Take advantage, bring a friend
Now that you are coming down off your Earth Day high, I wanted to take this opportunity to call some things to your attention. First, our membership is growing, hopefully it’s because our programs and activities are of interest to more people, professionals see a noted improvement in the content of the EM magazine or Journal publications, and folks are taking advantage of all the benefits of membership in the A&WMA.
If you are reading this Zephyr and you’re not a member, please note there are several promotional offers going on now, both at the international level, and the Section level, and in some cases you can combine them. For example, if your company or agency is an Organizational Member, you and a friend can join as an Organization Employee Members (full members of A&WMA) for as little as $25 each! If you’re joining as a new member not part of an Organization Member company and you are < 27 years old, you can join for $65 (or less). Full-time undergraduate or graduate students can join the A&WMA for only $10! If you just graduated, your first year of membership as a professional is FREE!(a graduation gift to you). Please see our Allegheny Mountain Section for details and updates ( http://www.ams-awma.org/memshp.htm ). These deals are for a limited time, and some of them combine Section promotions with headquarters promotions. If you are already a member and you just read all of this, there are rewards in it for you as well under the A&WMA’s current member-get-a-member promotion.
Other things to “take advantage” of are the full benefits of membership. Not just the magazines, The Online Library, the Knovel Reference Collection, and the Online Career Center; not just the professional development programs, the Teacher Training Workshops, and the technical paper and speaker/panel discussion opportunities, ITS THE NETWORK!! If you take advantage of the networking opportunities with your peers in your professional, you will begin to understand the benefits of membership. (I’ve been a member of A&WMA for 19 years and I am still learning of new and very useful benefits that membership brings).
The best way to take advantage of the networking is get involved. Every member of the Section should join a committee. The Allegheny Mountain Section currently has 8 active committees:
- Programs Committee – brainstorms, plans, and runs our luncheons, workshops, specialty conferences, joint events, and other programs.
- Scholarship Committee – awards up to $10,000 in undergraduate scholarships.
- Education Committee – coordinates and Adopt-a-School program to support local science education, periodically runs Teacher Training Workshops for environmental educators, distributes Environmental Resource Guide CDs, supports local science fair, and other outreach activities.
- Membership Committee - runs membership promotions, new member welcome activities, spreads the word on membership benefits, and interacts with our full membership.
- Young Professionals Committee – host events of interest to our members under age 35; social, professional development, networking and career contact-related.
- University Relations Committee (new Chair person Lisa Sendek) – Coordinates our interactions with environmental higher education programs in our region
- Development Committee – Communicates with sponsors of our Section activities and coordinates advertising for our newsletter; develops creative fund-raising events.
- Publications Committee – Publishes the Zephyr and coordinates all the content.
These brief descriptions are in no way comprehensive of the abundant activities of our committees. These committees are the meat of our organization and powered by volunteers. Every member in our section should join at least one of these committees (committee chairs are listed in the back page of the Zephyr), or a similar committee at the Chapter level, or get involved with a Technical Coordinating Committee or Education Council on the international A&WMA level.
As always, please feel free to contact me with any questions, comments, or ideas: gollasw@westinghouse.com, or (412)374-5279.
Return to the top of the page
Internet Site Review
Internet Sites of
Interest to Environmental Professionals
with Kim Walker
You can contact me at Kimberly.walker @ erm.com
___________________________________
EPA Launches the Risk Assessment Portal
http://www.epa.gov/risk/
EPA has launched a new Risk Assessment Portal to help the public learn about risk assessment to help the public learn about the process of conducting risk assessment including providing resources for scientists to find key agency guidance/guidelines and other technical information on risk, to identify to the public what a risk assessment is, and to bridge the gap in general risk assessment concepts and terminology across related EPA webpages.
- What is risk? What is a stressor?
- Who evaluates the risks?
- How does EPA conduct risk assessments?
- Where do I find EPA Risk Assessments?
- Where can I find additional information on risk assessment for the public?
- What does EPA mean by "variability,"uncertainty", and "probabilistic modeling"?
This portal outlines each of these subject areas and provides links to additional information. What to know what advisory groups are working with the EPA on risk assessment? There is a peer review section outlining the most involved groups. Interested in the process of Risk Management to see how to evaluate how to protect the public health? The EPA’s Risk Characterization Handbook is a short click away. Curious what is new in risk assessment and what guidance is in draft review available for public comment? This website provides an overview of what is in development and where to go to read more about topics. The portal also provides quick links to all the guidance and tools (models and databases) utilized during the risk assessment process.
Return to the top of the page
A Word on Water
The Latest News on Water, Wastewater
and Related Topics
with Susan Z. Forney,
szforney@ehsinfolink.com
___________________________________
May is American Wetlands Month
EPA will once again celebrate “American Wetlands Month” during the month of May with federal, state, tribal, local, non-profit, and private-sector organization partners. This annual celebration is a time to recognize and highlight the wonderful ways that wetlands enrich the environment and human society. In anticipation of this year’s celebration, EPA encourages individuals and groups to plan activities and events that raise awareness of the critical role wetlands play in our environment and build support for their protection and restoration. Some ideas for celebratory activities and events that could be planned in conjunction with American Wetlands Month include:
- Participate in a wetland walk, canoe trip, bird watch, or other outdoor activity
- Plan a wetland or stream clean-up
- Recognize a wetland hero
- Sponsor a talk or presentation about wetlands
- Start or participate in a volunteer wetland monitoring or restoration group
- Organize a wetland festival
Individuals or groups that are planning local, regional, or national events are strongly encouraged to share event information by visiting the Wetlands Event Submittal Site. For general information, go to American Wetlands Month. To find out more about wetlands, including learning how to protect these vital areas, please visit EPA’s Wetlands website listed below or call the Wetlands Helpline at 1-800-832-7828.
EPA Seeks Public Comment on Water Strategy to Respond to Climate Change
EPA is seeking public comment on a draft strategy that describes the potential effects of climate change on clean water, drinking water, and ocean-protection programs and outlines EPA actions to respond to these effects.
The National Water Program Strategy: Response to Climate Change focuses on actions designed to help managers adapt their water programs in response to a changing climate. Other elements of the draft strategy include steps needed to strengthen links between climate research and water programs and to improve education for water program professionals on potential climate change impacts. The strategy also identifies contributions that water programs can make to mitigate greenhouse gases. Some of the potential impacts of climate change on water resources reviewed in the strategy include increases in certain water pollution problems, changes in availability of drinking water supplies, and collective impacts on coastal areas.
The public comment period is open for 60 days. More information is available at the National Water Program Strategy: Response to Climate Change webpage.
Army Corps and EPA Improve Wetland and Stream Mitigation
Release date: 03/31/2008
Contact Information:
Corps of Engineers - Gene Pawlik, (202) 761-7690 / eugene.a.pawlik@usace.army.mil
or Doug Garman, (202) 761-1807 / doug.m.garman@usace.army.mil;
EPA - Shakeba Carter-Jenkins, (202) 564-4355 /
carter-jenkins.shakeba@epa.gov
(Washington, D.C. - March 31, 2008) The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today released a new rule to clarify how to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to the nation's wetlands and streams. The rule will enable the agencies to promote greater consistency, predictability and ecological success of mitigation projects under the Clean Water Act.
"This rule greatly improves implementation, monitoring, and performance, and will help us ensure that unavoidable losses of aquatic resources and functions are replaced for the benefit of this Nation. This is a key step in our efforts to make the Army's Regulatory Program a winner, and the best it can be for the regulated community we serve and those interested in both economic development and environmental protection," said John Paul Woodley, Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
"This rule advances the president's goals of halting overall loss of wetlands and improving watershed health through sound science, market-based approaches, and cooperative conservation," said EPA Assistant Administrator for Water, Benjamin H. Grumbles. "The new standards will accelerate our wetlands conservation efforts under the Clean Water Act by establishing more effective, more consistent, and more innovative mitigation practices."
Benefits of the compensatory mitigation rule include:
- Fostering greater predictability, increased transparency and improved performance of compensatory mitigation projects
- Establishing equivalent standards for all forms of mitigation
- Responding to recommendations of the National Research Council to improve the success of wetland restoration and replacement projects
- Setting clear science-based and results-oriented standards nationwide while allowing for regional variations
- Increasing and expanding public participation
- Encouraging watershed-based decisions
- Emphasizing the "mitigation sequence" requiring that proposed projects avoid and minimize potential impacts to wetlands and streams before proceeding to compensatory mitigation
Each year thousands of property owners undertake projects that affect the nation's aquatic resources. Proposed projects that are determined to impact jurisdictional waters are first subject to review under the Clean Water Act. The Corps of Engineers reviews these projects to ensure environmental impacts to aquatic resources are avoided or minimized as much as possible. Consistent with the administration's goal of "no net loss of wetlands" a Corps permit may require a property owner to restore, establish, enhance or preserve other aquatic resources in order to replace those impacted by the proposed project. This compensatory mitigation process seeks to replace the loss of existing aquatic resource functions and area.
Property owners required to complete mitigation are encouraged to use a watershed approach and watershed planning information. The new rule establishes performance standards, sets timeframes for decision making, and to the extent possible, establishes equivalent requirements and standards for the three sources of compensatory mitigation: permittee-responsible mitigation, mitigation banks and in-lieu-fee programs.
The new rule changes where and how mitigation is to be completed, but maintains existing requirements on when mitigation is required. The rule also preserves the requirement for applicants to avoid or minimize impacts to aquatic resources before proposing compensatory mitigation projects to offset permitted impacts.
Wetlands and streams provide important environmental functions including protecting and improving water quality and providing habitat to fish and wildlife. Successful compensatory mitigation projects will replace environmental functions that are lost as a result of permitted activities.
For more information on the compensatory mitigation rule visit:
http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwo/reg/citizen.htm"
or http://www.epa.gov/wetlandsmitigation
Information about the importance of wetlands is available at: epa.gov/owow/wetlands/
Congressmen Investigate Cover-Up of Great Lakes Report
Reps. John D. Dingell (D-MI), chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Bart Stupak (D-MI), chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, announced an investigation into the withholding of a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that reportedly demonstrates a correlation between pollution in the Great Lakes and health issues such as cancer mortality and higher infant mortality rates.
“Pollution in our Great Lakes can have very real health consequences for the millions of Americans who live in and around the Great Lakes basin,” Dingell said. “If the Administration has willfully withheld a report from the public, it raises questions about whether they are putting the public health at risk and about the scientific integrity of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”
The study, “Public Health Implications of Hazardous Substances in the Twenty-Six U.S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern,” was completed in July 2007, following several years of work and extensive scientific peer review. According to a recent article by the Center for Public Integrity, officials at the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registration, a division of the CDC, blocked the study’s publication.
In a letter sent to the CDC, Dingell and Stupak asked that the Great Lakes Report be published so that the validity of its findings can be fairly evaluated. The letter also requests information on events surrounding the suppression of the study. According to the article by the Center for Public Integrity, the Great Lakes Report’s chief author, Dr. Christopher De Rosa, was demoted after working to see the Great Lakes Report released to the public.
Bacteria and Nanofilters: the Future of Clean Water Technology
Bacteria often get bad press, with those found in water often linked to illness and disease. But researchers at The University of Nottingham are using these tiny organisms alongside the very latest membrane filtration techniques to improve and refine water-cleaning technology.
These one-celled organisms eat the contaminants present in water—whether it is being treated prior to industrial use or for drinking—in a process called bioremediation.
The water is then filtered through porous membranes, which function like a sieve. However, the holes in these sieves are microscopic, and some are so small they can only be seen at the nanoscale. Pore size in these filters can range from ten microns, ten thousandths of a millimeter, to one nanometer, a millionth of a millimetre.
These technologies can be developed into processes that optimize the use of water—whether in an industrial system or to provide drinking water in areas where it is a scarce resource.
The research is led by Nidal Hilal, professor of Chemical and Process Engineering in the Centre for Clean Water Technologies, a world-leading research center that is developing advanced technologies in water treatment.
Current membrane technology used in water-treatment processes can decrease in efficiency over time, as the membranes become fouled with contaminants. By using bioremediation, the membranes can be cleaned within the closed system, without removing the membranes. Center researchers have developed the technology in partnership with Cardev International, an oil filtration company based in Harrogate.
As well as being highly effective in the water-treatment process, transforming industrial liquid waste contaminated with metals and oils into clean water, ultrafiltration and nanofiltration membranes have a useful side effect. The waste products have a very high calorific value and can be used as fuel.
Nanofiltration and ultrafiltration membranes are also being used in work funded by the Middle East Desalination Research Centre, which looks at creating drinking water from seawater. By pretreating the seawater and removing contaminants, the membranes reduce the fouling of machinery in the next stage of the process—whether through reverse osmosis or thermal desalination. This can prevent damage to the machinery, reducing the need for expensive repair and replacements.
And by measuring liquid properties at the nanoscale, using state-of-the-art atomic force microscope equipment at the university, researchers are exploring how liquids behave at an atomic level—how they flow and pull apart. These results could be used in mechanics and industry, for example, maximizing the use of oil in an engine.
Liquids are also being tested at a range of temperatures, from the very low (–50 C) to the very high (150 C).
“Examining the properties of liquids has never been done before at this scale,” Professor Hilal said. “By using bioremediation and nanofiltration technology combined, the water cleaning process is integrated—using far less energy than current processes. Add to this the recycling of waste products as fuels and you have a greener technology.”
Helpful Guides for Managing Stormwater
EPA Region 3 has developed guides to assist municipalities implement their municipal stormwater management programs under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System—NPDES (which authorizes discharges from point sources to U.S. waters). The guidelines address the following key program areas: protect impaired waters by addressing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) requirements, evaluate the effectiveness of stormwater controls, incorporate environmentally sensitive design into municipal stormwater programs, and fund stormwater programs.
EPA Releases New Tools to Improve Drinking Water Monitoring and Reporting Small Water Systems
Small water systems, particularly those that serve very small populations or tribal communities, can be challenged in understanding the regulatory requirements that apply to them. EPA has released a new set of placards that summarize day-to-day monitoring requirements for small drinking water systems. Having monitoring requirements readily available in an easy to read format should improve monitoring and reporting compliance for small systems. These placards provide step by step instructions for conducting monitoring under the Total Coliform Rule, Surface Water Treatment Rules, and Nitrate regulations. The placards are formatted to be printed 11x17 to hang on the wall for quick reference by drinking water operators.
The placards and other tools for small systems are available at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/smallsys/ssinfo.htm.
New Technology Report: Wastewater Treatment and In-Plant Wet Weather Management
EPA has released the third in a series of reports on municipal wastewater collection and treatment technologies. Emerging Technologies for Wastewater Treatment and In-Plant Wet Weather Management provides municipal wastewater treatment system owners and operators with the latest information on emerging wastewater treatment and in-plant wet weather management technology options. It identifies cost effective, innovative, and embryonic technologies as well as established technologies with innovative applications. Technical and cost data for more than 60 innovative technologies and more than 25 embryonic technologies are provided.
The technologies featured in the report can provide more efficient or advanced wastewater treatment or better management of wet weather flows at the treatment plant.
Water Facilities Can Tap Into Energy Savings
America’s drinking water and wastewater facilities can now save energy and reduce their carbon footprint with expanded tools available from EPA’s Energy Star Program. Enhancements to Portfolio Manager, the agency’s energy tracking tool for commercial facilities, allow water utilities to track energy use and associated carbon emissions, set targets for investment priorities, and verify efficiency improvements. Water and wastewater facilities are energy intensive, accounting for more than one-third of municipal energy use. Improving the energy efficiency of America’s drinking water and wastewater systems by 10% would save more than 5 billion kilowatt-hours each year representing a cost savings of about $400 million annually.
“Wasting energy is sending good resources down the drain,” said Benjamin H. Grumbles, assistant administrator for Water. “Energy efficiency is good for the planet as well as the plant managers who make water clean and healthy.”
Drinking water and wastewater systems spend about $4 billion a year on energy to pump, treat, deliver, collect, and clean water at the 52,000 community drinking water and 16,500 wastewater facilities in the United States. Through Energy Star, EPA provides a proven energy management strategy and no-cost tools for public and private organizations to save energy and money, as well as demonstrate environmental leadership.
More than 800 organizations—including more than 150 local governments and water utilities—are leading the way toward improved energy efficiency by responding to the Energy Star Challenge, EPA’s national call-to-action to improve the energy efficiency of America’s commercial and industrial facilities by 10% or more. In June 2007, the U.S. Conference of Mayors endorsed the Energy Star Challenge as a key strategy in meeting the goals of the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.
Energy Star was introduced by EPA in 1992 as a voluntary, market-based partnership to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through energy efficiency. Currently, the Energy Star label can be found on more than 50 different kinds of products, new homes, and commercial and industrial buildings. Products and buildings that have earned the Energy Star designation prevent greenhouse gas emissions by meeting strict energy-efficiency specifications set by the government. Last year alone, Americans, with the help of Energy Star, saved about $14 billion on their energy bills while reducing the greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those of 25 million vehicles.
National Groups Launch Drinking Water Protection Campaign
The Source Water Collaborative (SWC) is launching a campaign, “Your Water. Your Decision,” to help local decision-makers take advantage of opportunities to protect sources of drinking water, understand the costs involved, and consider ways to pay for it. The SWC, a group of 16 national organizations and three federal agencies including EPA, was formed with the joint signing of a vision statement in February 2006 to further the goal of protecting drinking water sources.
As part of this initiative, the SWC has developed a guide for community leaders and a toolkit for using the guide. The “Your Water. Your Decision.” guide is intended as a quick source of key information on local options for protecting drinking water, including development, stewardship, and budgeting. Using the theme, “How You Govern Can Determine What You Drink,” the guide was developed as a tool to enable local officials to take action within their communities and with neighboring communities. The local officials guide and more information are available on the “Your Water Your Decision” Campaign website
http://www.protectdrinkingwater.org/
Nexus Between Energy Use and Water Infrastructure
Reducing climate impacts, saving money, and saving water are the goals of recent Office of Water efforts to make the most of the nexus between energy use and water infrastructure. Providing drinking water and wastewater services to citizens across the nation requires a lot of energy. The ENERGY STAR program estimates that about $4 billion in energy costs is spent annually to run drinking water and wastewater utilities. Agency efforts on water and energy include the agency’s outreach to promote water efficiency through the WaterSense program, as well as a suite of activities and tools that focus on energy use at utilities. In EPA’s work with the water utility industry, it can encourage communities to identify approaches to integrate energy-efficient practices into their daily management and long-term planning.
EPA has developed a one-stop page for information on infrastructure and energy. It has also developed a step-by-step workbook for utilities entitled, “Ensuring a Sustainable Future: An Energy Management Guidebook for Wastewater and Water Utilities” and workshops on the workbook.
Combined heat and power is a reliable, cost-effective option for wastewater treatment facilities that have, or are planning to install, anaerobic digesters. Biogas flow from these digesters can be used as “free” fuel to generate reliable electricity and power. EPA has published a guide that highlights these opportunities and benefits, as well as fact sheets that describe various alternative energy sources that utilities may want to consider.
epa.gov/waterinfrastructure/bettermanagement_energy.html
epa.gov/chp/markets/wastewater.html
epa.gov/owm/mtb/mtbfact.htm
Put Your Pipes on a Fat-Free Diet
It’s not something we think about when we pour leftover grease down the drain, but wastewater treatment plant operators across Washington state wish folks would put their pipes on a fat-free diet.
Most blockages in sewer systems can be traced to the presence of fats, oils, and grease, creating sewage spills and sewage overflows both onto private property and into city streets. It can also mean more frequent pumping of septic tanks.
Many people believe that pouring grease down the drain and following it with lots of hot water will keep the fats liquefied and carry them safely through the pipes. This is not true. Fats, oils, and grease cool down very quickly and can solidify after traveling only a few feet.
Raw sewage in the pipes will attach to fats, oils, and grease, creating impenetrable globs that back up sewer lines. These globs of fat and waste are difficult to disinfect at treatment plants and can allow disease-causing pathogens to enter nearby streams, lakes, and rivers.
“Cleanups are difficult and costly,” explained Lynda Jamison, a water-quality specialist with the Washington Department of Ecology. “Blockages can cause raw sewage to back up into streets and possibly even into homes and businesses.”
You can help keep fats from clogging pipes by disposing of grease properly:
- Never pour fats, oils, or grease down the drain.
- Never flush fats, oils, or grease down the toilet.
- Always put grease in the trash.
- Pour hot oils or grease into heat-proof containers, such as a tin can, and cool before putting it in the trash. You may even freeze the grease for easier disposal. Wipe greasy pans and dishes with paper towels before washing them and throw the paper towels into the trash to keep as much grease as possible out of your drains.
These tips can help prevent expensive plumbing repairs and sewage overflows. You can save yourself some repair bills, as well as keep our rivers and streams clean. Put your pipes on a fat-free diet. Dispose of grease properly.
Majority of U.S. Facilities Exceed Water Permit Limits
More than 57% of industrial and municipal facilities across America discharged more pollution into our waterways than their Clean Water Act (CWA) permits allowed in 2005, according to Troubled Waters: An Analysis of Clean Water Act Compliance, a new report released by U.S. PIRG.
The goals of the 1972 Clean Water Act are to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into waterways and make all U.S. waters swimmable and fishable. Over the last three and a half decades, this landmark environmental law has made significant improvements in water quality, but the original goals have yet to be met.
Using the Freedom of Information Act, U.S. PIRG obtained data from the EPA on facilities’ compliance with CWA in 2005. U.S. PIRG researchers found that:
- 57% of all major U.S. industrial and municipal facilities discharged more pollution into U.S. waterways than allowed by law at least once during 2005.
- The average facility exceeded its pollution permit limit by 263%, discharging close to four times the legal limit.
- The 3,600 major facilities exceeding their permit limits reported more than 24,400 exceedances of their CWA permits in 2005. This means that many facilities exceeded their permits more than once and for more than one pollutant.
- Nationally, 628 major facilities exceeded their CWA permits for at least half the monthly reporting periods between January 1 and December 31, 2005. Eighty-five facilities exceeded their CWA permits during every reporting period.
- The 10 U.S. states with the highest percentages of major facilities exceeding their CWA permit limits at least once were Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Ohio, Connecticut, New York, North Dakota, California, and West Virginia.
- The 10 U.S. states with the most exceedances of CWA permit limits during 2005 period were Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Texas, California, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Tennessee, Alabama, and Florida.
U.S. PIRG Clean Water Advocate Christy Leavitt noted that the findings are likely “just the tip of the polluted iceberg,” because the data that U.S. PIRG analyzed includes only “major” facilities and does not include pollution discharged into waters by the thousands of minor facilities across the country.
“Although we have made enormous strides since the enactment of the Clean Water Act, efforts to clean up America’s waters have stalled—even slipped—under the stewardship of the Bush Administration. In the past several years, the federal government has let down municipalities’ efforts to protect watersheds, provide safe drinking water, and make recreational water sources fishable and swimmable,” said Rep. James L. Oberstar (Minn.), chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. “We are at a turning point in history, and our responsibility to this generation and our legacy to future generations is to advance the cause of protecting the most precious of natural resources—clean water.”
Wastewater Operator Training Program
EPA’s Wastewater Operator Training Program was implemented in 1982 under Section 104(g) (1) of the Clean Water Act. The program provides approximately $1 million annually to improve compliance at small publicly owned wastewater treatment plants with a discharge of less than 5 million gallons per day. Nationally, 46 states or training centers receive the funding and are able to assist, on average, about 700 facilities a year to either satisfy NPDES compliance or improve performance. In the 2006 calendar year, the program assisted 659 small facilities and prevented 4.3 million pounds of pollutants from entering the surface water.
For more information on this program, please call Gajindar Singh at 202-564-0634 or e-mail at singh.gajindar@epa.gov.
Pennsylvania Streamlines Stormwater Permits
In an effort to improve the quality and timeliness of stormwater discharge permit applications associated with construction, the Department of Environmental Protection has made several upgrades that also will expedite the review process.
"Our environmental protection requirements have resulted in a stronger economy and cleaner streams, but they have also dramatically increased the number and complexity of permits we must process," said DEP Secretary Kathleen A. McGinty. "The high number of applications we continue to receive cover projects that promise future economic benefits for Pennsylvania, so we've put in place a system that will help us clear up the current backlog and provide prompt and effective reviews."
Changes in the federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, as well as an increased need to better manage stormwater have increased demands on permit applicants and review staff. Consequently, DEP established an expedited review option for NPDES permit applications for stormwater discharges associated with construction activities. By reviewing applications through the expedited process, the department assures applicants that a determination will be made within 30 days of the public comment period's completion. In addition, the permit application was revised to provide a more complete and user-friendly means of streamlining the permit process. The instructions and application form are now organized to support a logical process for planning projects and assuring consistency with local requirements. Improvements also provide a means to ensure that private consultants fulfill professional obligations to plan, oversee construction work, and certify final projects as meeting applicable engineering standards.
"As businesses expand and more people call Pennsylvania home, properly managing stormwater becomes more important in protecting downstream property and the quality of our streams and rivers," McGinty said. The NPDES permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waterways. Point sources are discrete conveyances, such as pipes or man-made ditches. Individual homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not have a surface discharge do not need an NPDES permit. Industrial, municipal, and other facilities, however, must obtain permits if discharges go directly to surface waters. For further information on the expedited review process for NPDES permits, see DEP's website
Return to the top of the page
Solid Waste Views
with John Scrabis, P.E.
You can contact me at: jmscrabis @ mactec.com
___________________________________
See the PDF version of the Zephyr for Solid Waste Views at:
http://www.ams-awma.org/zephyr.pdf
Return to the top of the page
In the Air
News of Air Pollution Control
and Air Related Issues
with Nancy Hirko, Kimberly Coy, and Mark Schooley of Air/Compliance
Consultants, Inc
You can contact them at schooley @ air-comp.com
___________________________________
Proposed Area Source NESHAP for Metal Fabrication and Finishing
On April 3, 2008 EPA published proposed national emission standards for control of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) for nine metal fabrication and finishing
area source categories (see http://www.epa.gov/EPA-AIR/2008/April/Day-03/). This rule proposes emission standards in the form of management practices and equipment standards for new and existing operations of dry abrasive blasting, machining, dry grinding and dry polishing with machines, spray painting and other spray coating, and welding operations. These proposed standards reflect EPA's determination regarding the generally achievable control technology (GACT) and/or management practices for the nine area source categories.
The proposed subpart applies to new or existing affected metal fabrication and finishing area sources in one of the following nine source categories (listed alphabetically) that emit MFHAP: (1) Electrical and Electronic Equipment Finishing Operations; (2) Fabricated Metal Products; (3) Fabricated Plate Work (Boiler Shops);
(4) Fabricated Structural Metal Manufacturing; (5) Heating Equipment, except Electric; (6) Industrial Machinery and Equipment: Finishing Operations; (7) Iron and Steel Forging; (8) Primary Metal Products Manufacturing; and (9) Valves and Pipe Fittings. Facilities affected by this proposed rule are not subject to the miscellaneous coating requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH, ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources,'' for their source(s) subject to the requirements of this proposed rule. There potentially may be other sources at the facility not subject to the requirements of this proposed rule that are instead subject to subpart HHHHHH of this part.
All existing area source facilities subject to this proposed rule would be required to comply with the rule requirements no later than 2 years after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
Climate Registry Releases Final General Reporting Protocol
The Climate Registry (http://theclimateregistry.org) has released its General Reporting Protocol, which contains the guidance needed to voluntarily report your greenhouse gases (GHGs) to the Registry. These standards represent best practices for GHG reporting and are consistent with the WRI/WBCSD and ISO global guidelines and protocols.
Voluntary reporting to the Registry will give you experience in creating a high-quality, protectable carbon footprint that can be useful in many ways as North America moves towards various state, provincial, and federal mandatory programs. Benefits of reporting include:
- A cost-effective means to measure GHG emissions and identify areas to reduce emissions
- Documentation of early action and reductions
- Preparation and skill-building for assessing proposed regulatory policies
- Accurate reports for management, customers, employees, and policymakers
- Recognition as a global environmental leader
Seventy-five reporters have already signed up to be Founding Reporters. The Climate Registry hopes others will consider reporting organizational emissions to the Registry. All Reporters that sign up by May 1 will be Founding Reporters.
EPA Publishes Annual National Greenhouse Gas Inventory
On April 15, 2008 the USEPA released the 2006 national greenhouse gas inventory, which finds that overall emissions during 2006 decreased by 1.1 percent from the previous year. The report, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006, is the latest in an annual set of reports that the United States submits to the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which sets an overall framework for intergovernmental efforts to tackle the challenge posed by climate change.
Total emissions of the six main greenhouse gases in 2006 were equivalent to 7,054.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. These gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. The report indicates that overall emissions have grown by 14.7 percent from 1990 to 2006, while the U.S. economy has grown by 59 percent over the same period.
The decrease in emissions in 2006 was due primarily to a decrease in carbon dioxide emissions associated with fuel and electricity consumption. The following factors were primary contributors to this decrease:
- compared to 2005, 2006 had warmer winter conditions, which decreased consumption of heating fuels, as well as cooler summer conditions, which reduced demand for electricity;
- restraint on fuel consumption caused by rising fuel prices, primarily in the transportation sector; and
- increased use of natural gas and renewables in the electric power sector.
EPA prepares the annual report in collaboration with experts from multiple federal agencies and after gathering comments from a broad range of stakeholders across the country.
The inventory tracks annual greenhouse gas emissions at the national level and presents historical emissions from 1990 to 2006. The inventory also calculates carbon dioxide emissions that are removed from the atmosphere by “sinks,” e.g., through the uptake of carbon by forests, vegetation and soils.
Information on the greenhouse gas inventory report: epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html
Radon Resistant Home Construction Techniques Reduce Risk at a Lower Cost
The EPA has published a list of techniques that can be used during new home construction that will help prevent radon from entering homes. These techniques are more economical to incorporate during the construction phase rather than trying to retro-fit completed homes.
Basic Elements include a Gas Permeable Layer, a 4 inch layer of clean gravel placed under flooring or slab; Plastic Sheeting, covering the Gas Permeable Layer to prevent soil gases from entering the home; Sealing and Caulking, to seal all cracks and openings in the concrete slab to prevent radon entry; a Vent Pipe, 3” or 4” gas tight or PVC to safely vent the gases from the gas permeable layer to the roof; a Junction Box installation for possible future need of an exhaust fan to reduce radon levels.
Average cost for preventative measures are $400 vs. a retro-fit at $1,300. For more information use this EPA link, http://www.epa.gov/radon/construc.html.
Proposed Revisions to the New Source Performance Standards for Non Metallic Minerals Processing Plants
On April 16, 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed revisions to 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart OOO, New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Non-Metallic Mineral Processing Plants. These revisions affect new, modified, or reconstructed facilities constructed after the date of this proposal at plants processing any of the following 18 non-metallic minerals: crushed and broken stone, clay, sand and gravel, rock salt, gypsum, sodium compounds, pumice, gilsonite, talc, pyrophyllite, boron, barite, fluorospar, feldspar, diatomite, perlite, vermiculite, mica, and kyanite.
The affected processes include new, modified, or reconstructed: crushers, grinding mills, screening operations, bucket elevators, belt conveyors, bagging operations, storage bins, and enclosed truck or railcar loading stations at non-metallic mineral processing plants.
The proposed stack particulate matter (PM) concentration limitation is 0.014 gr/dscf for new, modified, or reconstructed facilities.
The proposed opacity limitations are 12% opacity for crushers and 7% opacity for other fugitive facilities.
Proposed performance testing requirement: Retest once every 5 years for those affected facilities without ongoing monitoring requirements.
Proposed Wet Material Processing Operation Exemption: For those facilities without the potential for PM emissions.
The proposed revisions to the NSPS do not reflect the use of new or different control technologies. They reflect the performance of the controls currently employed. Any increase in cost will be due to monitoring, testing, recordkeeping and reporting
According to the EPA, starting five years after promulgation of these standards, the environment can realize a reduction of 120 tons/year of PM emissions.
The EPA will accept public comments on the proposed rule for 60 days following the publication in the Federal Register. The agency is under consent decree to finalize this rule by April 16, 2009.
Pennsylvania Diesel Idling Reduction Rule
The Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board approved the proposed diesel idling reduction rulemaking for public comment on October 16, 2007. The proposed rule was published January 12, 2008 for public comment and three public hearings were held. The public comment period closed March 17, 2008.
Implementation of this rule is expected to decrease air pollution emissions through the reduction of diesel fuel combustion. Generally, the proposed regulation would limit idling by commercial diesel-powered vehicles to five minutes per hour. According to DEP calculations, long-duration idling, an engine idling for more than 15 minutes, amounts to about 22.3 million hours a year in Pennsylvania alone. They estimate that 95% of that total is due to truck travel rest periods which are mandated by the federal government. If each of the estimated 13,000 long-haul trucks that idle in Pennsylvania each day used an auxiliary power system to provide power during rest periods, that could result in the reduction of fuel usage by more than 20 million gallons per year.
Products of fuel combustion are nitrogen oxide (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), both of which are precursors ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter. Ozone and fine particulate matter are pollutants that can cause or pose a health hazard to people with pre-existing respiratory conditions such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema. DEP estimates annual NOx emissions reductions of 1,610 tons, VOCs emission reductions of 45 tons, and particulate matter emission reductions of 30 tons, once this rule is fully implemented in 2010.
The proposed rule includes several exemptions to address issues such as adverse weather, lack of alternative power options, and those involving equipment operation, maintenance, safety, and passenger comfort.
Return to the top of the page
International
Focus
News of
Environmental Trends and Regulations
in Other Countries
with Kim Walker
You can contact me at Kimberly.walker @ erm.com
___________________________________
Environmental Crimes Are High on the World Agenda
The illegal international trade in environmentally sensitive items such as ozone-depleting substances, toxic chemicals, hazardous waste, and endangered species is a serious problem with global impact. This scourge that affects all countries threatens human health, deteriorates the environment, and results in revenue loss for governments in some cases. Ozone-depleting substances (ODS), such as those used in refrigeration and air conditioning systems, not only destroy the earth's protective shield (the stratospheric ozone layer) but, if released into the atmosphere, also contribute to climate change because they are also powerful greenhouse gases. Illegal trade in ODS has become a global phenomenon. Similarly, the illegal trade in wildlife can be as profitable as dealing in narcotics. Shawls made from the wool of Tibetan antelope, the sale of which is completely illegal, are sold for up to 20,000 Euros each, while caviar from endangered sturgeon approaches 8,000 Euros per kilo on the retail market. Added to this is the alarming rise in virulent wildlife diseases, such as SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) and avian influenza that cross species lines to infect humans and endanger public health.
During a high-level meeting at WCO headquarters recently on enforcement issues, delegates representing the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), customs administrations, other international organizations, and stakeholders who have an interest in the environment called for an urgent and concerted global response to tackle ever-increasing environment crime. Participants agreed on an Action Plan to fight against environmental crime. The Plan foresees the promotion of environmental crime as one of the priorities for customs administrations, the training of customs officers to improve their detection techniques given their frontline position at borders, the creation of specialized units at customs offices to deal with this crime, and enhancing international cooperation and information exchange. The WCO will use its global communication tool, the Customs Enforcement Network (CEN), for real-time information exchange. The CEN will enable customs officers worldwide to be alerted quickly and facilitate their immediate response to any illegal trafficking of environmentally sensitive goods.
To ensure effective international cooperation against environmental crime, the WCO and UNEP signed a Memorandum of Understanding in 2003 and are also partners in the Green Customs Initiative dedicated to training and building the capacity of customs officials across the globe. Both organizations are committed to strengthening and enhancing their partnership, which is aimed at protecting the environment through more effective enforcement of environmental crime.
(Source: http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/34247)
Return to the top of the page
P2 Forum
News on Pollution Prevention,
Recycling and Related Issues
with Michael Stepaniak
You can contact me at michaels @ ccicenter.org
___________________________________
This
Month:
NEW REPORT ON POLLUTION REDUCTION COSTS OF U.S MANUFACTURER
Free Recycling of Small Electronics
CFL Recycling Containers to be Placed in Municipal Buildings, Businesses, and with Community Organizations Across PA
NEW REPORT ON POLLUTION REDUCTION COSTS OF U.S MANUFACTURERS
The EPA estimates that in 2005 the U.S. manufacturing sector spent $5.9 billion on capital expenditures and
$20.7 billion on operating costs for pollution prevention and treatment. By comparison,
these outlays represent less than 5% of total new capital expenditures and less than 1% of total revenue for the sector, respectively.
The figures were released in a U.S. Census report, "Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures (PACE): 2005."
The report is the latest in a series compiled since 1973 to assess annual costs for pollution abatement by the manufacturing sector.
And unlike in years past, this is the first year of data that evaluates the quality of the survey instrument and the accuracy and reliability of the data collected. As a result, an improved survey was developed by EPA and administered by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2006 to collect the 2005 expenditure data. The report also provides additional details on pollution abatement expenditures categorized by type of pollution media, and abatement activity by industry and state. The reported costs consist of capital and operating costs for treatment and capture, prevention, recycling and disposal, as well as depreciation of pollution abatement equipment. To view the PACE report visit http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/pages/pace2005.html.
FREE RECYCLING OF SMALL ELECTRONICS
The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) recently launched a pilot program that allows customers to recycle small electronics and inkjet cartridges by mailing them free of charge to a processor. The “Mail Back” program aims to help consumers make more environmentally responsible choices by making it easier to recycle used or obsolete small electronics in an environmentally preferable way. Free envelopes are available at 1,500 post offices in select cities for returning inkjet cartridges, PDAs, Blackberries, digital cameras, iPods, and MP3 players, all without having to pay for postage. Clover Technologies Group, a company that recycles, remanufactures, and remarkets inkjet cartridges, laser cartridges, and small electronics, pays the postage. If the item cannot be refurbished and resold, its component parts are reused to refurbish other items, or the parts are broken down further and the materials are recycled. Clover Technologies Group has a “zero waste to landfill” policy. According to the company it does everything it can to avoid contributing any materials to the nation’s landfills. It was this philosophy that helped Clover secure the contract with the USPS, beating out 19 other companies. The free, postage-paid mail back envelopes can be found in USPS lobbies. There is no limit to the number of envelopes individuals may take. The pilot program is set for 10 areas across the country, including Washington, D.C., Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Diego, but it could become a national program this fall if the pilot program proves successful.
CFL RECYCLING CONTAINERS TO BE PLACED IN MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS, BUSINESSES, AND WITH COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIOINS ACROSS PA
According to the PA DEP compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) can save up to 75 percent of the energy used by traditional light bulbs. And, if all of the households in PA changed just one incandescent light bulb to an ENERGY STAR qualified CFL, consumers could save $25.5 million annually on household electric bills and prevent nearly 382 millions pounds of greenhouse gas emissions each year. However, due to the mercury found in the bulbs and a lack of options on where to recycle them makes some consumers reluctant to purchase and use them. The DEP encourages consumers to recycle CFLs whenever possible, and in order to make recycling more convenient and accessible, the agency recently launched a recycling campaign in partnership with local governments across PA. More than 110 containers were purchased from Pennsylvania firms AERC Recycling and Bethlehem Apparatus Company. Both companies will ship the receptacles directly to the participants for use in conjunction with Earth Day and other hazardous household waste (HHW) collection events. The AERC containers hold 100-150 bulbs, and the Bethlehem Apparatus containers hold slightly less than 100. Once the containers are filled, participants can ship the receptacles back to AERC or Bethlehem Apparatus for the recycling. DEP invited counties, municipal governments, environmental groups, and other organizations to host CFL recycling containers in publicly accessible buildings. To recycle a bulb, a consumer simply needs to hand it over to a trained employee, who slides it into the container. DEP is considering launching a pilot program that lets consumers recycle CFLs at the point of purchase. If implemented the campaign will also include a public education effort and fact sheets to increase public awareness of the economic and environmental benefits. The fact sheets will also address the issue of mercury in CFLs. Small amounts of mercury are necessary components of compact fluorescent light bulbs and all types of fluorescent lights, including those that have been safely used in homes, offices, and commercial and retail establishments for years. CFLs contain an average of 5 milligrams of mercury, or about the amount that would cover the tip of a ballpoint pen, or an amount 100 times less than is found in an old-style glass thermometer and one-fifth the amount in a watch battery. For more information visit www.depweb.state.pa.us , keyword: Household Hazardous Waste.
Return to the top of the page
ENVIROCABULARY
Environmental Acronyms, Obscure Words
and Other Lingo
with Kim Walker
You can contact me at Kimberly.walker @ erm.com
___________________________________
Each month, the
Envirocabulary staff will scour the environmental literature for terms of
interest to our readers.
This month’s term is…
Fumarole: A vent that emits hot gases, usually associated with past or current magmatic activity below.
(Source: http://geology.com/)
Return to the top of the page
Compliance Corner
What's New with Regulatory Compliance,
Environmental Management
and Related Issues
with Dan Hagerty, CHMM
You can contact me at daniel_hagerty @ hotmail.com
______________________________
REACH Pre-Registration of Phase-in Substances Facilitated With New Tool
REACH is the regulation for Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals. With a few exceptions, U.S. companies that export to Europe will have to register the substances in their products with the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). REACH places greater responsibility on industry to manage the risks that chemicals may pose to health and the environment. Pre-registration of these substances before Dec, 1, 2008, extends the deadlines for full registration of the substances for several years. Missing the deadline or failure to register could result in the inability to ship products to Europe.
The IUCLID 5 Pre-registration plug-in is now available for downloading at the IUCLID website. The tool can be used for preparing the pre-registration XML files. One XML file can be created for each substance (single pre-registration). More than one substance can be included in one file under certain conditions (bulk pre-registration).
Beginning June 1, 2008, the single and bulk XML files can be submitted to ECHA using the REACH-IT web application.
This tool is only one option for pre-registration. REACH-IT will also allow the data to be entered directly, using your web browser. Alternatively, other tools can be developed by implementing the specification of the pre-registration format for the XML files, which are also published on the IUCLID website.
DOT Proposal Improves Rail Hazmat Tank Car Safety
The safety of rail tank cars that carry the most dangerous hazardous materials will be dramatically improved under the most sweeping and revolutionary proposal in decades, announced U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters
“This proposal is designed to significantly reduce the hazard of hauling hazardous materials by rail,” Peters said, explaining that the performance-based standard will increase by 500% on average the amount of energy the tank car must absorb during a train accident before a catastrophic failure may occur.
The proposal requires tank cars carrying Poison Inhalation Hazard (PIH) commodities, such as chlorine and anhydrous ammonia, to be equipped with puncture-resistant protection strong enough to prevent penetration at speeds of 25 mph for side impacts and 30 mph for head-on collisions—more than double the speed for existing tank cars. The proposal allows flexibility in reaching that goal, but it is expected the outer tank car shell and both head ends will be strengthened, the inner tank holding the hazmat cargo will be better shielded, and the space between the two will be designed with more energy absorption and protection capabilities.
The proposed rule also sets a maximum speed limit of 50 mph for any train transporting a PIH tank car. In addition, a temporary speed restriction of 30 mph is being proposed for all PIH tank cars not meeting the puncture-resistance standard and that are traveling in “dark,” or non-signaled territory, until the rule is fully implemented or other safety measures are installed.
Finally, the proposed rule requires that some of the oldest PIH tank cars in use today be phased out on an accelerated schedule so they no longer carry PIH materials. Specifically, this addresses the concern that PIH tank cars manufactured prior to 1989 with non-normalized steel may not adequately resist the development of fractures that can lead to a catastrophic failure.
“When the opportunity to make major advances in safety is within our reach, we should not settle for incremental measures,” Federal Railroad Administrator Joseph H. Boardman said.
This proposal was developed by DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration in close consultation with the Federal Railroad Administration and addresses issues arising from serious train accidents involving hazmat releases that occurred in Minot, N.D.; Macdona, Texas; and Graniteville, S.C.
EPA Announces Improvements to IRIS Process
A database used the world over to quickly see the research on chemicals found in the environment and their potential to cause health effects in people will undergo several changes to increase its transparency and efficiency. Announced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Research and Development, the revisions to the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) process for developing chemical assessments will include an expanded process for recommending a substance be assessed; the earlier involvement of other agencies and the public; hosting “listening sessions” to allow for the broader participation and engagement of interested parties; and an even more rigorous scientific peer review of IRIS assessments.
“I am confident that these improvements will help our high quality risk assessment process become even more accessible to the scientific community” said Dr. George Gray, Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research and Development. “We recognize that people outside of EPA use this system and have significant knowledge and expertise to offer. Today’s improvements to the IRIS process will ensure that we continue to have assessments of the highest quality and a process that’s easy to understand and participate in.”
These revisions build upon recent steps that have already been taken to improve the IRIS Web site navigation and organization. Those enhancements provide easier to understand background information, including the history of IRIS and the IRIS review process, and create a quick one-step access to the major parts of the database (the quickviews, the summaries, the toxicological reviews, and the tracking database). EPA has also, for the first time, initiated a “data call in” for information to support its literature review of a chemical, and is seeking public comment on this review.
Together, these upgrades to the IRIS process will help create a more predictable, streamlined, and transparent process for conducting IRIS assessments. A major goal is to define the important role that public and interagency comments and interactions play in the process, and to foster greater communication and sharing of relevant scientific information between experts, interested parties, and EPA. Reforming the IRIS process has been an important goal of EPA Administrator, Stephen Johnson, as reflected in his Action Plan.
IRIS provides human health risk information describing the potential adverse health effects that may result from exposure to over 540 environmental contaminants. IRIS includes descriptions of hazard identification and dose-response information, quantitative risk estimates for chronic non-cancer and cancer effects, and access to searchable scientific documentation.
EPA relies on quality science as the basis for sound policy and decision-making. EPA’s laboratories and research centers are building the scientific foundation needed to support the Agency’s mission to safeguard human health and the environment.
Return to the top of the page
Emerging Issues
What's on the horizon for concerns?
New technologies, processes, materials,...
and related issues
by Zephyr Staff
You can contact me at Staff@ams_awma.org
______________________________
From Ask Epa: Ask EPA: What's Up with Nano?
Release date: 02/19/2008
Contact Information: Dale Kemery, (202) 564-4355 / kemery.dale@epa.gov
(2/19/08) What are the human health and environmental risks and benefits of nanoscale chemical products? EPA will examine that very question with its Nancoscale Materials Stewardship Program, launched last month. Tomorrow at 1 p.m. EST, James Gulliford, assistant administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances will host the online interactive forum Ask EPA and discuss this new voluntary program.
This online interactive forum, patterned after Ask the White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask), allows you to interact with agency officials on a wide range of environmental and human health issues. When a chat is announced, questions submitted online will be answered by EPA officials during the one-hour live session and posted to the Web site as a transcript so that others may also benefit from the discussion.
Nanotechnology: The Big News is Small
Release date: 01/28/2008
Contact Information: Suzanne Ackerman, (202)564-4355 / ackerman.suzanne@epa.gov
(Washington, D.C. – January 28, 2008) Americans are famous for building big: the tallest sky scraper, the biggest jet, the widest plasma TV screen. But now U.S. entrepreneurs are considering thinking small. Nanotechnology uses particles 80,000 times smaller than a human hair; yet the new technology has the potential to quickly clean up pollution, cure serious illnesses, and make the computer silicon chip obsolete. While EPA looks forward to new environmental breakthroughs, the Agency’s first commitment is to protect human health and the environment. Therefore EPA has awarded 21 grants totaling $7.34 million to universities to investigate potential adverse health and environmental effects of manufactured nanomaterials.
The grants were awarded through EPA’s Science to Achieve Results (STAR) research grants program in partnership with the National Science Foundation's (NSF), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) who awarded another eight grants for a total of 29. Nine of the grants focus on potential toxicity, and 12 grants study the fate and transport of nanomaterials in the environment.
"Nanotechnology is an exciting new field with the potential to transform environmental protection. But it is critical to know whether nanomaterials could negatively impact health or the environment,” said George Gray, Assistant Administrator of EPA’s Office of Research and Development. “By performing research on potential adverse affects, EPA is doing what is right for both human and environmental health and technological progress.”
Today, EPA is initiating a Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program (NMSP) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to gather and develop key information from manufacturers, importers, processors and users of engineered chemical nanoscale materials. The information gathered through the stewardship program will be invaluable in furthering EPA’s understanding of potential risks and benefits of these nanoscale materials.
EPA further works with agencies in other countries on nanotechnology health and safety research. The Agency is part of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) effort to promote international cooperation in health and environmental safety related aspects of manufactured nanomaterials,
List of awardees: http://es.epa.gov/ncer/nano/2008recipients.html
The grants funded by EPA were awarded to the following universities:
- Arizona State University, Tempe, Ariz., $398,998 – Determine whether bacteria used at wastewater treatment plants can effectively remove nanoparticles from sewage, concentrate nanoparticles into biosolids and/or possibly transform nanoparticles as they move through the processing system.
- Arizona State University, Tempe, Ariz., $399,768 -- Develop a method for evaluating the potential risks of bioaccumulation of manufactured nanomaterials in aquatic organisms.
- Battelle, Pacific Northwest Division, Seattle, Wash., $200,000 -- Study how nanoscale particles interact with cells when they are inhaled.
- University of California, Santa Barbara, Calif., $399,986 -- Discover the processes that could allow manmade nanoparticles to enter cells and possibly cause toxicity in a variety of bacteria and other single-celled organisms.
- Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pa., $400,000 -- Determine the effect of common nanoparticle surface coatings on nano-iron reactivity, mobility, fate, and effect on soil bacteria.
- Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colo., $389,997 -- Determine whether manufactured nanomaterials that contain metals pose a risk to aquatic organisms.
- Columbia University, New York, N.Y., $200,000 -- Describe the life-cycle environmental profile of nanomaterials that are candidates for use in photovoltaic or solar power applications.
- Columbia University, New York, N.Y., $200,000 -- Describe the life-cycle environmental profile of nanomaterials that are candidates for use in photovoltaic or solar power applications.
- University of Delaware, Newark, Del., $399,035 – Develop an understanding of the fate of manmade nanoparticles released into subsurface environments.
- University of Georgia Research Foundation, Athens, Ga., $397,009 -- Study the impact of metal nanoparticles on food webs, and the transfer ability of these toxins depending on their particle size and chemical composition.
- University of Maine, Orono, ME, $398,298 -- Determine the toxicity of semiconductor nanostructures, their impact on the environment, and the potential health risks in living organisms involved with bioaccumulation of the substances.
- University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., $371,886 -- Provide fundamental information about the movement, fate and bioavailability of manmade, carbon nanotubes under different environmental conditions.
- University of Missouri, Colombia, Mo., $399,507 -- Investigate the potential toxicity of manmade, carbon nanotubes on bottom-dwelling organisms in aquatic ecosystems.
- University of North Carolina, Charlotte, N.C., $399,843 -- Determine the toxicity of manmade, metal nanoparticles on marine organisms.
- North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C., $391,617 -- Describe the impacts of manmade nanomaterials on skin absorption and evaluate their safety and risk.
- New York University, Tuxedo, N.Y., $399,827 -- Study the possible biological effects of manufactured nanoparticles in waste streams that contaminate aquatic environments.
- Oregon State University, Corvallis, Ore., $199,993 -- Determine the mechanisms by which manufactured nanomaterials damage or kill cells in realistic environments of exposure.
- Oregon State University, Corvallis, Ore., $400,000 -- Develop a system to rapidly assess the toxicity of manmade, industrial nanomaterials.
- Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind., $199,990 -- Investigate how manmade nanomaterials change or transform under certain environmental conditions.
- University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tenn., $396,807 -- Study the effects of an industrial nanomaterial, C60 fullerenes, as a contaminant in aquatic ecosystems.
- University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, $200,000 -- Investigate whether ingested nanoparticles are taken up by inflamed colon cells, move to the cell nucleus, and cause alteration of gene transcription.
- University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wis., $398,810 -- Assess how the immune system of rainbow trout responds to manufactured nanomaterials.
- EPA relies on quality science as the basis for sound policy and decision-making. EPA’s laboratories, research centers, and grantees are building the scientific foundation needed to support the Agency’s mission to safeguard human health and the environment.
EPA Seeks Data About Nanoscale Materials
Release date: 01/28/2008
Contact Information: Suzanne Ackerman, (202) 564-4355 / ackerman.suzanne@epa.gov
(Washington, D.C. – January 28, 2008) What are the human health and environmental risks and benefits of nanoscale chemical products? That’s what EPA wants to find out with its just-announced Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program (NMSP). Engineered nanoscale materials range in size from 1-100 nanometers (nm), and may have very different properties than the same materials at a larger scale.
“This program will help strengthen the scientific understanding of nanoscale materials and allow the EPA to more quickly assemble the information needed to ensure appropriate oversight of the products of this promising technology,” said Jim Gulliford, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. “Participation in this program can help assure the responsible development, use, and acceptance of these materials in the marketplace.”
The program calls on manufacturers, importers, processors, and users of engineered nanoscale materials to report to EPA key information about these materials within six months. The agency will evaluate the information to help ensure the safe manufacture and use of these nanoscale materials.
EPA will also work with manufacturers, importers, processors and users of nanoscale materials to develop test data to provide a scientific basis for assessing the hazards, exposures, and risks of nanoscale materials. The NMSP will complement and support EPA's new and existing chemical programs under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The NMSP includes, but is not limited to, existing chemical nanoscale materials manufactured or imported for commercial purposes as defined by TSCA. EPA encourages manufacturers and importers of new chemical nanoscale materials, which are subject to TSCA reporting requirements prior to manufacture, as well as researchers to consider reporting under the NMSP. The NMSP will help provide a firmer, scientific foundation for regulatory decisions by encouraging the development of key scientific information and use of risk management practices in developing and commercializing nanoscale materials.
Information on NMSP: http://epa.gov/oppt/nano/stewardship.htm
For more information under the Nanotechnology under the Toxic Substances Control Act: http://epa.gov/oppt/nano
Nanotechnology Now Used in Nearly 500 Everyday Products
The number of consumer products using nanotechnology
http://www.nanotechproject.org/index.php?id=44&action=intro has more than doubled, from 212 to 475, in the 14 months since the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies launched the world's first online inventory of manufacturer-identified nanotech goods http://www.nanotechproject.org/consumerproducts in March 2006. Clothing and cosmetics top the inventory at 77 and 75 products, respectively. A list of nanotechnology products that also includes bedding, jewelry, sporting goods, nutritional and personal care items is available here http://www.wilsoncenter.org/www.nanotechproject.org/consumerproducts .
Nanotechnology Consumer Products Inventory Highlights:
- The food and beverages category, including containers and dietary supplements, doubled to 61 products since last year.
- Nanoscale silver is the most cited nanomaterial used. It is found in 95 products or 20% of the inventory. Carbon, including carbon nanotubes and fullerenes, is the second highest nanoscale material cited.
- Merchandise from 20 countries is now represented. The United States leads internationally with 52% or 247 consumer products that contain nanotechnology. East Asia now boasts 123 products, a 58% increase over last year.
- New products in the inventory include the Corsa Nanotech Ice Axe http://nanotechproject.org/index.php?id=44&action=view&dbq=sandvik that's 20% lighter than normal steel and up to 60% stronger. There's also MaatShop(tm) Crystal Clear Nano Silver http://nanotechproject.org/index.php?id=44&action=view&product_id=1358-a clear liquid dietary supplement which peddles protection against colds, flu and hundreds of diseases, even anthrax.
While polls show most Americans know little or nothing about nanotechnology, in 2005 nanotechnology was incorporated into more than $30 billion in manufactured goods. By 2014, Lux Research estimates $2.6 trillion in manufactured goods will incorporate nanotechnology-or about 15% of total global output.
"The use of nanotechnology in consumer products and industrial applications is growing rapidly, with the products listed in the inventory showing just the tip of the iceberg," said Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies science advisor Andrew Maynard. "How consumers respond to these early products-in food, electronics, health care, clothing and
cars-will be a litmus test for broader market acceptance of nanotechnologies in the future."
EPA Proposes New Hazardous Waste Exclusion
EPA is proposing http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/combust/compfuels/prepub-compfl.pdf to allow certain manufacturing waste to be safely burned for energy recovery in industrial boilers. This action will remove what the agency describes as unnecessary regulatory costs while maintaining current levels of protection of human health and the environment.
EPA is proposing to expand the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act's Hazardous Waste Comparable Fuels Exclusion to encompass a new category of liquid hazardous waste-derived fuel known as emission-comparable fuel (ECF). ECF is produced from a hazardous waste but generates emissions when burned in an industrial boiler that are comparable to those from burning fuel oil. ECF would be subject to the same regulations that currently apply under the Comparable Fuels Exclusion but would be exempt from the specifications for certain hydrocarbons and oxygenates. It also would have to meet certain storage and burner conditions.
For details, see the agency's Q&A Document http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/combust/compfuels/q_acompfuelhtm and Fact Sheet http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/combust/compfuels/compfuel-fshtm
Where Does the Nano Go?
All materials and products eventually come to the end of their useful life, and those made with nanotechnology are no different. This means that engineered nanomaterials will ultimately enter the waste stream and find their way into landfills or incinerators-and eventually into the air, soil and water. As a result, it is important to consider how
various forms of nanomaterials will be disposed of and treated at the end of their use, and how the regulatory system will treat such materials at the various stages of their lifecycle.
A new report from the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, "Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Regulation of Nanotechnologies http://www.nanotechproject.org/file_download/208 ," addresses these
issues. Authored by Linda K. Breggin and John Pendergrass, legal experts from the Environmental Law Institute (ELI), the report presents the most comprehensive analysis to-date of two key EPA laws that regulate the
end-of-life management of nanotechnology. These are the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as the Superfund statute.
Today, there are over 500 company-identified nanotechnology consumer products on the market, all of which will sooner or later be disposed of. These products can be seen in an online inventory http://www.nanotechproject.org/consumerproducts maintained by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. This inventory does not include nanotech products being sold but not identified as such, or the hundreds of nano raw materials, intermediate components, and industrial equipment items used by manufacturers today.
Return to the top of the page
