SCENVIRONMENTALLAWYER.COM

Haz Mat Training Session Scheduled for Sept 8th in Charlotte

Roy Shelley — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:30:00 GMT

Workers who handle hazardous waste or materials must have training per EPA (RCRA) & federal DOT requirements. Workers who handle hazardous waste must be trained annually; workers involved in the shipment of hazardous materials must be trained at least every three years.

A DOT/RCRA Annual Update and Refresher course that meets both RCRA and DOT 49 CFR training requirements is being conducted by the Environmental Resource Center in Charlotte, NC at the Holiday Inn – Charlotte University on September 8, 2010. Class begins at 8 am and ends at 5 pm.

Columbia's 4th Annual "Green is Good for Business Conference" being held Sept 14th

Roy Shelley — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 21:48:00 GMT

The Important Details:
What: The Fourth Annual "Green is Good for Business" Conference
When: Tuesday, September 14, 8:30a-7p
Where: Columbia Metropolitan Convention Center, 1101 Lincoln Street, Columbia
Cost: $50 per person; $120 for three

The Conference begins with a keynote speaker from the CEO of TerraCycle. There will also be presentation on the SC Hospitality Association's "Green Hospitality Alliance" plans for the City of Columbia's new restaurant and bar recycling program.

There is also a FREE Green Business Expo from 5 to 7 p.m., featuring:

Green Vendors
Environmental Non-Profits
Great Food & Drink, including New Belgium beers
Door Prizes

(Unfortunately, our law firm is hosting a SC Business conference the same evening. Hmm. Maybe I can grab a few green Belgium beers before heading over.)

Click below for more info on the conference:
http://www.columbia.sc.gov/coc/index.cfm/cpac/2010-green-is-good-for-business-conference/

EPA Issues Final Rules re: Air Emissions Standards for Cement Plants

Roy Shelley — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 15:04:00 GMT

The use of concrete is fundamental in virtually every construction project. And Portland cement is often a chief component in cement. Because of this, plants which produce Portland cement have been governed under different (most would agree laxer) emissions standards than most other industries. This distinction has allegedly progressed to the point that, in some areas, cement plants are responsible for 90% of hazardous air emissions, including mercury, sulfur dioxide ("SOX"), nitrogen dioxide ("NOX"), and hexavalent chromium, as well as acids and particulate matter..

On August 9^th, the EPA released a 450+ page Final Rule for Hazardous Air Emissions. (Portland Cement Final Rules: New Source Performance Standards and National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3pfpr.html) According to EPA's projections, the final rule will lead to a reduction of 70-90% of most of the hazardous air emissions from cement plants.

Environmentalists have championed the stricter regulations. (See NRDC's Article: A Big Step Toward Cleaner Cement )

The Final Rule for cement plants follows on the heels of a draft proposal for the regulation of coal ash, which is also often used in the production of concrete as a substitute for cement. (See the 5/24/10 entry in this blog). Although both could likely affect the cost of concrete production, tightening the regulation of the two most common components of concrete at approximately the same time will likely keep the playing field even from a regulatory standpoint. Of course, as always, advances in technology could provide (or reinstate) a competitive edge. It remains to be seen which industry will be successful in capturing that edge in the future.

Federal Court finds CERCLA "Arranger" Liability Applies to Stormwater Management

Roy Shelley — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 14:11:00 GMT

Liability under CERCLA includes those who "arrange" for the disposal of hazardous materials if those materials are "released" at some point into the environment (either intentionally or accidently). (CERCLA § 107(a)(3) defines an “arranger” as “any person who … arranged for disposal or treatment … of hazardous substances owned or possessed by … any party or entity, at any facility … owned or operated by another party or entity and containing such hazardous substances.”) A Federal district court in the State of Washington has held that the Washington Department of Transportation (WDOT) falls within the scope of "arranger liability" based on its actions in designing, constructing, and maintaining stormwater management systems which eventually discharged into the Commencement Bay-Nearshore Tideflats Superfund Site in Tacoma, Washington. (See United States v. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), 2010 WL 2302502 (W.D. Wash, June 7, 2010).

The decision is already being criticized in many circles, mainly for the potential impact upon any entity – private or public – involved in construction or other type of development. Every contractor, engineer, and landowner involved in stormwater management could be a PRP (CERCLA-speak for "potentially responsible party"), not to mention the highway department in every state.

The legal criticism of the decision is based on the U.S. Supreme Court's clarification in the Burlington Northern case that an "intent to dispose" of hazardous material is required for arranger liability, and that the WDOT's intent was to dispose of stormwater, not hazardous materials. Obviously this would be the response of anyone involved in a stormwater management system, but, at a basic level, it is well-known that certain stormwater management systems – especially for highway systems – will certainly pick up hazardous materials (and possibly concentrate them, which is even more troublesome).

The court's reasoning could be applied to sewer systems or any other conveyances that would likely include hazardous materials, so the potential scope of this decision, if upheld or adopted in other jurisdictions, could be enormous and economically devastating to some entities; therefore, based purely on the economic realities (as opposed to legal reasoning), I don't foresee this opinion surviving appellate court review.

DC Circuit Upholds EPA's authority to issue Unilateral Administrative Orders (UAOs) in CERCLA cases

Roy Shelley — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 15:31:00 GMT

This is an update to a prior entry (http://scenvironmentallawyer.com/2010/04/13/update-dc-circuit-to-reconsider-case-re-unilateral-administative-orders-under-cercla.aspx).

General Electric challenged the EPA's authority to order companies to engage in potentially costly activities to prevent the release or clean up hazardous materials or face substantial penalties for ignoring its order. GE argued that such orders violated due process because EPA could issue such orders without the requirement of a court review. The district court ruled against GE's challenge, and that decision has now been upheld by the DC Circuit Court. (See opinion here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1529475.html?DCMP=NWL-pro_envtl )

The DC Circuit Court agreed that the UAO process satisfied Due Process requirements because UAO recipients could obtain a pre-deprivation hearing by refusing to comply and forcing EPA to sue the recipient in federal court. (Note: The DC Circuit Court is very influential in issues related to environmental law and the power of the EPA.)

This case is an interesting microcosm of the eternal debate over government control and administrative power vs. the real or perceived need to protect health and safety. The underlying case had some statistics which showed that UAOs were successfully challenged (i.e., that they had been issued in error or to the wrong entity) in only a miniscule fraction of cases. Therefore, it appears that, if anything, EPA errs on the side of not issuing a UAO, perhaps to the detriment of health and safety in some cases. Of course, if it is you or your company that erroneously receives a UAO and pursuit of the proper parties is impractical or impossible, such error could be economically devastating. On the other hand, how many times has EPA refused to issue or delayed issuing a UAO that could have prevented an injury? Such questions are impossible to answer, and our best strategy is to continually try to strike a proper balance between vigorous enforcement and reasonable safety.

EPA Releases Proposed Coal Ash Regulations

Roy Shelley — Mon, 24 May 2010 13:48:00 GMT

The warily-anticipated and oft-delayed EPA proposal to regulate coal ash (aka "Coal Combustion Residuals") has been released in a 500+ page proposed rule. It is actually two alternate proposals – one which treats ash as hazardous under RCRA Sub-Title C and one treats it as non-hazardous under Sub-Title D, but many expect that the final proposed rule will be a "hybrid" approach that depends upon the actual handling process being used for the ash – that is, different regulations will apply for storage, for transportation, and for use of the ash.

Coal Ash is produced by utilities and other industries which burn coal, and almost 50% of current production is used for fill or the production of products for construction, and its beneficial use is a successful example of going "green" – using what would have usually been disposed of in landfills and decreasing the need for raw natural resources for building materials. Concerns have been raised about the content of heavy metals and other hazardous materials in coal ash; however, the failure of the TVA-Kingston wet coal ash impoundment (which was mainly an issue of mechanical damage – not toxic contamination) brought the issue of coal ash regulation to the forefront.

The proposed rule is being reviewed by "stakeholders" (EPA's term for anyone who could be affected by a regulation) and has not yet been printed in the Federal Register (which would trigger an official review/comment period). EPA's notice about the proposed rule is at: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr-rule/index.htm

Legal Liability For the Gulf Oil Spill

Roy Shelley — Tue, 04 May 2010 13:44:00 GMT

Good summary of the legal paradigm for claims related to the Gulf oil spill (from the NRDC website):

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dpettit/what_bp_oil_catastrophe_legal.html#comment7687

What BP Oil Catastrophe Legal Damages Could Look Like

Posted: 03 May 2010 10:17 PM PDT

News reports today state that British Petroleum (BP) is stepping up to the plate and agreeing to clean up the mess it made in the Gulf. It’s not like BP had any choice.

The federal Oil Pollution Act (OPA), enacted after the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989, imposes strict liability on parties such as BP for an oil spill from an offshore platform. “Strict liability” in this sense means that no one needs to prove that BP was careless or negligent in order to recover damages under the OPA. Importantly, BP’s liability for cleanup costs under the OPA is unlimited.

By contrast, BP’s liability for other damages, such as property damage or lost profits from businesses affected by the spill, are limited under the OPA to $75 million. A proposal has surfaced in the Senate to raise this limit to somewhere in the billions; it’s not clear whether an increase in this liability limit would apply to the current situation in the Gulf. Damages for personal injury or wrongful death are not covered, or limited, by the OPA.

If you’re thinking that $75 million isn’t what it used to be, the check that BP will need to write for economic and property damage can be larger. The OPA expressly does not preempt claims under state law or common law. A potential problem for plaintiffs in those non-federal claims is that they may need to prove negligence, but the flip side is that there is, in general, no cap on damages.

The parties to litigation under the OPA and state law tend to fall into two groups: governmental bodies and private citizens. The federal government has remedies directly under the OPA, including federal cleanup costs and costs for natural resource damages such as injuries to marine mammals and seabirds. Typically, a state Attorney General will bring suit for loss of state resources, cleanup costs incurred by the state, or loss of recreational use of beaches and state waters. Some state laws also provide for fines on a per gallon basis. If the Exxon Valdez situation is any guide, we can expect to see class action cases brought on behalf of businesses that have lost profits and property owners whose land has been damaged or lost value because of the spill.

As a society, we don’t have to put up with situations like these. We need to transition to an economy based on renewable energy instead of oil. There is no such thing as a sunlight spill.

Proposed Changes to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) & to EPA's Regulation of PCBs

Roy Shelley — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:48:00 GMT

A new bill has been introduced to overhaul (or "upgrade" or "expand governmental control" – depending upon your political bent) the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA). The current bill, called the Safe Chemicals Act of 2010, would require manufacturers to submit information proving the safety of chemicals they currently produce, as well as any new chemical seeking to enter the market. (The 1976 Act essentially grandfathered-in chemicals being produced at that time.) Below are cites to news articles discussing the bill:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1982489,00.html

http://ehstoday.com/environment/news/congress-safe-chemicals-act-reform-management-9818/

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2010/2010-04-15-091.html

Here is the EPA's summary of the current TSCA: http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/tsca.html

In addition, the EPA has issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) concerning its oversight of PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), specifically, "on the Agency's potential reassessment of its current authorizations for PCB use and distribution in commerce." See here for the notice of the public meetings on the proposed changes.

Earth Day - Thurs, April 22, 2010

Roy Shelley — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 21:33:00 GMT

A listing of SC Earth Day events can be found at http://www.earthday.org/events/search/state/SC

EPA has set up a website with Earth Day information (http://www.epa.gov/earthday/) , including a "PICK 5 " program to choose 5 actions you can take to use less resources, reduce pollution, recycle, and more.

Southeastern regional activities are listed at http://www.epa.gov/region4/earthday/

South Carolina's activities include:

Charleston County Recycling's 2010 Earth Day Festival
Charleston County Recycling's 2010 Earth Day Festival will be held on April 17, from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. in North Charleston's beautiful Park Circle. The purpose of the Earth Day Festival is to increase awareness about the Lowcountry's environmental issues, while celebrating Charleston's environmental community and highlighting our challenges and successes.
Location: Park Circle, North Charleston, South Carolina
Date and time: Saturday, April 17 – 11:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Contact: (843) 720-7111, publicinfo@charlestoncounty.org
Learn more about the event

Celebrate Aiken! Earth Day
Performances by the Community Playhouse Youth Wing coincide with the city's annual Earth Day Celebration.
Location: Hopelands Gardens, Aiken, South Carolina
Date and time: Friday, April 23 – 9:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m
Learn more about the event

DHEC's web offering is rather bland: http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/earthday/GetInvolved/

WLTX Channel 19 is offering a recycling event at their studio (6027 Garners Ferry Road in Columbia) on Thursday, April 22 from 6:00am until 7:00pm. They will be accepting home electronics, tires, & scrap metal (including some appliances). See the website for more details: http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=86202

The Kiawah Island Golf Resort has some interesting activities all week (from Sun Apr 18-Sat Apr 24), special workshops, tours and volunteer opportunities. http://www.kiawahresort.com/recreation/kiawah-earth-day.php

On the other hand, a search of Earth Day activities on the SC.gov website turns up the following:

"Your search returned no results." (http://sc.gov/Pages/Search.aspx?q=earth%20day)

Another proud moment.

Conservation Voters of SC - Lobby Day May 4th (Register by April 29th)

Roy Shelley — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 13:49:00 GMT

Join us in Columbia for one of the largest conservation events of the year!

7th Annual Conservation Lobby Day

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 (9:30am - 10pm)

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

Join us for the 7th Annual Conservation Lobby Day on May 4, 2010. Hundreds of conservation community members from around the state will travel to the State House to meet, greet and encourage elected leaders to support the Common Agenda priorities. The day begins with a morning briefing at the Columbia Museum of Art, after which the group walks to the State House to speak to legislators about conservation bills. During the afternoon, participants attend committee meetings and enjoy free time to watch green films, participate in a happy hour or tour the city, the art museum and the State House grounds. In the evening participants will attend an informal oyster roast under the stars at 701 Whaley Street. Come enjoy the live music and local food with legislative guests. If you only go to the State House once this year to speak to your legislator, this is the day to visit!

PLEASE CLICK HERE TO REGISTER BY APRIL 29TH

If you would prefer, you can register via email or by calling Debbie Parker at 803-799-0716.

Schedule of Events

9:30 AM – 11:30 AM
Registration and Briefing
Columbia Museum of Art - 1515 Main Street

11:30 AM – 5:30 PM
Conservation Day Activities
SC State House - 1200 Gervais Street

6:00 PM – 10:00 PM
Legislative Oyster Roast
Historic 701 Whaley

Hosted by:
American Rivers
Coastal Conservation League
Congaree Land Trust
Conservation Voters of South Carolina Education Fund
League of Women Voters
Sierra Club of South Carolina
South Carolina Wildlife Federation
The Nature Conservancy of South Carolina
Upstate Forever
U.S. Green Building Council - South Carolina Chapter

Additional Sponsors
General Electric
Firefly Vodka
Redwood Creek Vineyards

PLEASE CLICK HERE TO REGISTER BY APRIL 29TH

If you would prefer, you can register via email or by calling Debbie Parker at 803-799-0716.

For more information on the 7th Annual Conservation Lobby Day, please click here!

View photos of the 2009 Annual Lobby Day!

About CVSC Contribute Subscribe for Updates 2008 Scorecard Conservation Agenda

Conservation Voters of South Carolina
701 Whaley Street, Suite 207
Columbia, SC 29201
www.conservationvotersofsc.org

Steve Moon Presents Paper on Coal Ash Litigation

Roy Shelley — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:28:00 GMT

RTT attorney Steve Moon, part of our Environment Litigation Practice Group, presented a paper on coal ash litigation at the International Cement Microscopy Association’s annual conference last month. The beneficial use of coal ash is an important component of the modern cement industry and is used in many other areas of the construction industry (see http://www.acaa-usa.org/ and http://www.epa.gov/wastes/partnerships/c2p2/pubs/greenbk508.pdf (PDF)).

Coal ash, like many natural materials, can contain potentially harmful substances such as heavy metals (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash ). However, again like many natural products, proper handling and use of coal ash creates useful, safe products (and the collateral benefit of reducing waste). Concerns with the use of coal ash came to the forefront with the TVA-Kingston incident in December 2008 when the dam for a coal ash slurry pond ruptured. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill and http://www.tva.gov/kingston/index.htm) Although this incident involved the storage of coal ash, concerns about the potential toxins has lead to broader questions about the use of coal ash.

RTT is involved in the defense of litigation over the use of coal ash, including a case involving the Battlefield Golf Course near Chesapeake, Virginia. (See http://www.epaosc.org/site/site_profile.aspx?site_id=4254 ) Steve Moon's paper arose out of his research into these issues.

UPDATE- DC Circuit to Reconsider Case re: Unilateral Administative Orders Under CERCLA

Roy Shelley — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:00:00 GMT

[This is an update to the 3/20/09 entry -see the "CERCLA" archive. The case is General Electric v. Jackson, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, Case No. 09-5092]

General Electric (GE) continues to pursue a due process challenge to EPA's authority to issue unilateral administrative orders (UAOs) under section 106 of CERCLA, arguing that such orders result in immediate economic hardship regardless of how the recipient reacts, and therefore the issuance of a UAO without a pre-deprivation hearing violates the Due Process clause of the US Constitution.

As background, EPA has a number of options under CERCLA when it determines that an environmental cleanup is required. Two involve the oversight of the court: 1) EPA can cleanup the site, then file an action to recover costs, or 2) EPA can seek a court order compelling the PRP ("potentially responsible party) to cleanup. A third option, however - the issuance of a UAO requiring the PRP to cleanup the site - is an internal agency decision that bypasses any initial judicial involvement.

Due Process challenges to UAOs have failed in the past, but GE has developed an extensive record to show the economic hardship created regardless of whether a PRP chooses to comply with a UAO (and therefore incur cleanup costs that it may never recover) or to not comply (and therefore face potentially devastating fines).

Regardless of the DC Court's opinion, this case is almost certain to reach the US Supreme Court.

CSI Now Free (the TV show, too)

Roy Shelley — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:23:00 GMT

The EPA has now made online access to the Chemical Substances Inventory (CSI) free to the public. This should be the starting point for anyone wishing to obtain information on a specific chemical.

Excerpt from the EPA's news release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
March 15, 2010
EPA Makes Chemical Information More Accessible to Public
For the first time, TSCA chemical inventory free of charge online

WASHINGTON– As part of Administrator Lisa P. Jackson’s strong commitment to increase information on chemicals, for the first time, EPA is providing web access, free of charge, to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Substance Inventory. This inventory contains a consolidated list of thousands of industrial chemicals maintained by the agency. EPA is also making this information available on Data.Gov, a website developed by the Obama Administration to provide public access to important government information. This action represents another step to increase the transparency of chemical information while continuing to push for legislative reform of the 30 year old TSCA law.
...
Until now, the consolidated public portion of the TSCA Inventory has only been available by purchase from the National Technical Reports Library or other databases. By adding the consolidated TSCA Inventory to the Agency’s website and to Data.Gov, EPA is making this information readily available to the public at no cost.

Currently, there are more than 84,000 chemicals manufactured, used, or imported in the listed on the TSCA Inventory. However, EPA is unable to publicly identify nearly 17,000 of these chemicals because the chemicals have been claimed as confidential business information under TSCA by the manufacturers. Under Administrator Jackson’s leadership, EPA has already begun a series of aggressive steps to provide greater transparency on chemical risk information, including an announcement in January that signaled EPA’s intent to reduce a certain type of confidentiality claim, or Confidential Business Information (CBI) claim, on the identity of chemicals

In the coming months, EPA will take further steps to increase transparency and make more information available to the public, including adding TSCA facility information, and the list of chemicals manufactured to the Facility Registry System (FRS). FRS is an integrated database that provides the public with easier access to EPA’s environmental information and better tools for cross-media environmental analysis. The addition of TSCA facility and chemical databases to FRS will provide the public with information on the facilities in their communities using industrial chemicals.

For information about EPA’s increasing transparency on chemical risk information see http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac8525735900400c27/631cf22eb540c4db852576b2004eca47!OpenDocument
For access to the entire TSCA Inventory, please visit
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/pubs/invntory.htm

EPA's Consent Decree in Graniteville Railroad Accident proposes $4 Million Penalty

Roy Shelley — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:46:00 GMT

The 2005 Norfolk Southern train derailment in Graniteville released a cloud of chlorine gas that killed nine people and injured hundreds of others. The deaths and injuries were obviously the initial primary focus (and most of those claims have been resolved) but the accident also caused massive contamination to the local waters. The chlorine cloud was absorbed into the waters and a large amount of diesel fuel from the wrecked locomotives also entered the nearby creeks, causing a large fish kill and destroying vegetation.

The EPA announced a Consent Decree (see news release here) which proposes a penalty of $3.967 Million for Clean Water Act violations (to go to the federal Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund) and $32,500 for failure to immediately report the release under CERCLA (to go to the Hazardous Substance Superfund). (A release of a “hazardous substance" must be reported immediately to the National Response Center: 1-800-424-8802, online at: http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/nrchp.html ). The Decree was filed March 8^th in the District Court for the District of South Carolina, and there is a 30-day public comment period. The full decree is available at http://www.justice.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html.

EPA Announces new CERCLA ("Superfund") Sites

Roy Shelley — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:07:00 GMT

There are now almost 1,300 Superfund sites, and another 1,300 under investigation. Most of these sites are former industrial processing or disposal facilities with a long history - sometimes stretching back over 100 years - of releases of hazardous materials. The EPA, usually in cooperation with state environmental agencies, investigates potentially contaminated sites and adds them to the National Priorities List (NPL) if they meet certain criteria to fall under CERCLA jurisdiction.

Despite the rather depressing sheer number of contaminated sites, there are still some success stories, as well as new, optimistic proposals for reuse of these sites. One such proposal is to use them, after remediation/removal, for renewable energy projects such as solar or wind farms. (See http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2009/10/green-shoots-from-brownfields

On March 2nd, the EPA announced the addition of the following 10 sites to the National Priorities List:

Salt Chuck Mine (Outer Ketchikan County, Alaska)

JJ Seifert Machine (Ruskin, Fla.)

Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp - Jacksonville (Jacksonville, Fla.)

Chemetco (Madison County, Ill.)

Lake Calumet Cluster (Chicago, Ill.)

Gratiot County Golf Course (St. Louis, Mich.)

Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp – Navassa (Navassa, N.C.)

Gowanus Canal (Brooklyn, N.Y.)

Black Butte Mine (Cottage Grove, Ore.)

Van Der Horst USA Corporation (Terrell, Texas)

The following eight sites have been proposed as additions to the National Priorities List:

Sanford Dry Cleaners (Sanford, Fla.)

St. Clair Shores Drain (St. Clair Shores, Mich.)

Vienna Wells (Vienna, Mo.)

ACM Smelter and Refinery (Cascade County, Mont.)

Wright Chemical Corporation (Riegelwood, N.C.)

Black River PCBs (Jefferson County, N.Y.)

Dewey Loeffel Landfill (Nassau, N.Y.)

Smokey Mountain Smelters (Knox County, Tenn.)

Here is the text of the EPA newsrelease:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 2, 2010

EPA Adds Ten Hazardous Waste Sites to Superfund’s National Priorities List

Action builds on efforts to clean up our communities

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is adding 10 new hazardous waste sites that pose risks to human health and the environment to the National Priorities List (NPL) of Superfund sites. The NPL is a listing of priority sites that EPA investigates to determine if actions are needed to clean up the waste. Superfund is the federal program that cleans up the most complex, uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in the country – protecting the health of nearby communities and ecosystems from harmful contaminants. In addition to the final sites added to the list, EPA is also proposing to add eight sites to the NPL.

Contaminants found at these sites may pose a wide range of health effects. The contaminants found include arsenic, benzene, chromium, copper, creosote, cyanide, dichloroethene (DCE), lead, mercury, perchloroethene, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and selenium, among others.

To date, there are 1,279 sites on the NPL (including the 10 new sites added today). With the proposal of the eight new sites, there are 61 proposed sites awaiting final agency action. There are a total of 1,340 final and proposed sites.

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

Contaminated sites may be placed on the NPL 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:

- 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;

- EPA determines the site poses a significant threat to public health; and

- 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

EPA event March 2nd in Charleston re: ARRA funds being used to reduce transport emissions at Port of Charleston

Roy Shelley — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:50:00 GMT

From the EPA news release:

EPA to Recognize Recovery Act Air Quality Improvement Projects in Charleston, SC

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

(ATLANTA – February 26, 2010) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation Gina McCarthy will join officials from the S.C. State Ports Authority (SCSPA), S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC), S.C. State Department of Education (SCSDE) and the private sector at an event to illustrate how funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is being used to improve air quality and create jobs in Charleston, SC.

EPA will recognize the Port of Charleston for using ARRA funds to repower and retrofit cargo handling and other diesel equipment at the Port of Charleston. SCSDE will be recognized for using ARRA funding to replace old school buses with new low emission hybrid buses and retrofit existing buses with cleaner technology. The event also will include a tour and demonstration of how filters will be installed on buses, trucks and other diesel engines to reduce the amount of harmful soot particles in the air.

Who: Gina McCarthy, EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation

Stanley A. Meiburg, EPA Acting Regional Administrator

Jim Newsome, President & CEO, South Carolina State Ports Authority

Myra Reese, Bureau Chief of Air Quality for SC Department of Health and Environmental Control

Betsy Carpentier, Deputy Superintendent for SC State Department of Education

What: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Project Recognition Event

When: Tuesday, March 2, 2010 from 11:00 a.m. until 3:30 p.m.

Where: Wando Welch Terminal

400 Long Point Road

Mount Pleasant, SC

PLEASE NOTE: Advanced security clearance is required for access to port facilities. All media attending the event will need to provide (1) name, (2) date of birth and (3) drivers license number/state issued to Allison Skipper (askipper@scspa.com) no later than 4 p.m. on Monday, March 1. Thank you for your cooperation!

You can sign up for EPA news releases at:

http://www.epa.gov/newsroom/email_signups.htm

"Minimally adequate" Federal Rules

Roy Shelley — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:33:00 GMT

Much like the SC Supreme Court's ruling that the State has to provide only "minimally adequate" education (and the obvious ensuing question: Is that really our highest aspiration?). Many federal standards are only "the floor", i.e., the minimally adequate, requirements. States have, in most circumstances, the power to require greater protections.

In many areas, such as the Clean Water Act provisions, this retained power of the States is explicit. See 33 U.S.C § 1370; 40 C.F.R. § 131.4(a); Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. EPA, 859 F.2d 156, 174 (D.C.Cir.1988) (noting that “[i]n fashioning its guidelines … EPA endeavored to reconcile the competing objectives of regulatory uniformity and state autonomy by establishing a floor for … state enforcement authority, while ensuring that states have the maximum possible independence”)

The Vermont Supreme Court recently recognized this long-standing State right, while also holding that the State has the equivalent right of waiving its higher standards. (See article here.)

There are arguably very cogent reasons for allowing flexibility in State requirements above a certain minimum level. The huge disparity between different areas of our country (and even within a state itself) virtually negates the possibility of a one-size-fits-all rule. The ability of South Carolina to impose stricter requirements where necessary to protect environment and health is absolutely essential; however, any variance (above or below) such local requirements will be subject to scrutiny for those factors, both practical and immoral (if not illegal), which can influence local decisions.

Reading EPA's Tea Leaves: Civil and Criminal Enforcement priorities

Roy Shelley — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 16:57:00 GMT

Two recent news items regarding the EPA should be of interest to anyone practicing environmental litigation. First, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson issued her "state of the EPA" report on her first year in office and her priorities:
(http://blog.epa.gov/administrator/2010/01/12/seven-priorities-for-epas-future/).

Second, the Obama Administration's budget gives an indication of the directions they would like EPA to take:
(http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/0efb5bc261f61eb7852576bd00638467!OpenDocument)

Taken together, they signal a clear intent to increase the EPA's involvement in proactive protection (e.g., chemical testing, additional materials handling rules) and in clean-up enforcement (e.g., CERCLA. or "Superfund" sites).

Upcoming Columbia-Area Environmental Events - February 2010

Roy Shelley — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:56:00 GMT

Feb 11th: Putting a Face on Global Sustainability: The Impacts of Copenhagen

On Thursday February 11 at 6:30PM in the Green Quad Learning Center, the Green Quad will host a discussion by USC Law Professor Cinnamon Carlarne on the U.N. Climate Change Conference held last year in Copenhagen. The discussion with be a evaluation of the progress and speed of climate change, as well as what is left to be done with emphasis on experiences from other countries, their ways of living and visions for the future. For additional information, contact Jason Craig, GreenQuadLearningCenter for Sustainable Futures 803-777-1994 craigjd@mailbox.sc.edu

For more information, go to http://www.sustainablemidlands.org/

Feb 15th & Feb 22nd Mayoral Candidate Forums on Environmental Issues:

1) The John Bachman Group of the Sierra Club will host a mayoral forum on environmental issues on February 15 at 7:00PM in the USC Green Quad Learning Center. http://www.greenquadcommunity.org/

2) The "Mayoral Forum on sustainability issues and the environmental challenges facing Columbia" will be held on Monday February 22 at 6:00PM in the Olympia Room of Historic 701 Whaley. Come early to meet and mingle with the candidates at 5:30PM.

USC Belser Arboretum Open House – Sunday Feb 21st

The site is one of Columbia’s most beautiful and unusual properties. Its highly diverse topography is related to its geological history and structure. The large sand dune at the Bloomwood entry gate marks the most westward incursion of the Atlantic Ocean. The dune is primarily sand and rounded, fist-sized stones. Examples of these wave-polished stones can be seen in the retaining wall adjacent to the Bloomwood gate. The higher ridges are quite dry and support upland forest in contrast to the valley, which is characterized by bottomland forest. The cove area is a former streambed, which emptied into the Atlantic Ocean. In earlier days, an earthen dam held rain water in a pond where bald cypress thrived, and today a small cypress swamp is still present. A former stream, now a storm water outlet, tumbles down over 5 cascades into a handsome pool surrounded by ferns and wildflowers. Several underground springs are present in the lowland area by the streambed.

When Sun Feb 21 1pm Where 4080 Bloomwood Rd. Columbia SC 29205 (map)

http://www.greenquadcommunity.org/

2010 Green Associate & LEED® AP EXAM Prep and Study Course

Roy Shelley — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 19:54:00 GMT

Offered by the SC Chapter of the US Green Building Council:

What will be covered?
• Introduction to USGBC
• Overview of Green Associate and LEED AP BD+C Exams
• LEED for New Construction (LEED-BD+C) point system
• Sustainable Sites
• Water Use Reduction; Water Efficient Landscape Design
• Optimized Energy and Atmosphere
• Green Materials and Resources
• Enhanced Indoor Environments
• Innovation and Design
• Additional Exam Topics

Who should attend?
Students and building industry leaders interested in becoming Green Associates or LEED Accredited Professionals, e.g.,
• Architects• Engineers• Developers• Planners• Contractors

Classes: Held at USC's Green Quad Learning Center, 1216 Wheat St., Building “D”
5:30 – 6:45 P.M.
Class 1: Thursday, February 18
Class 2: Thursday, February 25
Class 3: Thursday, March 4
Class 4: Thursday, March 18 (LEED AP only)
Class 5: Thursday, March 25 (LEED AP only)
Class 6: Thursday, April 1 (LEED AP only)
Class 7: Thursday, April 8 (LEED AP only)
Class 8: Thursday April 15 (LEED AP only)
Class 9: Thursday April 22 (LEED AP only)
Class 10: Thursday April 29 (LEED AP only)

Fees:
Green Associate: Full-time USC Students $ 50; USGBC-SC Members $100; Non-USGBC-SC Members $150
LEED AP BD+C: USGBC-SC Members $250; Non-USGBC Members $300

All fees are due in full on February 18 payable by cash, check or credit card. Please RSVP by Wednesday, Feb. 17th to
state@watsontatesavory.com
Visit www.usgbcsc.org for more information.

What do the fees include?
• 3 GA Associate Classes, 10 LEED AP Classes
• Dinner
• Access to study guides and instructor presentations.

AIA Continuing Education and Engineering PDHs Available