Air Quality Monitoring | Water Quality Monitoring

EPA Proposes Adding More Chemicals to Toxics Release Inventory List First program chemical expansion in more than a decade

Release date: 04/06/2010

Contact Information: Latisha Petteway, petteway.latisha@epa.gov, 202-564-3191, 202-564-4355

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to add 16 chemicals to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) list of reportable chemicals, the first expansion of the program in more than a decade. Established as part of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA), TRI is a publicly available EPA database that contains information on toxic chemical releases and waste management activities reported annually by certain industries as well as federal facilities. The proposal is part of Administrator Lisa P. Jackson’s ongoing efforts to provide communities with more complete information on chemicals.

EPA has concluded, based on a review of available studies, that these chemicals could cause cancer in people. The purpose of the proposed addition to TRI reporting requirements is to inform the public about chemical releases in their communities and to provide the government with information for research and potential development of regulations.

Four of the chemicals are being proposed for addition to TRI under the polycyclic aromatic compounds (PACs) category. The PACs category includes chemicals that are persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic (PBT) and are likely to remain in the environment for a very long time. These chemicals are not readily destroyed and may build up or accumulate in body tissue.

The TRI, established as part of the EPCRA of 1986, contains information on nearly 650 chemicals and chemical groups from about 22,000 industrial facilities in the U.S. Congress enacted EPCRA to provide the public with additional information on toxic chemicals in their communities.

EPA will accept public comments on the proposal for 60 days after it appears in the Federal Register.

For a list of the 16 chemicals: http://www.epa.gov/tri/lawsandregs/ntp_chemicals/index.html

More information on TRI: http://www.epa.gov/tri

Source:  http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/f6a45e8e44dbef13852576fd005f7555!OpenDocument

Recovery Act’s One Year Anniversary: Workers in Pacific Northwest Benefit from Investment in Environmental Protection

Release date: 02/19/2010

(Seattle, Wash. – Feb. 17, 2010) One year into the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Pacific Northwest environmental projects are moving ahead, creating jobs and boosting the economy. Projects funded by EPA totaling $318 million in Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington are yielding cleaner air, water and land, and new green jobs.

Two examples of this success can be found in Tacoma, Wash. and Woodburn, Ore.

City of Tacoma Brownfields Job Training Program. EPA selected the City of Tacoma to receive $500,000 in Recovery Act grant funding to provide job training to assess and clean up contaminated sites known as “brownfields.” Brownfields workers will be able to turn rundown eyesores into revitalized, productive properties. The city is training 200 participants, with a goal of placing 150 graduates in environmental jobs. They will track graduates’ progress for one year. The training program consists of eight, 98-hour or 212-hour cycles on four tracks.

City of Woodburn Safe Water Expansion. This project, using $2.8 million in Recovery Act funds, will provide safe drinking water to residents of three modular home communities that currently receive water that exceeds EPA established safe threshold for arsenic. The safe drinking water will be provided by extending City of Woodburn water supply to these communities.

“It’s been a year since President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Clearly, we are seeing positive results in green jobs,” said Acting EPA Regional Administrator Michelle Pirzadeh. “Many projects are already changing the employment figures, and as construction season begins we expect to see even more people back on job sites that will have a lasting environmental impact.”

On Feb. 17, 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, providing more than $7 billion nationwide for environmental projects.

State by state allocations of Recovery Act Funds:

Alaska:

• Clean Water Projects: $23.7 million

• Drinking Water Projects: $19.5 million

• Clean Diesel Projects: $1.73 million

• Leaking Underground Storage Tank Projects: $1 million

• Brownfields Projects: $57,000

• TOTAL: $46 MILLION

Idaho:

• Clean Water Projects: $19.4 million

• Drinking Water Projects: $19.5 million

• Superfund Projects: $16.8 million

• Clean Diesel Projects: $1.73 million

• Leaking Underground Storage Tank Projects: $1.3 million

• Brownfields Projects: $1.15 million

• TOTAL: $59.9 MILLION

Oregon:

• Clean Water Projects: $44.7 million

• Drinking Water Projects: $28.5 million

• Clean Diesel Projects: $4.3 million

• Leaking Underground Storage Tank Projects: $2.7 million

• Brownfields Projects: $657,000

• TOTAL: $80.9 MILLION

Washington:

• Clean Water Projects: $68.8 million

• Drinking Water Projects: $41.8 million

• Superfund Projects: $7.5 million

• Clean Diesel Projects: $5.8 million

• Leaking Underground Storage Tank Projects: $3.4 million

• Brownfields Projects: $3.5 million

• TOTAL: $131 MILLION

When President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, he directed that it be implemented with unprecedented transparency and accountability. To that end, the American people can visit http://www.recovery.govto see how every dollar is being invested.

Contact Information: Jeff Philip, (206) 553-1465, philip.jeff@epa.gov

Source: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/7049767461945269852576cf006033b4!OpenDocument

EPA, NREL Partner to Develop Renewable Energy on Potentially Contaminated Sites.   Clean energy project aims to benefit local economies and create jobs

Release date: 02/23/2010

Contact Information: Latisha Petteway, petteway.latisha@epa.gov, 202-564-3191, 202-564-4355

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) are evaluating the feasibility of developing renewable energy production on Superfund, brownfields, and former landfill or mining sites. Superfund sites are the most complex, uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified by EPA for cleanup due to the risk they pose to human health or the environment. Brownfields are properties at which expansion, redevelopment, or reuse may be complicated by the presence of contaminants. EPA is investing more than $650,000 for the project that pairs EPA’s expertise on contaminated sites with the renewable energy expertise of NREL. The project is part of the RE-Powering America’s Land initiative, which aims to decrease the amount of green space used for development, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and provide health and economic benefits to local communities, including job creation.

The project will analyze the potential development of wind, solar, or small hydro development at 12 sites. The analysis will include determining the best renewable energy technology for the site, the optimal location for placement of the renewable energy technology on the site, potential energy generating capacity, the return on the investment, and the economic feasibility of the renewable energy projects. The 12 sites are located in Calif., Fla., Kan., Mass., Mich., Minn., Pa., Puerto Rico, R.I., W.Va., and Wis.

Some of the sites under consideration for renewable energy projects have completed cleanup activities, while others may be in various stages of assessment or cleanup. Renewable energy projects on these sites will be designed to accommodate the site conditions.

In September 2008, EPA launched the RE-Powering America’s Land initiative to promote the developing of renewable energy on potentially contaminated land and mining sites. EPA partnered with NREL to do an initial screening to determine sites that may be used for renewable energy projects.

More information on the RE-Powering America’s Land initiative: http://www.epa.gov/renewableenergyland/

More information on NREL: http://www.nrel.gov/

Source: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/b35339fd1c4175b9852576d30058b278!OpenDocument

North Carolina Authorized to Implement the Lead Renovation Program

Release date: 01/27/2010

Contact Information: Dawn Harris-Young, (404) 562-8421, harris-young.dawn@epa.gov

 (ATLANTA – January 27, 2010) On January 21, 2010, the state of North Carolina received authorization to administer and enforce EPA’s Lead Renovation Program. The authorization became effective upon EPA’s receipt of the state’s certified Renovation Authorization Application which was submitted by Governor Bev Purdue. Chief Deputy Attorney General Grayson G. Kelley has certified that the North Carolina Program, which will be administered by the Division of Public Health, is at least as protective as EPA’s and provides adequate enforcement.

“EPA appreciates North Carolina’s initiative to prevent further lead poisoning by ensuring that work that disturbs paint is done in a lead-safe manner,” said Acting Regional Administrator Stan Meiburg. “Renovators and rental property owners play a major role part in protecting children from lead-based paint hazards in the home.”

The RRP program mandates that contractors, property managers and others working for compensation, in homes and child-occupied facilities built before 1978, must be trained and use lead-safe work practices. They are also required to provide the lead pamphlet “Renovate Right; Important Lead Hazard Information for Families, Child Care Providers and Schools” to owners and occupants before starting renovation work.

Lead contaminated dust is the most significant source of lead exposure for children. Common renovation activities like sanding, cutting and demolition can create hazardous lead dust and chips by disturbing lead-based paint, which can be harmful to adults and children. Lead-based paint was used in more than 38 million homes until it was banned for residential use in 1978. Lead exposure can cause reduced IQ, learning disabilities, development delays and behavioral problems in young children.

You can learn more about protecting your family from lead-based paint and EPA’s lead program at http://www.epa.gov/lead or by contacting the National Lead Information Center at 800-424-LEAD (5323).

For more information about North Carolina’s new program, including information on applying for certification or locating training, contact the North Carolina Lead Program at 919 707-5950 or visit the state Web site at www.epi.state.nc.us/epi/lead.html.

Source:http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/3122e16782204737852576b8006ef100!OpenDocument

Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans Agrees to Reinstate Program to Improve Sewage System Damaged by Hurricane Katrina

Release date: 01/27/2010 from the EPA Newsroom

Contact Information: DOJ at 202-514-2007, Dave Bary at 214-665-2200 or r6press@epa.gov

(WASHINGTON – January 27, 2010) The Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans has agreed to reinstate its comprehensive program – stalled for several years in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina – to make extensive improvements to reduce or eliminate sewage overflows into the Mississippi River, Lake Pontchartrain and its storm drainage canal system, the Justice Department and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced today.

According to a Clean Water Act settlement filed today that modifies a 1998-agreement, the Sewerage & Water Board, which operates the publicly owned treatment works that serves the citizens of New Orleans, has agreed to continue to repair its antiquated sewage collection system. Prior to 1998, the system had been overwhelmed causing overflows of raw sewage into waterways and streets of New Orleans. Those efforts were put on hold for several years due to Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

“For many years, until Hurricane Katrina, the Sewerage & Water Board was making great strides in repairing its outdated collection system in compliance with the 1998 agreement,” said Ignacia S. Moreno, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “We are pleased that, despite the devastating effects of the hurricane, the board has agreed to continue its aggressive remediation program in order to protect the public health and make the waterways safe for the people of New Orleans.”

“We have agreed on an aggressive plan which will greatly help New Orleans’ system deliver better service to residents while it protects the environment,” said EPA Regional Administrator Al Armendariz. “Protecting America’s waters is a priority at EPA. We are pleased the Sewage & Water Board shares our strong commitment to clean water.”

As part of its ongoing remediation program, estimated to cost more than $400 million from its inception in 1998, the board has agreed to repair all of its 62 pump stations damaged by the hurricane, as well as any other hurricane damage in the portions of the collection system served by those pump stations. By no later than July 2015, the board will complete additional studies required by EPA and make all necessary repairs and upgrades to its collection system, including measures designed to provide dependable electrical services at its treatment plant in the event of a future catastrophic event.

The board will also design and implement a new preventive maintenance plan to inspect and clean its sewer lines and pump stations to prevent sewage overflows, and will continue efforts under its sewage overflow action plan designed to minimize the impact of such overflows on the environment.

In addition, now that the system serves only about 60 percent of people that it served before Katrina hit, the board has agreed to report each year on population changes and to evaluate any need for increased capacity for its pump stations, force mains and treatment plant.

The 1998 agreement resolved a 1993 lawsuit brought by the United States alleging violations of the Clean Water Act including effluent overflows at the East Bank treatment plant and unauthorized discharges from the East Bank Collection System. A coalition of citizens groups under the direction of the Tulane Law Clinic has joined the government in the action and is part of the modified settlement. The state of Louisiana also has participated in this settlement.

The modified consent decree, lodged today in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, is subject to 30-day public comment period and approval by the court. A copy of the consent decree is available on the Justice Department web site at http://wwww.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html .

Source:http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/6e81af7ceb5c4516852576b800693fdd!OpenDocument

On May 7, 2009, New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine signed into law the Site Remediation Reform Act (SRRA) (referred herein as the “Law”) that will overhaul the way investigations and cleanups are done in New Jersey. The Governor concurrently signed Executive Order #140 that clarifies certain provisions to SRRA. Order #140 can be found at http://www.state.nj.us/infobank/circular/eojsc140.htm

The Law addresses the overburdened New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)’s current staff, budget constraints, and case backlog by creating a Licensed Site Remediation Professional (LSRP) program. The LSRPs are environmental consultants with specified education and experience who will oversee investigations and remediation throughout sites in New Jersey. The legislation, sponsored by Senator Bob Smith, was passed by the New Jersey Senate on March 16, 2009.

The Law identifies who may become LSRPs, establishes their qualifications, licensing procedures, and a code of conduct and defines their role in the remediation process. In addition, the Law establishes a separate Site Remediation Professional Licensing Board (Board), tasked with creating standards for education, training, and experience that will be required of any person who applies for a license. The Board will conduct examinations to certify that an applicant possesses sufficient knowledge of the state regulations, standards and requirements applicable to site remediation and that the applicant is qualified to obtain either a license or a license renewal.

The Law calls for rules and regulations to be adopted no later than 18 months after enactment to implement the LSRP program. However, since it will take some time for this Law to be fully developed and implemented the Law calls for an interim licensing program to be established within 90 days of enactment.

Within 180 days of the effective date of the Law, any submissions concerning the remediation of a contaminated site must be signed and certified by both the person responsible for conducting the remediation and the LSRP. The LSRP’s certification will state that the work was performed, that the LSRP managed, supervised or performed the work, and that the work and submission conform to the Technical Requirements for Site Remediation (N.J.A.C. 7:26E 1 et seq.). Remediation projects that are on-going or that begin within 180 days of enactment of the Law are not required to be conducted by an LSRP. However, all remediation projects will need to be conducted by an LSRP after the third anniversary of enactment of the Law.

Based on these regulatory changes there may be potential relationship changes between site owners and their selected environmental consultant. Whether there is a new remediation case requiring an LSRP under SRRA from the start or if there is a need to opt into the program prior to the end of the three-year phase-in period, the selection of an LSRP for site specific remediation projects will require careful consideration.

Additional information on the NJDEP LSRP program can be found here http://www.state.nj.us/dep/srp/srra/

Click Here for a list of NJDEP contacts.

The following is a list of other various state certification programs similar to the LSRP. This list is for reference only. Each state may require special certifications for corrective action or other related activities. Please contact local and state environmental program representatives regarding regulatory requirements prior to performing environmental investigation/ remediation related activities.

• Connecticut Licensed Environmental Professionals (LEP) Program (Administered by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection– visit their web site at http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2715&q=324978&depNav_GID=1626)

• Ohio Voluntary Action Program (VAP) for Certified Professionals (Administered by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency – visit their web site at http://www.epa.state.oh.us/)

• Oklahoma Remediation Consultants Program (Administered by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, Petroleum Storage Tank Division– visit their web site at http://www.occ.state.ok.us/)

• Massachusetts Licensed Site Professionals (LSP) Program (Administered by the Massachusetts Board of Registration of Hazardous Waste Site Cleanup Professionals– visit their web site at http://www.mass.gov/lsp/)

• Texas Corrective Action Project Managers (CAPM) Program (Administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality – visit their web site at http://www.mass.gov/lsp/)

• West Virginia Licensed Remediation Specialist Program (Administered by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection Office of Environmental Remediation – visit their web site at http://www.wvdep.org/item.cfm?ssid=18&ss1id=56)

EPA Proposes to Expand the Lead Monitoring Network /Proposed changes would help determine if areas meet air quality standards for airborne lead

WASHINGTON – December 23, 2009 (USEPA) – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to expand the lead air quality monitoring network to ensure that the most vulnerable Americans are protected from exposure to lead. Even at low levels, exposure to lead can impair a child’s IQ, learning capabilities, memory and behavior.

EPA is proposing to require air quality monitoring around sources that emit a half ton or more of lead a year, lowering the current threshold from one ton a year to include more sources. The proposal also modifies the current requirement for monitoring in larger urban areas. Monitors would be placed at each of the multi-pollutant monitoring stations being established in urban and rural areas.

These changes would allow monitoring at the largest sources of lead emissions and would more accurately track long-term trends and assess typical lead levels in communities throughout the country.

This proposal is in response to a petition for reconsideration requesting EPA to reevaluate the air monitoring requirements finalized in 2008 along with the tightened national air quality standards for lead.

EPA is not reconsidering, nor is it delaying the implementation of, the 2008 lead standards. States will still need to deploy lead monitors around sources emitting at least one ton of lead a year by January 1, 2010.

Lead emitted into the air can be inhaled or can be ingested after it settles. Ingestion is the main route of human exposure. Children are the most susceptible because they are more likely to ingest lead, and their bodies are developing rapidly. There is no known safe level of lead in the body.

EPA will accept comments on the proposal for 45 days after it is published in the Federal Register.

To view the article and other lead related information on the EPA’s website – Click Here

Current Lead Air Quality Standards

On October 15, 2008, for the first time in 30 years, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) strengthened the nation’s air quality standards for lead in the effort to improve public health protection, especially for children who are particularly vulnerable to lead poisoning.

Lead is a pollutant that can cause organ, brain and nerve damage, lower intelligence, suppression of the immune system, high blood pressure and increased risk of heart disease. The major sources of lead emissions have been motor vehicles and industrial sources such as lead smelters, waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery manufacturers.

The standards reduced the allowable lead level by a magnitude of 10, down to 0.15 micrograms of lead per cubic meter (µg/m3) of air. The previous standards, set in 1978, allowed up to 1.5 micrograms of lead per cubic meter of air.

Source: http://epa.gov/air/lead/

To learn more about other National Ambient Air Quality Standards Click Here

CONTACT:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is adding 11 new hazardous waste sites that pose risks to human health and the environment to the National Priorities List of Superfund sites. Also, EPA is proposing to add 10 other sites to the list. Superfund is the federal program that investigates and cleans up the most complex, uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in the country.

To date, there have been 1,607 sites listed on the NPL. Of these sites, 336 sites have been deleted resulting in 1,271 final sites currently on the NPL, including the 11 new final sites added in this rulemaking. With the proposal of the 10 new sites, there are 66 proposed sites awaiting final agency action: 61 in the general Superfund section and five in the federal facilities section. There are a total of 1,337 final and proposed sites.

Contaminants found at the final and proposed sites include antimony, arsenic, barium, benzo-a-anthracene, boron, cadmium, chloromethane, chromium, copper, dichloroethene (DCE), hexachlorobenze, lead, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), selenium, silver, tetrachloroethene (PCE), trichloroethane (TCA), trichloroethene (TCE), vinyl chloride, and zinc.

With all Superfund sites, EPA tries to identify and locate the parties potentially responsible for the contamination. For the newly listed sites without viable potentially responsible parties, EPA will investigate the full extent of the contamination before starting cleanup at the site. Therefore, it may be several years before significant cleanup funding is required for these sites.

Sites may be placed on the list through various mechanisms:

• Numeric ranking established by EPA’s Hazard Ranking System
• Designation by states or territories of one top-priority site
• Meeting all three of the following requirements:

1. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has issued a health advisory that recommends removing people from the site;
2. EPA determines the site poses a significant threat to public health; and
3. EPA anticipates it will be more cost-effective to use its remedial authority than to use its emergency removal authority to respond to the site.

For Federal Register notices and supporting documents for these final and proposed sites:

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/current.htm

The following 11 sites have been added to the National Priorities List:

• B.F. Goodrich (Rialto, Calif.)
• Lane Street Ground Water Contamination (Elkhart, Ind.)
• Southwest Jefferson County Mining (Jefferson County, Mo.)
• Flat Creek IMM (Superior, Mont.)
• Ore Knob Mine (Ashe County, N.C.)
• GMH Electronics (Roxboro, N.C.)
• Curtis Specialty Papers, Inc. (Milford, N.J.)
• Little Scioto River (Marion County, Ohio)
• Salford Quarry (Lower Salford Township, Pa.)
• Papelera Puertorriquena, Inc. (Utuado, Puerto Rico)
• Amcast Industrial Corporation (Cedarburg, Wis.)

The following 10 sites have been proposed to the National Priorities List:

• Salt Chuck Mine (Outer Ketchikan County, Ark.)
• Millsboro TCE (Millsboro, Del.)
• JJ Seifert Machine (Ruskin, Fla.)
• Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp – Jacksonville (Jacksonville, Fla.)
• Chemetco (Madison County, Ill.)
• Gratiot County Golf Course (St. Louis, Mich.)
• Kerr-McGee Chem Corp – Navassa (Navassa, N.C.)
• Newtown Creek (Brooklyn/Queens, N.Y.)
• Black Butte Mine (Cottage Grove, Ore.)
• Van Der Horst USA Corporation (Terrell, Texas)

http://www.epa.gov/aging/press/epanews/2009/2009_0923_2.htm

Release date: 09/22/2009

On January 1, 2010, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will, for the first time, require large emitters of heat-trapping emissions to begin collecting greenhouse gas (GHG) data under a new reporting system. This new program will cover approximately 85 percent of the nation’s GHG emissions and apply to roughly 10,000 facilities.

“This is a major step forward in our effort to address the greenhouse gases polluting our skies,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “For the first time, we begin collecting data from the largest facilities in this country, ones that account for approximately 85 percent of the total U.S. emissions. The American public, and industry itself, will finally gain critically important knowledge and with this information we can determine how best to reduce those emissions.” 

EPA’s new reporting system will provide a better understanding of where GHGs are coming from and will guide development of the best possible policies and programs to reduce emissions. The data will also allow businesses to track their own emissions, compare them to similar facilities, and provide assistance in identifying cost effective ways to reduce emissions in the future. This comprehensive, nationwide emissions data will help in the fight against climate change.

Greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2), are produced by burning fossil fuels and through industrial and biological processes. Fossil fuel and industrial GHG suppliers, motor vehicle and engine manufacturers, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2 equivalent per year will be required to report GHG emissions data to EPA annually. This threshold is equivalent to about the annual GHG emissions from 4,600 passenger vehicles. 

The first annual reports for the largest emitting facilities, covering calendar year 2010, will be submitted to EPA in 2011. Vehicle and engine manufacturers outside of the light-duty sector will begin phasing in GHG reporting with model year 2011. Some source categories included in the proposed rule are still under review.

For a complete copy of the rule and the regulatory impacts associated with compliance please refer to the following links: 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads09/FinalMandatoryGHGReportingRule.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads09/GHG_RIA.pdf