Environmental Review | Environmental Impact Assessment

Monday, January 4, 2010

Expansion of Lead Paint Rules - 2008 Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule

EPA has issued a proposed rule to expand the coverage of the 2008 Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule. The new rule proposes to eliminate a provision that exempted some housing from the rule’s requirement that contractors be trained and certified and use lead-safe work practices when renovating, repairing or painting a pre-1978 home.

The federal government banned lead-based paint from housing in 1978. However, if a home was built before 1978, it has a higher likelihood of containing lead-based paint. The 2008 rule requires contractors working in pre-1978 housing where children under six or pregnant women reside to take the proper precautions to work lead-safe, including minimizing the dust, containing the work area, and conducting a thorough cleanup to reduce the potential exposure associated with disturbing lead-based paint. The proposed rule would expand such requirements to cover most pre-1978 homes.

EPA expects to finalize the rule by April 2010.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address Environmental Review and Environmental Impact Assessment.

Caltha Environmental Review Website

Proposed Rules On Disclosure of Inert Pesticide Ingredients

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is requesting public comment on options for disclosing inert ingredients in pesticides. In this anticipated rulemaking, EPA is seeking ideas for greater disclosure of inert ingredient identities. Inert ingredients are part of the end use product formulation and are not active ingredients. Pesticide manufacturers usually disclose their inert ingredients only to EPA. Currently, EPA evaluates the safety of all ingredients in a product’s formulation when determining whether the pesticide should be registered.

On October 1, 2009, EPA responded to two petitions to designate more than 350 inert pesticide ingredients as hazardous. The petitioners asked EPA to require that these ingredients be identified on the labels of products that include them in their formulations.

EPA is accepting comments on the advance notice of proposed rulemaking for 60 days after it has been published in the Federal Register.

EPA TSCA Chemicals of Concern List - Phthalates, PBDE, PFOA

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced a series of actions on four chemicals raising serious health or environmental concerns, including phthalates. EPA intends to establish a “Chemicals of Concern” list and is beginning a process that may lead to regulations requiring significant risk reduction measures to protect human health and the environment. The agency’s actions represent its determination to use its authority under the existing Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to the fullest extent possible.

In addition to phthalates, the chemicals EPA is addressing are

short-chain chlorinated paraffins,
polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and
perfluorinated chemicals, including PFOA.

EPA also recently announced that three U.S. companies agreed to phase out DecaBDE, a widely used fire retardant chemical that may potentially cause cancer and may impact brain function.

In September 2009, EPA outlined a set of agency principles to help inform legislative reform and announced that EPA would act on a number of widely studied chemicals that may pose threats to human health. When TSCA was passed in 1976, there were 60,000 chemicals on the inventory of existing chemicals. Since that time, EPA has restricted or banned five existing chemicals and has required testing on another two hundred existing chemicals. An additional 20,000 chemicals have entered the marketplace for a total of more than 80,000 chemicals on the TSCA inventory.

The actions announced by EPA include:

Adding phthalates and PBDE chemicals to the concern list.
Beginning a process that could lead to risk reductions actions under section 6 of TSCA for several phthalates, short-chain chlorinated paraffins, and perfluorinated chemicals.
Reinforcing the DecaBDE phaseout, which will take place over three years, with requirements to ensure that any new uses of PBDEs are reviewed by EPA prior to returning to the market.

This is the first time EPA has used TSCA’s authority to list chemicals that “may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment.” Inclusion on the list publicly signals EPA’s concern about the risks that those chemicals pose and the agency’s intention to manage those risks. Once listed, chemical companies can provide information to the agency if they want to demonstrate that their chemical does not pose an unreasonable risk.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

WDNR Environmental Assessment of Vessel General Permit

The Wisconsin DNR (WDNR) has recently completed its environmental assessment for the proposed issuance of a general permit to regulate the discharge of ballast water from ships into the waters of the State. This assessment, completed to comply with the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA) clears the way for WDNR to issue its final discharge permit.

On February 23, 2009, the WDNR public noticed a general permit for commercial vessels which includes effluent discharge standards for ballast water. This permit also included an aggressive compliance schedule for implementation. The permit specifies biological effluent discharge standards and biocide effluent limits that, based upon best professional judgment, represent the best practicable technology currently available pursuant to § NR 220.21, Wis. Adm. Code. WDNR believes a permit for regulating ballast water beyond what EPA has developed is necessary to prevent the release of additional aquatic invasive species (AIS) and protect water quality standards in Wisconsin. The 2010-11 biennial budget bill signed by Governor Doyle in July 2009 provided for statutory authority to establish a discharge performance standard for ballast water.

Wisconsin’s General Permit will require discharges of ballast water to meet numeric technology based effluent limits based upon the number of living organisms in the discharge by 2014 for all existing ocean-going ships. Vessels constructed on or after January 1, 2012 would have to meet these requirements prior to operation. The permit is intended to minimize the further release of aquatic invasive species. The general permit requires all ocean-going vessels to meet discharge standards set at 100 times more stringent than the IMO standards. This discharge standard is similar to that adopted by New York in its § 401 Water Quality Certification. Plans and specifications of the treatment systems would require approval by the Department, to confirm the treatment has been approved by the USCG or an equivalent approval process, is effective and would comply with the discharge standards.

There is an exemption in this permit when ballast water is pumped from a vessel off-ship for treatment on another vessel or to a ballast water treatment system on-shore. Additionally, the permit allows for an alternative discharge limit, if the technology is not available to meet the discharge standards by December 31, 2011.

The federal general permit (VGP), effective December 19, 2008, that applies to all discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel1 includes a technology based standard for all ocean-going vessels. This standard has been required by the United States Coast Guard (USCG) for all vessels that enter the St. Lawrence Seaway since March 2008 and has proven ineffective as the introduction of aquatic invasive species has continued. On August 28, 2009, the USCG published in the federal register a new proposed ballast water discharge standard rule which requires a phased approach to ballast water discharge standards, with IMO being required in phase-one, and up to 1000 times IMO standards in phase-two. WDNR general permit contains technology based effluent limitations that represent the best practicable control technology currently available.

3 Year Look Back Rule For Environmental Review

The "Three Year Look Back Rule" under Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Environmental Review requirements addresses how to determine whether a proposed expansion of an existing project requires a mandatory EAW due to the combined size of the existing project and the proposed expansion. The existing project’s magnitude must be added to that of the proposed expansion under the following conditions:

Construction of the existing project commenced less than three years ago; and
The existing project was not reviewed through an EAW or EIS.

The purpose of the 3-year look-back rule is to identify phased actions that are subject to review. This provision does not require EAW review of any existing stages of the project. It only requires the RGU to include previous stages in the calculation to determine if the EAW mandatory threshold is exceeded, not to review completed construction.

Monday, December 14, 2009

EQB Mandatory Environmental Review Categories Proposed

The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) is proposing amendments to environmental review rules adding several categories of projects that would require a Mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) or a Mandatory Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). These amendments are in five areas:

New mandatory EAW, EIS, and Exemption categories that would apply to certain projects located in the shoreland areas of lake and rivers;
Amendments to how the rules handle treatment of “cumulative potential effects” in EAWs, EIS, and Alternative Urban Areawide Reviews (AUARs) in response to a 2006 Minnesota Supreme Court decision;
Amendments to the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) process with respect to how specific individual projects are treated or how they affect the review;
A new mandatory EIS category for releases of genetically-engineered wild rice, in response to a legislative directive in the 2007 session; and
Miscellaneous other amendments to clarify the meaning of certain rule provisions.

US HUD Mandatory Vapor Intrusion Screening - ASTM E 2600

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Office of Multifamily Housing has adopted Tier 1 vapor intrusion (VI) screens (the first of four tiers) under ASTM E 2600 as a mandatory component of Phase I environmental site assessments conducted under the agency's MAP (Multifamily Accelerated Processing) Guide. MAP is the procedure used by hundreds of MAP-approved lenders and HUD field offices throughout the country to process loan applications for Federal Housing Administration multifamily mortgage insurance.

Under the revised policy, a HUD Phase I ESA must include an initial vapor intrusion screen to determine if there is a potential for vapors to occur in the subsurface below existing and/or proposed on-site structures from those hazardous substances, petroleum and petroleum products that consist of VOCs, SVOCs and inorganic volatile compounds.

HUD is one of two Federal lending agencies that that prescribe additional mandatory requirements to a Phase I ESA. The Small Business Administration also has additional enviornmental review requirements for participation in its lending programs.

SBA Environmental Review / RSRA / Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Requirements

Caltha LLP assists prospective Buyers and their Lenders in meeting Due Diligence, Environmental Site Assessment and Environmental Review requirements. To request a quote on-line, go to Caltha Environmental Assessment Quote Web Page.

Caltha Environmental Review Website