EPA settles with Idaho construction company and developer for Boise stormwater violations
Contact: Mark MacIntyre, EPA-Seattle, 206-553-7302, macintyre.mark@epa.gov
(Seattle – Sept. 30, 2014) Jayo Development, Inc., a residential developer, and Jayo Construction, Inc., both based in Boise, Idaho, have reached a settlement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over alleged storm water violations at the Somerset Village Subdivision in Boise. As part of this settlement, the Jayo entities agreed to pay a penalty of $14,100.
Under the Clean Water Act, owners and general contractors at construction sites of one acre and larger or part of a larger common plan must apply for coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit, which requires the installation of pollution prevention practices to minimize the discharge of sediment and other pollutants in storm water runoff.
Under the permit, developers and construction companies must design, install and maintain storm water controls to prevent construction area runoff from polluting nearby streams and lakes. Without these controls, pollutants typically associated with construction sites, such as sediment, oil and grease, and concrete washout can enter nearby waterways.
“Storm water poses a serious pollution threat to Idaho’s rivers, lakes and streams,” said Jeff KenKnight, manager of EPA’s Clean Water Act Compliance Unit in Seattle. “Developers need to follow the law and make preventing polluted run-off from leaving their construction sites a top priority, or pay serious penalties.”
According to EPA, the erosion control programs of the City of Boise and Ada County Highway District rendered important assistance in its construction stormwater compliance work at the Somerset Village site.
In this case, EPA’s inspector entered the site to warn the operator that severe storms were imminent and that additional pollution prevention controls needed to be installed immediately to prevent potential discharges. The same inspector revisited the site - in driving rain - the next day to find the necessary control measures still missing, with torrents of muddy water leaving the site and entering nearby storm drains, which discharge to the Boise River. Nearby storm water discharges, including discharge from the site, even overwhelmed a nearby Ada County Highway District storm water retention pond, which drains to the Boise River.
Alleged violations at the construction site were captured in 14 individual counts, including: Failure to install and maintain adequate erosion and sediment controls; failure to prevent dust and dirt from migrating offsite and onto nearby roads; failure to update the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan; and failure to conduct sufficient self-inspections at the site.
For more about EPA’s storm water Construction General permit, visit: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/stormwater/
For a map showing the location of the Somerset Village Subdivision in Boise, visit:http://www.jayoconstruction.com/communities/somersetvillage.php
|
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
EPA settles with Idaho construction company and developer for Boise stormwater violations
EPA Press Release:
EPA Finalizes Greenhouse Gas Permit for Austin Energy Expansion
EPA Press Release:
EPA Finalizes Greenhouse Gas Permit for Austin Energy Expansion
DALLAS – (Sept. 30, 2014) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a final greenhouse gas (GHG) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) construction permit to the city of Austin for the Sand Hill Energy Center. The city plans to add equipment and capacity at the facility’s combined-cycle electricity generating unit.
“The city of Austin shows how a growing economy can mean less pollution,” said Regional Administrator Ron Curry. “Austin is fighting climate change while fueling growth, modernizing its power sector and setting a foundation for a low-carbon economy.”
The permit authorizes Austin Energy to add a new combustion turbine and a new heat-recovery steam generator, both powered by natural gas, to the Sand Hill Energy Center in Travis County. The expansion will allow the facility to generate an addition 222 megawatts of gross electric power.
In June 2010, EPA finalized national GHG regulations, which specify that beginning on Jan. 2, 2011, projects that increase GHG emissions substantially will require an air permit.
EPA believes states are best equipped to run GHG air permitting programs. Texas is working to replace the federal implementation plan with its own State program, which will eliminate the need for businesses to seek air permits from EPA. This action will increase efficiency and allow industry to continue to grow in Texas.
EPA has finalized 53 GHG permits in Texas, proposed an additional seven permits, and currently has 12 additional GHG permits in development in Texas.
For all of the latest information on GHG permits in Texas please visit: http://yosemite.epa.gov/r6/Apermit.nsf/AirP
EPA is taking a variety of actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions and address the impacts of climate change. Most recently, EPA released a Clean Power Plan for existing power plants to cut carbon pollution by 30 percent below 2005 levels. Learn more about EPA’s actions at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/.
Connect with EPA Region 6:
On Twitter: https://twitter.com/EPAregion6
# # #
EPA Honors Eastman Chemical with ENERGY STAR Combined Heat and Power Award
EPA Press Release:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
|
Surf City Resident and Captain of “The Raven” Pleads Guilty to Violating the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act
EPA Press Release:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 30, 2014 Surf City Resident and Captain of “The Raven” Pleads Guilty to Violating the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act
Contacts: Davina Marraccini (EPA), 404-562-8293 (direct), 404-562-8400 (main),marraccini.davina@epa.gov; Don Connelly (DOJ), 919-856-4172, don.connelly@usdoj.gov
ATLANTA – United States Attorney Thomas G. Walker announced yesterday in federal court, before Senior United States District Judge James C. Fox, that David Wayne Luther, 63, of Surf City, North Carolina, entered a guilty plea to violating the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act.
According to information in the public record, on July 29, 2012, officers with the North Carolina Marine Patrol responded to a complaint of dredging in waters near Surf City, North Carolina. North Carolina Marine Patrol officers determined that Luther was "prop washing" with the M/V The Raven. The officers
ordered Luther to cease and desist dredging activities. Approximately three hours later, the North Carolina Marine Patrol received another complaint of dredging activity by Luther. On July 30, 2012, a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) representative took measurements at the violation site and confirmed unauthorized dredging activity.
“The dredging of federal waterways is strictly regulated to protect water quality and wildlife,” said Maureen O’Mara, Special Agent in Charge of EPA’s criminal enforcement program in North Carolina. “The defendant repeatedly dredged material in an environmentally sensitive area that has been designated an essential fish habitat. EPA will hold violators accountable as part of its mission to protect human health and the environment.”
On August 10, 2012, CAMA issued a Notice of Violation and Request to Cease Unauthorized Development to Luther. A copy of the Notice was hand delivered to Luther on August 14, 2012. During the morning of August 14, 2012, CAMA received an anonymous complaint alleging dredging activity during the night time hours involving the M/V The Raven at the violation site. During the afternoon of August 14, 2012, a multi-agency site visit confirmed additional dredging activity at the original violation site. The violation site was determined to be a Primary Nursery Area for oysters.
The maximum penalty that Luther faces at sentencing for both counts is a total of two years imprisonment, and a maximum total fine of $200,000. Pursuant to his plea agreement, Luther has also agreed to purchase .21 acres of coastal wetland restoration in order to compensate for impacts to wetlands and other jurisdictional waters impacted from his criminal conduct prior to sentencing hearing. If he fails to make the purchase, Luther has agreed not to contest a $50,000 additional fine.
The criminal investigation was conducted by the EPA’s Criminal Investigation Division, the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and North Carolina Marine Patrol. Assistant United States Attorney Banumathi Rangarajan is handling the prosecution of the case.
|
Draft Storm Sewer General Permit for 200+ Small Massachusetts Municipalities Will Help Clean Water Protection
EPA News Release:
News Release
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
New England Regional Office
September 30, 2014
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
New England Regional Office
September 30, 2014
Contact: David Deegan, (617) 918-1017
Draft Storm Sewer General Permit for 200+ Small Massachusetts Municipalities Will Help Clean Water Protection
BOSTON – EPA is releasing for public comment draft general permit for small “Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems” (MS4) located in Mass. The new permits, when finalized, will update efforts in up to 260 municipalities, better protecting rivers, streams, ponds, lakes and wetlands across Massachusetts.
EPA previously released draft general permits for small MS4s in North Coastal Watersheds in 2010 and in the Interstate, Merrimack and South Coastal Watersheds in 2011. In response to many of the public comments submitted previously, and the availability of new technical and census information, EPA has revised the two general permits into one document and is now releasing the revised draft general permits for public input. EPA has also made changes to the newly proposed draft permit in response to public comments seeking more clarity, guidance and flexibility in meeting permit requirements.
Regulated MS4s include traditional cities and towns, state and federally owned facilities such as universities and military bases, and state transportations agencies. The general permits will apply to all MS4s located in an urbanized area as defined by the 2010 census. The previous permit applied to MS4s located in an urbanized area based on the 2000 census.
There are 260 municipalities located in an urbanized area as defined in the 2010 census, of which 17 municipalities are potentially eligible for waivers from the permitting requirements. Waiver eligibility is based on the population within the urbanized area (less than 1,000) and the municipality’s potential to contribute pollutants to an interconnected MS4 or an impaired water. EPA expects to receive complete waiver requests in the near future and will review and respond to them in the near future. EPA will release an individual permit for Massachusetts Department of Transportation’s Highway Division later this year. Other MassDOT divisions are eligible for the general permit.
The draft general permits require regulated small MS4s to develop, implement and enforce a “Stormwater Management Program” designed to control pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, protect water quality, and satisfy appropriate requirements of the federal Clean Water Act.
The draft permit requires implementation of six minimum control measures which include illicit discharge detection and elimination, public education and outreach, public participation, management of construction site runoff, management of runoff from new development and redevelopment, and good housekeeping in municipal operations. The draft permit also includes requirements that address waste load allocations associated with approved total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for bacteria, phosphorus and nitrogen and requirements that address discharges to impaired waters without an approved TMDL.
The requirements contained in this draft permit build on the requirements of the previous general permit issued in 2003. The draft permit identifies four target audiences for public education, details specific procedures to locate and remove illicit connections, encourages low impact development practices, and identifies practices to address nutrients, bacteria, chloride, sediment, metals and oil and grease. EPA has provided a suggested format for the notice of intent information which can be submitted electronically. EPA will provide templates for the Stormwater Management Program and the annual reports.
EPA has estimated the costs associated with implementation of the minimum control measures, but does not have sufficient information to reasonably estimate those associated with achievement of water quality based limitations. Actual municipality costs will vary depending on a number of factors including, but not limited to, population (1,000 to 150,000), resources, infrastructure (number of catch basins, road miles), size of the urbanized area, and work completed during previous permit term. As drafted, EPA estimates the cost to meet the requirements associated with implementation of the six minimum control measures to be between $78,000 and $829,000 per year averaged over the permit term.
EPA received over 500 comments on the draft permits first issued in 2010 and 2011, and EPA has modified the current draft permit in response to many of the submitted comments. Some changes include (1) additional time for completion of required tasks; (2) provides opportunities for optimization of activities such as catch basin cleaning rather that mandating a set frequency; (3) reduced the required frequency of street sweeping; (4) reduces costs associated with monitoring by allowing the use of field test kits; (5) includes provisions to address approved total maximum daily loads (TMDLs); and (6) clarified requirements for discharges to impaired waters.
The notice of availability of the general permit is expected to be published in the Federal Register on Sept. 30, 2014. The public comment period is 90 days, ending on Dec. 29, 2014. A public hearing will be held on Nov. 19, 2014 in Leominster. EPA will also host a series of public meetings, including one on Oct. 28 in Haverhill, to explain the permit requirements and answer questions. Other public information meetings will be scheduled. More detail on the public hearing and public informational meetings will be posted at the Web link below.
More information:
The draft general permit, a detailed fact sheet, and information on public meetings and public hearing: http://www.epa.gov/region1/npdes/stormwater/MS4_MA.html
The following Massachusetts municipalities are covered under the new proposed permit:
Abington, Acton, Acushnet, Adams, Agawam, Amesbury, Amherst, Andover, Arlington, Ashburnham, Ashby, Ashland, Attleboro, Auburn, Avon, Ayer, Barnstable, Bedford, Belchertown, Bellingham, Belmont, Berkley, Berlin, Beverly, Billerica, Blackstone, Bolton, Bourne, Boxborough, Boxford, Boylston, Braintree, Brewster, Bridgewater, Brockton, Brookline, Burlington, Cambridge, Canton, Carlisle, Carver, Charlton, Chatham, Chelmsford, Chelsea, Cheshire, Chicopee, Clinton, Cohasset, Concord, Dalton, Danvers, Dartmouth, Dedham, Dennis, Dighton, Douglas, Dover, Dracut, Dudley, Dunstable, Duxbury, East Bridgewater, East Longmeadow, Eastham, Easthampton, Easton, Essex, Everett, Fairhaven, Fall River, Falmouth, Fitchburg, Foxborough, Framingham, Franklin, Freetown, Gardner, Georgetown, Gloucester, Grafton, Granby, Groton, Groveland, Hadley, Halifax, Hamilton, Hampden, Hanover, Hanson, Harvard, Harwich, Hatfield, Haverhill, Hingham, Hinsdale, Holbrook, Holden, Holliston, Holyoke, Hopedale, Hopkinton, Hudson, Hull, Ipswich, Kingston, Lakeville, Lancaster, Lanesborough, Lawrence, Leicester, Lenox, Leominster, Lexington, Lincoln, Littleton, Longmeadow, Lowell, Ludlow, Lunenburg, Lynn, Lynnfield, Malden, Manchester-by-the-Sea, Mansfield, Marblehead, Marion, Marlborough, Marshfield, Mashpee, Mattapoisett, Maynard, Medfield, Medford, Medway, Melrose, Mendon, Merrimac, Methuen, Middleborough, Middleton, Milford, Millbury, Millis, Millville, Milton, Monson, Nahant, Natick, Needham, New Bedford, Newbury, Newburyport, Newton, Norfolk, North Adams, North Andover, North Attleborough, North Reading, Northampton, Northborough, Northbridge, Norton, Norwell, Norwood, Orleans, Oxford, Palmer, Paxton, Peabody, Pelham, Pembroke, Pepperell, Pittsfield, Plainville, Plymouth, Plympton, Quincy, Randolph, Raynham, Reading, Rehoboth, Revere, Richmond, Rochester, Rockland, Rockport, Rowley, Russell, Rutland, Salem, Salisbury, Sandwich, Saugus, Scituate, Seekonk, Sharon, Sherborn, Shirley, Shrewsbury, Somerset, Somerville, South Hadley, Southampton, Southborough, Southbridge, Southwick, Spencer, Springfield, Sterling, Stoneham, Stoughton, Stow, Sturbridge, Sudbury, Sutton, Swampscott, Swansea, Taunton, Templeton, Tewksbury, Topsfield, Townsend, Tyngsborough, Upton, Uxbridge, Wakefield, Walpole, Waltham, Ware, Wareham, Watertown, Wayland, Webster, Wellesley, Wellfleet, Wenham, West Boylston, West Bridgewater, West Newbury, West Springfield, Westborough, Westfield, Westford, Westhampton, Westminster, Weston, Westport, Westwood, Weymouth, Whitman, Wilbraham, Williamsburg, Wilmington, Winchendon, Winchester, Winthrop, Woburn, Wrentham, Yarmouth
# # #
EPA Finalizes $11 Million Plan to Clean Up Soil and Groundwater at Toxic Site in Glen Cove, New York
EPA News Release:
14-111 # # #
EPA Finalizes $11 Million Plan to Clean Up Soil and Groundwater
at Toxic Site in Glen Cove, New York
Contact: Elias Rodriguez, (212) 637-3664, rodriguez.elias@epa.gov
(New York, N.Y. – Sept. 30, 2014) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has finalized its cleanup plan to address contaminated groundwater and soil at the Mattiace Petrochemical Co., Inc. Superfund site in Glen Cove, New York. The groundwater and soil are contaminated with volatile organic compounds as a result of previous operations at the site by a chemical distribution and drum-cleaning business. The plan amends a prior, long-term cleanup plan and is intended to improve the effectiveness of groundwater treatment at the site. The estimated cost of this phase of the cleanup is approximately $11.2 million. Groundwater from the Mattiace site flows away from the municipal drinking wells and does not pose a threat to drinking water. The public water supply is monitored regularly to ensure that the water quality meets federal and state drinking water standards.
Some volatile organic compounds can cause cancer. The extent and nature of potential health effects depend on many factors, including the contaminant levels and the length of exposure. The site is located next to a major redevelopment project which is planned to occur in Glen Cove and is near the Nassau County Garvies Point Preserve, an important natural habitat.
“The EPA’s work addresses the toxic plume in the groundwater at this site in Glen Cove,” said EPA Regional Administrator Judith A. Enck. “Using a combination of cleanup methods, EPA will reduce the contaminants in the groundwater and soil until federal cleanup objectives are met.”
The EPA held a public meeting in Glen Cove on April 28, 2014 to explain its plan. The EPA accepted public comments for 30 days and considered public input before finalizing the plan.
Mattiace Petrochemical Co., Inc. operated at the site from the 1960s until 1987 when it went bankrupt. When the facility was in operation, chemicals and stormwater were discharged intoGlen Cove Creek. Soil on the site was contaminated and storage tanks and dozens of buried drums were found there. With the support of New York State, the site was added to the federal Superfund list in 1989.
Through the late 1980s and into the 1990s, the EPA addressed the immediate threats to the surrounding community as part of long-term cleanup plans. The EPA removed over 100,000 gallons of hazardous liquids and excavated and disposed of contaminated soil, drums and storage tanks. The EPA demolished and removed all structures on the site. Contaminated material was also removed from behind a collapsed retaining wall, and the wall, which runs along the former property boundary, was reinforced.
In addition, the EPA constructed systems to treat the groundwater and vapors from the soil. These systems were initially operated by the EPA and then by a group of parties legally responsible, which EPA identified and pursued to perform the work.
After 15 years of extensive monitoring and after studying many options, the EPA concluded that, while the actions taken have reduced contamination levels in the groundwater, the levels were no longer decreasing and additional measures are needed to complete the cleanup.
The new EPA plan that has been proposed requires using natural processes together with a technique called bioventing that moves air through the soil and groundwater to promote the natural breakdown of oily liquid waste and volatile organic compounds. A new system to vent the soil and groundwater and capture the vapors will be constructed on the site and on an adjacent property.
In some areas of the site, the EPA is requiring the use of non-hazardous additives to the groundwater to promote the breakdown of contaminants. The specific types of additives to be used will be determined by the EPA as part of the design of the cleanup.
In other areas of more highly contaminated soil and groundwater, heat will be used to treat polluted soil and groundwater. The thermal treatment involves applying heat underground that will destroy harmful chemicals in the soil and groundwater and also allow some of the contaminants to move through soil and groundwater toward wells where they will be collected and treated.
An underground wall will be installed at the boundaries of the property to keep contamination from moving to areas beyond the property. Trees, with root systems that will help to control groundwater levels and further absorb some of the contaminants, will be planted on the property.
The plan requires restrictions on how the site can be used in the future to ensure that activities at the site do not result in an unacceptable exposure to contaminants or interfere with the cleanup. For example, the EPA will prevent the future use of the groundwater as a source of drinking water until the groundwater is clean. Other measures include requiring systems to address potential indoor air contaminants as part of any future building constructed on the property. Disturbance of the containment wall would also be prohibited.
The EPA will continue to ensure the periodic collection and analysis of groundwater samples to verify that the level and extent of contaminants are declining. The EPA will continue to monitor vapors from the soil as well and will conduct a review every five years to ensure the effectiveness of the cleanup.
The Superfund program operates on the principle that polluters should pay for the cleanups, rather than passing the costs to taxpayers. The EPA searches for parties legally responsible for the contamination at sites that are placed on the Superfund list, and it seeks to hold those parties accountable for the costs of investigations and cleanups. The cleanup of the Mattiace Petrochemical Co., Inc. Superfund site is being performed and paid for by certain of those parties who have agreed to perform the work, with oversight by the EPA.
The Record of Decision detailing this remedy at the site is available athttp://epa.gov/region02/superfund/npl/mattiace
Follow EPA Region 2 on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/eparegion2 and visit our Facebook page, http://www.facebook.com/eparegion2.
14-111 # # #
EPA Releases Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data from Large Facilities
EPA News Release:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 30, 2014
EPA Releases Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data from Large Facilities
WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its fourth year of Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program data, detailing greenhouse gas pollution trends and emissions broken down by industrial sector, geographic region and individual facilities. In 2013, reported emissions from large industrial facilities were 20 million metric tons higher than the prior year, or 0.6 percent, driven largely by an increase in coal use for power generation.
“Climate change, fueled by greenhouse gas pollution, is threatening our health, our economy, and our way of life—increasing our risks from intense extreme weather, air pollution, drought and disease,” said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. “EPA is supporting the President’s Climate Action Plan by providing high-quality greenhouse gas data to inform effective climate action.”
The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program is the only program that collects facility-level greenhouse gas data from major industrial sources across the United States, including power plants, oil and gas production and refining, iron and steel mills and landfills. The program also collects data on the increasing production and consumption of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) predominantly used in refrigeration and air conditioning.
Over 8,000 large-emitters reported direct greenhouse gas emissions to the program in 2013, representing approximately 50 percent of total U.S. emissions. The data from these facilities show that in 2013:
- Power plants remained the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, with over 1,550 facilities emitting over 2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, roughly 32 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas pollution. Power plant emissions have declined by 9.8 percent since 2010, but there was an uptick in emissions of 13 million metric tons in 2013 due to an increased use of coal.
- Petroleum and natural gas systems were the second largest stationary source, reporting 224 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions, a decrease of 1 percent from the previous year.
-
- Reported methane emissions from petroleum and natural gas systems sector have decreased by 12 percent since 2011, with the largest reductions coming from hydraulically fractured natural gas wells, which have decreased by 73 percent during that period. EPA expects to see further emission reductions as the agency’s 2012 standards for the oil and gas industry become fully implemented.
- Refineries were the third largest stationary source, reporting 177 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions, up 1.6 percent from the previous year.
- Reported emissions from other large sources in the industrial and waste sectors increased by 7 million metric tons of greenhouse gas pollution, up 1 percent from 2012.
Under President Obama’s Climate Action Plan, EPA is taking steps to address carbon pollution from the power and transportation sectors, and to improve energy efficiency in homes, businesses and factories. Under EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan, carbon emissions from the power sector would decrease by 30 percent below 2005 levels and electricity bills would shrink by 8 percent by 2030. EPA’s pollution standards for cars and light trucks for model years 2012-2025 will save Americans more than $1.7 trillion at the pump. In addition, the agency’s partnerships with industry have prevented more than 365 million metric tons of greenhouse gas pollution, equal to the annual electricity use of more than 50 million homes.
EPA will be holding information webinars today and Thursday to demonstrate the greenhouse gas data publication tool, FLIGHT, highlight new features added this year, and provide a tutorial on common searches. FLIGHT allows users to view top emitters in a state or regions; see emissions data from a specific industry; track emissions trends by facility or region; and download maps, list and charts.
See key facts and figures and explore Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program Data:
Register for FLIGHT webinars:
More information about climate change:
R226
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)