

1)   The use, distribution in commerce, marking and storage for reuse of liquid PCBs in electric and non-electric equipment.

2)   The use of the 50 ppm level for excluded PCB products.

3)   The use of non-liquid PCBs.

4)   The use and distribution in commerce of PCBs in porous surfaces.

5)   Marking of PCB articles in use.

 

USEPA is also reassessing the definitions of “excluded manufacturing process,” quantifiable level/level of detection,” and “recycled PCBs.”

 

TSCA became effective on January 1, 1977 and generally prohibited the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, and use of PCBs. USEPA published the first regulations addressing the use of equipment containing PCBs on May 31, 1979 (44 FR 31514). In a follow up proposed rule for the PCB use authorizations on June 7, 1978 (43 FR 24801), USEPA proposed to authorize non-totally enclosed PCB use activities five years after the effective date of the Final Rule. USEPA states that this ANPRM is intended to undertake this PCB use activity examination. Since the late 1970s, the USEPA believes there have been many changes in the industrial sectors that use PCB containing equipment and USEPA believes that the “balance of risks and benefits from the continued use of remaining equipment containing PCBs may have changed enough to consider amending the current regulations.”  

 

Under 40 CRF 761.30, a broad range of liquid-filled PCB equipment is currently authorized for use in a non-totally enclosed manner, including: electrical transformers, railroad transformers, mining equipment, and various types of electrical equipment. In addition, a broad range of such types of equipment may be serviced. Furthermore, liquid PCBs are authorized for use where they are a contaminant in the following equipment:

 

·     Natural gas pipeline systems.

·     Contaminated natural gas pipe and appurtenances.

·     Other gas or liquid transmission systems.

 

Under this ANPRM, USEPA is considering a number of regulatory measures that would phase out all PCB electrical equipment uses with interim deadlines by equipment concentration and type, as follows:

 

·    2015. Eliminate all use of Askarel equipment (>100,000 ppm PCBs). USEPA is considering allowing exceptions on a case-by-case basis.

·    2020. Eliminate all uses of oil-filled PCB equipment (>500 ppm PCBs) and the authorization for use of PCBs at ≥50 ppm in pipeline systems.

·    2025. Eliminate all use of any PCB contaminated equipment (≥50 ppm), which is still authorized for use.

 

In this ANPRM, the USEPA states that there are no use authorizations for non-liquid PCB-containing products if they contain PCBs at concentrations ≥50 ppm, including but not limited to adhesives, caulk, coatings, grease, paint, rubber or plastic electrical insulation, gaskets, sealants, and waxes. Therefore, as per the ANPRM, the USEPA is soliciting public comment on both the liquid and non-liquid PCB use authorizations that will be permitted in the future under TSCA.

 

The ANPRM is available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/byRIN/2070-AJe8 for review. The Office of Management and Budget completed its review of the ANPRM on February 1, 2010, and the ANPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 7, 2010. USEPA has scheduled four public meetings to obtain input on the ANPRM on the following dates and locations:

 

·     May 4, 2010. New York City, New York.

·     May 18, 2010. Chicago, Illinois.

·     May 25, 2010. Atlanta, Georgia.

·     May 27, 2010. Washington, D.C.

 

Additional information regarding the time and locations for the public meetings is available at http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/pcbs/publicmeetings.htm. The public comment period will end on July 6, 2010. Comments on the ANPRM can be submitted to the USEPA vial mail or hand-delivery, or on-line at http://www.regulations.gov.

 

This article was authored by Greg Tieman, Acacia Environmental Group LLC. For more information on the author see here. 

TSCA Reform Legislation Introduced in the U.S. Senate

The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. §2601 et seq., 1976) provides the USEPA with the authority to require reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures.  Certain substances are generally excluded from the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), including, among others, food, drugs, cosmetics, and pesticides. However, TSCA addresses the production, importation, use, and disposal of specific chemicals including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), radon, and lead-based paint.

 

The environmental community has been concerned that TSCA has become outdated since its enactment in 1976 and from their perspective, that TSCA has not successfully protected Americans from “dangerous” chemicals. In particular, the environmental community states that of the 80,000 chemicals currently on the market, the USEPA has required the regulated community to perform health risk testing under Sections 4 and 5 of TSCA on only approximately 200 of these chemicals. A summary of the environmental community perspective on TSCA is provided in comments by the Honorable Bobby L. Rush (D-IL) at the opening of TSCA review hearings in the House on February 27, 2009 (http://www.blueplanetgreenliving.com/2009/02/27/toxic-substances-control-act-hearings-%E2%80%94-a-hopeful-start/). In response to the environmental community concerns, on April 15, 2010, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced a “long-anticipated” bill in the Senate to reform TSCA, entitled the “Safe Chemicals Act of 2010.” A copy of the bill can be obtained at http://lautenberg.senate.gov/assets/SCA2010.pdf.

 

According to an on-line article by Time, “The bill will eventually allow for the testing, in some format, of every chemical in use in the U.S. today, but chemicals of concern-for which existing data suggest potential harm to human health or the environment-would likely move to the front of the list. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1982489,00.html#ixzz0lHFPbQZQ

 

Based on an “Issue Alert, Senator Lautenberg Introduces TSCA Reform Legislation” (April 15, 2010) prepared by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Chamber looks forward to participating with both the Senate and the House “to ensure that TSCA reforms are based on sound science and protect the safety of all consumers, while promoting jobs and innovation.” As excerpted from the “Issue Alert,” the U.S. Chamber of Commerce also states:  

 

“While the Chamber believes that TSCA has been protective of human health and the environment, we support efforts to modernize TSCA to reflect technological advances that have occurred since its passage. Any changes, however, must ensure an effective chemical regulatory system that promotes safety, job creation, and innovation.

 

The Chamber agrees with certain concepts in the bill, such as: a risk-based approach to prioritizing chemicals for review, efforts to minimize animal testing and practical approaches to information and data development.

 

Unfortunately, the bill lacks an adequate preemption provision and instead allows states to develop different chemical management standards that will result in a patchwork of laws that will make it difficult to bring products to the marketplace.  The Chamber also objects to the proposed standard for decision-making, and providing EPA authority that infringes on other agency jurisdictions.”

 

This article was authored by Greg Tieman, Acacia Environmental Group LLC. For more information on the author see here. 

Update on U.S. EPA’s Priority Waste Rules

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified three “priority” waste rulemakings on its new Regulatory Gateway web site. They are: (1) Identification of Non-Hazardous Materials That Are Solid Wastes; (2) Standards for the Management of Coal Combustion Residuals Generated by Commercial Electric Power Producers; and (3) Financial Responsibility under Section 108(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). EPA’s timelines for these rulemakings, each of which is in the pre-proposal stage, are as follows:

ü   The rulemaking for standards for the management of coal combustion residuals, formerly coal combustion waste, is expected to apply to the management of coal combustion residuals that are generated by coal-fired power plants. EPA has mentioned the following five regulatory options: (1) Subtitle C or hazardous waste; (2) Subtitle D or non-hazardous waste; (3) hybrid – except for beneficial reuse regulate as hazardous waste under Subtitle C; (4) regulate wet under Subtitle C and dry under Subtitle D; and (5) hybrid – Subtitle C for states that do not establish a permit program and Subtitle D for states that establish a permit program. West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin has asked EPA not to regulate coal combustion residuals as hazardous waste. The concern is that the hybrid approach of regulating coal combustion residuals as hazardous waste unless it is beneficially re-used will create a stigma resulting in killing the beneficial re-use of coal combustion residuals. EPA’s proposed rule was anticipated the end of 2009. According to Gateway, EPA is now projecting publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register in April 2010. 

ü   EPA is proposing to define which non-hazardous secondary materials burned in combustion units are solid waste under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). If the secondary material is considered a “solid waste” then the unit that burns the secondary material would be subject to the requirements of Section 129 of the Clean Air Act. The meaning of “solid waste” as defined under RCRA is important because CAA § 129, which regulates emissions from sources that combust solid wastes, states that the term “solid waste” shall have the meaning “established by the administrator [pursuant to RCRA].” EPA published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking in January 2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 41), and the comment period closed February 2009. EPA’s projected date for publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking, according to Gateway, is April 2010.   

ü   EPA has identified additional classes of facilities within three industries for which financial responsibility requirements under CERCLA §108(b) will be developed. The three industries are: (1) the chemical manufacturing industry; (2) petroleum and coal products manufacturing industry; (3) and the electric power generation, transmission, and distribution industry. EPA will undertake further study in order to decide whether to develop financial responsibility requirements for the following: (1) waste management and remediation services; (2) wood product manufacturing; (3) fabricated metal product manufacturing; (4) electronics and electrical equipment manufacturing; and (5) facilities engaged in the recycling of materials containing CERCLA hazardous substances. EPA developed its list of facilities by using information from the National Priorities List, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Biennial Report and Toxic Release Inventory. EPA also highlights the costs associated with the cleanup of the coal ash spill at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s power plant in Kingston, Tennessee. EPA published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) January 6, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 816), and the comment period, as extended, closes April 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 5715). Gateway indicates that EPA projects publication of the proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register in April 2011. For further discussion of EPA’s January 6, 2010 ANPR, click here to read James R. Snyder’s article published February 8, 2010 on the Jackson Kelly Energy and Environment Monitor.   

This article was authored by Gale Lea Rubrecht, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author, see here.

EPA Announces “Eyes on Drilling” Tip Line

On January 26, 2010, the EPA announced the creation of the “Eyes on Drilling” tip line. The tip line is intended for use by citizens to report non-emergency suspicious activity related to oil and natural gas development. According to the website given at the end of the press release to provide instructions about the tip line, the tip line is for the EPA’s Mid-Atlantic Region (Region 3) and to be used to report dumping and other illegal or suspicious hauling and/or disposal activities.  

According to the instructional website, the citizen informants are encouraged to record, to the extent possible, the location, date, time, and who was involved in the event, observations, activities, discharge destination, and environmental impacts. The website also suggests that photo and videos are great ways to document observations. A toll free number and email address was provided to contact the tip line.  

The EPA’s Mid-Atlantic Region includes the states of Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. In EPA’s press release, the following rationale was provided to explain why the tip line was established. 

“Public concern about the environmental impacts of oil and natural gas drilling has increased in recent months, particularly regarding development of the Marcellus Shale formation where a significant amount of activity is occurring. While EPA doesn’t grant permits for oil and gas drilling operations, there are EPA regulations which may apply to the storage of petroleum products and drilling fluids. The agency is also very concerned about the proper disposal of waste products, and protecting air and water resources. 

EPA wants to get a better understanding of what people are experiencing and observing as a result of these drilling activities. The information collected may also be useful in investigating industry practices. 

The agency works closely with state and local officials, as well as industry and public interest groups, to ensure that oil and natural gas drilling occurs in a manner which is protective of human health and the environment and complies with applicable laws. The agency is also counting on concerned citizens to report unusual or suspicious activity related to drilling operations.” 

The instructional website can be found at the following web address: http://www.epa.gov/region03/marcellus_shale/tipline.html. 

This article includes publically available information, and was assembled by Rachel Shanteau, Acacia Environmental Group LLC. For more information on the author see here.

Revisions to Area Source MACT For Gasoline Distribution and Dispensing Facilities

    December  15, 2009 EPA proposed revisions (74 FR 66470)  to the  Area Source MACT for Gasoline Distribution Facilities, 40 CFR 63 Subpart BBBBBB, applicable to bulk gasoline terminals and bulk plants, and Subpart CCCCCC, applicable to gasoline dispensing facilities, based on two petitions for reconsideration filed by the  Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance)  and the  American Petroleum Institute (API).  EPA granted certain of the requests for reconsideration primarily to clarify the regulations, 40 CFR 63 Subpart BBBBBB and Subpart CCCCCC. There was no change in the compliance date for existing sources of January 10, 2011. The compliance date for New Sources (affected sources constructed since November 9, 2006) was January 10, 2008 or upon startup if startup occurs after January 10, 2008. Comments are due February 16, 2010. 

    The following sections: “Bulk Gasoline Plants and Terminals” and “Gasoline Dispensing Facilities” describe the proposed respective changes to the regulations:

Bulk Gasoline Plants and Terminals  

    The following are the proposed amendments to 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart BBBBBB:  

• Revision to the definition of ‘‘bulk gasoline plant’’ to clarify that gasoline from these facilities is subsequently loaded into gasoline cargo tanks for transport to GDFs. The proposed definition is as follows: ‘‘Bulk gasoline plant means any gasoline storage and distribution facility that receives gasoline by pipeline, ship or barge, or cargo tank and subsequently loads the gasoline into gasoline cargo tanks for transport to gasoline dispensing facilities, and has a gasoline throughput of less than 20,000 gallons per day. Gasoline throughput shall be the maximum calculated design throughput as may be limited by compliance with an enforceable condition under Federal, State, or local law and discoverable by the Administrator and any other person.’’

 

• Clarification that  that gasoline storage tanks located at bulk facilities, but used only for dispensing gasoline in a manner consistent with tanks located at a gasoline dispensing facility (GDF “Gasoline dispensing facility (GDF) i.e., any stationary facility which dispenses gasoline into the fuel tank of a motor vehicle).are not subject to any of the requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBBB, but instead, these tanks must comply with the applicable     requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC. Amendment to §63.11081. 

• Provision stating that if a bulk gasoline facility’s monthly throughput ever exceeds the definition of “bulk gasoline terminal, the source will still be subject to the provisions of Subpart BBBBBB even if later its monthly throughput threshold falls below the regulatory threshold. This  “once in always in” requirement is similar to other environmental requirements; the concept is that one cannot discontinue or disable a pollution control device even though the original criteria for installing the device are no longer met. 

• Amend item 1 in Table 1 to provide different controls for two types of gasoline storage tanks which have a capacity of less than 75 cubic meters (m3) as follows: 

▪ Add a capacity/throughput threshold below which small, infrequent-use gasoline storage tanks(capacity of less than 151 cubic meters and a throughput of less than 480 gallons per day)  would be required to be equipped with a fixed roof and covers on all openings that are to be maintained in a closed position at all times when not in use.  

▪Add a definition for surge control tanks and provisions requiring that they be equipped with pressure/vacuum (PV) vents with a positive cracking pressure of no less than 0.50 inches of water and that all openings are to be maintained in a closed position at all times when not in use. 

• Correct the definition of ‘‘vapor-tight cargo tank;’’ Vapor-tight gasoline cargo tank means:

a gasoline cargo tank which has demonstrated within the 12 preceding months that it meets the annual certification test requirements in §63.11092(f). 

Gasoline Dispensing Facilities (GDFs)  

Clarification that EPA intended to cover all public and private GDFs. The new proposed definition is:  

‘‘Gasoline dispensing facility (GDF) means any stationary facility which dispenses gasoline into the fuel tank of a motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, nonroad vehicle, or nonroad engine, including a nonroad vehicle or nonroad engine used solely for competition. These facilities include, but are not limited to, facilities that dispense gasoline into on- and offroad, street, or highway motor vehicles, lawn equipment, boats, test engines, landscaping equipment, generators, pumps, and other gasoline-fueled engines and equipment.’’  

• An important revision addresses how to calculate throughput in determining whether stations are subject to the regulations. Revision is made to the definition of monthly throughput in §63.11132 to remove the reference to a ‘‘rolling 30-day average’’ and to add a clarification on how monthly throughput is calculated. This revision is intended to clarify that it was EPA’s intent that the monthly throughput is calculated by summing the volume of gasoline loaded into, or dispensed from, all gasoline storage tanks at each GDF during the current day, plus the total volume of gasoline loaded into, or dispensed from, all gasoline storage tanks at each GDF during the previous 364 days, and then dividing that sum by 12.  

• Proposed new paragraph stating that if a GDF’s monthly throughput ever exceeds an applicable monthly throughput threshold, the GDF will remain subject to those requirements even if the GDF’s monthly throughput later falls below the applicable monthly throughput threshold. (subparagraph (i) to §63.11111) 

• Proposed new paragraph stating that the dispensing of gasoline from fixed gasoline storage tanks at GDF into portable gasoline storage tanks for the on-site delivery and subsequent dispensing of the gasoline into the fuel tank of a motor vehicle or other gasoline-fueled engine or equipment used at the area source is subject to standards (subparagraph (j) to §63.11111)    

• Proposed new paragraph stating that owners or operators using portable gasoline containers that meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 59, Subpart F, (the Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule) will be considered in compliance (paragraph (d) to §63.11116) 

• New paragraph specifying the dates by which compliance demonstration for vapor balance systems at GDF with a gasoline throughput of 100,000 gallons or more are required (§63.11120(e) If the vapor balance systems were in place prior to January 10, 2008 it is considered compliant if system is required to comply, and complies, with either a 90-percent reduction in emissions, or uses management practices at least as stringent as those in must be conducted per the regulations. 

• New provision to allow storage tanks to have an additional option for submerged fill pipes that are further from the bottom of the tank than the distances previously specified in § 63.11117 (i.e. for tanks installed prior to 11/09/06 no more than 12 inches from bottom of tank; for tanks installed after 11/09/06 no more than 6 inches from bottom of tank) Owner/operator must be able to demonstrate that the liquid level in the tank is always above the entire opening of the fill pipe. Documentation providing such demonstration must be made available for inspection by delegated agency.  

• New paragraph (c) to § 63.11125 clarifying that cargo tank vapor tightness testing records must be kept for a period of 5 years, but adding that cargo tank owners or operators have the option of keeping only the current year’s records with the cargo tank and keeping records for the previous 4 years in the owner’s office if the records are instantly available. 

• Add a definition of ‘‘vapor-tight cargo tank,’’ correct the definition of ‘‘gasoline cargo tank,’’ and clarify that vapor tight testing records must be kept in the cab of the cargo tank for inspection by the facility operator. Proposed definition would read as follows: ‘‘vapor-tight gasoline cargo tank means a gasoline cargo tank which has demonstrated within the 12 preceding months that it meets the annual certification test requirements in §63.11092(f).’’ 

•Add definition of ‘‘gasoline cargo tank’’ clarified to reference “unloading” as well as “loading” operations  

• Add definitions for ‘‘gasoline,’’ ‘‘motor vehicle,’’ ‘‘nonroad engine,’’ and ‘‘nonroad vehicle’’ to ensure consistency with other rules 

• Amend the current definition of ‘‘gasoline dispensing facility’’ in §63.11132 to clarify intent to include all public and private stationary facilities that dispense gasoline into the fuel tanks of on- and off-road engines, vehicles, and equipment rather than just those facilities that dispense gasoline into the fuel tanks of motor vehicles.  

    The foregoing are only the primary changes proposed in the regulations, the proposed regulations should be reviewed for all of the revisions.    

This article was authored by Barbara D. Little, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author see here.

2008 TRI National Analysis

On December 8, 2009 US EPA released its annual analysis of the Toxic Release Inventory of 2008 information.  The TRI database contains information on chemical releases into the air, land and water, as well as waste management and pollution prevention activities.  The analysis of 2008 data shows that 3.86 billion pounds of toxic chemicals were released into the environment, a 6 percent decrease from 2007. 

 

More than 21,000 facilities reported information on 650 chemicals in 2008.  There was a 5% decrease in the number of facilities reporting in 2008.  This could be due to the economic downturn.  Some facilities that reported in 2007 did not report in 2008.  EPA is planning to investigate. 

 

Air releases were decreased 14% from 2007 and decreased 30% from 2001.  Surface water releases increased 3% from 2007 and 1% from 2001.  It is believed that the surface water increase is due to the Tennessee Valley Authority coal ash spill.  Land releases were virtually unchanged with a 0.1% increase from 2007.  Land releases decreased 40% from 2001 levels.

 

The report shows decreases in the releases of persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals such as lead, dioxin, and mercury.  Mercury was down 11% from 2007 report.  Dioxin was down 77% from the 2007 report.  Lead was down 2% from the 2007 report.  PCBs increased 121% from 2007.  PCBs are longer manufactured in the United States.  The increase is due to the removal and treatment of legacy PCBs.  

 

3.86 billion pounds were disposed or otherwise released in 2008.  87% was released on-site through air releases (30%), surface water (6%), on-site underground injection wells (5%) and land disposal (46%).   The remaining 13% were disposed or otherwise released off-site.

 

In 2008, the production-related waste managed was 22.57 billion pounds.  Of the production-related waste managed, 38% was recycled, 12% was used for energy recovery, 33% was treated, and 17% was disposed of or otherwise released.  The waste management hierarchy establishes that once the waste is generated the preferred management methods are recycling, followed by burned for energy recovery, treatment and, as a last resort, disposal or otherwise released.

 

The quantity disposed of or otherwise released from the production-related waste management is 3.94 billion pounds while the TRI disposal or other release value is 3.86 billion pounds.  Why are these values different?  When looking at total production-related waste, the quantity disposed of or otherwise released includes all reported disposal or other releases except those due to remedial, catastrophic or one-time releases.  On the other hand, total disposal or other releases, discussed above, excludes amounts that were sent to other TRI facilities and reported as disposed or otherwise released (to avoid double-counting).

 

There were 179 carcinogens on the TRI list for 2008; 35 of the 179 carcinogens were not reported for 2008.  Total disposal or other releases of carcinogens reported was 776 million pounds in 2008.  92% were disposed of or otherwise released on-site and 8% were disposed of or otherwise released off-site.  From 2007 to 2008, total disposal or other releases of carcinogens decreased by 60 million pounds or 7%.  Air releases decreased by 16 million pounds or 18%.  From 2001 to 2008, total disposal or other releases of carcinogens decreased by 33% (388 million pounds), including a decrease of 44% (59 million pounds) in air releases. 

 

In addition to the traditional analysis of the TRI database, EPA conducted a TRI Chemical Hazard Analysis.  EPA used the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) “toxicity-weighted-pounds” methodology to conduct additional analysis.  The idea is to provide additional insights that go beyond simple pounds analysis and reflect some basic measure of chemical toxicity.  More information on RSEI is available at www.epa.gov/oppt/rsei

 

For this analysis, EPA included all TRI chemicals that have RSEI hazard weights and addresses total disposal or other releases to all media.  RSEI toxicity weights are available for both cancer and non-cancer health effects.  Two analyses are done, one using the cancer toxicity weights and one using the non-cancer toxicity weights. 

 

For 2008, 493 TRI chemicals were reported on by TRI facilities.

· 33% of the chemicals have RSEI cancer toxicity weights

· 68% of the chemicals have RSEI non-cancer toxicity weights

· 24% of the chemicals have both cancer and non-cancer toxicity weights

· 23% of the chemicals reported on for 2008 do not have RSEI toxicity weights, including known or suspected carcinogens such as dioxins, creosote and polychlorinated alkanes.

 

Comparing the nationally aggregated total toxicity weighted pounds of disposal or other releases using the RSEI cancer toxicity weights to years past shows that for 2007 to 2008 there was an increase of 10% using RSEI cancer toxicity weighted pounds.  For 2001 to 2008 there was a decrease of 53% using RSEI cancer toxicity weighted pounds. 

 

For non-cancer RSEI toxicity weights, there was a decrease of 7% from 2007 to 2008.  For 2001 to 2008, there was a decrease of 55% using RSEI non-cancer toxicity weighted pounds. 

More information on the 2008 TRI analysis is available at http://www.epa.gov/tri

 

This article was excerpted from publically available information, and was authored by Joyce Gentry, Acacia Environmental Group LLC.  For more information on the author see here.