Companies and public entities that own diesel vehicles have until March 30th to submit an application for grant funding to pay for engine repower, retrofit and/or installation of idle technology.  Ohio EPA released its request for proposal to solicit applications for $10 million in grant funding in 2012 under its Diesel Emission Reduction Grant (DERG) program.

 

See Ohio EPA’s Map- You must be in one of the highlighted counties or townships to qualify

The $10 million in funding was made available in the last state budget by accessing federal highway Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding.  Another $10 million will be available in 2013.

The State funding comes at a time when the federal diesel grant program- DERA- is likely to see reduced funding.  These state and federal diesel grant programs are a great way to leverage voluntary emission reductions which takes pressure off businesses to reduce emissions with the tightening of federal air quality standards.

Projects that are eligible for funding include replacement, repower, retrofit, and/or installation of anti-idle technology, of diesel-power public fleets, and public-private partnership (PPP) fleets.  PPP fleets means that a private company must partner with an eligible local government to do the project.  However, it is possible for private companies to access the grant funding. 

Ohio EPA will host two conference calls to answer questions about the DERG program on March 8 at 10:00am and March 14 at 1:00pm. These are not mandatory for grant applicants. They are optional for anyone who would like to hear questions being asked and answered.  For more information regarding the conference calls click here.

 

 

Last week Senator Schaffer introduced Senate Bill 294– dubbed the EPA reform bill.  According to testimony from Senator Schaffer and OEPA Director Scott Nally, the two had been working on the legislation for months.

This bill is the probably the first since Ohio EPA creation that touches on so many different areas of EPA regulatory authority, including:

  • Infectious waste- eliminate duplicate regulation
  • Wetland mitigation- change the hierarchy of mitigation (see below)
  • Underground storage tank clean up at brownfields- streamlines brownfield clean up (see below)
  • Compliance assistance to small businesses- expands confidentiality for inquiries for assistance by small businesses
  • Construction & demolition debris fees- clarifies fees apply to asbestos containing material
  • Statute of limitations for environmental enforcement actions- applies statute of limitations to enforcement actions related to construction & demolition debris
  • Regulation of public water systems and public water system operators- establishes criminal penalties for falsification and vandalism related to public drinking water systems
  • Disposal of solid waste- bans disposal of certain aluminum production waste after issues with fires at Countywide landfill

While the bill is broad in scope, many of the changes are minor fixes to address out of date statutory language.  The biggest changes fall into the following areas:

Wetland Mitigation- 

Anytime a developer impacts wetlands, they must offset the impacts with mitigation.  Under current law, the hierarchy of mitigation required the developer to, first, try and perform mitigation on-site by creating new wetlands.  Then mitigate off-site, but in the same watershed.  If on-site and off-site mitigation weren’t possible, the final option was purchasing credits at a wetland mitigation bank owned and operated by a third party. 

Years ago, Ohio EPA studied the effectiveness of on-site mitigation and found that most newly created wetland were failing.  This prompted a lengthy discussion about the merits of using wetland banks versus developer driven mitigation projects.

S.B. 294 flips the hierarchy on its head.  Now, the preferred option is purchasing credits at a mitigation bank.  Such a change may allow for better success in terms of survival of man-made wetlands.  Also, a preference towards banks should greatly accelerate the permitting process for developers who often get bogged down in trying to find mitigation sites.

S.B. 294 also provides Ohio EPA with the authority to start an in lieu fee program.  Under such a program, a developer could simply write a check paying for mitigation credits versus finding a mitigation project or bank.  Ohio EPA, ODNR or a private entity operating the in lieu fee program could then use the funds to start mitigation projects they select.  This option assist developers when they can’t find sufficient credits at an acceptable mitigation bank.

Underground Storage Tanks at Brownfields-

This has long been an issue highlighted on this blog.  Under current Ohio law, any business or developer cleaning up a brownfield is forced to go through two separate clean up programs if their site has underground storage tanks regulated by the Bureau of Underground Storage Tank Regulation (BUSTR).

Under Ohio law, any areas of brownfield site with BUSTR tanks is ineligible for participation in the Voluntary Action Program (VAP) until it, first, clean up the BUSTR tanks in accordance with BUSTR regulations.  Never mind that the VAP clean up standards and BUSTR were equivalent in their protection of human health and the environment.

What resulted is lengthy delays at brownfield sites while the volunteer addressed all BUSTR tank issues prior to proceeding with the VAP.

S.B. 294 will allow any person cleaning up a brownfield to use the VAP to address BUSTR tanks as long as two conditions are met:

  1. The VAP clean up also addresses other hazardous substances or petroleum that is not BUSTR regulated; and
  2. The fire marshal has not issued an enforcement order requiring BUSTR closure.

This is a great reform that is a long time coming.  It should make brownfield as well as VAP clean ups at operating sites far less complicated.

Compliance Assistance for Small Businesses

Ohio EPA has the Office of Compliance Assistance and Pollution Prevention (OCAPP).  OCAPP allows small business to call EPA staff and ask for assistance with permitting or compliance issues without fear of enforcement. 

Under existing law, only inquiries regarding air permitting are confidential.  S.B. 294 would make inquiries into other permitting programs confidential.  This gives the business the comfort of knowing their noncompliance, by law, cannot be reported to other EPA divisions or offices. 

OCAPP can be a great tool for small businesses to cost effectively untangle complex EPA regulations and file for permits.  S.B. 294 will enhance OCAPP’s capabilities.

Introduction Just Marks the Beginning of the Legislative Process

S.B. 294 will be very interesting to watch as it proceeds through the legislature.  Will Senator Schaffer and Ohio EPA be able to prevent it from becoming a "Christmas Tree", where every group and legislator tries to include their concepts or ideas for reforms to EPA?

Time will tell.

 

A recent court case calls into question Ohio EPA’s legal authority to recover certain costs related to investigation and clean up of contaminated sites.  The case also raises questions about Ohio EPA’s long standing practice to negotiate administrative settlements of enforcement actions.

On January 18, 2012, the First District Court of Appeals in Hamilton County issued a decision in DeWine v. Mass Realty.  Due to the serious implications that may stem from this decision, it is certain the State will seek a appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Recovery of "Response Costs"

Ohio EPA has long pursued recovery of costs it incurs in investigating, cleaning up and taking enforcement actions at sites that have soil and groundwater contamination.  Ohio EPA tracks the time its personnel work on these properties and routinely recovers such costs through enforcement actions against the owners or operators of those sites.  Ohio EPA relies on R.C. 3734.20 as the basis of its authority to recover such costs.

The Court in Mass Realty said that Ohio EPA had over reached its statutory authority under R.C. 3734.20 in terms of the types of costs it could recover.  The Court said Ohio EPA’s authority is limited to costs the Agency’s incurs directly related to "investigation" or "corrective measure."  The Court said that staff time and travel costs were simply "normal office overhead items" for which Ohio EPA does not have the legal authority to recover.

The Court’s view of costs recoverable under R.C. 3734.20 is more limited than U.S. EPA’s ability to recover response costs under CERCLA (Superfund). 

Enforcement Authority

For decades, Ohio EPA has negotiated resolution of enforcement actions with companies using administrative order settlements.  These orders are referred to as Consensual Director’s Findings & Orders ("Consensual F&Os").

Use of agreed settlements is important to Ohio EPA because it lacks the authority to unilaterally impose civil penalties. By negotiating resolutions of enforcement actions, Ohio EPA could impose penalties without having to refer those cases to the Ohio Attorney General’s Office.

In virtually all Consensual F&Os issued over the last decade, Ohio EPA routinely cited to R.C. 3745.01 as its legal authority for such actions.  Ohio EPA has argued this statutory provision provides the Agency the ability to enter contracts.  Ohio EPA says Consensual F&Os are contracts- a voluntary agreement to resolve violations between the Agency and companies or individuals.

The Court rejected Ohio EPA’s claim.  It said that R.C. 3745.01 did not provide the legal authority for such Orders.  The Court said Consensual F&Os goes beyond the type of contracting authority granted the Agency by the Ohio Legislature.

Potential Impact of the Ruling on Ohio EPA’s Enforcement Process

Ohio EPA stopped issuing enforcement reports in 2006.  However, reviewing the charts from the last available report, highlights the significant issue that the Agency faces should Ohio EPA be found to lack the authority to impose penalties through Consensual F&Os.

 If Ohio EPA is forced to refer every case to the Attorney General’s Office that it wishes to impose a civil penalty could mean a 400% increase in the number of cases referred.

 

 

 

 

 

In anticipation of an influx of shale gas drilling operations coming to the State, Ohio EPA decided to try and get ahead of the curve by developing an expedited permit to cover air emissions from such operations.

On February 1st, Ohio EPA issued a final air pollution general permit to cover production operations at shale gas well sites. By issuing the general permit, Ohio EPA is providing a path for shale gas operators to received expedited regulatory approval necessary to cover air emissions.  Without the general permit, operators must obtain an individual air permit which can take longer and may be less certain as to terms and conditions for operations.

Applicants that meet the criteria, terms and conditions of the permit can expect to receive approval within weeks of applying.  An individual air permit can take six months to issue.  The process is expedited because all the terms and conditions of the permit are established up-front instead of after the application is filled.

The only issue with general permits is that they are one-size fits all templates.  Meaning, you must be sure that your specific operation can meet the terms and conditions cause they can’t be changed or modified to meet your specific circumstances.  Company’s that cannot live with the general permit terms & conditions can still apply for an individual air permit.

The Agency received many comments from both industry and environmental groups/concerned citizens on the draft permit released in October.  The Agency announced that it had modified the permit to address the following concerns:

  • restricts normal flare operation, increases total flare capacity and allows for emergency flaring to safely burn gas;
  • requires installation of newer spark ignition internal combustion engines if total horsepower is to exceed 1300;
  • removes a limit on the number of storage tanks and replaces it with a limit on the total volume of material stored in tanks;
  • increases allowable dehydrators from one to two; removes unpaved roadways as an emissions unit (it is covered under another existing general permit); and
  • removes the natural gas micro turbine emissions unit (it was determined to be exempt).

Traditionally, EPA has regulated storm water differently than point source discharges.  Regulators recognized that it was easier to install new technology to reduce pollutant loading from a specific industrial process with a specific "end of pipe" discharge point.  Storm water was much more unpredictable.

Therefore, U.S. EPA regulated storm water using general NPDES permits without specific numeric limits.  Instead, the general permit would require the development of a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) which required companies to institute "best management practices" (BMPs) to reduce pollution from run-off.  The effectiveness of BMPs were evaluated by monitoring pollutant levels in run-off. but permits did not contain specific numeric effluent limits that had to be met.

EPA recognized the difficulties in trying to establish a numeric effluent limit for storm water discharges due to the variables involved.  For instance, due to the variability of the size and nature of storm events, the amount of pollutant leaving a site in run-off was difficult to evaluate.

In 2002, EPA issued guidance that stated numeric limits would only be used "rarely" in storm water NPDES permits.  However, EPA believe technology has improved and has signaled a shift toward numeric limits for storm water control. In 2010, EPA issued a controversial revision to that guidance indicated numeric values may be appropriate.  (See, "Guidance on Establishing TMDL Waste Load Allocations for Storm Water Discharges in NPDES Permits"  EPA November 2010)

Benchmarks Versus Numeric Limits

The first step toward numeric limits is EPA’s use of "benchmarks" in storm water permits.  EPA makes clear that benchmarks are not effluent limits.  This means an exceedence of the numeric value is not a violation.  However, the exceedence is evidence that BMPs need to be improved to reduce pollutant loading.

In December 2011, Ohio EPA followed U.S. EPA lead and incorporated benchmarks into its final version of the new NPDES General Permit for Industrial Activity.  This permit differs from the previous General NPDES Permit companies  in two significant ways. 

First, the permit contains industry specific requirements (which is why the permit is 141 pages long).  Second, it uses benchmarks tied to specific industrial activity that will be used to determine the effectiveness of BMPs.

Ohio EPA’s new General  Permit became effective starting January 1, 2012.   However, facilities will still be covered by their old general permits, as long as they are still effective.  Existing facilities will begin the transition to the new permit upon notification from Ohio EPA. 

Ohio EPA will send written instructions to existing covered facilities on how to continue their general permit coverage with the submittal of a “re-notification” of intent to be covered. The existing facility will have 90 days to submit the re-notification.

Benchmark Monitoring

The new permit is effective for five years.  During the first four years of the permit, facilities to which the industry specific benchmarks apply, will monitor their compliance with the benchmarks.

In the first three years of the permit, monitoring and reporting is required for four out of the 12 quarters.  In year number four, the data is averaged and compared to applicable benchmarks for that industrial activity. If facilities are still exceeding the benchmarks after four years, they will be forced to review their BMPs, storm water control plans and house keeping activities to further reduce pollutant loading.

How Far will Facilities Need to Go to Comply with Benchmarks?

The permit makes very clear that the benchmarks are not enforceable effluent limits.  Therefore, an exceedence is not a violation which could subject the facility to an enforcement action.  However, the expectation is the facility will continue to improve storm water controls if the benchmarks are not met. 

The final permit does contain language that allows faculties to assert they have done all they feasibly can to reduce pollutants.  The permits states that facilities can demonstrate that “no further pollutant reductions are technologically available and economically practicable and achievable in light of best industry practice to meet the control measures/best management practices (BMPs) in Part 2 of this Permit.”

The determination must be documented and retained with the (SWPPP, and provide notification of this determination to Ohio EPA at the due date for the next benchmark monitoring report.  Of course, a company’s determination as to what is economically practicable may not be the same as the Agency’s. 

(For more information on Ohio EPA’s NPDES General Permit for Industrial Activity– click here)

 

Details were released this week by the Kasich Administration on the establishment of its privatized economic development agency known as JobsOhio.  Many of the traditional job creation duties that fell to the Ohio Department of Development will be shifted to JobsOhio. 

Along with the restructuring of development duties, the Administration is shifting the State’s liquor profits to help fund the Agency.  Last year the liquor profits took in around $700 million in revenue to the State.  In return for a 25 year agreement to fund JobsOhio with liquor profits, JobsOhio will make a one-time $1.4 billion dollar payment back to the State.  Details of how those funds would be utilized were discussed in the Plain Dealer:

The $1.4 billion agreement calls for Ohio to collect $500 million for its general revenue fund, money already factored into the current state biennial budget, $750 million to pay off existing liquor revenue backed bonds, and $150 million to continue "Clean Ohio" environmental programs for the next three years.

The reference in the Plain Dealer Article regarding Clean Ohio is a bit confusing.  Based upon an article in Columbus Business First, the $150 million is set aside to pay for the grants that were awarded or will be awarded by July 1, 2012.  In the future, funding will be set at $43 million per year.

The agreement, which will be reviewed and possibly voted on Jan. 30 by the state Controlling Board, includes a provision for the $43 million for economic revitalization projects as well as $150 million to cover Clean Ohio Fund projects approved by the state before July 1, 2012.

Impact on Clean Ohio

The transformation of the Ohio Department of Development and creation of JobsOhio has resulted in tremendous uncertainty regarding  the State’s $50 million dollar per year brownfield redevelopment program. 

This fall, when the Administration made the announcement that liquor profits would be shifted, the Administration said it would look for a new revenue source to support Clean Ohio.  It now appears that the same revenue-a portion of liquor profits- will be used to support the program for the next three years. 

What remains uncertain is when that money will be available.  Currently, the Ohio Department of Development announced the end of funding for the Clean Ohio Assistance Fund (COAF) which pays for Phase II environmental assessment on brownfields.  Also, the Department announced the current round of the Clean Ohio Revitalization Fund (CORF) would be its last. Now that the funding source has been announced, the question is when will the State start accepting grant applications again?

Due to the fact the $150 million is being allocated pay for COAF and CORF grants in the pipeline and the last round of CORF, it appears no new funding will be available for Phase II work prior to July 1st.

Who Will Administer Clean Ohio in the Future?

What also remains uncertain is whether the current process for grant selection and administration will remain.  During yesterday’s announcement, the Administration indicated that the current process will remain in place through the summer.  However, the Kasich Administration also suggested that legislation could be introduced this Spring to modify the program. 

What the Administration did make clear is that they want to see more direct economic development benefits for use of Clean Ohio funds in the future.  This means it is unlikely grants such as the Redevelopment Ready track of the Clean Ohio program will continue. 

The Redevelopment Ready track provided grants up to $2 million to clean brownfields that were primed for development based on their location but lacked a specific end use (i.e. development project).  Some argued that the Redevelopment Ready Track allowed areas outside Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati to better compete for the grant money. 

While this week’s announcement seemed to answer the question as to whether funding will remain in place for Clean Ohio in the near future, there remains three major questions:

  1. When will the grant process open up again:
  2. Who will administer the program- the newly created Ohio Development Services Agency or JobsOhio; and
  3. What will the grant application and selection process look like in the future?

 

In my prior post, I discussed the recent federal court ruling with found EPA’s self-imposed stay of the Boiler MACT illegal.  Following the Court’s ruling, concern was immediately raised by industry that they would be subject to the original deadlines that appear in the 2011 rulemaking. 

Yesterday, Administrator Jackson responded to a letter from Senator Ron Wyden regarding the EPA’s position in light of the Court’s ruling:

Regarding the impact of the recent court decision, we have carefully reviewed the effect that vacating the stay may have on new and existing sources and plan to address potential impacts. Specifically, using our enforcement discretion, the EPA will issue a no action assurance letter shortly, informing sources that EPA will not enforce any of the administrative notification requirements for new or existing boilers and incinerators in the 2011 Rules for a period of time while the EPA works to take final action on the proposal to reset these dates. For existing boilers and incinerators, these administrative notification requirements are the only obligations sources would otherwise have under the 2011 Rules prior to when the EPA intends to finalize the reconsideration process.

EPA also intends to reset the compliance clock once the final rule is issued:

Finally, the EPA recognizes that industry needs sufficient time to comply with these standards. As a result, the reconsideration proposal included a provision that would set new, later deadlines for meeting the standards set forth in the reconsideration proposal. While this is subject to the public comment
process, it was the EPA’s intent in the proposed rule to allow the compliance clock to "reset" to provide the industry the full length of time – three years – provided in the Clean Air Act for compliance with the rules once they are finalized.

For a copy of Administrator Jackson’s letter to the Senator, click here

 

 

On February 11, 2011, EPA issued two rules regulating hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from thousands of industrial sources.  First, the "Boiler MACT" imposed standards on industrial, commercial and institutional boilers and process heaters.  Second, the "CISWI" imposed standards on commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators.   

Both rules were very controversial due to their wide coverage and cost of compliance.  Industry complained that EPA, on prior versions of the rules, failed to analyze real world data regarding standards.  Their failure resulted in standards that industry charged no facility had actually achieved in practice.

Environmental groups alleged that the rules were long overdue and EPA was simply delaying the rules due to pressure from industry.  When the rules were issued in February 2011, the Sierra Club filed challenged in the Court of Appeals.  EPA also announced that it was reconsidering the rules to take more time to analyze the data provided by industry during the comment period.

On May 18, 2011, two days before the rules were to take effect, EPA self-imposed a stay on the effectiveness of both rules.  EPA’s stay was referred to as its "Delay Notice."  In the federal register announcement regarding the Delay Notice, EPA said the stay would be effective until judicial review proceedings were over or it completed its reconsideration of the rules, whichever occurred earlier.

EPA said the Delay Notice was necessary in order to avoid requiring thousands of facilities to comply with standards that soon may change.  EPA argued that once facilities began making investments to meet the standards, those investments would be irreversible.

The Court did not find any of EPA’s justifications for the Delay Notice valid.  The Court even denied EPA’s request to remand the Delay Notice so that EPA could provide better justification for the action.  The Court threw out the stay and issued an order requiring EPA to take immediate action to comply with its order. (Click here for Court’s decision throwing out the stay of the Boiler MACT)

EPA had indicated it was going to complete is reconsideration by April 2012.  Therefore, it was able to delay the rules for most of the period it originally intended to complete its reconsideration.  However, now EPA will have no choice but to issue both rules.  More importantly, thousands of faculties across the country will likely be facing compliance deadlines with the clock beginning to tick this Spring.

U.S. EPA finally issued its long awaited air pollution regulation aimed at reducing mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants- Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS).  MATS sets specific numeric emission standards for mercury and other air toxics from coal-fire power plants  25 megawatts in size or larger.

MATS will apply to some 1,400 generating units across the country.  The rules carry with them a $9.6 billion dollar price tag.  Power produces have until 2015 to 2016 to comply with the new regulations.

The new regulation, along with a series of earlier federal regulations, have made coal power generation more expensive. Meanwhile, the rich deposits of natural gas in the Marcellus and Utica Shale have kept natural gas prices down. 

Ohio could be at the center of a major shift in power generation.   Right now Ohio’s baseload power generation tilts heavily in favor of coal with 86% of its generation from coal and only 2% from natural gas.  However, the scales may be starting to go  in favor of natural gas.  MIT’s recent study on natural gas showed its role will increase significantly the coming years in the energy sector. 

On June 8, 2011, AEP released its compliance plan which calls for retirement of coal plants and new natural gas capacity.  According to SourceWatch:

 AEP’s compliance plan would retire nearly 6,000 megawatts (MW) of coal-fueled power generation; upgrade or install new advanced emissions reduction equipment on another 10,100 MW; refuel 1,070 MW of coal generation as 932 MW of natural gas capacity; and build 1,220 MW of natural gas-fueled generation. The cost of AEP’s compliance plan could range from $6 billion to $8 billion in capital investment through the end of the decade

In 2011, many power producers announced they were closing Ohio coal-fire generating facilities.  These include:

  • AEP’s Picway
  • AEP’s Conesville
  • AEP’s Muskingham River
  • Duke Beckjord
  • DP&L Hutchings

According to an Associated Press survey of 55 power producers, more than 32 mostly coal-fired power plants in a dozen states would close. The survey indicated no threat to the reliability of the nation’s power system.

Pennsylvania is about decade ahead of Ohio in its shift toward natural gas due to the fact the Marcellus shale formation is proven and the Utica shale is not.  Pennsylvania offers a glimpse into Ohio’s future.

Chart shows Pennsylvania’s ten fold increase in natural gas power generation.  In a decade, natural gas has gone from 2% of Pennsylvania’s power generation to 17%. 

Meanwhile, coal power generation in Pennsylvania has seen a corresponding drop from 56% to 47% of overall generation in the State.   (Chart- Investment U "Pennsylvania leading the shift to natural gas)

 

Yesterday, the Ohio Department of Develop put the following notice on the Clean Ohio Fund webpage:

NOTICE

Effective immediately: The Clean Ohio Assistance Fund is no longer accepting applications. If you have a project and would like to discuss other funding opportunities please contact us.

Back in October, Governor Kasich announced that he was redirecting the funding for the Clean Ohio program to his JobsOhio economic development program.  Funding would remain for one additional round of the Clean Ohio Revitalization Fund which provides up to $3 million in clean up grants for brownfield redevelopment.. 

In addition, funding for the Clean Ohio Assistance Fund (COAF) was thought to last through June 2012.  However when the announcement was made that funding was shifted to JobsOhio it cast doubt on the future of the Clean Ohio program.  As a result, the Department of Development was flooded with COAF applications in December.  No one wanted to risk missing what could the last of the Clean Ohio funding. 

Due to the rush of applications, all available funding was already allocated in December for the COAF program.  Several projects that were also seeking funding were told they were too late.

With the last round of CORF this month and the announcement ODOD is no longer accepting applications for the COAF program, the Clean Ohio program in Ohio is effectively closed.  This announcement is disappointing since the program was one of the most successful in the country in spurring revitalization of brownfield properties. 

In November, the Governor’s spokesperson indicated the Administration was looking to find new revenue to continue the program.  No such funding has been identified to date.  The prospects for finding new revenue must be very uncertain because the Department is not even allowing developers to submit applications to form a line when funding does come available. 

Signs point that the Country and State’s economy may slowly be turning the corner. If that is indeed the case, It would be nice to have the tools in place to direct new development to abandoned sites and contaminated properties which populate Ohio’s urban core.