HUD Environmental Review - Environmental Assessment Requirements

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires environmental reviews for housing projects to be completed prior to approval of financial assistance. The objective of the review process is to ensure that due diligence has been undertaken in identifying potential impacts, including both environmental and non-environmental impacts, associated with projects that use HUD funds.

The HUD Environmental Review process is driven by two regulations: 24 CFR Part 50 and 24 CFR Part 58. Part 50 pertains to the Department of Housing and Urban Development and those entities that have legal responsibilities to the Secretary of the Interior and Part 58 pertains to those entities that do not have legal responsibilities to the Secretary (e.g., community housing and “faith-based” organizations).

The level or extent of the HUD Environmental Review is dependant on the type of proposed work, the number of units, or a percentage of total area can be a threshold. Under both Part 50 and Part 58, exemptions, categorical exclusions, documented categorical exclusions exist.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public sector and non-profit sector clients around the county to address HUD Environmental Review and HUD Environmental Assessment requirements.

Caltha Environmental Review Website

For further information contact Caltha LLP at info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website

EPA Withdraws Emission Comparable Fuels Rule

EPA has withdrawn the Emission Comparable Fuels (ECF) Rule, which had been finalized in December 2008. The ECF rule sought to reduce regulatory burdens by reclassifying fuels that would otherwise be regulated as hazardous waste, but generate emissions similar to fuel oil when burned.

Due to difficulty of ensuring that emissions from burning ECF are comparable to emissions from burning fuel oil, EPA has now withdrawn the rule. The ECF rule was criticized for potentially allowing hazardous waste to evade the hazardous waste regulatory system, and for being difficult to administer. Industry members have also criticized it because of the detailed conditions for reclassification, which they believe will limited the rule’s use.

Caltha LLP provides expert environmental consultant services in Ohio to obtain environmental permits, evaluate regulatory requirements, and to develop cost effective compliance programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website

Amended Greenhouse Gas Mandatory Reporting Rule

On September 22, 2009, EPA finalized the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Mandatory Reporting Rule. This rule requires facilities with direct GHG emissions over 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), suppliers of petroleum, natural gas, and industrial gases as well as vehicle and engine manufacturers outside the light duty sector to report to EPA annually.

The data collection starts on January 1, 2010, and the first reports to EPA are due on March 31, 2011. As part of that first report, EPA is now proposing that reporters also include the name of their Corporate Parent and North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code. In developing the final rule, EPA received comments that this type of information would be useful to the public and EPA, particularly in assisting corporations in assessing emissions at their different facilities and operations. Therefore, EPA has proposed to include these two data elements in the reports and is seeking public comments on the most efficient way of defining and collecting these elements. EPA is also taking comment on whether or not to have reporters list the existence of a co-generation unit at their facility. Timeline

The Comment Period on the proposed amendments to reporting requirements will close June 11, 2010 and EPA anticipated the final rule will be published in October 2010

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients in Ohio in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EH&S compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EH&S management programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at

info@calthacompany.com

or

Caltha LLP Website

Environmental Compliance Audits In Ohio

EPA and numerous States have enacted various “audit policies” to reduce the regulatory risks associated with compliance auditing. An “audit policy” generally applies to the settlement of claims for civil penalties for any violations under environmental statutes. It provides incentives (relief from penalties) when regulated entities discover, disclose, and correct certain types of violations. An audit policy may not cover all types of environmental violations and conditions may exist that limit its applicability.

List of some States with Self-Disclosure Audit Policies

An “audit policy” is different than “audit privilege” or “audit immunity”. A number of States have passed self-audit "privilege" and/or "immunity" laws. Most privilege laws protect the disclosure of audit reports. For example, in some states, under specified conditions, an audit report is not admissible as evidence in any civil or criminal proceedings. In most cases immunity state laws, under certain specified conditions, gives a person immunity from fines and in some cases criminal penalties related to non-compliance provided that when the information arises from a self-audit that person makes a voluntary disclosure to the appropriate agency. In exchange, companies may be required to implement pollution prevention and/or an environmental management system. EPA has clearly stated its opposition to statutory and regulatory audit privilege and immunity laws that exist in some states.

List of States with Audit Privilege and/or Audit Immunity Laws

Caltha LLP provides expert environmental consultant services in Ohio to obtain environmental permits, evaluate regulatory requirements, and to develop cost effective compliance programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at

info@calthacompany.com

or

Caltha LLP Website

Inert Pesticide Ingredient - Proposed Rulemakng

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

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

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

Caltha LLP provides expert environmental consultant services in Ohio to obtain environmental permits, evaluate regulatory requirements, and to develop cost effective compliance programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

Great Lakes Initiative Action Plan

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) , in collaboration with 15 other federal agencies, have made restoring the Great Lakes a national priority and is proposing a budget of $475 million for a Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (Initiative). The EPA Action Plan, recently released, describes how the Initiative will be executed from 2010 through 2014.

The Plan builds on the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy (GLRC Strategy). The GLRC Strategy provides a framework for the Action Plan. The Action Plan has five major focus areas:

1. Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern, including pollution prevention and cleanup of the most polluted areas in the Great Lakes
2. Invasive Species, including efforts to institute a “zero tolerance policy” toward new invasions, including the establishment of self-sustaining populations of invasive species, such as Asian Carp
3. Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution, including a targeted geographic focus on high priority watersheds and reducing polluted runoff from urban, suburban and, agricultural sources
4. Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration, including bringing wetlands and other habitat back to life, and the first-ever comprehensive assessment of the entire 530,000 acres of Great Lakes coastal wetlands for the purpose of strategically targeting restoration and protection efforts in a science-based manner
5. Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation, Communication and Partnerships, including the implementation of goal- and results-based accountability measures, learning initiatives, outreach and strategic partnerships

The Action Plan identifies goals, objectives, measurable ecological targets, and specific actions for each of the five focus areas identified above. The Action Plan will be used by federal agencies in the development of the federal budget for Great Lakes restoration in fiscal years 2011 and beyond. As such, it will serve as guidance for collaborative restoration work with participants to advance restoration. EPA believes that the Plan will also help advance the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement with Canada.

Caltha Water Quality and Water Standards Website

Caltha LLP provides expert environmental consultant services in Ohio to obtain environmental permits, evaluate regulatory requirements, and to develop cost effective compliance programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website

Greenhouse Gas Emission Guidance From CEQ

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), has issued three draft guidance documents related to the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),. The new guidance, issued in draft for public comment, directs how federal agencies are to:

• Consider the effects of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) in agency decision-making;
• Use mitigation to reduce or avoid impacts, and monitoring their effectiveness; and
• Establish and apply categorical exclusions.

Public comments on the proposed GHG and mitigation guidance documents will be accepted for 90 days after they are printed in the Federal Register, and comments on the categorical exclusion guidance will be accepted for 45 days.

NEPA requires federal agencies to publicly disclose and consider the environmental consequences of their actions and of private actions requiring federal permits or approvals. It is a process-oriented statute and is not prescriptive in nature. NEPA does not mandate specific environmental results and grants federal agencies broad discretion to determine the extent of environmental protection required for proposed actions.

In the draft GHG guidance, CEQ proposes a framework on when and how to evaluate GHG emissions, and how to evaluate the effect of climate change on the project. The GHG guidance indicates that as part of the initial scoping process, agencies should determine whether a project requiring federal approval will result in “meaningful” GHG emissions, and suggests that emissions greater than 25,000 metric tons may meet this test. Emissions above this level would warrant at least some qualitative or quantitative discussion in NEPA documents.

The GHG guidance also recognizes that there are no existing federal protocols for estimating emissions associated with land use and land management decisions. It also recognizes that determining the reasonably foreseeable impacts of land management decisions on GHG emissions may be difficult.

Caltha LLP provides expert environmental consultant services in Ohio to obtain environmental permits, evaluate regulatory requirements, and to develop cost effective compliance programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com
or
Caltha LLP Website