This book includes a plain text version that is designed for high accessibility. To use this version please follow this link.
Green Scene By Mike James mjames@jamesenvironmental.com


Convention Wrap-Up And Environmental Regulation Expectations – Thoughts from the Environmental Guy


W


ow! It seemed like the Phoenix, AZ ARA gathering in 2013 was a great boost of excitement for the auto recyclers convention and exposition. Little did we know a year ago that the real excitement was really to come in 2014 with the gath- ering of so many of you in Nashville. If you weren’t there, you missed out. It was on par with some of the best conventions I have had the opportunity of attending. There are some great vendors out there serving you.


Some of us involved with auto recycling in the Northeast had the experience of closing out the year with a great Summit of the New England recyclers put on by the ARANY. There was an exchange of many good thoughts by the best of the best in the Northeast and they even let that guy that talks funny from North Carolina (ARA’s very own President, Ricky Young) join in. Ricky, “you done good,” thanks for all of your wise input. As ARA made some good strides this


year, we continue to face some pretty tough hurdles in the environmental arena. Some of these obstacles include the Definition of Waters of the U.S., changing the rules on determining the waste classification of scrap metal, TMDL monitoring, electronic reporting, gather- ing speed of implementation of the Phase II Storm Water Rules giving author- ity and accountability for storm water compliance to a whole new group of agencies, and not the least of hurdles is the increasing pressure from third party environmental activist groups such as the Clean Water Action Group and the Conservation Law Foundation. There is much unfounded fear associ- ated with the Definition of Waters of the U.S. It will cause changes in the regula- tions for some in the country. The rules affecting most recyclers have been in place for many years. Primarily, the EPA is changing the rule to one driven by sci- ence and the ultimate impact of water


16 Automotive Recycling | January-February 2015


from the tributaries on the navigable waters of the U.S. I have been dealing with the Definition of Waters since the beginning of the Clean Water Act. The majority of the recyclers in the U.S. are already impacted by this definition and have been complying with the regulatory impact for many years. It has always been burdensome, but as a rule it has always been pretty clear.


Though some states are just now start- ing with Benchmark monitoring, the requirement has been a part of the reg- ulations at the national level since 1995. Benchmark monitoring is now a part of just about every state rule. But, the Benchmarks are not the source of the majority of our concern. It is the ever- increasing enforcement of TMDL Monitoring and the very onerous imple- mentation of Electronic Reporting of results. Already, Ohio has implemented a very stringent rule that data can only be submitted electronically, whether you have a computer or not. Other states are not far behind. The U.S. EPA is currently considering a comprehensive rule change that will adversely affect all recyclers and that is the implementation of a complete electron- ic reporting system, including sample results, permit filings, and much more. This might sound like a pretty innocuous change, but the fear we have is that this makes everybody’s information readily available to the Third Party Activist groups like the Bay Keepers or the Clean Water Action Group. This makes it entirely too easy for these third party groups to file suit on even the best performing recycler. Have you heard the phrase MS4? This is the abbreviation for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4). There was a new set of rulemaking that went through without nearly enough comment from the public. Phase II of the Storm Water rules was implemented roughly in 2007, but it is just now catching on with the


municipalities that they have another set of rules to enforce and even another way to collect a fee. The application of the var- ious MS4’s across the country troubles me because of the arbitrary nature in which the Storm Water Rules can be applied. In my next article I will try to explain more about the Phase II rules and their impact on the MS4 and how the MS4 regulates you. The last of the subjects to discuss in this article is the potential change in the clas- sification of scrap metal. Today, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) exempts from hazardous waste regulation scrap metal which is being recycled (40 CFR Section 261.6(a)(3)(ii)). In addition, RCRA excludes from the definition of solid waste, and thus the definition of haz- ardous waste, processed and certain other scrap metal being recycled (Section 261.4(a)(13)).


RCRA is the environmental rules gov- erning how solid waste and hazardous waste are managed. Pay attention to the words above. They allow us to recycle scrap metal. There is considerable dis- cussion right now on changing how scrap metal is classified and whether or not this exemption will continue to apply. Across the country we run into individ- ual state regulators that try to claim this exemption does not apply. There are many on the side of the auto recycler and the scrap metal recycler resisting this change. In my opinion, this is the one proposed change that we must resist with all the effort we can muster.


If you should hear anything in your part of the country that sounds like this make sure you let your association know in a hurry and if appropriate for you, you’re welcome to give me a call. I will try to write more on this subject in the near future. ■


With over 25 years experience in pollution pre- vention, Mike James is President of James En- vironmental Management, Inc., specializing in environmental compliance assurance and cur- rently serving over 1,200 facilities in the U.S.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72