Green on the Hill: Environmentalists contest EPA exemption for manufacturing recycling of byproducts

August 1, 2010

A preliminary decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) not to define nonhazardous secondary materials (byproducts, if you will) recycled by manufacturers for heat recovery as solid waste has set off a brouhaha. Environmental groups are complaining that the proposed rule that the EPA issued in June would allow manufacturing and industrial facilities to recycle spent solvents, fuels, scrap plastics, shredded tires, used oil, and industrial sledges in boilers or process heaters for the purpose of heat recovery and not have to comply with Clean Air Act emission restrictions.

The latter part of that proposal is the problem, from the standpoint of groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club. If those same secondary materials were simply being disposed of in a boiler—absent recycling—emissions restrictions would come into play.

A final EPA rule in 2000 established emission controls for the category of Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators (CISWI Rule). The Sierra Club challenged the rule in 2001 in court, but only as it pertained to cement kilns. But that kicked off a decadelong legal and regulatory process around the issue of solid waste recycling, which resulted in the proposed rule that came out on June 4 and set off a firestorm.

Energy Department Establishing Rules for Federal Green Buildings

The Department of Energy (DOE) has issued a proposed rule dealing with the use of sustainable design principles for siting, design, and construction of new and existing federal buildings. It also establishes regulations that require water conservation technologies and solar hot water heaters in federal buildings to the extent that they are “life-cycle cost-effective.” It also provides criteria for identifying a certification system and level for green buildings.

Again, this proposal applies only to federal buildings. But as is often the case, federal green standards find their way into local and state building codes, and sometimes end up applying to private buildings and facilities.

The four prongs of this federal green buildings proposal are sustainable design, water conservation, solar heating, and green certification.

As an example, the proposed rule would require federal agencies to apply sustainable design principles to the extent that it is practicable. This is defined further—when designing new federal buildings and major renovations, the phrase “to the extent practicable” means that actions would need to be implemented unless an agency determines any of the following: full implementation would prevent the building or facility from fulfilling a key design or function objective; the necessary products or materials could not be commercially procured in a timely fashion; the net increases in total project life cycle costs would be very large; or if initial funding required to integrate features to comply with this rule exceeded 3 percent of total first costs.

EPA Wants Employees Involved in RMP Inspections

The EPA published interim guidance—which will be finalized by the end of the year—on how agency inspectors should enlist the assistance of company employees when an EPA inspector arrives at a company’s front door to check the facility’s risk management plan (RMP).

Companies that produce, handle, process, distribute, or store certain chemicals over certain threshold levels must produce RMPs that describe how the company would handle an emergency when a chemical is accidentally released into the water or air in its neighborhood. Those plans must be updated every five years.

To the extent that a facility handles more than one chemical on the list, it has to produce an RMP for each proc-ess in which that chemical is used. As recently as June 30 of this year, a Spokane, Wash., distributor of welding and industrial supplies agreed to pay a $19,472 penalty for allegedly violating rules under the program. EPA said the company, which uses more than 2,500 pounds of chlorine at each of its four cited facilities, failed to update its RMP at least once every five years. Under the Clean Air Act at Section 112(b)(1)—the RMP program—chlorine is considered a hazardous chemical and an air pollutant, and it is a known health hazard.