Influenza: WI employee letter

A letter to State of Wisconsin employees on influenza guidance, released today.

---

To All State Employees:

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security declared a public health emergency in response to recent Swine Influenza A (H1N1) outbreaks in the U.S., Canada and Mexico. At this time there are no reported cases in Wisconsin.

State officials, led by the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS), have been monitoring the situation since Friday and continue to observe this situation very closely.

The following advice is from the Department Health Services:

It is important that everyone remain calm, use common sense and continue simple good health practices like washing your hands. Swine influenza viruses are not transmitted by food.

If you have flu-like symptoms, stay at home and contact your physician. Symptoms include:

• fever greater than 100 degrees
• body aches
• coughing
• sore throat
• respiratory congestion
• and in some cases, diarrhea and vomiting

More information may be found at: http://pandemic.wisconsin.gov/

We will continue to provide new information as it becomes available.


Michael L. Morgan
Secretary of Administration

Toxics Release Inventory Form A Eligibility Revisions

EPA is amending its regulations on the eligibility criteriafor submitting a Form A Certification Statement in lieu of the moredetailed Form R submitted by facilities subject to TRI reporting undersection 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Actof 1986 (EPCRA) and section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act of1990 (PPA). This action is being taken to comply with the ``OmnibusAppropriations Act of 2009'' enacted on March 11, 2009. As this actionis being taken to conform the regulations to a Congressionallegislative mandate, notice and comment rulemaking is unnecessary, andthis rule is effective immediately. Upon publication to the FederalRegister, the provisions of the Toxics Release Inventory BurdenReduction Final Rule will be removed and the regulations in place priorto its implementation will be restored as described below. DATES: This final rule is effective on April 27, 2009. (More....)

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Wisconsin; Finding of Attainment for 1-Hour Ozone for the Milwaukee- Racine, WI Area

PDF Version (2 pp, 82K, About PDF)
[Federal Register: April 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 78)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 18668-18669]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24ap09-20]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2008-0683; FRL-8895-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Wisconsin; Finding of Attainment for 1-Hour Ozone for the Milwaukee-
Racine, WI Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a July 28, 2008, request from the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) that EPA find that the
Milwaukee-Racine, Wisconsin (WI) nonattainment area has attained the
revoked 1-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 26, 2009.

(More.....)

Comm 10 Clarification

Several questions have been posed relating to the overfill requirements on USTs. The Comm 10 Spill and overfill prevention requirement applies as below:
Heating oil tanks (Comm 10.310 (5)) refers to Comm 10.505 for USTs 4,000 gallons or greater. Comm 10.310 (3) requires overfill prevention for heating fuel tanks less than 4K, but via other methods.

Comm 10. 350 Hazardous substance tanks overfill prevention is not addressed due to the specific compatibility issues and hazardous substance properties and characteristics.
Comm 10.505 applies to USTs that take delivery via a tight connect with the delivery hose. This applies regardless of the tank being "12,000 gallons, but being filled no more than 50% of capacity."

For USTs that routinely take delivery by hand-held nozzle and the fill pipe is not equipped with a tight connect fitting auto-shut-off is not required. Maintaining a tight connection with a hand-held nozzle poses a challenge, even with the gasket collar, and in many situations where a drop is via a "hand held nozzle, if the tank had a flapper type auto shut-off, when the shut-off activates it would produce a safety concern from blow back at the person fuelling and the surrounding area.

PEI RP 100-05-7.3.2 includes the following: "Shut-off devices that are designed for use with underground tanks should only be used with gravity deliveries and where there are liquid-tight connections between the delivery hose and the fill pipe."

Sheldon Schall, Chief
Storage Tank Regulation Section
Wisconsin Department of Commerce

US Mail: PO Box 7837, Madison, WI 53707-7837
UPS/FedEx: 201 W. Washington Ave., Madison, WI 53703
(608) 266-0956Fax: (608) 261-7725
Web site: http://commerce.wi.gov/

Think Outside the Recycling Bin

Think Outside the Recycling Bin
~DEP offers eco-friendly tips for reducing, reusing and recycling non-traditional items at home and in the office~
TALLAHASSEE- As the winter season comes to an end and Floridians begin to think about spring cleaning, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) encourages residents to apply the 3 R’s – Reduce, Reuse and Recycle –and discover ways to recycle items that may not normally be considered recycle-friendly.
“We all understand the importance of recycling,” said Mary Jean Yon, Director of DEP’s Division of Waste Management. “Reducing waste can also help keep our landfills from filling up. Most people think of recycling newspapers, cans and bottles, but your closets, desks and drawers are filled with items that can also be recycled.” (More.....)

Power tool noise level database

NIOSH developed an informational database of power tools commonly used in the occupational setting. The database includes data gathered by NIOSH researchers, and could be helpful in determining the "real-world" noise level of power tools as they are used on the job. The database contains such information as sound power levels, sound pressure level and downloadable exposure and wave files. Further, links to the NIOSH Hearing Protector Compendium are included to assist in choosing appropriate hearing protection.

Link: http://wwwn.cdc.gov/niosh-sound-vibration/

Campus Fire Safety Right-to-Know

Requests about the status of the Campus Fire Safety Right-to-Know (RTK) trickle in from our UW System campuses. Campus-Firewatch.com has a comprehensive update that Ed Comeau does a great job with.

A podcast is also available, which goes a bit more into the public safety background of the Clery Act. It's actually two separate interviews, and I think is worth your listening time (over 30 minutes). Here are some of the things I noted:

• Campuses should be making a good faith effort now to put systems in place to collect the data, and begin collecting data.
• Expect that regulations will require formal reporting beginning October 2010.
• Suggests partnering with campus security offices that already have Clery Act reporting requirements.
• There is a lot of agreement to simply add the fire reporting regulatory compliance to the already existing Clery Act reporting system.
• Reporting requirements will only cover on-campus student housing facilities (definition to be determined). There was discussion about collecting all fire-related incidents, even though only the student housing items would be reported.
• Discussion on "popcorn in the microwave" alarms.

And those of you that want to see the progress of the draft rule drafting, the April 7 draft is available here. The first four pages incorporate the reporting into the existing public security sections already required by the Clery Act. The section that is specific to fire safety begins at the bottom of page four.


Links:
http://campus-firewatch.com/reprints/rtkreprint.html
http://www.radiofirehouse.com/broadcast/wp-content/2009/cfw_033009.mp3
http://www.campus-firewatch.com/resources/rtk/rtk%20regs%20040709.pdf

New Effective Date for 12/5/08 SPCC Amendments

The following is an update from EPA’s Superfund, TRI, EPCRA, RMP & Oil Information Center: On April 1, 2009, EPA published a final rule to further delay the effective date of the December 5, 2008, amendments to the SPCC Regulations, in accordance with the memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget entitled, “Implementation of Memorandum Concerning Regulatory Review” (M-09-08, January 21, 2009). The amendments will now become effective on January 14, 2010. Additionally, EPA is requesting public comment on whether a further delay of the effective date may be warranted. It is important to note that this rule does not change the compliance dates by which owners or operators of facilities must prepare or amend their SPCC Plans and implement those Plans in accordance with the 2002 SPCC Rule. However, EPA intends to address these dates in a separate notice. Until that time, the current compliance date for the SPCC rule is July 1, 2009, for all facilities other than farms. Farms must prepare or amend and implement an SPCC Plan when EPA establishes by rule a compliance date for farms. The December 5, 2008, amendments to the SPCC Rule clarified regulatory requirements, tailored requirements to particular industry sectors, and streamlined certain requirements for facility owners or operators subject to the rule. With these changes, EPA expects to encourage greater compliance with the SPCC regulations, thus resulting in increased protection of human health and the environment. The amendments did not remove any regulatory requirement for owners or operators of facilities in operation before August 16, 2002, to develop, implement, and maintain an SPCC Plan in accordance with the SPCC Regulations then in effect. Such facilities are still required to maintain their plans during the interim until the applicable date for revising and implementing their plans under the new amendments. Additional information about the 2008 amendments to the SPCC Rule is available at the following URL: www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/spcc For questions about these Rules, please contact EPA’s Superfund, TRI, EPCRA, RMP & Oil Information Center at: (800) 424-9346 -- Toll Free(703) 412-9810 -- Metropolitan DC area and international calls(800) 553-7672 -- Toll Free TDD(703) 412-3323 -- Metropolitan DC area and international TDD To speak with an Information Specialist, please call between 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM, Monday through Thursday, Eastern Standard Time.

EPA, DOJ reach $1.6 million settlement on Troy, Ohio, Superfund cleanup

Why we need to pay attention to what happens to "non-contract" waste...

CONTACT: Mick Hans, 312-353-5050, hans.mick@epa.gov FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE No. 09-OPA021
EPA, DOJ reach $1.6 million settlement on Troy, Ohio, Superfund cleanup
CHICAGO (Feb. 18, 2009) - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 and U.S. Department of Justice announce a $1,609,732 settlement with Livingston and Co., Inc., a business responsible for contributing hazardous waste to the United Scrap Lead Superfund site near Troy, Ohio. As part of the same settlement, Livingston will also pay $290,268 to a larger "respondent group" of other responsible parties that performed cleanup work at the site. The consent decree was entered with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in Dayton. Government agencies and the respondent group have spent nearly $19 million to address the site.
United Scrap Lead operated from 1948 to 1980 at a 25-acre site about one mile south of Troy on County Road 25-A in Concord Township, Miami County. The business reclaimed materials from automotive batteries but left lead and battery acid in an 8-acre disposal area on the property. Livingston and Co., a scrap metal business, sent scrap batteries to United Scrap Lead.
The site was added to the Superfund National Priorities List in 1984. EPA and Ohio EPA supervised a series of cleanup activities at the site from 1985 to 1999, with the most extensive work beginning in 1997. In total, about 62,000 cubic yards of battery casing debris was excavated, treated and shipped off-site for proper disposal. About 11,500 cubic yards of soil were excavated, treated and left at the site. About 3,000 cubic yards of the excavated soils did not require chemical or stabilization treatment and were used as clean backfill on the site.
EPA has conducted two required five-year reviews of site conditions since 1999. These reviews confirmed that the cleanup currently protects residents near the site. EPA is in the process of establishing institutional controls to limit future uses of the property in the event it is sold or redeveloped. The agency plans to work with a receiver newly appointed by the court to finalize these controls and market the property to a new owner.

Police Yourself Before EPA Does!

Where Green Meets Red (Ink)

Regardless of the state of the economy, EPA’s enforcement of environmental regulations continues unabated. And with the new administration’s stated goal to improve environmental performance nation–wide, those enforcement actions are likely to increase both in frequency and in the severity of the fines dealt out. The following recent enforcement actions are just some examples of where EPA inspectors (as well as those from other agencies) are focusing their attention.

One Accident, Many Fines
A major petroleum company was fined $50 million for violations of the Clean Air Act that resulted in a refinery explosion. In addition to the criminal fine from EPA, the company has also paid more than $1.6 billion to the victims of the explosion to settle related civil cases, has paid $21.7 million in fines from OSHA and the Texas Council on Environmental Quality, and has spent more than $265 million to complete required equipment upgrades and improvements.

Huge Penalties for Permit Violations
The third–largest penalty ever paid for Clean Water Act discharge permit violations, $6.5 million, was assigned to a large mining company in February 2009. The company also agreed to put innovative and heightened operating standards in place to serve as a model for the rest of the mining industry.

Illegal Reports Lead to Prison
Intentional violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act garnered a one–year prison sentence for the former director of public works in a North Carolina town. Falsified reports were submitted on the turbidity of drinking water being supplied to residents, which violated a national primary maximum contaminant level standard under SDWA. At the same time, the former director ordered town employees to dump large amounts of degreaser and caustic materials into the publicly owned treatment works, violating the POTW’s Clean Water Act permit for discharges into the waters of the United States.

Multi–Media Violations
A PVC manufacturer and its subsidiary were issued a $2.585 million civil penalty for actions that violated the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and RCRA. The companies have also agreed to $4.8 million in supplemental environmental projects, including retrofitting existing processes on their sites, donating 300 acres of land to a nature preserve, and creating and maintaining a program in a nearby city for recycling appliances containing ozone–depleting substances.

Not Just EPA!
It isn’t just federal EPA that assesses violations and assigns fines. The New Jersey DEP recently fined a company $931,000 for violations under state and federal pesticide laws.
Even unintentional violations can result in big financial impacts. In the short term, there are the monetary penalties themselves. In the long term, the cost of installing and operating more stringent control technology, coupled with more frequent compliance monitoring, long– and short–term remediation projects, and other environmentally beneficial programs mandated by court decisions, can add thousands of dollars to the price tag for non–compliance. So what strategies can you employ to make sure you are operating within the regulations?

What Can You Do to Protect Your Business?

Step 1: Good Management Practices
Take the time to check the regulations, read through the applicability of each program, and understand what the triggers for compliance are.

Step 2: Self–Audit
EPA’s “Audit Policy” was originally spelled out in 65 FR 19618, April 11, 2000. The Policy “encourage[s] regulated entities to voluntarily discover, promptly disclose and expeditiously correct violations” by offering incentives including reduction of civil penalties and recommendations against criminal prosecution for the disclosing party.

Step 3: Review Your Training Programs
RCRA, OSHA and FIFRA all have explicit training requirements as part of their programs. With normal personnel turnover, compounded by the current trend towards staff consolidation, it is more important than ever to make sure personnel training is up–to–date and well–documented. While CAA, CWA, and SDWA do not have explicit initial and refresher training requirements written into their programs, ignorance of the regulations is no excuse under the law. Your Environmental, Health, and Safety personnel need to know what is required under each regulatory program that governs your site.

Good management practices, self–auditing, training that meets (or even better, exceeds) the regulatory requirements—these are simple ways to avoid the complex warren of violations, citations, consent agreements, and court appearances!

From Lion Technologies, Inc.