Category: Uncategorized

As January closes, we take a quick look at the highlights (or lowlights, depending on your perspective) of actions taken by the US Environmental Protection Agency in the first month of 2010. Noteworthy actions included:

• EPA proposes revisions to smog (ozone) standard
• EPA to issue new standard for nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
• EPA rejects confidentiality claims for toxic chemicals
• EPA announces tip line for bad behavior in oil and gas drilling operations

In addition, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson set forth the agency’s priorities for the coming year.

Summaries of these actions follow.  As always, feel free to contact T. Cozzie Consulting for more information.

Continue reading “What’s EPA been up to?”

In the aftermath of a brutal cold wave that swept across the US (yes, even to our normally balmy South Florida), we take note of a flurry of interesting news stories concerning global climate change and the likelihood of immediate regulatory action to combat greenhouse gas emissions.  Here is a sampling…

From the Wall Street Journal, various states are pressing the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to delay rulemaking intended to curb emissions of greenhouse gases, fearing that their permitting and regulatory capabilities (and budgets) will be overwhelmed. See online.wsj.com/article/SB126317107565923971.html.

From the Times UK, an allegation that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) used very weak science – or more precisely, mere speculation – in forecasting the imminent disappearance of major Himalayan glaciers.  See www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece.

And a recent monograph published in the journal Geophysical Letters Review, www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040613.shtml, questions whether any statistically significant rise in the airborne fraction of anthropogenetic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions has occurred in the past 150 years.
Continue reading “Update: Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming”

Or perhaps more precisely, a foregone conclusion?

As announced on December 7 (UPDATE: and published on December 15 in the Federal Register), the US Environmental Protection Agency administrator has signed two findings on greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act:

• Endangerment: That current and projected concentrations of the six key greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) – in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations; and
• Cause or Contribute: That the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare.

These determinations are prerequisite for EPA to finalize its greenhouse gas emissions limitations for light-duty vehicles, including passenger automobiles, proposed in September.

Unless you have not been paying attention to the news on climate change issues, you might also know that the endangerment finding also paves the way for regulatory control of greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources. In lieu of the uncertain “cap and trade” legislation, EPA can begin to regulate GHGs through the administrative rulemaking process, and has signalled its intent to apply regulatory controls to power plants and other large emitters of GHGs, as noted here on October 13.

For more information on regulatory implications of greenhouse gases and climate change, visit our web page at www.tcozzie.com/guidance/air/ghgs/.

On December 1, the US Environmental Protection Agency issued a final rule setting effluent limitations for storm water discharges from construction and land development sites. The rule takes effect on February 1, 2010.

The new requirements include a range of erosion and sediment controls and pollution prevention practices that all construction sites, regardless of size, must implement. For construction sites that disturb more than ten (10) acres, the requirements will include monitoring of storm water discharge and compliance with a numeric limitation for turbidity of 280 NTU (nephelometric turbidity units). The monitoring requirements will be phased in over a four-year period: larger construction sites (20 acres or more) will begin monitoring 18 months after the effective date, while other activities disturbing 10 acres or more will need to monitor effluent and demonstrate compliance with the turbidity standard after four years.

For more information, contact T. Cozzie Consulting or visit the US EPA web page at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/construction/.

On November 10, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it has finalized amendments to requirements for facilities subject to the Oil Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule. The amendments are intended to clarify regulatory requirements, tailor requirements to particular industry sectors, and streamline certain requirements for a facility owner or operator subject to the rule. The rule changes were originally proposed in October 2007 and finalized on December 5, 2008, but the agency requested public comments again on February 3, 2009. The rule takes effect on January 14, 2010.

For the most part, the EPA is either taking no action or providing minor technical corrections on the majority of the December 2008 provisions. However, this action modifies the December 2008 rule by removing the provisions to: exclude farms and oil production facilities from the loading/unloading rack requirements; exempt produced water containers at an oil production facility; and provide alternative qualified facilities eligibility criteria for an oil production facility.

Additionally, because of the uncertainty surrounding the final amendments to the December 2008 rule and the delay of the effective date, EPA is expected to propose to extend the compliance date.
Continue reading “Final amendments to SPCC rules announced”

The final rule requiring Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, signed by the EPA Administrator on September 22, has been published in the Federal Register (October 30).

Effective December 29, 2009, the final rule applies to fossil fuel suppliers and industrial gas suppliers, direct greenhouse gas emitters and manufacturers of heavy-duty and off-road vehicles and engines.

Affected operations must begin collecting data on January 1, 2010.   The first annual GHG report is due on March 31, 2011, for GHGs emitted or products supplied during 2010.

For more information and a copy of the rule text, please contact T. Cozzie Consulting.

Among arguments set forth in support of passage of a “cap and trade” bill to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from power plants, manufacturers and other stationary facilities is “if Congress doesn’t do it, the Administration will,” under rulemaking authority already granted via the Clean Air Act and its amendments.

Well, yes…

On September 30, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced two proposals that will advance control of greenhouse gas emissions through existing regulatory frameworks. The first of these will determine when regulatory action triggers applicability of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program to air pollutants, such as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The second proposal establishes “tailored” thresholds for applying New Source Review and Title V Operating Permit requirements to emissions of greenhouse gases from large facilities. 

Continue reading “First steps toward permitting of greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources”

The November 2008 amendments to Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan requirements provided facility operators with flexibility in defining the extent of the facility to be addressed in an SPCC Plan. This flexibility can be particularly helpful for large properties or installations, such as farms, multi-structured industrial plants and university campuses, where several buildings or locations may be used for storage and management of oil and other petroleum products.

The rule amendments redefined the term “facility” to allow the owner or operator to designate operations in or on contiguous or non-contiguous lands, properties, buildings and so forth as separate facilities for the purpose of compliance with the regulations. The owner or operator can aggregate or separate containers to determine the facility boundaries, and may determine that certain installations or parts thereof are effectively exempted from the rule if, for example, less than 1,320 gallons of oil are stored in aboveground containers within the boundaries of a designated “facility.”

Continue reading “Compliance Tip of the Week: Defining your “facility” for SPCC Plan requirements”