Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) Yuck! Your Favorite Swim Spot Is a Lot Grosser Than You Realize
Jul 1, 2015 | Yahoo Health
By Cassie Shortsleeve
Water is supposed to purify: Taking a shower, washing your face, and staying properly hydrated promote good hygieneand health. But sometimes water is the one that gets dirty. -
Combinations of 'Safe' Chemicals May Increase Cancer Risk, Study Suggests
Jul 1, 2015 | Los Angeles Times
By Sasha Harris-Lovett
Lots of chemicals are considered safe in low doses. But what happens when you ingest a little bit of a lot of different chemicals over time? -
'Safe' Ingredients in Large Doses Can Boost Cancer Risks -- Study
Jul 1, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
Many chemicals considered safe in low doses can work together to increase an individual's risk of cancer, according to a new study. -
Environmentalists Petition EPA To Regulate CO2 Under TSCA
Jun 30, 2015 | InsideEPA
The environmental group Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) is petitioning EPA to create a novel new tool to curb emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) that drive climate change and lead in part to ocean acidification: regulating the gas under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
EPA Identifies 18 Chemicals Needing Additional Endocrine Program Testing
Jul 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA has concluded that about one-third of the first 52 chemicals screened in tier 1 of its Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) “showed potential interaction” with at least one of the three screened hormone pathways, triggering more detailed animal-based testing even as the agency is turning the program towards newer computational toxicity approaches that may better target potential disruptors. -
California Updates List of Designated Chemicals for Biomonitoring
Jul 1, 2015 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has released an updated list of chemicals, designated for the state's biomonitoring programme. -
Lawmakers Approve Microbead Ban
Jul 1, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
Connecticut lawmakers have passed a budget that includes a bill to ban the sale and manufacture of plastic microbeads in personal care products. -
Washington Wildfire, Fed by Chemicals and Wind, Destroys Dozens of Homes
Jun 30, 2015 | Los Angeles Times
By James Queally and Maria L. La Ganga
Fed by winds, high temperatures and industrial chemicals, the Sleepy Hollow fire in eastern Washington had burned nearly 3,000 acres and destroyed at least two dozen homes as of Tuesday evening. -
Supreme Court Smacks EPA for Ignoring Costs, But Mercury Rule Likely to Persevere
Jul 1, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Jonathan H. Adler
With its last decision of the OT2014 term, in Michigan v. EPA, the Supreme Court held, by a vote of 5-4, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency unreasonably failed to consider costs when deciding to regulate mercury emissions from power plants. -
EPA Air Chief -- MATS Ruling Won't Affect Clean Power Plan
Jul 1, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Scott Detrow
U.S. EPA's top air quality official says that while she's "disappointed" in Monday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling derailing the agency's attempt to regulate mercury and other pollutants from power plants, the decision will have no bearing on a separate high-profile rule the agency is about to finalize. -
Battle Over EPA 'Co-Benefits' Rages After Mercury Ruling
Jul 1, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Peterka
The Supreme Court's ruling this week that U.S. EPA should have considered the cost of its Mercury and Air Toxics Standards has reignited a debate about the agency's practice of counting health "co-benefits" in justifying the economic impacts of its Clean Air Act rules. -
LCV Digital Ads Slam House Members for Backing Power Plant Bill
Jul 1, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Daniel Bush
The League of Conservation Voters launched an ad campaign today blasting House lawmakers who voted last week in favor of a bill that would block U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. -
Public Health is More Important Than Cost of Compliance
Jul 1, 2015 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By J. Mijin Cha
The Supreme Court ruling in Michigan v. EPA is not as dire for environmentalists as it could have been. The ruling does not strike down the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulation of mercury and other hazardous pollutants from power plants. -
Letter: Supreme Court Ruling, on Toxic Emissions From Coal Plants
Jul 1, 2015 | The New York Times
Re “Justices Block the Obama Administration’s Limits on Power Plant Emissions” (news article, June 30): -
Coal Company Sues Over Obama Water Rule
Jul 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Coal giant Murray Energy Corp. said Wednesday that it is suing the Obama administration over its rule asserting power over small bodies of water. -
States Claim 'Waters' Rule Violates NEPA As Lawsuits Over Policy Increase
Jul 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Anthony Lacey
A coalition of 13 states is claiming that EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers' joint Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule violated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review requirements, adding to the legal attacks on the rule in an increasing number of suits over the regulation filed by more than half the 50 U.S. states. -
Oklahoma Court Allows Earthquake Victim to Sue Oil Company
Jul 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Oklahoma’s Supreme Court ruled that the victim of a 2011 earthquake can sue the oil companies whose activities have been blamed for the quake and hundreds like it. -
Greens: New Keystone Arguments Fail ‘Laugh Test’
Jul 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Environmental groups are brushing off new arguments in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline by its developer, calling them nonsensical and unconvincing. -
Of Markets and Morals, Encyclicals and Environment, Poverty and the Pope
Jul 1, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Kenneth R. Richards
In the Calvinist home where I grew up, theological debate was just breakfast table conversation. -
Calif. Crude-by-Rail Exposes Poor Neighborhoods to Most Risk -- Report
Jul 1, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
The California communities most exposed to risky oil derailments are overwhelmingly poor, minority neighborhoods, two environmental groups in the state said.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Yuck! Your Favorite Swim Spot Is a Lot Grosser Than You Realize
Jul 1, 2015 | Yahoo Health
By Cassie Shortsleeve
Water is supposed to purify: Taking a shower, washing your face, and staying properly hydrated promote good hygieneand health. But sometimes water is the one that gets dirty. That’s why since 1972, when The Clean Water Act was passed, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has regulated both water pollution and quality standards in an attempt to keep our H2O clean.
And since summer is prime time for swimming, you may be wondering just exactly how clean the water you jump in really is. To fully understand that, you need to understand how water pollution is gauged — and how dangerous it is.
The effects of swimming in polluted water can range from mild to severe depending on the toxin or pathogen, the length of exposure, and concentration of pollutant, Rachel Silverstein, PhD, Executive Director and Waterkeeper ofMiami Waterkeeper, tells Yahoo Health. You could get sick from ingesting dirty water, getting it in your eyes, or by simply letting it come into contact with your skin.
“Illness could include symptoms such as intestinal upset, infections, respiratory issues, rashes, flu-like symptoms, and in some extreme cases, death,” Silverstein says. The best thing to do? Avoid polluted water — and especially if you have open cuts or sores, she says. (But if you do think you’ve come into contact with contaminated water, rinse it off with soap and clean water and take a proper shower as soon as you can. And make sure to see a doctor if you start to feel sick.)
Understanding the Different Types of Pollution
Water pollution is broken up into two categories: point and nonpoint pollution, Monica Lee, a spokesperson for the EPA, explains to Yahoo Health. Think of point sources as single sources like pipes or ditches going directly into the water.
Meanwhile, nonpoint pollution comes from sources like rainfall or snowmelt, she says. “As the runoff moves, it picks up and carries away natural and human-made pollutants, depositing them into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and even underground sources of drinking water.”
Sources of nonpoint pollution can be harder to track — and thus, even more damaging to our water sources. The main threats to our water are fertilizer runoff (i.e. golf courses), farms (fertilizer, manure, pesticides, bacteria), energy-producing industries (i.e. coal or nuclear plants), chemical inputs from industry, stormwater (fuel, oil, feces), septic tanks, and sewage spills, among others, says Silverstein. Sewage and other fertilizer pollution can also lead to toxic algae blooms and may promote growth of pathogens (bacteria and viruses) in ponds, lakes, oceans, and rivers, she says.
When a body of water is considered clean, it’s not just absentof these pollutants — it also has an intact ecosystem that can deal with low levels of pollution through “absorption by plants and filtration through sandy bottoms or porous rock,” she says. “Wetlands can reduce nutrient pollution from sewage or fertilizer runoff, too, since aquatic plants absorb the nutrients as they grow, thereby cleaning the water.” That’s why in places like Arizona, wetlands are used in conjunction with industrial sewage treatments to help clean the water naturally and provide habitat for wildlife.
There’s no hard and fast rule as to which bodies of water are better or worse when it comes to pollution. It’s all very site-specific, Steve Fleischli, the Water Program Director for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), tells Yahoo Health. Some states also do a better job than others at posting about dirty beaches, closing bodies of water, and collecting samples. The NRDC’s annual Testing the Water Report keeps track of where states rank in terms of contamination, how often they close contaminated beaches, and how much they prioritize water testing. (See how your state stacks up here.)
But considering location, size, and pollution sources can help you understand what could be going on in your local watering hole.
How Dirty Are Oceans?
Runoff — particularly from urban or agricultural areas — is one of the biggest sources of pollution of oceans, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. When it rains, pollution from city streets or agricultural areas can make its way toward the water. So if there are no large agriculture sources or urban outputs near the area, you’re more likely to see clean water in nearby rivers, lakes, and oceans.
The water at the beach may not be as clean as you think. (Photo: Stocksy/Natalie Jeffcott)
Of course, there are exceptions. Take Venice Beach in California. Fleischli says it’s a fairly clean beach even though it’s in an urban area. That could be because the area of land that drains to this beach is small. (The larger the area that drains to a beach, the dirtier it is.)
Sewage overflows — either from aging systems, leaking pipes, or malfunctioning plants or pumps — can also pollute ocean, bay, and Great Lakes beaches. A malfunctioning wastewater plant “can quickly spill millions of gallons of partially treated sewage into coastal waters and result in no-swimming advisories along miles of beaches,” according to the NRDC.
Related: Deadly Vibrio Vulnificus Bacteria Kills Florida Swimmer: Are You in Danger?
The size of a body of water can also be a factor in how polluted it is, particularly when it comes to the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) — the maximum amount of a pollutant that a body of water can receive and still safely meet water quality standards. Larger bodies of water can have higher amounts of contaminants and still meet water quality standards since the pollutant isn’t as concentrated, though some larger bodies of water (like oceans) also circulate and dilute pollution more, says Fleischli.
But better circulation is not a solution: “’Dilution is the solution to pollution’ used to be the saying. But that is very wrong. Keeping pollution away is answer,” Fleischli says. After all, even given size and circulating ability, scientists are seeing pollution issues in oceans on the rise, as oceans lose their ability to absorb increasing levels of pollution, Silverstein says.
How Dirty Are Rivers?
Agricultural pollution affects nearly 40 percent of the country’s tainted rivers and streams. Again, the idea comes back to ecosystems — and some small or stagnant bodies of water with intact ecosystems may absorb pollution better, and be cleaner as a result, than fast-moving rivers near industrial areas, says Silverstein.
The 2008/2009 National Rivers and Streams Assessment found that 40 percent of rivers and streams had too-high levels of phosphorus and 28 percent or more had excess levels of nitrogen, she says. Excess phosphorus and nitrogen can signal nutrient pollution — which can cause algae to grow faster than a body of water can handle, thus harming water quality and ecosystems. This can also wind up cutting the amount of oxygen in the water, which fish need to survive.
How Dirty Are Lakes and Ponds?
While it’s hard to generalize, areas that are more sheltered or where water doesn’t move quite as much — like the Great Lakes — are more prone to elevated levels of pathogens, Jon Devine, senior attorney with the NRDC’s water team, tells Yahoo Health. “Areas located near discharges — like stormwater outfalls — are more likely to have problems, too,” he adds.
The NRDC states that “combined sewer systems, concentrated in the Great Lakes region and the northeastern United States, carry both raw sewage from homes and businesses and stormwater runoff from streets to sewage treatment plants.” Usually, that’s OK. But when rainstorms hit, combined wastewater can become too much for a treatment plant to handle. So the excess flow — which includes raw sewage, toxic industrial waste, and trash — is discharged from outfall points and into the most nearby stream or coastal waterway. This excess flow (called combined sewer overflow is a “major cause of pathogen contamination in marine and Great Lakes waters,” the NRDC says. Warmer temps in these regions can also lead to green algae called Cladophora. In a worst-case scenario, this algae can become breeding grounds for E. coli.
How to Spot Dirty Water
Figuring out if a body of water is clean or not isn’t as easy as seeing how clear it is. Silverstein says the Colorado River, for example, is supposed to be murky. That’s because some bodies of water naturally have more suspended sediments (or sand) in the water due the natural geology or ecology of the region, she says. That doesn’t mean that it’s “dirty” in terms of pollution or impacts to human health. Plus, Fleischli says that he’s seen beaches he was convinced were contaminated, but actually weren’t. Here’s what to look out for to properly ID polluted water:Look for signs. “Maybe the best sign is literally a sign,” says Fleischli. “A lot of beaches will post signs that say ‘No Swimming,’ or state that the water is contaminated. It sounds pretty simple, but if you see a sign telling you not to swim, don’t swim.”Take note of the boats. Boats can be a sign of pollution because of the inputs coming into the water, says Fleischli. “Some harbors are fairly dirty,” he says, adding that the fix could be as simple as driving a little further out to a more remote area. One boat is not a big deal, but harbors tend to have lots of boats that reside there on a permanent basis, he says. “It is the bathroom waste on those boats that might leak or that might get pumped into the water, rather than properly being disposed of, that’s the concern.”Wait the rain out. “Rain is going to wash pollutants and urban slobber down and can cause sewer overflow,” says Fleischli, who suggests waiting three days post-rainstorm to swim in an ocean, lake, or pond if large drains are nearby.Analyze beach names. Ever see beaches with names like Mother’s Beach or Kiddie Beach? These names usually hint at stagnant water and no waves, which can create a stagnant environment for pollution to sit, Fleischli says.Be in the know. Heal the Bay, a West Coast non-profit environmental group, has a rating system and daily beach reports for West Coast beaches; the Waterkeeper Alliance Swim Guide App provides the latest water quality information for East Coast beaches; and theTesting the Waters Report offers a deep history of pollution at thousands of beaches, including the Great Lakes.Look for drains. “Never go swimming in front of a sewer outfall or a pipe draining into water,” says Fleischli. Raw sewage can leak out of these pipes when it’s raining. One Heal the Bay study found that you’re safer 100 yards from a flowing drain than swimming right in front of it.Sniff around. “Your first indication of polluted water might be a bad smell,” says Silverstein. “I’ve been swimming in bodies of water that have smelled of sewage and you know right away that something is wrong.” She adds that bad algae blooms can smell, too. Some kinds might be natural, but a bad smell can be a sign of unhealthy growth.
What About Swimming Pools?
Since pools are packed with chlorine, they have to be clean, right? Not so fast. A 2010 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found about one out of every eight public pool inspections conducted in 13 states resulted in pools being closed immediately due to serious code violations, including no measureable disinfectant, says Mary Ostrowski, Senior Director of Chlorine Issues at the American Chemistry Council, a trade association.
Just because pools have chlorine doesn’t automatically mean they’re clean. (Photo: Flickr/Thomas Hawk)
But your pool isn’t doomed for dirtiness. “Unlike ocean, lake, or pond water, pool water quality can be controlled rather directly,” Ostrowski tells Yahoo Health.
Good pool water quality is determined by two things: proper pool chemistry management and good hygiene, she says. Think you couldn’t possibly be contributing to a pool’s pollution? Know this: “On average, 0.14 grams of feces are washed off the skin of each swimmer who enters a pool,” says Ostrowski. That’s not just gross — it’s dangerous, considering fecal matter contains pathogens. Most of the time, disinfectants help destroy them (including Shigella, E. coli, viruses such as norovirus, and the protozoan Cryptosporidium) — but improperly chlorinated water puts you at risk for diarrhea and ear and skin infections, Ostrowski says.
Related: Is Peeing in the Pool Really All That Bad?
Make sure you shower before getting into the pool to reduce your part in the pollution. And rather than worry about pathogens (a well-maintained pool will destroy them), check for the signs of a healthy pool, says Ostrowski. If it’s your pool, use test strips to check water pH and chlorine levels. If you’re somewhere public? Follow these guidelines:Look for clear. You should be able to see clearly through the water to the floor of the pool.Listen for pumps. If you’re near the mechanical room, you should be able to hear the pool pumps operating to circulate the pool water, says Ostrowski. “For larger pools, pumps might not be as audible. In that case, you should be able to feel water being pumped into the pool in various locations, especially near the bottom.”Chemical smells = no good. “A properly maintained pool should have no harsh chemical odor,” she says. While you may attribute a strong smell to chlorine, it’s usually the smell of substances called chloramines, which can irritate your eyes and skin, Ostrowski says. “Chloramines form when chlorine combines with impurities like perspiration and urine.” It gets worse, too: Chloramine depletes chlorine that could otherwise be working to destroy germs, she says.Slime is bad. The tiles on the sides of a pool should feel smooth and clean, not slimey, which would indicate biofilms — a group of bacteria that stick to each other on a surface, she says.
-
Combinations of 'Safe' Chemicals May Increase Cancer Risk, Study Suggests
Jul 1, 2015 | Los Angeles Times
By Sasha Harris-Lovett
Lots of chemicals are considered safe in low doses. But what happens when you ingest a little bit of a lot of different chemicals over time?
In some cases, these combinations may conspire to increase your risk of cancer, according to a new report.
“Many [chemicals] have the possibility, when they are combined, to cause the initiation of cancer,” said Hemad Yasaei, a cancer biologist at Brunel University in England, one of the authors of the report. “They could have a synergistic or enhanced effect.”
This is not the way regulators typically think about cancer risk when they evaluate a compound’s safety.
Normally, they test an individual chemical on laboratory animals, exposing them to progressively smaller amounts until it no longer causes malignant tumors to grow. Then they take that dose, determine the equivalent for humans, and apply what is called a “margin of safety” by declaring that some small fraction of that low dose is safe for people.
The big assumption driving the margin of safety is that a smaller amount of a chemical is less dangerous than a larger amount. (Think of the familiar axiom, “The dose makes the poison.”)
But that’s not true for all chemicals, experts say. Some chemicals, such as those that mimic hormones, may actually be more dangerous at lower doses because the human body is exquisitely attuned to respond to minute amounts of natural hormones such as estrogen and testosterone.
And regulators haven’t required testing of mixtures of chemicals at all.
“Everybody had been working under the assumption that when we tested these chemicals individually and they didn’t cause cancer below a certain dose, then we’re fine to spray that particular pesticide on your breakfast cereal before it goes into the box,” said Leroy Lowe, president of Canadian nonprofit Getting to Know Cancer and leader of the report published this week by the journal Carcinogenesis.
The new report raises questions about whether this approach is adequate.
Lowe has been making this point for years. One of his organization’s primary aims is to change the way regulators assess the health effects of chemical mixtures.
Humans are exposed to about 80,000 man-made chemicals over their lifetimes, experts say. These chemicals are in the foods we eat, the water we drink and the air we breathe.
“We live in a chemical soup,” said toxicologist Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, who was not involved in the new study.
The research team — a coalition of 174 researchers from 28 countries — set out to determine whether mixtures of these chemicals, at the very tiny concentrations found in the environment, could plausibly trigger the formation of cancerous tumors. They focused on 85 particular chemicals that were impossible to avoid in modern life, that were likely to disturb biological function and were not thought to pose cancer risks at the very low doses that people tend to ingest them.
“We were only looking at the tip of the iceberg,” Yasaei said.
The researchers scoured the scientific literature to understand how each of these chemicals could affect 10 important processes that are essential to cancer development. Among them: tumor-promoting inflammation, resistance to cell death and the formation of new blood vessels to feed malignant cells.
In addition, they categorized whether each of the chemicals exerted biological effects at very low doses to which humans are ubiquitously exposed. (These doses are so small that they tend to be measured in parts per million or parts per billion.)
Of the 85 chemicals researchers examined, 50 were found to affect cancer-causing processes in the body, even at very low doses.
These 50 everyday chemicals included bisphenol A (used in manufacturing plastics), triclosan (often found in hand sanitizer and anti-bacterial soap) and atrazine (a commonly used herbicide). Since each of these chemicals affects different processes that could lead to cancer — bisphenol A makes cells less sensitive to signals to stop reproducing, for example, while atrazine encourages inflammation — it’s plausible that consuming mixtures of these chemicals is riskier than consuming any one individually.
“To me, it’s not a surprise,” said Birnbaum of the NIEHS. Scientists know that small effects from many chemicals can add up to cause other diseases, she said. For instance, chemicals known as endocrine disruptors can lead to neurological, immune system and reproductive problems, among others.
Considering the safety of individual chemicals is a lot like looking at the trees, but missing the forest, Birnbaum said. When doing research to determine chemical safety, “we’ve got to start thinking more about what reality is,” she said.
This could mean sweeping changes in rules about the levels of chemicals considered safe in drinking water, food, and air.
“I’d like to see regulators and policy makers start looking at the totality of the exposure instead of one chemical at a time,” she said.
-
'Safe' Ingredients in Large Doses Can Boost Cancer Risks -- Study
Jul 1, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
Many chemicals considered safe in low doses can work together to increase an individual's risk of cancer, according to a new study.
The study, published this week in the journal Carcinogenesis, raises new questions about whether the cumulative risk of these chemicals is appropriately considered by regulators.
"Everybody had been working under the assumption that when we tested these chemicals individually and they didn't cause cancer below a certain dose, then we're fine to spray that particular pesticide on your breakfast cereal before it goes into the box," said Leroy Lowe, president of Canadian nonprofit Getting to Know Cancer and the study's lead author.
The finding that multiple chemicals can work together is "not a surprise," said Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, who wasn't involved in the study.
What is troubling, Birnbaum said, is that regulators have not sufficiently incorporated the principle into federal policy.
"We've got to start thinking more about what reality is," Birnbaum said (Sasha Harris-Lovett, Los Angeles Times, July 1). -- SP
-
Environmentalists Petition EPA To Regulate CO2 Under TSCA
Jun 30, 2015 | InsideEPA
The environmental group Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) is petitioning EPA to create a novel new tool to curb emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) that drive climate change and lead in part to ocean acidification: regulating the gas under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
CBD, in a June 30 petition to EPA, asks the agency to adopt a rule under TSCA section 6, which would require manufacturers and processors to mitigate CO2 emissions.
The group argues that CO2 emissions “satisfy the standard” for regulation under TSCA, noting that EPA “has acknowledged that these emissions have the potential to alter ocean chemistry, thus imperiling important marine ecosystems and presenting an unreasonable risk of injury to the environment.”
TSCA section 6 gives EPA the ability to prohibit the manufacture, processing or distribution of a chemical above specified levels, require warning labels, set record-keeping requirements, regulate commercial use of the chemical, regulate disposal and require manufacturers to give notice of an unreasonable risk of injury.
EPA, however, must “apply the least burdensome means of adequately protecting against unreasonable risk,” and must weigh several factors when crafting such a rule, including the chemical's effect on human health and the environment, the benefits of the substance for various uses, and the economic consequences of the rule.
CBD says that if EPA finds it lacks sufficient data to craft a section 6 rule under TSCA, the agency must adopt a rule under section 4 of the toxics law, which would require manufacturers and processors of CO2 to “undertake testing to determine toxicity, persistence, and other characteristics which affect human health and the environment and are necessary to determine if there is an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.”
The petition is the latest in the group's longstanding advocacy and litigation campaign to force EPA to address ocean acidification. CBD in the past has urged EPA to mitigate CO2 under the Clean Water Act (CWA) -- an effort that to date has been largely unsuccessful.
The group has been engaged in litigation over EPA's decision to approve Washington state and Oregon's lists of “impaired” waters under the CWA, even though the states did not include waterbodies impacted by ocean acidification, which is caused when oceans absorb large amounts of CO2, increasing its acidity.
If a water is listed as impaired under the CWA, states must eventually craft a cleanup plan, which presumably would include CO2 controls of some type for the waterbody -- though no state has developed such a plan, and it could be vulnerable to a legal challenge by industry groups.
The new TSCA petition represents another front in that campaign, with CBD saying the toxics rule would “complement” other EPA efforts to mitigate CO2, including prominent rules to curb CO2 in light- and heavy-duty vehicles, as well as power plants and industrial sources.
CO2 “may not look like a toxic chemical, but when there’s too much CO2 in the ocean, it turns seawater corrosive and dissolves the protective shells that marine animals need to survive,” CBD's Miyoko Sakashita says in a press release issued alongside the petition.
The group notes that oceans absorb more than 22 million tons of CO2 each day, and that on average oceans are 30 percent more acidic now than at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
The petition says TSCA requires EPA to either grant or deny the petition within 90 days, and that if EPA denies the petition or does not act on it in a timely manner, the group could file suit in a federal court.
-
EPA Identifies 18 Chemicals Needing Additional Endocrine Program Testing
Jul 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA has concluded that about one-third of the first 52 chemicals screened in tier 1 of its Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) “showed potential interaction” with at least one of the three screened hormone pathways, triggering more detailed animal-based testing even as the agency is turning the program towards newer computational toxicity approaches that may better target potential disruptors.
“Of the 52 chemicals evaluated, there was no evidence for potential interaction with any of the endocrine pathways for 20 chemicals, and for 14 chemicals that showed potential interaction with one or more pathways, EPA already has enough information to conclude that they do not pose risks,” according to information added to the agency's website June 30. “Of the remaining 18 chemicals, all 18 showed potential interaction with the thyroid pathway, 17 of them with the androgen pathway, and 14 also potentially interacted with the estrogen pathway.”
The 52 chemicals represent the first group of chemicals screened in the EDSP, which EPA created after Congress in 1996 directed the agency to test chemicals for the potential to disrupt the human endocrine, or hormone, system. EPA issued its first test orders in 2009 for this group of chemicals -- all pesticide ingredients -- to undergo screening through the 11 assays that make up the first tier of EDSP screening.
The agency in 2010 proposed a list of water contaminants for EDSP testing, following congressional prodding, but has yet to finalize this list into test orders.
Among the results from the first group of chemicals is EPA's determination that no further screening is required for atrazine, a herbicide used to protect corn and other field crops from weeds. Environmentalists have long railed against the chemical, which is often found in groundwater. Industry and some controversial academic studies provide conflicting evidence on whether exposure to the chemical can alter frogs' sexual development.
EDSP staff conducted its weight of evidence analysis, largely using existing atrazine toxicity tests, rather than requiring EDSP tier 1 tests. They concluded that the EDSP endpoints that were flagged were at higher doses than the existing regulatory limits for atrazine, and therefore additional testing is not needed “because it is not expected to impact current EPA-established regulatory endpoints for human health or ecological risk assessment,” EPA says.
All of the data for the first list of chemicals was submitted by 2013, and since then EDSP staff has been performing weight of evidence evaluations of the results of the screening, to determine which chemicals should go on to additional testing in any of the assays included in EDSP Tier 2. The agency had intended to release these decisions by the end of fiscal year 2014 but failed to meet that deadline, according to fiscal year 2016 budget documents.
“EPA is recommending a comparative thyroid assay for four chemicals that showed interaction with the thyroid pathway, in mammals, a medaka one-generation reproductive test for 13 chemicals that showed interaction with the estrogen or androgen pathways in wildlife, and a larval amphibian growth and development assay for five chemicals that showed interaction with the thyroid pathway in wildlife,” the agency's website says of its decisions on future testing.
The agency adds the tier 2 testing “will help us better understand the potential of these chemicals to cause adverse effects through interaction with the endocrine system. For several of the chemicals displaying bioactivity in the screening tests, EPA already has enough information to conclude that they do not pose risks.”
Tier 2 Testing
EPA's tier 2 screen has yet to be used, and in April, EPA collected public comments on three assays it is proposing to use in the second tier, as part of its efforts to stand up tier 2. The three tests include the Japanese quail 2-generation reproduction test, the Medaka fish extended 1-generation reproduction test and a larval amphibian growth and development assay, each of which were reviewed by EPA's Scientific Advisory Panel in a June 2013 meeting. Industry and animal rights groups raised concerns in public comments about the three assays, with both groups questioning the tests' suitability for use in EDSP and multiple animal rights groups protesting the vast numbers of animals the tests will consume.
EPA's June 30 announcement does not provide an update on the status of the tier 2 screen.
The lengthy process for screening some 10,000 chemicals EPA estimates should undergo EDSP scrutiny has led the agency to pivot from the existing, animal-based screening program to using computational toxicology approaches. Agency research and EDSP officials have touted the high-throughput methods for some time, describing the approach as one that makes it possible to review the thousands of chemicals in the EDSP universe in a finite amount of time by providing better priorities for screening while reducing animal testing and saving money.
One EDSP staffer suggested that the new cellular-based predictive approach may not only be faster, it may also better pinpoint chemicals with the potential to interact with the three hormone pathways included in EDSP: estrogen, androgen and thyroid. Speaking to a group of state pesticides officials last April, EPA's Bill Wooge explained that the new approach, known as Integrated Bioactivity Exposure Ranking (IBER), has been used to review the chemicals that are on the first and second EDSP lists of chemicals.
"Looking at the IBER scores for List 1 and 2, there's not a lot that we would consider higher priority," Wooge said. "Moving to IBER may help us get to chemicals we're actually concerned about."
IBER is a combination of high-throughput, cellular bioactivity tests with existing biomonitoring and other exposure data. The short-term goal is to use this information to create a risk-based prioritization approach to determining when chemicals in the universe are screened. In the long term, the goal is to replace the existing first tier of 11 animal-based screening assays with high-throughput cellular assays, Wooge said.
EPA earlier in June released for public comment what Wooge described to the state officials as a “pivot document,” describing EPA's plans to transition from the existing, two tiers of animal-based assays in EDSP to gradual adoption of the IBER approach. In the document, EPA proposes replacing three of the assays in the existing tier 1 screen with IBER. Comments are due Aug. 18.
-
California Updates List of Designated Chemicals for Biomonitoring
Jul 1, 2015 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has released an updated list of chemicals, designated for the state's biomonitoring programme. [The list is used by the state's Scientific Guidance Panel (SGP) to recommend substances as priorities for biomonitoring.]
Categories represented in the list include:
brominated and chlorinated flame retardants;
phthalates and phthalate alternatives;
volatile organic compounds (VOCs);
pesticides;
perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs); and
metals.
-
Lawmakers Approve Microbead Ban
Jul 1, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
Connecticut lawmakers have passed a budget that includes a bill to ban the sale and manufacture of plastic microbeads in personal care products.
The legislation approved yesterday would also call for an independent study of biodegradable plastics and would require the state to allow them in the future if the study shows they do not harm the environment.
Advocacy groups praised the decision.
"This is a major victory for Long Island Sound and all Connecticut waters," said Louis Burch of Citizens Campaign for the Environment. "Having a clean face shouldn't equate to having polluted water" (Kaitlyn Naples, WFSB, June 30). -- SP
-
Washington Wildfire, Fed by Chemicals and Wind, Destroys Dozens of Homes
Jun 30, 2015 | Los Angeles Times
By James Queally and Maria L. La Ganga
Fed by winds, high temperatures and industrial chemicals, the Sleepy Hollow fire in eastern Washington had burned nearly 3,000 acres and destroyed at least two dozen homes as of Tuesday evening.
The blaze started Sunday outside Wenatchee, about 150 miles east of Seattle, and had grown dramatically by the end of the day after embers blew on top of a recycling plant and several warehouses that contained chemicals, officials said. As of Tuesday evening, the blaze was 47% contained.
The damage to at least two dozen buildings has left residents heartbroken, even if their own homes had been spared.
"It's a mix of emotions -- blessed and guilty," said Desiree Schmidt, seated under a tent near a home that had burned to the ground. "I can go to my refrigerator and shower. We have 28 friends and neighbors who can't."It's not clear how the fire started
Kay Mckellar, a spokeswoman for the Chelan County Fire District, said investigators had yet to determine a cause. There were no lightning strikes outside Wenatchee when the fire started Sunday. Fire officials have yet to determine whether the blaze was started by a person or a natural occurrence.
Forest Service firefighters from Leavenworth watch as a house burns in northern Wenatchee, Wash. (Associated Press)The first fire started a second, more intense fire
The initial blaze, which began outside the town of Monitor, Wash., created a second and more powerful fire when embers blew onto the roof of a recycling plant in Wenatchee, Mckellar said. The fire quickly spread to a pair of nearby fruit-packing warehouses and another building that housed a large amount of paper, Mckellar said.
The fruit-packing warehouses contained drums of ammonia, according to Mckellar, who said the fire quickly gained intensity Sunday.
"It all just went boom, boom, boom," she said.Damages and evacuations: 24 buildings, dozens evacuate
The fire has destroyed or damaged at least two dozen residences in Wenatchee, plus several industrial structures. The damage to the warehouses also caused an ammonia leak on Monday, prompting city officials to issue a shelter-in-place order while the chemical spill was contained, Mckellar said.
No one had been hurt as of Tuesday morning, Mckellar said. At least 1,000 people who live near the fire had been ordered to evacuate the area. Not all of them complied, but 155 people had checked into a nearby Red Cross shelter on Sunday night, according to the incident website for the fire.Some Wenatchee residents lost everything
A statue of St. Francis is nearly all that remains outside the wreckage of Cindy Dominguez's home in Wenatchee, Wash. (Maria L. La Ganga / Los Angeles Times)
Behind the wreckage of Cindy Dominguez's home stood a clean, white statue of St. Francis, shrouded by blackened trees. The statue was one of the only things she owned that survived the fire.
A charred swing stood where a porch used to be. The house burned down around the metal box that formed Dominguez's fireplace. It remains, scorched and lonely in the rubble.
"It's devastating and heartbreaking all at once," Dominguez said as she sipped a bottle of water and surveyed the damage. "I have to find my wedding ring. I had it in a drawer. I should have had it in the fire lockbox. It was the only thing that would withstand the fire, and we took it with us. Duh."Conditions continue to favor the fire
Firefighters reported just 10% containment of the blaze by Tuesday morning, though Mckellar said that number would likely grow as investigators got closer to the perimeter of the blaze where they could do a more thorough assessment.
Strong winds from the west and high temperatures helped drive the fire Sunday, and forecasts indicate the mercury could stay above triple digits for the rest of the week. According to the National Weather Service, temperatures around Wenatchee could reach a high of 98 degrees Tuesday and will hover between 99 and 103 degrees the rest of the week.
Despite the troublesome weather, Wenatchee's 31,000 residents were "no longer in imminent danger" on Tuesday afternoon, according to Joe Anderson, a spokesman for the U.S. Forest Service. He said the fire was unlikely to advance any further.
Queally reported from Los Angeles and La Ganga from Wenatchee.
UPDATES:
9:21 p.m.: This story updated with 47% percent of the fire contained by evening.
6:09 p.m.: This story updated with comments from Wenatchee residents who lost their homes.
The first version of this story published at 1:10 p.m.
-
Supreme Court Smacks EPA for Ignoring Costs, But Mercury Rule Likely to Persevere
Jul 1, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Jonathan H. Adler
With its last decision of the OT2014 term, in Michigan v. EPA, the Supreme Court held, by a vote of 5-4, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency unreasonably failed to consider costs when deciding to regulate mercury emissions from power plants. Justice Scalia’s opinion for the Court is simultaneously broad and narrow, and does not preclude the EPA from regulating mercury emissions going forward.
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act provides that the EPA must regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants from power plants if the agency concludes that such regulation is “appropriate and necessary.” The EPA made such a conclusion in 2000 and (after the Bush Administration failed in its effort to undo this finding) in 2012. Specifically, the EPA determined that mercury emissions from power plants — coal-fired power plants in particular — posed health risks and could be controlled effectively. The EPA did not, however, consider the costs in determining whether mercury emissions from power plants should be regulated, and therein lay the problem.
Writing for the Court, Justice Scalia concluded that it was unreasonable for the EPA to exclude any consideration of costs in making the threshold determination that mercury emissions should be regulated even if (as Justice Kagan stressed in dissent) costs would be considered by the agency as it developed specific emission standards. As Justice Scalia noted, it is a well-established principle of administrative law that agencies must consider all “relevant factors” when making regulatory determinations. From this perspective, the potential cost of regulation — here as much as $10 billion — is a “relevant factor” in determining whether it is appropriate to regulate. Justice Scalia acknowledged that the EPA’s interpretation of the relevant statutory language was entitled to Chevrondeference, but held that the EPA’s interpretation of “appropriate and necessary” was unreasonable.
Congress instructed EPA to add power plants to the program if (but only if) the Agency finds regulation “appropriate and necessary.” §7412(n)(1)(A). One does not need to open up a dictionary in order to realize the capaciousness of this phrase. In particular, “appropriate” is “the classic broad and all-encompassing term that naturally and traditionally includes consideration of all the relevant factors.” 748 F. 3d, at 1266 (opinion of Kavanaugh, J.). Although this term leaves agencies with flexibility, an agency may not “entirely fai[l] to consider an important aspect of the problem” when deciding whether regulation is appropriate. State Farm, supra, at 43.
Read naturally in the present context, the phrase “appropriate and necessary” requires at least some attention to cost. One would not say that it is even rational, never mind “appropriate,” to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits. In addition, “cost” includes more than the expense of complying with regulations; any disadvantage could be termed a cost. EPA’s interpretation precludes the Agency from considering any type of cost— including, for instance, harms that regulation might do to human health or the environment. The Government concedes that if the Agency were to find that emissions from power plants do damage to human health, but that the technologies needed to eliminate these emissions do even more damage to human health, it would still deem regulation appropriate. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 70. No regulation is “appropriate” if it does significantly more harm than good.
Justice Scalia’s opinion seems to embody a default principle that agencies should consider costs when making regulatory determinations, and that costs are not confined to the compliance expenditures of regulated entities.
The breadth of Justice Scalia’s opinion in this regard is reinforced by the dissent’s acknowledgement that costs must play a role in regulatory decision-making. “I agree with the majority–let there be no doubt about this–that EPA’s power plant regulation would be unreasonable if “[t]he Agency gave cost no thought at all,” Justice Kagan stresses at the outset of her opinion. Later on she repeatedly cites Justice Breyer’s Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper concurrence and endorses a default presumption that agencies must consider costs when setting regulatory standards. In Justice Kagan’s view, the EPA reasonably deferred consideration of costs until it set emission standards. Nowhere in her opinion, however, does she ever defend the claim that the EPA could ignore costs altogether.
While Michigan v. EPA helps cement the role of cost consideration into regulatory decision-making, the decision is narrow in that it is unlikely to represent more than a speed-bump for the EPA’s mercury rules. The EPA will be required to further justify its decision to regulate power-plant mercury emissions with reference to the potential costs of such regulation — and developing such a justification may take some time — but it’s unlikely this will preclude the agency from moving forward. Indeed, it’s not entirely clear that the rule will be vacated once remanded to the agency. For the time being the case will be remanded to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and this court has a habit of remanding without vacatur when there’s little reason to think the agency will alter its course.
-
EPA Air Chief -- MATS Ruling Won't Affect Clean Power Plan
Jul 1, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Scott Detrow
U.S. EPA's top air quality official says that while she's "disappointed" in Monday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling derailing the agency's attempt to regulate mercury and other pollutants from power plants, the decision will have no bearing on a separate high-profile rule the agency is about to finalize.
EPA is expected to roll out its unprecedented attempt to curb the power sector's greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the summer, and acting air chief Janet McCabe says the legal setback won't change that fact.
The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to remand EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards to a lower court, because, in its opinion, the agency failed to consider compliance costs for the regulations, which had already gone into effect (Greenwire, June 29).
"The Administration remains committed to finalizing the Clean Power Plan this summer," McCabe wrote in a blog post on the agency's website. The regulations are a cornerstone of President Obama's climate agenda. They will require the power sector to reduce its carbon footprint 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.
"The decision does not affect the Clean Power Plan, which EPA will be finalizing later this summer and which will chart the course for this country to reduce harmful carbon from its fleet of existing power plants," McCabe wrote. "That's worth repeating: The Court's conclusion that EPA must consider cost when determining whether it is 'appropriate' to regulate toxic air emissions from utilities under section 112 of the Act will not impact the development of the Clean Power Plan under section 111. Cost is among the factors the Agency has long explicitly considered in setting standards under section 111 of the Act."Is MATS an existing regulation?
But the court ruling, considered by legal observers to be narrow, has thrown a wrench into legal challenges to the Clean Power Plan, which are expected to be filed shortly after the regulation is finalized.
That's because the status of MATS plays a key role in one of the legal arguments against the carbon-reduction effort. Critics argue that one version of the Clean Air Act -- contradictory language was passed by the House and Senate when the law was amended in 1990 -- bars EPA from using section 111(d) to restrict pollution sources that are already covered by other regulations.
Because existing power plants were already being regulated by MATS, critics contend EPA cannot impose the Clean Power Plan's requirements on them, as well. (EPA has rejected this interpretation of the law.)
With MATS remanded to a lower court, and not quite rejected by the Supreme Court, it's not yet clear whether or not MATS now counts as existing regulation.
Attorney Thomas Lorenzen, who used to work for the Justice Department and now represents industry clients at Crowell & Moring, told Greenwire he expects Clean Power Plan challengers to ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia for an expedited review of whether or not MATS has been vacated in order to clear up their legal challenge (Greenwire, June 30).
As for EPA, McCabe wrote that when it comes to MATS, "there are questions that will need to be answered over the next several weeks and months as we review the decision and determine the appropriate next steps."
But as EPA and environmental groups have pointed out throughout the MATS legal process, McCabe noted that the regulation had already gone into effect before the court ruled on it, and "many plants have already installed controls and technologies to reduce their mercury emissions."
-
Battle Over EPA 'Co-Benefits' Rages After Mercury Ruling
Jul 1, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Peterka
The Supreme Court's ruling this week that U.S. EPA should have considered the cost of its Mercury and Air Toxics Standards has reignited a debate about the agency's practice of counting health "co-benefits" in justifying the economic impacts of its Clean Air Act rules.
Industry maintains that practice double-counts health benefits for ancillary reductions of pollutants that aren't the regulation's focus. These co-benefits loom large in the proposed Clean Power Plan, which EPA predicts will lead to big reductions in soot and smog, curbing emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates along with reducing heat-trapping carbon dioxide.
In the mercury case, industry and states had challenged EPA's use of co-benefits, but the Supreme Court didn't rule on that issue.
"The decision leaves unanswered questions regarding how the costs and benefits of the contemplated regulations are quantified and whether indirect benefits are appropriately considered, which presumably remain within the reasonable discretion of the agency," said Kevin Desharnais, a partner at Mayer Brown LLP.
In its 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court sent the standards back to the federal appeals court, finding EPA should have considered costs when it found that it was "appropriate and necessary" to regulate hazardous air emissions from power plants (Greenwire, June 29).
But the court didn't offer guidance to EPA on how it should consider cost.
"It will be up to the agency to decide (as always, within the limits of reasonable interpretation) how to account for cost," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion.
Although EPA didn't consider cost when it found power plants' toxic emissions should be regulated, the agency did do a cost-benefit study later in the rulemaking process that relied heavily on co-benefits.
The EPA analysis found that the rule would cost industry $9.6 billion a year, while overall benefits would tally as much as $90 billion annually. Of those total benefits, up to $6 million would come from reduced mercury pollution.
The majority of the rest of the monetary benefits would largely stem from reductions in particulate matter, a Clean Air Act criteria pollutant that is not a target of the mercury rule.
During oral arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts grilled Solicitor General Donald Verrilli about the analysis, suggesting EPA was using the mercury rule to get reductions in particulate matter that it wouldn't be able to do otherwise in the Clean Air Act.
"It's a good thing if your regulation also benefits in other ways," Roberts said. "But when it's such a disproportion, you begin to wonder whether it's an illegitimate way of avoiding the different -- quite different limitations on EPA that apply in the criteria program."
Lorie Schmidt, associate general counsel at EPA, said that the Supreme Court didn't offer direction in the opinion because there was likely a lack of agreement among the justices.
"Given the extensive discussion at oral arguments of both the cost-benefit analysis and co-benefits issue, I think it's interesting that the court either specifically did not prohibit us from looking at co-benefits or require that we do a cost-benefit analysis," she said, adding that it "leads me to wonder whether the court had five votes for that type of requirement."
Though the high court ultimately did not offer any formula for how EPA should treat co-benefits, the majority and dissenting opinions of the court suggested that the justices held different opinions about whether the benefits of the rule outweighed its costs. The majority focused on the $6 million benefit from reductions in mercury pollution, while the minority's dissenting opinion frequently referred to the much higher figure that includes particulate matter benefits.
"Clearly there are different perspectives on whether co-benefits can and should be considered," said William Wehrum, a partner at Hunton & Williams LLP, which represented the Utility Air Regulatory Group in the case. Wehrum served as acting EPA air chief for two years in the George W. Bush administration.
In the wake of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) ruling, industry has doubled down on its criticism of EPA's practice.
Chet Thompson, who served as EPA's deputy general counsel from 2004 to 2006, yesterday called co-benefits a type of "post hoc rationalization" of costly air rules and suggested the agency relies on studies of the same group of people for multiple regulations.
"Look, at some point, someone's going to call EPA on how many times [it counts benefits] from the same cohort. I bet this is the same cohort that we relied on when I was at EPA," said Thompson, who's now president of the refining group American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers. "They keep recycling. I don't mean to make light of it, but they keep talking about the cohort, the benefits of [particulate matter] controls."
Jim Pew, a staff attorney at Earthjustice, slammed industry's arguments against accounting for indirect benefits as morally suspect.
"They're not denying that 11,000 people would get to live if the rule is left in place or would be left to die if the rule is taken away. That's not even in dispute," he said. "They're saying whether those people will live or die is kind of irrelevant. And I don't think that's right. I think it's very relevant."
Pew added that he believed a court would find that EPA's practice is within the bounds of the law.
"I don't think you would find a lot of support for the idea that ignoring co-benefits is rational," he said. "I don't think you would find much support for the idea that EPA would be acting arbitrarily if it considered co-benefits."Co-benefits in Clean Power Plan
Industry has also focused its criticism of co-benefits on EPA's analysis of the costs of the Clean Power Plan. EPA expects that requiring reductions of greenhouse gas emissions at power plants will reduce Clean Air Act criteria pollutants and their precursors, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and emitted particles, by amounts "well beyond" what's been achieved by previous rules.
In its regulatory impact analysis, EPA estimated the rule would result in between 2,700 and 6,200 fewer particulate-matter-related premature deaths by 2030. By 2030, the rule would also result in 180,000 fewer missed school days by children due to ozone-related illnesses. Asthma instances would also drop significantly, according to the analysis.
Net climate and public health benefits are projected to be up to around $90 billion by 2030.
"If the Supreme Court were to question the co-benefits in Michigan v. EPA, why not question the inclusion of international climate benefits and U.S. co-benefits for a rule that creates a tiny climate benefit for U.S. taxpayers, especially when compared to the costs of producing it?" wrote Michael Wara, associate professor of law at Stanford University.
"If some benefits count more than others, what's to stop the Supreme Court from blocking climate regulations because U.S. climate benefits are tiny when that case comes before them in a few years time? That at any rate was the worry."
In a friend-of-the-court brief in the MATS case, New York University's Institute for Policy Integrity argued that both federal law and "long-accepted economic methodologies" supported EPA's practice. EPA has taken indirect benefits into account in its economic analyses since at least 1978, the institute said.
Many experts believe that when the MATS rule is sent back to EPA, the agency will rely on the cost-benefit analysis it already did to justify the rule, which includes co-benefits.
"If EPA cannot use these ancillary benefits -- something it routinely does -- the agency may have a hard time justifying the MATS regulations," wrote Ann Carlson, an environmental law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles.
She also noted that the agency's analysis did not quantify a number of other benefits that are difficult to put a price tag on, such as reductions in cardiovascular and neurological effects.
Pew of Earthjustice said EPA may try to better quantify those benefits in a new analysis for the rule.
"Leaving aside the co-benefits issue," he said, "I think it's entirely fair to say the rule has enormous benefits, whether we can quantify them or not."
Wehrum, the attorney at Hunton & Williams, said that the co-benefits issue was still ripe for litigation.
"I think if EPA goes forward," he said, "that's an issue that's certainly going to come up in any kind of litigation that follows."
-
LCV Digital Ads Slam House Members for Backing Power Plant Bill
Jul 1, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Daniel Bush
The League of Conservation Voters launched an ad campaign today blasting House lawmakers who voted last week in favor of a bill that would block U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
LCV released online ads criticizing two Republicans and three Democrats who supported Rep. Ed Whitfield's (R-Ky.) bill, which would allow states to delay or opt out of the Obama administration's proposed rule to slash power-sector carbon emissions.
The ads targeted GOP Reps. Lee Zeldin (N.Y.) and Dave Reichert (Wash.) and Democratic Reps. Brad Ashford (Neb.), Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.) and Anne Kirkpatrick (Ariz.), who all backed H.R. 2042, which passed the House on a 247-180 vote last week (E&E Daily, June 25).
Sinema, Ashford and Kirkpatrick, who is running for the Senate next year, were among eight Democrats who voted for the legislation.
Ashford and Kirkpatrick are also under attack from the House GOP's campaign arm, which is targeting vulnerable Democrats in right-leaning districts ahead of the 2016 election (E&E Daily, Feb. 10).
LCV also put out digital ads today praising five House members -- Republican Reps. Frank LoBiondo (N.J.), Chris Gibson (N.Y.) and Carlos Curbelo (Fla.) and Democratic Reps. Cheri Bustos (Ill.) and Gwen Graham (Fla.) -- for voting against the proposal. Some of these lawmakers may be vulnerable next year, though Gibson, who represents a swing district in the Hudson Valley and Catskill Mountains, is retiring.
"The votes on this bill sorted out who in Congress sided with polluters against action on climate change, and who is willing to fight for the health of our families," LCV President Gene Karpinski said in a statement.
The House bill also drew a harsh rebuke from the White House, which issued a veto threat that Congress stands little chance of overriding.
And in the Senate, GOP leaders who oppose the Clean Power Plan will be hard pressed to find 60 votes to advance the legislation. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) has introduced a similar proposal to let states opt out of the rule, but its prospects of passing the upper chamber are bleak.
-
Public Health is More Important Than Cost of Compliance
Jul 1, 2015 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By J. Mijin Cha
The Supreme Court ruling in Michigan v. EPA is not as dire for environmentalists as it could have been. The ruling does not strike down the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulation of mercury and other hazardous pollutants from power plants. The court, instead, ruled that the cost of compliance should have been incorporated at the outset of deciding whether a regulation is necessary and remanded the case back to a lower court for reconsideration. Yet even this narrow decision was wrong — cost-benefit analysis is a flawed measure and not appropriate for environmental regulation.
In his majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia states, "The Agency must consider cost — including, most importantly, cost of compliance — before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary." But the primary consideration for the EPA should be what is best for the environment and health of the public, not how much compliance will cost, especially given how flawed cost-benefit analysis is. And, as Justice Elena Kagan notes in her dissent, the EPA considered cost throughout the regulatory process.
The problem with Scalia's conclusion, and cost-benefit analysis generally, is that it depends on the EPA, or any agency, being able to monetize and calculate things that by their very nature do not have a price tag — such as a clean environment and a healthy population. We calculate health savings through measures such as hospital visits and lost school/work days, but does that really capture the benefit of a healthy population? We know how much it costs to clean up pollution, but we chronically undervalue the cost and health benefits of preventing pollution in the first place.
For example, mercury is a neurotoxin and many studies show the harm mercury exposure causes, including an $8.7 billion loss in economic productivity due to decreased intelligence caused by mercury exposure. But what about the cost that comes from neurological damage, beyond the loss in economic productivity? How do we quantify the damage to quality of life? By using only economic parameters, we reduce a person's life to only to what he or she contributes to our economy and that is a dangerous, slippery slope.
The EPA's regulations were implemented because there were no federal standards that required power plants to limit their emissions of toxic air pollutants, such as mercury, arsenic and metals, even though the technology to control these toxics was available. In fact, the EPA set the rules based on the best-performing sources currently in operation and gave power plants four years to implement the controls. In other words, the technology to limit these pollutants already existed and was in operation, proving that the pollution control goal was achievable and not overly burdensome to the industry, a result further validated by the fact that more than 70 percent of plants impacted by the rule are already in compliance.
The Supreme Court was wrong to rule that cost of compliance is the most important consideration. Requiring polluting businesses to stop polluting will of course incur a cost. However, the public is currently bearing the cost and health burden from polluted air and water. It's only fair that industry begins to pay its fair share.
Cha is a fellow at Cornell University's Worker Institute.
-
Letter: Supreme Court Ruling, on Toxic Emissions From Coal Plants
Jul 1, 2015 | The New York Times
To the Editor:
Re “Justices Block the Obama Administration’s Limits on Power Plant Emissions” (news article, June 30):
After two wonderful, historic landmark decisions — upholding gay marriage and continuing federal subsidies for the Affordable Care Act — the Supreme Court has fallen back to its usual small-minded opinions. Particularly disappointing was the decision to block the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to limit power plant emissions.
Of all the problems facing the United States and the rest of the world, continuing to pollute the planet must rank at or near the top of the list. Long after there is peace in the Middle East, and the Islamic State is defeated, and poverty and genocide are distant memories, climate change, caused mainly by humankind’s pollution and overpopulation, will take a horrible and devastating toll on planet Earth.
President Obama has outlined a definitive, unilateral plan to curb America’s pollution, and the Supreme Court and Congress should wholeheartedly support it.
HENRY A. LOWENSTEIN
New York
To the Editor:
This is a win for the Everyman. Yes, we should be addressing climate change and pollution, but with consideration to all the costs we’ve been asked to front. The solution to our environmental problems shouldn’t be extremes of either tens of billions paid for by me and you, or no action at all. Instead, this problem requires a carefully charted course of change, and it requires the development of alternatives that can effectively function on our power grid. Entrepreneurs, start your engines!
PAUL CHANDLER
New York
To the Editor:
In using cost assessment to overrule the Environmental Protection Agency’s restrictions on coal plant emissions, the Supreme Court’s ruling reflected the lament of the novelist Kurt Vonnegut, who wrote: “The good Earth — we could have saved it, but we were too damn cheap and lazy.”
BRUCE WATSON
Leverett, Mass.
To the Editor:
It’s a good thing the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act subsidies. We’ll all need health insurance now that the same court expects us to endure a toxic atmosphere. Apparently the court’s majority opinion on the cost-benefit ratio works like this: We bear the costs, while power companies and mining concerns get to enjoy the benefits.
ROBERT BRONSTEIN
New York
-
Coal Company Sues Over Obama Water Rule
Jul 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Coal giant Murray Energy Corp. said Wednesday that it is suing the Obama administration over its rule asserting power over small bodies of water.
Murray said the rule — called the Clean Water Rule, or “waters of the U.S.” — is an example of “regulatory creep” and an unjust expansion of the EPA’s power to regulate water in light of Supreme Court decisions against other EPA rules.
“The Obama EPA’s final ‘Waters of the United States’ rule not only reflects an unprecedented expansion in federal regulatory authority, but results in one of the largest land grabs by the federal government in this nation’s history” Gary Broadbent, Murray’s assistant general counsel and media director, said in a statement.
“If the Clean Water Act is to be rewritten, it should be done so by Congress, after input from the citizens of the United States and serious deliberation by Congress, not by EPA through a series of unilateral administrative changes that effectively rewrites the Clean Water Act” he said.
The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers wrote the new rule, which gives the government the power to regulate small water bodies such as ponds and wetlands. The regulation means the government could require permits for activities that would pollute those waters.
Opponents of the rule contend, as Murray does, that it gives the government more power than it is granted under the Clean Water Act.
The government formally published the rule in the Federal Register on Monday, clearing the way for lawsuits against it. So far, 27 states have sued the EPA or the Army Corps over the rule, arguing it infringes on the rights of states or private landowners.
Murray filed lawsuits against the rule in a U.S. District Court in West Virginia and in a federal appellate court.
The company, a major coal producer, said the lawsuits “are yet another step in Murray Energy’s legal campaign to stop the Obama EPA’s illegal actions and to restore the rule of law in this country.”
-
States Claim 'Waters' Rule Violates NEPA As Lawsuits Over Policy Increase
Jul 1, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Anthony Lacey
A coalition of 13 states is claiming that EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers' joint Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule violated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review requirements, adding to the legal attacks on the rule in an increasing number of suits over the regulation filed by more than half the 50 U.S. states.
Various states have teamed up in challenges to the policy filed in various federal district and appellate courts, raising a range of criticisms -- arguing that the rule generally exceeds the agencies' authority under the CWA and is at odds with the Constitution by expanding the reach of the water law. Several suits also claim the rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by not giving enough time for public input on the policy.
Industry opponents of the final rule published in the June 29 Federal Register are also readying lawsuits, with Murray Energy filing challenges in district and appellate courts claiming the rule is unconstitutional and would “radically rewrite” the water law. The suit argues that the rule “wrongly expands” EPA's and the Corps' “jurisdictional reach well beyond the bounds allowed by the Constitution, delegated by Congress, permitted by law or supported by science, and alleging violations of the CWA, the U.S. Constitution and the APA as the states have made.
In a June 29 suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota's Southeastern Division, a coalition of 13 states echoes those arguments and also claims that the final rule violates NEPA mandates.
The filing says that NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare environmental impact statements (EIS) for “major” federal actions significantly affecting the environment. But they argue that the Corps decided to forgo an EIS for the CWA rule and instead pursued an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact to the environment. They say this violates NEPA because the final CWA rule qualifies as a “major” agency action.
“Despite repeated public pronouncements by EPA and Corps officials to the contrary, the Corps admits in its Finding of No Significant Impact that federal jurisdiction under the Final Rule will expand between 2.8 and 4.6 percent as compared to historical determinations of jurisdiction, an estimate that may grossly understate the impact of the Rule,” the filing says, citing the finding that accompanied the final rule released initially in May.
“The Final Rule is highly controversial, as evidenced by approximately 35 states formally opposing the Proposed Rule during the public comment period, and its jurisdictional overreach will create precedent for future actions. The Corps failed to appropriately consider the additional regulatory and economic burdens placed on states and regulated entities and has not fully analyzed the true effects on the human environment,” the states say.
“The Corps also failed to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed federal action, failed to take a hard look at the projected effects of the Final Rule, and failed to ensure sufficient public participation in the National Environmental Policy Act process. The Corps’ action violates the National Environmental Policy Act and should be set aside as 'arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.' The Final Rule was also not adopted in 'observance of procedure required by law,'” the filing claims.
The states that filed the suit are led by North Dakota and include Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota, Wyoming and the New Mexico Environment Department and New Mexico State Engineer, with the lawsuit collectively referring to them as the states.
Pending Challenges
Their suit was filed the same day as Ohio and Michigan filed their suit, Ohio, et al. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al., June 29 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.
Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi also sued the federal agencies June 29, filing their suit, State of Texas, et al. v. EPA, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Those three states also filed a similar suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, noting the legal uncertainty over whether district or appellate courts have original jurisdiction to hear the case.
And a group of nine states, led by Georgia, filed suit June 30 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. The plaintiffs in State of Georgia, et al. v. Regina McCarthy, et al. are the state attorneys general for West Virginia, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, South Carolina, Utah and Wisconsin.
Combined, the various state challenges represent a total of at least 27 states that at press time had filed suit over the rule. EPA also faces challenges from industry critics of the waters rule.
Murray Energy filed suits June 29 in the U.S. District Court for the District of West Virginia, Clarksburg Division, and in the 6th Circuit, over the agencies' final CWA rule, published in the June 29 Federal Register.
The suit, Murray Energy Corporation v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al., is aimed at “blatantly unconstitutional effort to radically rewrite the Clean Water Act by unlawfully and unreasonably expanding the definition of 'Waters of the United States,'” Murray Energy says in a July 1 press release.
The complaint makes similar arguments to the existing state suits, saying the rule is designed to reach features that are not tied to interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause; violates the constitutional protection for state powers; expands the CWA beyond what Congress intended; and violates the APA because the final rule contains substantial changes that were not included in the proposal for public comment.
The suit also takes issue with EPA's study of waters' connectivity, reiterating previous industry and other criticisms that the study, which serves as the scientific underpinnings of the jurisdiction rule, was still in draft form and undergoing peer review when the agencies issued the proposed jurisdiction rule.
“The final rule was premised on reports and analysis that were incomplete and inadequate and not made final with sufficient time for the public to comment,” the complaint says.
-
Oklahoma Court Allows Earthquake Victim to Sue Oil Company
Jul 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Oklahoma’s Supreme Court ruled that the victim of a 2011 earthquake can sue the oil companies whose activities have been blamed for the quake and hundreds like it.
The case has been watched closely by the oil industry and could now open the door to similar lawsuits for injuries or property damage, Reuters reported.
Oklahoma saw nearly 600 earthquakes above 3.0 magnitude last year alone, which geologists have blamed on disposal wells used to inject waste fluid from hydraulic fracturing.
The state has already started to crack down on such wells, including with restrictions on injection near fault lines, and more rules could come.
Sandra Ladra, who lives near Prague, Okla., was injured in a 2011 magnitude 5.0 earthquake.
A district court said it could not hear her case, but the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Tuesday that the lower court should hear the claims against New Dominion LLC and Spess Oil Co. and other oil companies that operate disposal wells near Ladra’s house.
Scott Poynter, Ladra’s attorney, told Reuters he would now pursue similar cases from other clients looking to sue oil companies for earthquakes.
The companies in Ladra’s case did not respond to Reuters’ requests for comments. Industry representatives, meanwhile, downplayed the importance of the case.
-
Greens: New Keystone Arguments Fail ‘Laugh Test’
Jul 1, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Environmental groups are brushing off new arguments in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline by its developer, calling them nonsensical and unconvincing.
The groups, which include the Natural Resources Defense Council, 350.org and Environment America, said in a Wednesday statement that TransCanada Corp.’s letter to Secretary of State John Kerry the previous day does not pass the “laugh test.”
“They have reason to be concerned,” the greens said of TransCanada. “Recent polling has suggested the pipeline is losing favor over time among the American public, and President Obama has been increasingly critical in his comments about the project, noting that the pipeline ‘bypasses the United States’ and that tar sands is ‘extraordinarily dirty.’ ”
In the Tuesday letter, the company behind the Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline wrote that Canada’s latest international climate commitment, along with Alberta’s plans to raise its carbon tax, strengthen the climate change argument in favor of Keystone.
“Each of these are directly relevant to the President’s statement that the proposed project will not be determined to be in the national interest absent a finding that it would not ‘significantly exacerbate’ climate change,” the company wrote.
But the greens did not buy it.
For one, Alberta’s carbon rule updates are largely symbolic and inadequate to get the province where it needs to be to stop climate change, the greens said.
The groups said it is absurd to tout Canada’s climate commitments for a carbon-intensive project. Furthermore, TransCanada’s own clean energy initiatives do not make up for Keystone, they said.
“For all TransCanada’s claims that recent political and economic developments have helped their cause, the reality is that the case for Keystone XL has never been weaker,” the green groups said.
“The tar sands pipeline would be a disaster for the climate, and by rejecting it President Obama has an opportunity to take a major step in the right direction on global climate action.”
-
Of Markets and Morals, Encyclicals and Environment, Poverty and the Pope
Jul 1, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Kenneth R. Richards
In the Calvinist home where I grew up, theological debate was just breakfast table conversation. Our tools of scriptural exegesis included historical context and textual analysis and sometimes, it even got spiritual. For sure there was no hair too thin to split.
My career eventually took me into environmental economics and law, so it was with significant anticipation that I looked forward to the confluence of these two disparate fields of religion and environmental policy with the release last week of the Papal Encyclical on the environment and poverty, Laudato Si. And interestingly, those same historical, textural and spiritual tools of exegesis are useful in understanding the mystery of that document.
The encyclical is a thought-provoking and challenging discussion of the mutual dependency among all creatures, and the role that faith can play in understanding our place in Creation. It is at once poetic and practical. Chief among the exhortations is that climate change must be addressed; the world must reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases.
So I was startled by the pope’s statement that discouraged the “strategy of buying and selling ‘carbon credits.’” Philosophy professor John Heath labeled this assertion Pope Francis’ “climate error.” Rob Stavins, a leading environmental economist, echoed the thoughts of many environmentalists when he observed that to protect the environment “we can do more, faster, and better with the use of market-based policy instruments.”
Why would the Pope single out this particular policy approach for disapproval? Here are three potential explanations: historical, textual, and spiritual.
In 2007 Vatican City, under the leadership of Pope Benedict, announced that it was going to attempt to be the first carbon neutral country. To accomplish this, the Vatican took several steps, including installing solar photovoltaic panels on the roof of the Paul VI Audience Hall. The cornerstone of the effort, however, was a carbon-offset project in Hungary that involved reforestation of a riverside area. The company Planktos and its subsidiary KlimaFa offered to donate sufficient carbon credits to cover the Vatican’s unabated emissions.
The only problem: the project never took place even after a 2007 ceremony in which Planktos presented the offset certificates to Cardinal Paul Poupard. Officials at the Vatican were so embarrassed that by 2010 they were considering legal action. It may be then that the Pope’s surprising statement is rooted in historical experience.
It is also possible that there is a textual issue. While the encyclical decries “carbon credits,” it never mentions marketable allowances, carbon taxes or other government programs to provide incentives to reduce emissions.
This observation is not hairsplitting. Marketable allowances (often called cap-and-trade) programs place a constraint on the total emissions of a set of corporations (say, all fossil fuel producers and importers), allocates those allowances among the regulated companies, and then allows them to buy and sell the allowances to minimize the total economic cost of emissions reductions. If fully enforced, this can be a rigorous and cost-effective way to control emissions.
In contrast, carbon credits are generally associated with offset projects such as the failed Hungarian initiative. Offset programs reward activities that reduce emissions or capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. However, it is devilishly difficult to measure how much carbon to accredit to each project. That difficulty has led to a great deal of prevarication by project developers and ignorance (often willful) by the companies that purchase the credits.
Thus, it may be that my colleagues have been overly broad with their interpretations of the pope’s statement; perhaps he was limiting his disapprobation to offset-based carbon credits, intentionally excluding government sponsored marketable allowance programs.
But there is also a spiritual interpretation of the pope’s view on carbon credits – one that dovetails with the rest of the encyclical. Pope Francis has recognized that laws are imperfect controls on the human appetite, that any government program can be gamed at some level. Indeed the encyclical observes that: “The existence of laws and regulations is insufficient in the long run to curb bad conduct, even when effective means of enforcement are present.”
Moreover, while marketable allowances can encourage cost-effective reductions they do not necessarily alleviate poverty, the other moral imperative in the pope’s message. While it is possible to allocate the allowances under a cap-and-trade program to benefit the poorest countries, doing so would require generosity of spirit by economically developed countries.
It is not clear why the pope disappointed so many cap-and-trade enthusiasts, whether for reasons of historical experience or misinterpretation of his message. It is clear, however, that the Pope believes that to succeed in protecting our “common home” we need not only a policy shift, but also a social and even spiritual transformation that simultaneously protects the global environment and the most disadvantaged citizens of the world.
Richards is professor of environmental economics and policy at Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs. He was recognized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for his role as a research scientist in “contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize” when the IPCC won the honor in 2007.
-
Calif. Crude-by-Rail Exposes Poor Neighborhoods to Most Risk -- Report
Jul 1, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
The California communities most exposed to risky oil derailments are overwhelmingly poor, minority neighborhoods, two environmental groups in the state said.
The report, authored by ForestEthics and Communities for a Better Environment, is the first to explicitly link issues of class and race to the ongoing oil train safety debate. It pushed for state regulators to ban crude-by-rail imports into California and turn down permits for several projects refiners have proposed to boost oil-by-rail cargo capacity.
The environmental groups discovered that among the cities they analyzed, the neighborhoods with the largest minority populations usually were within the blast zone, the 1-mile evacuation zone alongside tracks recommended by the Department of Transportation to mitigate accidents.
"Oil trains contribute to environmental racism in California," the groups said in a statement. "Californians of color are more likely to live in the oil train blast zone" (Terry Wade,Reuters, June 30). -- KS
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested