Environmental Protection Agency

AGENCY : Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION : Proposed rule. SUMMARY : Some pharmaceuticals are regulated as hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when discarded. Healthcare facilities that generate hazardous waste pharmaceuticals as well as associated facilities have reported difficulties complying with the Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations for a number of reasons. First, healthcare workers, whose primary focus is to provide care for patients, are not knowledgeable about the RCRA hazardous waste regulations, but are often involved in the implementation of the regulations. Second, a healthcare facility can have thousands of items in its formulary, making it difficult to ascertain which ones are hazardous wastes when disposed. Third, some active pharmaceutical ingredients are listed as acute hazardous wastes, which are regulated in small amounts. To facilitate compliance and to respond to

4. Coding errors - region. Coding errors related to regions are not relevant for this survey as the sample has been drawn from the register of hazardous activities, where the object is registered with county and municipality codes. The processing errors mentioned above have been avoided by regularly checking the results. The project group has checked the results several times (individual types of waste in every reporting sector or sub-survey) in order to identify extraordinary values. Checks are made both before and after the input to the database. Industry experts, both within SMED and within the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, have also carried out review, assessing the rationality of the produced data.

The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act required the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to address storm water runoff in two phases. Phase I of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Program became effective in 1990. Phase I of the NPDES Storm Water Program applied to large and medium MS4s and eleven industrial categories including construction sites disturbing 5 or more acres of land. Phase II of the NPDES Storm Water Program became effective March 10, 2003 and is applicable to small MS4s and construction sites disturbing between 1 and 5 acres of land.

1 1.0 Introduction The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) National Homeland Security Research Center (NHSRC) is helping to protect human health and the environment from adverse impacts resulting from intentional acts of terror. With an emphasis on decontamination and consequence management, water infrastructure protection, and threat and consequence assessment, NHRSC is working to develop tools and information that will help detect the intentional introduction of chemical or biological contaminants in buildings or water systems, the containment of these contaminants, the decontamination of buildings and/or water systems, and the disposal of material resulting from cleanups.

Utilities Docket, Attention Docket ID No., EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 5305T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies. • Hand Delivery: Deliver two copies of your comments to the Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities Docket, Attention Docket ID No., EPA- HQ-RCRA-2009-0640, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

4. The requirement that products must not include any false and misleading labeling statements, including those listed in 40 CFR 156.10(a)(5)(i) - (viii) has been added. V. Public Docket EPA has established a public docket for this rulemaking (OPP-300350 and 300350A). All comments received in response to the proposed and final rule are available in the public docket. A public version of this record, including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which does not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m, Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. Please address all written inquiries to the Public Response Section, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

+2348056894320 Abstract In Nigeria, the issue of urbanization is no longer a new phenomenon. People have been living in settlements and there had been massive movement of people from the rural to urban centers/areas or cities up till date. This implies that urbanization is a progressive concentration of population into towns and cities. The United Nations Secretariat (1970) states that urbanization is perhaps, the best symbol of the radical, physical, economic and social transformation that mankind is passing through as a consequence of development. This means that urbanization necessitates development by being a tool and also a product of development. This paper therefore, examines the key issues in appraising an Urban Environmental Protection Agency in Nigeria with emphasis on the relationship between Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA) and State Environmental Protection Agencies (SEPAS). Some of these agencies this paper is examining includes: Federal Environmental Protection Agencies (SEPAS) such as Abia State Environmental Protection Agency (ASEPA) located in Umuahia and Cross-River State Environmental Protection Agency (ASEPA) located in calabar as case study. Some of the objectives of the State Environmental Protection Agencies as specifically stated in Agencies Edict No.4 of 25 th April, 1996 includes: to prepare and update periodic master plans for the development of environment science and technology and advise the government of the material and financial requirements for the implementation of such plans; to establish mechanism to predict ecological disasters; identify the problems of drainage and sewage systems and carry out measures to improve, protect and remedy their ecosystems.

ORC 6111.038; Section 279.10 of Am. Sub. H.B. 153 of the 129th G.A. (originally established by Am. Sub. H.B. 152 of the 120th G.A., the main operating appropriations act covering FY 1994 and FY 1995) This line item is statutorily restricted for the purpose of administering and implementing surface water protection programs, including the federal Water Pollution Control Act and programs necessary to carry out the state's Water Pollution Control Law. More specifically, it provides administrative funding for the Division of Surface Water's programs required under the federal Water Pollution Control Act, including the development of water quality standards, waste load allocations, effluent limits, water-quality monitoring, surface water discharge permitting, permit enforcement, technical assistance, and operator certification; these activities encompass what is known as the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).

EPA has analyzed the social cost of this rule to be $384 million annually. New unit requirements would cost $15 million per year. As will be described in more detail below, there are significant benefits associated with the proposed rule. These benefits include the annual reduction in impingement of 615 million age-one equivalents. In addition, there are important other benefits that EPA was not able to fully quantify such as reductions in impingement and entrainment at new units, impacts to many shellfish species, and non-use values associated with the vast majority of fish and shellfish. The rule would also require establishing site-specific entrainment control through a process in which specific environmental conditions and the localized benefits of entrainment reductions will be assessed along with the costs of controls. The information generated in the required studies would enhance the transparency of decision-making, and the opportunity for meaningful public participation and ensure decision-making based on the best available data. Overall, these requirements will foster protection and restoration of healthy aquatic

‘‘Regional Transportation Planning Agency Commitments for Implementation Document’’ (April 2002) 300 satisfied the PM 10 BACM requirement for TCMs. 301 In May 2003, the San Joaquin Valley MPO Executive Directors committed to conduct feasibility analyses as part of each successive RTP in support of the 2003 PM 10 Plan. The MPOs retained this commitment in the PM 10 maintenance plan for the SJV area adopted September 20, 2007. 302 In accordance with their commitment and in preparation for their 2014 RTPs, the MPOs reviewed several PM 10 Plans adopted in other areas since 2009. 303 From their reviews, the MPOs concluded no additional on-road fugitive dust controls measures were available for consideration. In consultation with CARB and the District, however, the MPOs considered priority funding allocations in the 2014 RTPs for PM 10 and NO X emission reduction projects for the measures listed below.

We anticipate fewer or less substantial information collection requests (ICRs) in conjunction with prospective CAA- required technology and risk-based reviews may be needed. We expect this to result in a decrease in time spent by industry to respond to data collection requests. We also expect the ICRs to contain less extensive stack testing provisions, as we will already have stack test data electronically. Reduced testing requirements would be a cost savings to industry. The EPA should also be able to conduct these required reviews more quickly. While the regulated community may benefit from a reduced burden of ICRs, the general public benefits from the agency’s ability to provide these required reviews more quickly, resulting in increased public health and environmental protection.

collection and closed vent systems. The commenter stated that the proposed rule would add a volumetric flow measurement requirement, which is unnecessary in many cases, to demonstrate proper operation of the capture/collection and closed vent system. The commenter contended that current rule flexibility allows sources to utilize monitoring methods that are appropriate and cost effective for their operations and equipment; this choice of monitoring method is included in an approved OM&M plan certified by the owner or operator. The commenter also noted that the additional cost burden on facilities to perform a Method 1 and Method 2 measurement was not considered by the EPA in the rulemaking process. The commenter estimated that EPA Methods 1 and 2 will require the facility to hire an outside contractor and incur costs of more than $3,000 per unit. The commenter recommended that the Agency should continue to allow affected sources the ability to determine the best inspection methods to verify that capture/collection and closed vent systems meet operating requirements.

G. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to the EPA? The EPA is requiring owners and operators of aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities to submit electronic copies of certain required performance test reports through the EPA’s CDX using the CEDRI. As stated in the proposal preamble (80 FR 8422, February 17, 2015), the EPA believes that the electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability, will further assist in the protection of public health and the environment and will ultimately result in less burden on the regulated community. Electronic reporting can also eliminate paper- based, manual processes, thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors and providing data quickly and accurately to the affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public.

Program Description: The Water Pollution Control Loan Fund (WPCLF) provides below- market interest rate loans for publicly owned wastewater treatment improvements, and for nonpoint source pollution control activities that implement the state's nonpoint source management program. Since its inception in 1989, this program has awarded over $3.6 billion in loans. In FY 2006, the WPCLF made 80 new low interest rate loans for over $274 million to assist municipalities with making improvements to their wastewater treatment systems. The WPCLF provides 50% of all financing for public treatment works projects in Ohio. The most recent survey of needs for water pollution control estimates that projects costing over $8 billion are being planned. The WPCLF also provided 150 low- interest loans totaling over $6.36 million through its agricultural linked deposit program. This assistance helps farmers to address nonpoint sources of pollution through implementation of agricultural best management practices, which address manure handling and runoff from cropping practices. Other loans went toward home sewage disposal systems and aquatic habitat protection and restoration. As combined sewer overflow controls have been emerging as major water quality improvement initiatives requiring significant financial resources for Ohio communities to implement, the WPCLF had to adapt.

Because human- induced climate change has the potential to aggravate natural resource, trade, and humanitarian issues in other world regions, which in turn may contribute to the end[r]

Notwithstanding this clear trend towards natural gas-fired generation and renewables, many of the IRPs raise fuel diversity concerns and include options to diversify new generation capacity beyond natural gas and renewable energy. Several IRPs indicate that companies are considering new nuclear generation, including either traditional nuclear power plants or small modular reactors, and new coal-fired generation capacity with and without CCS technology. Based on these IRPs, the EPA acknowledges that a small number of new coal-fired power plants may be built in the near future. While this is contrary to the economic modeling predictions, the Agency understands that economic modeling may not fully reflect the range of factors that a particular company may consider when evaluating new generation options, such as fuel diversification. By the same token, as discussed below, it is possible that some of this potential new coal- fired construction may occur because developers are able to design projects that can provide competitively priced electricity for a specific geographic region.

EPA asked for and received numerous comments on this aspect of the 2006 Proposal. Several commenters supported EPA’s focus on housing where children under age 6 reside, citing the need to target society’s resources towards the housing that presents the greatest risk. One commenter also noted that this provision would help keep renovation costs down for low-income homeowners without children. Most commenters, however, did not agree with EPA’s proposal to allow homeowners with no children under age 6 who occupy their own homes to opt out of the rule’s requirements. These commenters cited a number of reasons for their position, including the fact that children visit homes where they do not reside, and newly renovated housing may be sold to a family with young children regardless of whether children were in residence when the renovation occurred. Commenters also expressed concern about pregnant women, given that the transplacental transfer of lead in humans is well documented, and infants are generally born with a lead body burden reflecting that of the mother. This led some commenters to suggest that women of child-bearing age and girls between the ages of 6 and 14 also deserve special protection, because any lead body burden that they acquire through uncontrolled renovations will be passed on to any children they may eventually have.

Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Qual- ity.—To protect and improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, EPA will apply a variety of approaches and appropriate tools. EPA will develop and implement strategies to attain ambient air quality standards for the six criteria pollut- ants: ozone, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and lead. EPA will reduce regional haze through regional approaches where significant transport of pol- lutants occurs. EPA will also develop control measures for sources that are best regulated at the Federal level, and will also develop and implement a national electronic emissions data management system and assess the efficacy of improved monitoring and report- ing. EPA will continue to develop and issue national technology- based and risk-based standards using a sector-based approach to reduce the quantity of toxic air pollutants emitted from indus- trial and manufacturing processes, as well as from urban sources. The Agency will proceed with performing analyses to develop New Source Performance Standards, consistent with Clean Air Act requirements. The Acid Rain program will continue its mar- ket-based approach to achieving reduced emissions of sulfur di- oxide primarily from electric utilities. The market-based approach will also be used in other programs, where permitted under the Clean Air Act, to reduce emissions of air pollutants. EPA will use its authority under the Clean Air Act to continue efforts to reduce GHGs domestically and internationally through cost-effective, non-regulatory programs while also pursuing regulatory options. Through implementation of the mandatory Greenhouse Gas Re- porting Rule, EPA will work with sources to obtain high quality data in a cost-effective manner. The Agency will continue to provide support and oversight for local, State, and Tribal permit- ting authorities to efficiently process GHG permits, as well as issue permits directly

FY2010 Buffer Zone Protection Program (BZPP) BZPP provides funding to increase the preparedness capabilities of jurisdictions responsible for the safety and security of communities surrounding high-priority pre-designated Tier 1 and Tier 2 critical infrastructure and key resource (CIKR) assets. FY2010 Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program (IECGP)

that food will be free from unsafe levels of pesticide residues, EPA will apply strict health-based standards to the registration of pesticides for use on food or animal feed and ensure that older pesticides meet current health standards. EPA will also work to expedite and increase the registration of safer pesticides and to decrease the use of pesticides with the highest po- tential to cause adverse effects. EPA intends to reduce potential human and environmental risks from commercial and residential exposure to pesticides through programs that focus on farm worker protection, pollin- ator health and protection, endangered species protection, environmental stewardship, and integrated pest management. EPA's toxics program will continue to make substantial progress in protecting public health and the environment from potentially harmful industrial chemicals by assessing the safety of new and existing chemicals, reducing gaps in the availability of chemical data, strengthening management of chemical information, and providing easier and more complete public access to non-confidential chemical data. Following review of completed chemical assessments from the first set of 83 TSCA Work Plan Chemicals identified by the Agency in March of 2012, EPA will take action where appropriate to manage any unreasonable risk to human health or the environment posed by exposure to those chemicals. EPA will also continue its efforts to alleviate health risks from exposure to lead-based paint and other sources of lead in the environment, in part by implementing regulations requiring use of firms certified for applying lead-safe practices in renovation, remodeling, painting, and lead-abatement projects. EPA's Pollution Prevention (P2) program will continue to alleviate environmental problems by achieving significant re- ductions in the use of hazardous materials, energy and water; reductions in the generation of greenhouse gases; cost savings; and increases in the use of safer chemicals