Invasive Species Target of New Ballast Water Rule

The following is an excerpt from an article in 

The New York Times
Sunday, April 08, 2012

Invasive Species Target of New Ballast Water Rule 

By FELICITY BARRINGER

Nearly a quarter-century has passed since an oceangoing ship from Europe docked somewhere in the Great Lakes and discharged ballast water carrying tiny but tenacious zebra mussel larvae from Europe.

Within a few years after they turned up in Lake St. Clair, between Lakes Huron and Erie, the small freshwater mussels and their larger and even more destructive cousins, quagga mussels, had coated lakebeds throughout the region, clogging intake valves and pipes at power, water treatment and manufacturing plants.

The filter-feeding mussels have since helped to upend the ecosystems of the Great Lakes, fouling beaches, promoting the growth of poisonous algae and decimating some native fish populations by eating the microscopic free-floating plant cells on which their food web depends.

“They didn’t just spread — they completely colonized the Great Lakes,” said Andrew Buchsbaum, director of the National Wildlife Federation’s Great Lakes office.

Yet it was not until last month that the Coast Guard issued a federal rule requiring oceangoing freighters entering American waters to install onboard treatment systems to filter and disinfect their ballast water. The regulation, which largely parallels a pending international standard and another planned by the Environmental Protection Agency, sets an upper limit on the concentration of organisms in the ballast water.

About 12,000 oceangoing ships moving through United States waters will be covered by the Coast Guard rules; hundreds reach the Great Lakes system through the St. Lawrence Seaway. Until now, they were only required to flush their tanks at sea, a system called ballast water exchange.

The goal of the new rule is not to vanquish quagga or zebra mussels — scientists assume they are here to stay — but to bar entry to other invasive species like the so-called killer shrimp that are spreading through Europe.

Mac Flashback Trojan: If you're using Java, the time to patch your Mac is now | ESET ThreatBlog

Mac Flashback Trojan: If you're using Java, the time to patch your Mac is now | ESET ThreatBlog

Help Control the Spread of Snakehead Fish and Win a Prize

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/dnrnews/pressrelease2012/032812.asp

EPA Fines Violators of the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 5, 2012

EPA Fines Violators of the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced three enforcement actions for violations of the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule (RRP) and other lead rules. The RRP rule requires the use of lead-safe work practices to ensure that common renovation activities like sanding, cutting and demolition, which can create hazardous lead dust, are conducted properly by trained and certified contractors or individuals. EPA finalized the RRP rule in 2008 and the rule took effect on April 22, 2010.

“Exposure to lead can cause serious health problems and affects our most vulnerable population, our children,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “By taking action to enforce lead rules we are protecting people’s health and ensuring that businesses that follow the rules have a level playing field.”
On March 21, 2012, Colin Wentworth, a rental property owner who was responsible for building operation and maintenance, agreed to pay $10,000 to resolve violations of the RRP rule. The complaint alleged that Mr. Wentworth’s workers violated the rule by improperly using power equipment to remove paint from the exterior surface of an 1850’s apartment building he owns in Rockland, Maine. The complaint also alleged that the workers had not received any training under the rule and that Mr. Wentworth had failed to apply for firm certification with the EPA. Because the lead dust had not been properly contained, residents were potentially exposed and the dust could have also contaminated the ground surrounding the apartment building. Two of the four units in the building were rented to recipients of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Section 8 vouchers and there were at least four children under the age of 18, including one under the age of six, living in the units. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) also responded to the alleged violations.

On March 20, 2012, Valiant Home Remodelers, a New Jersey window and siding company, agreed to pay $1,500 to resolve violations from failing to follow the RRP rule during a window and siding replacement project at a home in Edison, N.J. Valiant Home Remodelers failed to contain renovation dust, contain waste, and train workers on lead-safe work practices.

On February 21, 2012, Johnson Sash and Door, a home repair company located in Omaha, Neb., agreed to pay a $5,558 penalty for failing to provide the owners or occupants of housing built prior to 1978 with an EPA-approved lead hazard information pamphlet or to obtain a written acknowledgement prior to commencement of renovation activities at five homes. The complaint also alleged that Johnson failed to obtain initial certification prior to performing renovations at these residences.

As required by the law, a company or individual’s ability to pay a penalty is evaluated and penalties are adjusted accordingly.

These recent actions are part of EPA’s effort to ensure that contractors and individuals follow the RRP requirements and other lead rules to protect people’s health from exposure to lead. Lead exposure can cause a range of health effects, from behavioral problems and learning disabilities to seizures and death, putting young children at the greatest risk because their nervous systems are still developing.

More on the settlement: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/tsca/tscaenfstatreq.html

More about lead: http://www.epa.gov/lead 

U.S. Announces Innovative Clean Air Agreement For Industrial Flares With Marathon Petroleum Company

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 5, 2012

U.S. Announces Innovative Clean Air Agreement For Industrial Flares With Marathon Petroleum Company

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Justice today announced an innovative environmental agreement with Ohio-based Marathon Petroleum Company that already has significantly reduced air pollution from all six of the company’s petroleum refineries. In a first for the refining industry, Marathon has agreed to state-of-the-art controls on combustion devices known as flares and to a cap on the volume of waste gas it will send to its flares. When fully implemented, the agreement is expected to reduce harmful air pollution by approximately 5,400 tons per year and result in future cost savings for the company.

“Today’s agreement will result in cleaner air for communities across the South and Midwest,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “By working with EPA, Marathon helped advance new approaches that reduce air pollution and improve efficiency at its refineries and provide the U.S. with new knowledge to bring similar improvements in air quality to other communities across the nation.”

“This agreement is a great victory for the environment and will result in cleaner and healthier air for the benefit of communities across the country in Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio and Texas,” said Ignacia S. Moreno, assistant attorney general for the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice. “By spurring corporate ingenuity, this settlement will dramatically reduce emissions from all 22 flares at Marathon’s six refineries.”

The settlement is part of EPA’s national effort to reduce air pollution from refinery, petrochemical and chemical flares. A flare is a mechanical device, ordinarily elevated high off the ground, used to combust waste gases. The more waste gas a company sends to a flare, the more pollution occurs. The less efficient a flare is in burning waste gas, the more pollution occurs. EPA wants companies to flare less, and when they do flare, to fully combust the harmful chemicals found in the waste gas.

A consent decree filed today in the U.S. District Court in Detroit resolves Marathon’s alleged violations of the Clean Air Act. As part of the effort to reach this agreement, Marathon, under the direction and oversight of EPA, spent more than $2.4 million to develop and conduct pioneering combustion efficiency testing of flares and to advance the understanding of the relationship between flare operating parameters and flare combustion efficiency.

In addition, beginning in 2009, Marathon installed equipment, such as flow monitors and gas chromatographs, to improve the combustion efficiency of its flares. To date, Marathon has spent approximately $45 million on this equipment and projects, and plans to spend an additional $6.5 million. Marathon also will spend an as yet undetermined sum to comply with the flaring caps required in the consent decree.
At the same time, Marathon indicates that the equipment it already has installed is saving it approximately $5 million per year through reduced steam usage and product recovery. Marathon also projects additional savings through the operation of the equipment to be installed in the future.

From 2008 to the end of 2011, the controls Marathon installed eliminated approximately 4720 tons per year of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and 110 tons per year of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from the air. An additional 530 tons per year of VOCs and 30 tons per year of HAPs are projected to be eliminated in the future.

Under the agreement, Marathon will also implement a project at its Detroit refinery to remove another 15 tons per year of VOCs and another one ton per year of benzene from the air. At an estimated cost of $2.2 million, Marathon will install controls on numerous sludge handling tanks and equipment.

Marathon’s six refineries are located in: Robinson, Ill.; Catlettsburg, Ky.; Garyville, La.; Detroit; Canton, Ohio; and Texas City, Texas. Together, the refineries have a capacity of more than 1.15 million barrels per day.

Marathon, headquartered in Findlay, Ohio, will pay a civil penalty of $460,000 to the United States.

The consent decree is subject to a 30-day public comment period and final court approval.

More about the settlement: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/marathonrefining.html

More about EPA’s civil enforcement of the Clean Air Act: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/caa/index.html

More about EPA’s refinery initiative: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/oil/

Developers pay $30,000 for Damaging and Polluting Panguitch Lake

Developers pay $30,000 for Damaging and Polluting Panguitch Lake

Companies and individual cited for unauthorized construction activities at Panguitch Lake Adventure Resort

Contacts: Monica Heimdal, 303-312-6359; Matthew Allen, 303-312-6085

(Denver, Colorado – April 3^rd 2012) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has entered into a Combined Complaint and Consent Agreement (CCCA) and an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with Polidori Corporation, Inc., Poli-Gold, LLC, and Veronica Polidori (collectively, Polidori) in response to alleged violations of the Clean Water Act at Panguitch Lake in Garfield County, Utah. EPA alleges that Polidori discharged dredged or fill material to the lake and adjacent wetlands, in violation of the Clean Water Act, during the construction of a marina and RV park.

The AOC, which replaces an administrative order for compliance issued in September of 2010, addresses discharges of dredged or fill material by Polidori, or persons acting on their behalf, to approximately 7.5 acres of Panguitch Lake and adjacent wetlands during the construction of a marina and RV park during 2007 and 2008. The unauthorized work included construction of a coffer dam in the lake, dredging and filling a large portion of an existing marina, and placement of large rocks along the perimeter of the new marina. Additional activities associated with the development of the RV park included construction of a rock wall, the discharge of large amounts of earthen fill, and placement of large rocks along a portion of the lake’s southern shoreline.

"The construction at the Panguitch Lake Adventure Resort degraded more than seven acres of the lake and nearby wetlands,” said Mike Gaydosh, EPA’s enforcement director in Denver. “It is critical that those wishing to take actions that impact surface waters and wetlands contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers first to see if their planned activities can be permitted."

Polidori has paid a penalty of $30,000 and will remove and/or mitigate discharged material. Where material is removed, impacted areas must be restored to pre-impact conditions and grade. Prior to undertaking this work, Polidori must submit a plan for EPA approval that details how restoration and mitigation will be accomplished.

Panguitch Lake and its adjacent wetlands provide numerous functions and values, including aquatic and wildlife habitat, groundwater recharge, flood attenuation, recreation and aesthetics. Placement of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. can have adverse impacts on wildlife habitat and on communities of fish, plants and insects.

A permit is required before performing any work that results in discharges of material into rivers, lakes, streams and wetlands. Any person planning to do such work in southern Utah should contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ St. George Regulatory Office (321 North Mall Drive, Suite L-101, St. George, UT 84790; telephone, 435-986-3979) before beginning work to determine if a permit is needed.

For more information on the Clean Water Act, visit EPA's compliance web page: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/cwa/index.html

For more information about the importance of wetlands in flood control and habitat conservation, visit: http://www.usace.army.mil/ or http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/

What Kind of Toxins Are Present in PBX Equipment?

http://blog.ringcentral.com/2012/04/what-kind-of-toxins-are-present-in-pbx-equipment.html