Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC: Favorable Conditions For Chemical Industry, Overall U.S. Economy
Sep 9, 2015 | Chem Info
By Andy Szal
The American Chemistry Council reported favorable economic conditions for the week ending Sept. 4, with chemical production increasing for at least three consecutive months. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Industry Ads to Boost 3 Senate Republicans
Sep 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
The American Chemistry Council will launch an advertising campaign to support the re-election of three Republican senators that the group says promote pro-business policies. -
test
|
-
Suburban Waste May Turn Frogs Female -- Study
Sep 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
Frogs in suburban lakes are mostly female, raising questions of whether endocrine-disrupting chemicals in household waste are to blame, according to a new study. -
Republicans Accuse Agency of Negligence in Mine Spill
Sep 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Manuel Quiñones
House Science, Space and Technology Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) this morning said U.S. EPA "negligently dismissed" warning signs leading up to last month's abandoned mine spill in Colorado, which sent 3 million gallons of wastewater into the Animas River. -
EPA’s Crumbling Case for New Regs on Fracking
Sep 9, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Katie Brown
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently rolled out new regulations on methane emissions for oil and gas development. -
Overnight Energy: House Panel to Start Debating Oil Exports
Sep 9, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama and Devin Henry
The House will start debating whether to lift the ban on crude oil exports Thursday when a subcommittee takes up legislation to permit exports. -
Environmental Justice for Who?
Sep 9, 2015 | Politico Pro (Morning Energy)
EPA will release a new ozone standard by Oct. 1, and opposing interest groups have been battling over the most appropriate standard for years -
Obama's Smog Plan Splits Black Leaders
Sep 9, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
President Barack Obama’s aggressive environmental agenda is running into a surprising source of opposition: Black elected leaders. -
Poll: ‘Overwhelming’ Support for EPA Smog Rule
Sep 9, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Nearly three-quarters of United States voters want the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to put further limits on the ozone pollution that causes smog, a new poll found. -
Advocates' Suit Targets EPA Air Toxics 'Emissions Factors'
Sep 9, 2015 | InsideEPA
Environmentalists are urging a federal appeals court to scrap part of EPA's revised “emissions factors” -- estimated rates of pollution emitted by specific pieces of equipment -- by arguing that even though the agency has updated the factors there are still flaws in them that underestimate dangerous pollution from industrial sources. -
Industry to Discuss Refinery Rule at White House
Sep 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Peterka
The oil industry will begin meeting Friday with White House Office of Management and Budget officials on U.S. EPA's final rule to stem toxic air emissions from refineries. -
Merger Partners' Views Diverge on EPA Clean Power Plan
Sep 9, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
Emera Energy Inc. was an early supporter of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. Tampa Electric Co., the regulated utility owned by TECO Energy Inc., not so much. -
Utah Agrees to Act on Refinery Permit After Green Groups Sue
Sep 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Scott Streater
Utah regulators formally agreed to a legal settlement with a coalition of environmental groups that will commit the state to work with U.S. EPA to issue a long-sought federal air permit to a Salt Lake City refinery. -
FERC Commissioner Honorable Discusses Plans for Maintaining Reliability Under Clean Power Plan
Sep 9, 2015 | E&E - TV
Does U.S. EPA's final Clean Power Plan provide a balanced framework for all state public utility commissions to ensure reliability and maintain rates? During today's OnPoint, Colette Honorable, commissioner on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, discusses her expectations for how FERC, EPA and the Department of Energy will work together to ensure reliability under the plan. -
Sierra Club Sues EPA Over 3 Pollutants
Sep 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Peterka
Environmentalists say U.S. EPA is illegally counting limits on "surrogate" emissions to meet its requirement to regulate three hazardous air pollutants. -
Bill to Extend Climate Targets Fails on Assembly Floor
Sep 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Debra Kahn
California lawmakers' bid to extend landmark greenhouse gas targets failed to pass the state's lower chamber yesterday, but the bill is expected to come up for another vote before the end of the week. -
Wyoming Produced Water Study Could Inform Drilling Sector Air Policies
Sep 9, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Wyoming's Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is launching what appears to be a novel study of emissions from produced water ponds that are used to store wastewater generated from oilfields in its Upper Green River Basin (UGRB), which could provide data that might inform air permitting and other regulatory policies. -
3 States Launch Separate Bid to Stop Obama Rule
Sep 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Annie Snider
The attorneys general for Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi are launching their own bid to halt the Obama administration's controversial water rule in their states. -
EPA Proposes Washington Water Toxics Rule
Sep 9, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA is proposing to tighten human health water quality criteria for toxics in Washington state to reflect more recent calculations of fish consumption rates and protect downstream waters in Oregon, following Washington state's failure to finalize controversial changes to its water quality criteria by the Aug. 3 deadline the agency had set for state action. -
DOJ Bid For High Court To Hear CWA 'Jurisdiction' Suit May Ensure Review
Sep 9, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is urging the Supreme Court to resolve an appellate circuit split on when courts can review EPA and other agencies' Clean Water Act (CWA) determinations, which one attorney says all but ensures the justices will take the case as a recycling company already has a similar request pending with the high court. -
New Jersey PFOA, PFNA Drinking Water Standards May Speed EPA Action
Sep 9, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
A New Jersey advisory board is recommending a state drinking water standard for one persistent perfluorinated chemical, perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), and is working towards a recommendation for a second, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) -- both thought to be first-time standards for the chemicals and actions that could increase pressure on EPA to develop national limits, sources say.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC: Favorable Conditions For Chemical Industry, Overall U.S. Economy
Sep 9, 2015 | Chem Info
By Andy Szal
The American Chemistry Council reported favorable economic conditions for the week ending Sept. 4, with chemical production increasing for at least three consecutive months.
In addition, 18 of 20 economic indicators tracked by the industry group came back as positive, including an improved trade deficit, lower unemployment rate and the best light vehicle sales in a decade.
The ACC's moving average of chemical and polymer railcar loadings — which the group said is the best real-time industry indicator — climbed compared to the previous week but was slightly off the pace of the same week in 2014.
Read more: Lowering costs and gaining efficiency in chemical manufacturing.
In addition, the report said that overall chemical industry employment fell slightly in August and noted a 6.5 percent decline in chemical company stocks on the S&P 500 index amid widespread concern about the global economy.
The trade deficit in chemicals and related products declined from $2.7 billion in June to $989 million in July as both imports and exports declined.
Inventories of natural gas — an important feedstock of U.S. chemical manufacturing — increased. And although oil prices rebounded and tracked more closely with natural gas prices, the ratio still favored the Gulf Coast's petrochemical industry.
The ACC also reported mixed signals on the manufacturing front —a leading indicator of chemical industry health. Although the pace of manufacturing activity moderated, orders for most capital goods and unfilled orders showed encouraging signs.
"Overall, it was a somewhat encouraging report but we have a way to go for manufacturing to get out of this soft patch," ACC analysts wrote. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Industry Ads to Boost 3 Senate Republicans
Sep 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
The American Chemistry Council will launch an advertising campaign to support the re-election of three Republican senators that the group says promote pro-business policies.
The ads for Sens. Roy Blunt of Missouri, Rob Portman of Ohio and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania will run for about two weeks, ACC spokeswoman Anne Kolton said.
The group "wants to acknowledge these senators' hard work and bipartisan leadership in Washington on key issues that affect the chemistry industry," American Chemistry Council President Cal Dooley said in a statement. "Their support of practical policies that keep taxes low and strengthen our economy has been critical to America's manufacturing sector and small businesses around the country."
The Blunt ad touts his support for "ending partisan gridlock," while the Portman admentions his support for cutting the federal budget and his "work with both parties to increase access to college for all students," not typically a focus of the chemical group. TheToomey ad praises the senator for "working to protect taxpayers from Washington's overspending."
The ads will run for two weeks, the group said.
Big advertising campaigns far from Election Day can send a signal to senators' opponents, while not requiring disclosure to the Federal Election Commission -- a tactic previously used by ACC in the 2014 election cycle. The group has not disclosed any independent expenditures yet for 2016 campaigns.
These type of ads aren't required to be reported to the commission because they do not air within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election and do not call for a candidate's election or defeat, according to the Sunlight Foundation.
Such ads can dissuade potential primary challengers from entering the race if the purchases take place near filing deadlines, the foundation says. Missouri's filing period is not until early 2016, while Pennsylvania's was earlier this year for major-party candidates. Ohio candidates face a deadline in December.
Portman is facing former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland (D) in what's expected to be a close race, and a primary opponent, tea party activist Melissa Strzala. A recent poll found Portman and Strickland tied in the race (Greenwire, Aug. 25).
Toomey faces competition from Democrats including former White House Council on Environmental Quality chief Katie McGinty and former Rep. Joe Sestak.
Blunt faces a challenge from Democratic Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander.
-
|
-
Suburban Waste May Turn Frogs Female -- Study
Sep 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
Frogs in suburban lakes are mostly female, raising questions of whether endocrine-disrupting chemicals in household waste are to blame, according to a new study.
The study was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences this week and is based on samples from frogs in 21 Connecticut ponds. Researchers found that the extent of surrounding development was strongly linked to the proportion of female frogs.
Yale University researcher David Skelly and doctoral student Max Lambert found ponds in forests that contained lower proportions of females, while in the suburbs, male frogs were the minority in some ponds.
Skelly said this may be because higher levels of phytoestrogens, which can mimic estrogen and affect frogs' sexual development, were found in suburban ponds.
"This shows that endocrine disruption is a much more diverse phenomenon than we previously realized," Lambert said (Douglas Main, Newsweek, Sept. 7). -- SP
-
Republicans Accuse Agency of Negligence in Mine Spill
Sep 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Manuel Quiñones
House Science, Space and Technology Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) this morning said U.S. EPA "negligently dismissed" warning signs leading up to last month's abandoned mine spill in Colorado, which sent 3 million gallons of wastewater into the Animas River.
EPA and one of its contractors helped cause the spill while trying to study ways of draining polluted water that had collected behind a collapsed mine portal.
At a hearing today, Smith blasted EPA for its regulatory agenda and said, "The same government agency that has proposed these rules recently caused an environmental disaster that has already impacted three states in the Mountain West."
A preliminary internal review found EPA and its contractor underestimated the risk of a mine portal blowout. Documents show the agency had been warned about the possibility but contingency plans were scant (E&ENews PM, Aug. 26).
Smith asked, "Why were the warnings ignored?"
Mathy Stanislaus, EPA assistant administrator for solid waste and emergency response, told lawmakers, "The warnings were not ignored."
Smith said, "Something went terribly wrong. It seems to me that you did not heed the danger."
If a private company had caused the spill, Republicans said, environmentalists and EPA would be scathing in their response. Lawmakers recalled the chemical spill in West Virginia and the BP PLC Gulf oil spill.
Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) accused the Obama administration of hypocrisy. He asked about EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, "Should we have called on her to be fired?" GOP lawmakers similarly blasted McCarthy for not attending the hearing and sending Stanislaus instead.
Smith asked, "To date, has anybody been held accountable?"
Stanislaus responded, "We've held ourselves accountable."
Smith then said, "That's all well and good, but still a tragic spill occurred."
EPA's preliminary report found that further study of the site could have detected the water buildup. Geochemist Mark Williamson said, "A detailed assessment of the situation would have been advisable."
Dennis Greaney, head of contractor Environmental Restoration LLC, which was charged with opening the mine portal for EPA, told lawmakers that "the end result was heartbreaking, to say the least." He added, "This in no way reflects who we are as a company."
Dems focus on broader problem
Democrats, for their part, aimed to put the spill into perspective, highlighting the problem of abandoned mines and wastewater releases around the country (Greenwire, Sept. 8).
Texas Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, the panel's top Democrat, pointed out that abandoned mines were already releasing 300 million gallons of tainted water into the Animas River watershed.
Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) pulled out two white globes as props, aiming to compare the size of EPA's spill and the scope of ongoing acid mine drainage waste in the area.
Johnson said it was not the first time the Animas River has "changed colors" and said, "This is one of the key reasons EPA was at the Gold King site."
Johnson, showing pictures of the river returning to normal, said the "unfortunate accident" shows the "inherently dirty, dangerous and environmentally damaging process of metal mining."
Durango, Colo., Mayor Dean Brookie said he was of a similar mindset. "That is the quiet and real catastrophe that has largely gone unnoticed by the public until now," he said.
Brookie called for mining law reform measures in Congress to address abandoned mine cleanups. Similarly, Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) called on EPA to incorporate lessons learned into its ongoing review of the potential Pebble gold and copper mine in Alaska.
"I see before us a watershed moment," said Brookie. "There is no denying they had their hand on the shovel during this incident, but they did not cause this spill on purpose."
'Lack of trust'
But even some defenders of EPA's work cleaning up abandoned mine sites have questioned the agency's role in this case, particularly its response and the time it took to inform communities downstream, including the Navajo Nation.
Donald Benn, executive director of the Navajo Nation EPA, said the tribe had a strong relationship with the federal agency but added that "recent events have shifted that relationship to [one of] lack of trust."
Benn complained about dying crops, as well as potential long-term economic and health effects from the spill, which remain largely unknown. He requested funds for ranchers and farmers, water and hay deliveries, and funding for water tests.
Williamson said, "The chronic long-term effects are undocumented and unclear at this time."
EPA has begun a claims process to deal with grievances stemming from the spill. However, Stanislaus did not comment on other Navajo demands.
Well-known environmental activist Erin Brockovich made a high-profile visit to the Navajo Nation yesterday and blasted EPA for misleading people about the scope of the spill, according to media reports. The agency had initially given a lower estimate of the blowout's result.
Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) asked Stanislaus about videos of the spill on EPA's website and showed one where the agency had apparently silenced workers at the spill site saying, "What do we do now?" Johnson said it was evidence of a lack of transparency.
Stanislaus said he had to further review the videos before commenting. He also spoke about notifying communities before tainted water reached drinking water intakes.
"However, broader notification should have occurred," he said, and pointed to ongoing reviews, including by the Interior Department. "We believe we have been transparent as we possibly could."
-
EPA’s Crumbling Case for New Regs on Fracking
Sep 9, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Katie Brown
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently rolled out new regulations on methane emissions for oil and gas development. These rules come even as the industry has slashed emissions in recent years, all while natural gas production has skyrocketed. They will hurt the men and women who work for small producers – the biggest economic engine the country has had over the past five years – the hardest.
Of course, the reason EPA wants to regulate methane is to mitigate climate change, since methane is a greenhouse gas. But based on the most recent peer-reviewed studies – many of them spearheaded by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) – and some of the best data we have available, the climate argument falls apart.
First, data from the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory show that methane emissions from the oil and gas exploration and production are a mere 1.07 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, underscoring how little impact methane regulations would have on national emissions.
Second, recent studies have found methane “leaks” from natural gas development are already well below the threshold (3.2 percent leakage rate) at which scientists believe natural gas may lose its greenhouse gas advantage.
Further, the implementation of Clean Air Act regulations promulgated in 2012 will, alone, achieve the president’s Climate Action Plan goal for methane emission reductions, making these measures superfluous and political.
As Alex Trembath of the environmental group, The Breakthrough Institute, explained in a recent piece, data on methane emissions show “that methane leakage is a minor factor determining the benefit of a coal-to-gas transition and that methane leakage levels are well within acceptable ranges.”
Nevertheless, each time a study finding low leakage rates has come out, instead of acknowledging that fact, some environmental groups like EDF have proclaimed that the data show emissions are “higher than previous estimates” and because of that new EPA regulations are absolutely necessary. The press has generally followed EDF’s lead, producing headlines like, “Methane leaks in Barnett Shale vastly higher than EPA estimates, study shows,” and “Methane emissions higher than federal estimates, study shows.”
But claims like these ignore a critical fact. The most important information is not a comparison of one emission estimate with another. That tells us nothing about the overall environmental impact. What’s important is the actual methane leakage rate, which is what determines whether natural gas is beneficial for the climate. That’s why we’re talking about methane, a greenhouse gas – climate change and how to address it, right?
With most, if not all, studies finding low emissions, it’s no wonder that even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has said that natural gas provides enormous environmental advantages. EPA administrator Gina McCarthy recently said, “Responsible development of natural gas is an important part of our work to curb climate change.” Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz has also said, “About half of that progress we have made [on greenhouse gas emissions] is from the natural-gas boom.” University of California-Berkeley physics professor Richard Muller put it best when he said, “Environmentalists who oppose the development of shale gas and fracking are making a tragic mistake.”
As much as some environmental groups may want folks to be distracted into conversations about relative estimates between studies and inside baseball conversations about whether EPA needs to tweak some of its data assumptions, it would be unfortunate if we lost track of the bigger – and very positive – story of natural gas.
Brown is a spokesperson and team lead for Energy In Depth, a research and education program of the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA).
-
Overnight Energy: House Panel to Start Debating Oil Exports
Sep 9, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama and Devin Henry
The House will start debating whether to lift the ban on crude oil exports Thursday when a subcommittee takes up legislation to permit exports.
The Energy and Commerce Committee announced Tuesday that its energy and power subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), would vote Thursday on Rep. Joe Barton's (R-Texas) bill.
The meeting comes after more than a year of hearings, discussion and lobbying on ending the 40-year-old export ban, which is a top priority of the oil industry as prices plunge.
"The benefits of lifting the ban are many -- it would boost domestic energy production, create jobs, and improve our energy security." Whitfield said in a joint statement with full committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.).
The strongest opposition to exports comes from environmentalists who fear an increase in oil consumption and refiners, who predict that their prices would increase with new international demand.
Read more here.
ON TAP WEDNESDAY I: The House Science, Space and Technology Committee holds the first of many congressional hearings on the Aug. 5 mine spill in Colorado. Mathy Stanislaus, the assistant administrator of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response at the Environmental Protection Agency, will be on hand to defend the agency.
Read more about the congressional push on the EPA here.
ON TAP WEDNESDAY II: The four commissioners on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will testify at a House Energy and Commerce hearing on the board.
Rest of Wednesday's agenda ...
The House Natural Resources Committee will mark up seven bills. On the agenda are proposals to expand energy development on Native American land and give more transparency to the development of mining regulations.
NEWS BITE: Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) is pushing the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to take stronger action on trophy hunting amid news that Walter Palmer, the dentist accused of killing Cecil the Lion, is going back to work.
Grijalva, the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, argues in a letter to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell that FWS has various tools at its disposal to crack down on illegal hunting, including listing African lions as threatened species and withholding trophy import permits from people convicted of wildlife crimes.
"U.S. state and federal wildlife conservation laws are stronger and more enforceable than those of any other country on earth, and it is wrong to assume that the same model of hunter-supported conservation can succeed in countries with significant governance failures," he wrote in the Tuesday letter.
AROUND THE WEB:
The Associated Press undertook an extensive investigation into the increase in water pollution spills that have come from the boom in oil drilling.
Australia's coal industry has launched a "coal is amazing" campaign, which has been hijacked by environmentalists and led to international mocking, the Sydney Morning Herald reports.
Aspen, Colo. is the third U.S. city to be completely powered by renewable energy, the Denver Post reports.
-
Environmental Justice for Who?
Sep 9, 2015 | Politico Pro (Morning Energy)
EPA will release a new ozone standard by Oct. 1, and opposing interest groups have been battling over the most appropriate standard for years. But Black elected officials and civic leaders are divided over how a tighter standard will affect their communities. Pro's Darren Goode has the story: "Some African-American state and local politicians are lining up with business groups to warn that the clampdown would hurt poor communities and manufacturing centers like Gary, Ind. and St. Louis. Those local and state officials say they are still trying to comply with the ozone requirements that were issued by George W. Bush's EPA in 2008, and a stricter standard would inflict more pain on their struggling economies and stifle job growth.
"'There has to be balance in the application of this policy, particularly when you look at the fact that the standard was recently changed and that industry, particularly the steel industry, have worked hard to achieve the standards and have some challenges in their efforts to achieve the standards,' Gary [Indiana] mayor, Karen Freeman-Wilson told POLITICO."
President Barack Obama and his allies, including the NAACP and prominent black members of Congress, say the administration's climate and environmental agenda will aid poor and minority communities by creating jobs in new industries and cleaning up polluted air. Darren has the story: http://politico.pro/1VMZkKi
- ME first: Manufacturers' ad blames China for Ozone: The National Association of Manufacturers continued its air war against the smog rule with an ad arguing that Chinese ozone pollution is offsetting air quality improvements made in western states. The spot is part of a multi-million dollar ad campaign the association has employed in an effort to get the EPA to keep standard at current levels. The ad will air in Washington, D.C., Virginia, and New Mexico from Sept. 9 through Oct. 1, and more states will be added. Watch the ad: http://bit.ly/1hVySiJ
-
Obama's Smog Plan Splits Black Leaders
Sep 9, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
President Barack Obama’s aggressive environmental agenda is running into a surprising source of opposition: Black elected leaders.
The administration is slated to tighten the restrictions for ozone, the pollutant that causes smog, by Oct. 1, but some African-American state and local politicians are lining up with business groups to warn that the clampdown would hurt poor communities and manufacturing centers like Gary, Ind., and St. Louis.
Those local and state officials say they are still trying to comply with the ozone requirements that were issued by George W. Bush's EPA in 2008, and a stricter standard would inflict more pain on their struggling economies and stifle job growth.
“There has to be balance in the application of this policy, particularly when you look at the fact that the standard was recently changed and that industry, particularly the steel industry, have worked hard to achieve the standards and have some challenges in their efforts to achieve the standards,” Gary's mayor, Karen Freeman-Wilson, told POLITICO.
At issue is whether the EPA regulations designed to improve public health will choke off the manufacturing operations in poor, minority areas that are often among the most polluted in nation and tend to lack access to quality healthcare. Improving the air quality and environmental protections in those places is a priority for Obama's EPA, which has made "environmental justice" a top goal.
Obama has often shrugged off criticism from conservatives and business groupsthat his environmental regulations would be a drag on the overall economy, arguing instead that they would stimulate a green industry. And he’s derided critics of his climate and air pollution agenda for using scare tactics and "stale arguments" to claim that stronger regulations will harm minority and low-income communities.
"[I]f you care about low-income, minority communities, start protecting the air that they breathe, and stop trying to rob them of their health care," Obama said at an Aug. 3 event where he rolled out EPA's greenhouse gas restrictions for power plants. "Whenever America has set clear rules and smarter standards for our air, our water, our children’s health, we get the same scary stories about killing jobs and businesses and freedom."
That’s a position supported by powerful black groups like the NAACP, as well as black members of Congress like [Progressive Caucus Co-Chair Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) and Texas Democrats Sheila Jackson Lee and Eddie Bernice Johnson.
“We understand the skittishness and concerns among many of our local politicians,” said Hilary Shelton, director of NAACP’s Washington bureau and senior vice president for advocacy and policy. But these same critical officials will “see in the longer run the need to make sure our children are safe, secure and healthy so they can more actively participate in our society.”
Still, the arguments against the new smog rules may be harder to dismiss when coming from local and state officials who represent the areas that are the target of the environmental efforts to reduce pollution — and who have been staunch supporters of Obama in the past, such as Democratic Missouri state Sen. Jamilah Nasheed.
“I know I speak for the vast majority of my 5th District constituents here in St. Louis when I say I appreciate the job President Obama has done, especially the moral leadership he showed in the face of racial tragedies in Ferguson and other communities over the past year,” Nasheed, who is black, wrote to Obama senior adviser Brian Deese in July.
But lowering the ozone threshold too far would make things worse for a city like St. Louis that is “still feeling the pain of the 2007-2009 recession,” Nasheed said, and would hurt employment and "create new hardships for already struggling low-income urban families.”
While the opposition isn’t universal among black officials in cities and states, it has been supported by several groups, such as the African American Mayors Association, as well as the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties and the National Association of Regional Councils, which have asked for the new ozone pollution rule to be put on hold.
Freeman-Wilson, Gary's first female African-American mayor, had originally backed EPA's plan to lower the ozone limits. But she changed her mind after 300 residents were laid off and the city lost significant tax revenue from the closure of a U.S. Steel coke plant.
“From a public health perspective, the benefits gained from improving air quality are greater than any cost associated with a higher standard,” she said in an op-edexplaining her change of heart. “Then the bleeding started in my own front yard.”
Some black politicians say they fear the new regulations will go too far, and that even the rules in place now are difficult to meet. That echoes the arguments made by the National Association of Manufacturers, which has launched a multimillion dollar campaign against a tighter ozone standard.
Democratic Pennsylvania state Rep. Jake Wheatley, who is black and represents Pittsburgh, said he has heard from both environmentalists who support a tighter rule and also local business leaders who worry that tougher smog standards will hurt his district's effort to build facility that would process oil and gas from the Marcellus Shale.
"It could be a major economic boon," Wheatley said. "So it's a balancing act for me."
Columbia, S.C., Mayor Steve Benjamin, who is also president of the African American Mayors Association, said in a letter to Obama late last month that many localities are struggling to pinpoint the sources of the ozone pollution and put in place measures to bring them into compliance with the existing rule.
And even in areas where the source of the pollution is easier to identify, “mayors, county officials and governors still face the challenge of curtailing ozone while expanding the industrial production, construction, and infrastructure projects that create jobs and grow our tax base,” he wrote.
EPA and green groups say the health benefits from the rule are huge: up to 4,300 fewer premature deaths in the next decade and hundreds of thousands of avoided asthma attacks in children.
“Lives are literally on the line,” said Mary Anne Hitt, director of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign. Low-income and minority areas are disproportionately affected by smog, she said, noting that 70 percent of African Americans live in areas with unsafe air.
“We want to make it clear that air pollution isn’t just a health issue, isn’t just an environmental issue, it’s a justice issue,” Hitt said.
-
Poll: ‘Overwhelming’ Support for EPA Smog Rule
Sep 9, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Nearly three-quarters of United States voters want the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to put further limits on the ozone pollution that causes smog, a new poll found.
The survey was commissioned by the American Lung Association (ALA), which supports the EPA’s proposed ozone rule, and found that 73 percent of voters favor stricter ozone limits.
“Millions of Americans are breathing polluted air and suffering from asthma attacks, increased risk of respiratory infections, and even premature death,” Harold Wimmer, ALA’s national president, said in a Wednesday statement announcing the poll.
“Of course American voters overwhelmingly support continued steps to protect our health from the dangers of smog pollution.”
The poll is meant to show support for the EPA’s efforts, proposed in November, to restrict the allowable levels of ozone in the air to between 65 and 70 parts per billion, from the current 75 parts per billion.
“Opponents have spent millions of dollars attacking health-based ozone standards,” Wimmer said. “Our poll shows that the public does not buy the polluters’ misleading rhetoric. Instead, support for clean air standards has grown stronger.”
Ozone is a byproduct of fossil fuel pollutants and has been linked to respiratory ailments like asthma.
Business groups and fossil fuel interests have been pushing to stop the EPA’s efforts, saying it would be the most expensive regulation ever.
The same day the ALA put out its survey, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) launched a new advertising campaign against the regulation.
The NAM’s campaign argues that significant volumes of ozone are blown to the United States from China, and domestic companies should not be responsible for it.
“While western states have cut their production of smog-causing ozone by over 20 percent, studies show that pollution from China has offset much of that progress,” the voiceover says.
“These rules won’t hurt China, but they could cost our country more than $1 trillion.”
States and areas that do not meet ozone standards will have to work to lower their pollution levels, which could bring restrictions on fossil fuel burning.
NAM’s polling shows different public opinions on ozone regulation.
A June survey commissioned by that group found that 67 percent of Americans are happy with their air quality.
-
Advocates' Suit Targets EPA Air Toxics 'Emissions Factors'
Sep 9, 2015 | InsideEPA
Environmentalists are urging a federal appeals court to scrap part of EPA's revised “emissions factors” -- estimated rates of pollution emitted by specific pieces of equipment -- by arguing that even though the agency has updated the factors there are still flaws in them that underestimate dangerous pollution from industrial sources.
In a Sept. 1 statement of issues in Air Alliance Houston, et al. v. EPA, pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, advocates say that although EPA made its emission factor for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from industrial flares more realistic, the agency has left in effect another key emission factor that is incorrect.
EPA in a May 11 rule titled “New and Revised Emission Factors for Flares and Other Refinery Process Units and Determination for No Changes to VOC Emission Factors for Tanks and Wastewater Treatment Systems” created a new emission factor for VOCs emitted by refineries and petrochemical plants.
The factors are equations, developed from emissions testing at industrial sources and used by state regulators and air permit applicants to determine the likely pollution impact of a facility.
The agency's rule responded to pressure from environmentalists to update the factors, which advocates said were years out of date and seriously underestimated toxics pollution. Air Alliance Houston and other groups filed suit over EPA's failure to update the factors, resulting in the May update rule.
However, the environmentalists say EPA has left in effect an older emission factor for total hydrocarbons (THC) in flares set in 1995 that is significantly less stringent than the new VOC limit.
Retaining the older THC emission factors does not make sense because VOCs are a subset of THC, which was until recently used as a “surrogate” for VOCs, environmentalists argue. “EPA published a new emission factor based on data showing that petrochemical plant and petroleum refinery flares emit more than four times the amount of VOCs compared to THC estimates using the THC emission factor,” they say.
EPA in the final revised emissions factors rulemaking “leaves the existing THC emission factor unchanged, and does not prohibit or advise against its use for estimating VOC emissions, despite having concluded that it does not accurately represent VOC emissions from industrial flares. Nor has EPA explained how or why the THC emission factor should continue to be used to estimate THC emissions,” they say.
Leaving the THC emissions factor unchanged would therefore be “arbitrary and capricious,” and unlawful under the Clean Air Act, the environmental groups say.
Meanwhile, EPA on Aug. 27 sent for White House Office of Management & Budget pre-publication review a pending final rule updating air toxics and other air pollution limits for refineries, including flares.
EPA must issue the revised, and likely tougher, package of regulations by Sept. 30 under a judicial deadline, including maximum achievable control technology limits for air toxics from numerous pieces of refinery equipment, and tougher limits on emissions from flares under new source performance standards.
Industry groups, however, have criticized the proposed version of the rule on various technical grounds, warning that EPA's proposed prohibition on the use of pressure relief devices is dangerous and will actually increase use of flares as an alternative to direct emergency releases. This would run counter to EPA policy, which is in general to reduce use of flares, these groups argue.
-
Industry to Discuss Refinery Rule at White House
Sep 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Peterka
The oil industry will begin meeting Friday with White House Office of Management and Budget officials on U.S. EPA's final rule to stem toxic air emissions from refineries.
According to a schedule posted by OMB, Phillips 66 representatives will visit the White House on Friday. Industry heavyweights American Petroleum Institute and American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers are both scheduled to meet with officials on Sept. 17.
EPA sent its final refinery rule to the White House in late August and is aiming to release the rule by the end of September under a consent decree (Greenwire, Aug. 28).
The agency's proposed rule encompassed both the New Source Performance Standards and maximum achievable control technology for refineries under the Clean Air Act.
It would require refineries to upgrade emissions controls for storage tanks, set new requirements for coking units, and install monitoring and control valves for flares. The rule also would require refineries to monitor concentrations of benzene levels at their fence lines.
At the White House meetings, oil industry representatives are likely to raise concerns over the rule's fence-line monitoring and flaring requirements. They've estimated that the rule would cost refiners more than $20 billion on top of millions of dollars in annual costs.
-
Merger Partners' Views Diverge on EPA Clean Power Plan
Sep 9, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
Emera Energy Inc. was an early supporter of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. Tampa Electric Co., the regulated utility owned by TECO Energy Inc., not so much.
So it will be interesting to see if the enthusiasm held by Emera infects Tampa Electric as the companies work toward a merger in the middle of 2016.
The $10.4 billion deal announced Friday would have Halifax, Nova Scotia-based Emera essentially double in size with the purchase of TECO's Tampa utility, natural gas utilities in Florida and New Mexico, and a coal mining operation.
The result would create a regulated utility that would rank among the top 20 in North America, the companies said.
Even though based in Canada, Emera has generating assets of 1,350 megawatts in Connecticut, Maine, Rhode Island and Massachusetts. None is coal-fired.
Advertisement
Moreover, its assets are in states that participate in the Northeast's Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which is the framework Emera suggested in November that states use to comply with the EPA rule to curb carbon emission from the power sector.
In contrast, as of June, TECO's generation fleet of 4,668 MW was 54 percent fueled by coal, with natural gas providing 41 percent and purchased power accounting for 5 percent.
Emera President and CEO Chris Huskilson touted his company's drive to invest in cleaner energy during a conference call with Wall Street analysts on the merger.
Among the factors that interested Emera is that TECO is "focused on the transformation that's going on in this industry today [moving] from higher-carbon sources of electricity and energy in total to lower-intensity sources of carbon. That's something TECO's been focused on for some time. They're in that transition as we speak, and that is very much a direct alignment with Emera's strategy," Huskilson said.
Part of that strategy involves modernizing four combined-cycle turbines at its Polk Power Station to increase their efficiency and add 460 MW of capacity. Once the $700 million Polk expansion is complete, TECO will be able to generate up to 70 percent of Tampa Electric's electricity with gas.
Still, TECO has not been enthusiastic about the Clean Power Plan. In response to questions from the Florida Public Service Commission last year, Tampa Electric found a litany of faults with the EPA proposal, starting with whether the agency even had the authority to propose it.
In addition to citing legal, fuel diversity and rate impacts, the utility said the EPA rule would "force accelerated depreciation and/or write offs" of relatively new environmental capital improvements equipment prematurely at its 1,572 MW coal-fired Big Bend Power Station.
"The shut-down or cycling of Tampa Electric's Big Bend Station by forcing an inefficient limited dispatch at one of the company's lowest cost generating plants will result in stranded assets, job losses and increased fuel and other operating costs that will not benefit Tampa Electric's customers," the utility told the PSC.
Even before the merger was announced, TECO was looking to sell its coal business. "We need to exit the coal business, and our expectation is that's going to happen sooner rather than later," said John Ramil, TECO Energy's president and CEO, during a recent conference call with analysts.
-
Utah Agrees to Act on Refinery Permit After Green Groups Sue
Sep 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Scott Streater
Utah regulators formally agreed to a legal settlement with a coalition of environmental groups that will commit the state to work with U.S. EPA to issue a long-sought federal air permit to a Salt Lake City refinery.
The settlement signed yesterday by the state resolves a lawsuit filed against the Utah Division of Air Quality last year by Western Resource Advocates in an effort to force the state to advance a so-called Title V permit to Tesoro Refining and Marketing Co. LLC's refinery (Greenwire, Nov. 4, 2014).
Western Resource Advocates, which filed the lawsuit in state district court on behalf of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment and Friends of the Great Salt Lake, has long argued that a permit under Title V of the Clean Air Act would result in better oversight of emissions from the city's largest refinery.
"We are very pleased with our legal settlement with the Division of Air Quality ensuring Tesoro will be issued a permit that provides greater oversight and protection from air pollution," said Joro Walker, Western Resource Advocates' Utah director and the group's lead attorney on the issue.
Congress added Title V to the Clean Air Act in 1990. It requires major sources of air pollution to obtain an operating permit that consolidates the applicable air quality requirements into a single document, while also outlining requirements for monitoring, reporting and record keeping that the facility is operating in compliance.
Many of these requirements are already outlined in Tesoro's current state permit, according to the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
"Tesoro has been, and will continue to be, subject to all applicable laws and requirements that protect Utah's air and the health of our citizens," Alan Matheson, DEQ's executive director, said yesterday in a statement. "That will always be our priority."
The state says the holdup with issuing Tesoro a Title V permit has to do with ongoing negotiations with EPA over a formal, federally approved state plan to address high particulate matter pollution in the region. Tesoro's refinery and other refineries in the region contribute to PM10 pollution, and the state plan needs to be completed next year before a Title V permit can be issued.
The settlement acknowledges "that the best way to resolve the Title V permitting issue" is for the state, "as expeditiously as possible, to prepare and submit for public comment and EPA approval" a final PM10 plan. The state commits in the settlement to make a "good faith" effort to submit an updated PM10 plan to EPA by Dec. 31.
The state has 21 days after the settlement is executed to "formally request" additional information from Tesoro that is needed to complete the Title V application. Tesoro then has 180 days to respond to the state request and to submit an updated Title V application.
The state also commits to release a draft Title V permit for a 45-day public comment period "no sooner than" 60 days after EPA approves the state's revised PM10 plan.
The settlement states that the agreement "does not preclude" the groups from filing another lawsuit against the state "to enforce the terms of this Agreement."
Lynn de Freitas, executive director of FRIENDS of Great Salt Lake, said the group wants the state to also develop Title V permits for the four other major refineries in the state.
"We're glad to see this operation's permitting process finally brought up to date," said Tim Wagner, executive director of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment. "Air pollution from Utah's five refineries is a serious proven threat to public health, especially where we have some of the worst air pollution in the nation at times. Utahns need to know that [the state] is doing all it can to protect public health, and this settlement gives us such reassurance."
-
FERC Commissioner Honorable Discusses Plans for Maintaining Reliability Under Clean Power Plan
Sep 9, 2015 | E&E - TV
Does U.S. EPA's final Clean Power Plan provide a balanced framework for all state public utility commissions to ensure reliability and maintain rates? During today's OnPoint, Colette Honorable, commissioner on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, discusses her expectations for how FERC, EPA and the Department of Energy will work together to ensure reliability under the plan. She also talks about the commission's ramp-up in transmission siting decisions and the impact the power plan will have on the pacing of siting.Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Colette Honorable, commissioner on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Commissioner Honorable, thank you so much for coming back on the show.
Colette Honorable: Thank you, Monica. Great to be back.
Monica Trauzzi: Commissioner, you have a unique perspective on state compliance with EPA's Clean Power Plan, having recently served as president of the National Association of Regulatory Commissioners and also chair of the Arkansas PSC. Does EPA's final Clean Power Plan provide a balanced framework for all states and PUCs to ensure reliability and maintain rates as they comply with the power plan?
Colette Honorable: Thanks for the question, Monica. I think EPA definitely, in this final rule, has greatly improved the balance by ensuring that we -- honestly, the goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emission, so we have to keep that in mind first while ensuring that the rule does not impact reliability and affordability, so I definitely think that the EPA has struck a proper balance, but now the hard work begins, and so I look forward to working with the states and RTOs and ISOs and others to ensure that we get the plans right.
Monica Trauzzi: So the measures that were added to ensure reliability, the safety valve that was constructed to look like the one that was used in the MATS rule and the promise to work with FERC and DOE moving forward on reliability, are these efforts enough to ensure that the power stays on?
Colette Honorable: Well, I think they're a great start. Through the MOU that we have with EPA and DOE, we have committed to get together quarterly. Our staffs, in particular, have been very pleased with my personal interaction with EPA and EPA's interaction with FERC in general, but now we also need to continue to engage with regents, with states and other groups of stakeholders to ensure that we are monitoring and supporting their development of state and regional plans.
Monica Trauzzi: And the valve allows for a 90-day period for states to exceed their carbon limits during emergencies. How do regulators ensure that states don't even get to that point?
Colette Honorable: Well, I think it's through the planning process, and that's why this period is so crucial, and I've really encouraged the states and regions to collaborate and cooperate together. This is the difficult foundation that must be laid in order to ensure that we are on the right track and that we're not waiting and putting ourselves in a difficult position later.
Monica Trauzzi: Do you agree with EPA that the use of a safety valve would be a rarity?
Colette Honorable: I do. And I think that the MATS rule and the construct that FERC had in place to address that, though somewhat different, is still a good example of ensuring the careful work that will take place can avoid any things that may occur later. However, having that safety valve is a very good fallback, if you will.
Monica Trauzzi: Your colleague on the commission, Commissioner Tony Clark, stressed that FERC needs a leadership role moving forward as the compliance plans come together. How would you like the interaction between FERC, EPA and the states to look like?
Colette Honorable: So I think that we all have really demonstrated leadership, and I have to commend every one of my colleagues. We have different perspectives, but I think we've all led and led well, and I think Chairman Bay is taking the helm nicely in the transition. We also need to continue to engage. I think the work that we undertook with the technical conference effort, beginning with the national overview and then the three regional conferences, I think individually we're doing work. I've teamed up with a Bipartisan Policy Center on not one occasion, but I'll have another one coming up in the fall to engage more directly with stakeholders. This is the work that we have to continue to stay engaged, to make sure that we're hearing the stakeholders and responding in any way that they need for us to.
Monica Trauzzi: And you're confident that EPA will allow for any type of engagement that FERC sees necessary?
Colette Honorable: Absolutely, and I must commend the EPA we have worked very cooperatively together, both in our role to provide advice and counsel and in the EPA's role in responding to that, and I think the final rule really demonstrated that they listened to the advice and counsel that FERC provided quite well.
Monica Trauzzi: Commissioner Clark also said no one should think reliability and affordability are slam dunks.
Colette Honorable: I agree with that.
Monica Trauzzi: This kind of suggests, though, that EPA has pushed things somewhat beyond the safe zone. Has EPA gone too far?
Colette Honorable: I don't think so. I think that clearly EPA has recognized that they aren't the reliability expert we are. Certainly the states are in the best purview to ride herd first over affordability. It's still within our purview to ensure just and reasonable rates as well, but this is, again, this foundation that I speak of, cooperation and collaboration, we too must have that with our sister agencies and with the stakeholders.
Monica Trauzzi: Is the regional approach looking like perhaps the safest bet for states and for states that are in PJM-type scenarios as the only good option to regionally link with the states that are in the organization?
Colette Honorable: From my experience, it appears that the regional construct is best to be able to spread those costs over a wider region while taking what works well from a number of different states seems to be the better example. I won't supplant my judgment for that of the states, but I also encourage the states to determine now what works best for them.
Monica Trauzzi: In terms of infrastructure, implementing the Clean Power Plan will require, in varying degrees based on region, new gas pipelines, new transmission infrastructure for all types of generation, but in particular a ramp-up in renewables. How is the commission preparing for that increase in infrastructure?
Colette Honorable: We're seeing a number of increases in those sorts of dockets, and it's a new day. I've said this a number of times, and we really must be focused on infrastructure development, and that means in a number of different ways to be able to support this wider diversity of fuel sources and resources that will come online as we implement the Clean Power Plan. Transmission lines and pipes are part of that.
Monica Trauzzi: And can the infrastructure be brought on in a timely and cost-effective manner, or does the commission feel some sort of pressure to move approvals along quickly in order to fall in line with the timelines of the power plan?
Colette Honorable: Well, I think certainly there have been some concerns about moving dockets along timely. I will never feel pressure to approve them timely because that is our purpose, to sit in judgment of those applications, and I think each of us takes that role seriously, but I think that we've been very committed and we have moved them along in a timely fashion, but I think we'll continue to make that a priority to ensure that each docket is moving along at a steady pace so that whether it's an approval or disapproval, that the applicants get that response fairly timely.
Monica Trauzzi: So could we potentially see a ramp-up in decisions, approvals or disapprovals?
Colette Honorable: In my short tenure at FERC, Monica, I've seen a ramp-up, particularly in transmission and pipeline dockets, so I think that's part of our future.
Monica Trauzzi: How will Order 1000 continue to be implemented now that the power plan has been finalized, and how do those two rules sort of interact?
Colette Honorable: I think, Monica, that they complement one another. Beginning from the time that Order 1000 was instituted, we have really come a long way, if you will. So we've completed the first round of compliance dockets now under Order 1000. I think it's a good time for us to pause, look at -- look back at what Order 1000 was intended to do, and now what needs to be tweaked, changed or furthered in order to ensure that we're continuing to meet the objectives of Order 1000.
Monica Trauzzi: Can you take me behind the scenes a little bit into some of the conversations you may have had with states and PUCs since the rule has become final? What have you been hearing?
Colette Honorable: Well, I hear from many that things are working well, that particularly the regional and interregional work is really bolstered by Order 1000, and that very difficult work of working on seams issues, on interregional transmission projects has been supported by Order 1000. I think we need to continue to ensure that incentives and other areas in which Order 1000 is intending to level out the playing field in the regional process are working as intended. But I think among the states, it's working better than may have -- it may have been anticipated originally.
Monica Trauzzi: And on the Clean Power Plan, what conversations have you had?
Colette Honorable: I'm hearing all sorts of conversations, and it's good that I continue to hear all sorts of conversations from states that say we can meet the -- our goal right now for our state. I'm hearing also from our state colleagues that have concerns and are challenging them, but I have to compliment Arkansas in particular because, while Arkansas has continued to challenge the legality of the Clean Power Plan, both the air director and the new PSC chair, Ted Thomas, and his colleagues there have said we are going to continue with developing a plan, and I think that's the best example of what a state should do.
Monica Trauzzi: All right. We'll end it right there. Thank you so much for your time. Thanks for coming on the show.
Colette Honorable: Thank you, Monica.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
[End of Audio]
-
Sierra Club Sues EPA Over 3 Pollutants
Sep 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Peterka
Environmentalists say U.S. EPA is illegally counting limits on "surrogate" emissions to meet its requirement to regulate three hazardous air pollutants.
In a court filing last week, the Sierra Club accused the agency of shirking its duty to set standards for the pollutants. The club further says EPA ignored its concerns during a recent rulemaking in which the agency determined it had met Clean Air Act requirements to regulate the pollutants.
"The case is really very cut and dry," Neil Gormley, senior associate attorney at Earthjustice who is representing the club, said yesterday. "The statute says that these standards are required, and EPA has never set them."
At issue is a provision of the Clean Air Act that requires EPA to set air standards for sources that represent 90 percent of total emissions of each of seven hazardous air pollutants, which are all persistent in the environment and bioaccumulative. The agency in June finalized a rule determining that it had completed its duty under the law.
In the rule, EPA said it had satisfied the act both through standards that directly regulated the pollutants and through emission limits for other compounds that serve as surrogates for the pollutants -- even if it did not specifically note that those limits would be used toward the 90 percent requirement.
One example: EPA says its standard for organic hazardous air pollutants is a surrogate standard for regulating hexachlorobenzene, one of the seven air toxics Congress named in the statute.
The Sierra Club filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in late July; last week, the group laid out its main issues with the EPA rule in a court filing.
"The Clean Air Act is pretty clear that EPA has to apply the strict achievable maximum control standards to them, and EPA is trying to use the surrogacy concept here to evade these statutory requirements," Gormley said.
The environmentalists want the court to vacate EPA's determination that it had adequately regulated three of the pollutants, including hexachlorobenzene. The court has yet to establish a formal briefing schedule.
In its final rule, EPA pushed back against the complaints by the Sierra Club, arguing that it appeared the environmental groups wanted the agency to reopen standards that were finalized, in some cases, more than 20 years ago. EPA said it would not consider at this time whether those standards were legitimate because it was outside the scope of its rule.
The Sierra Club "could have challenged the adequacy of those standards at the time they were issued if they believed the standards did not sufficiently reduce" the hazardous air pollutants, EPA said.
-
Bill to Extend Climate Targets Fails on Assembly Floor
Sep 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Debra Kahn
California lawmakers' bid to extend landmark greenhouse gas targets failed to pass the state's lower chamber yesterday, but the bill is expected to come up for another vote before the end of the week.
S.B. 32, by Sen. Fran Pavley (D), would add greenhouse gas targets for 2030 and 2050 to state law, extending the 2006 law that set an initial target of 1990 levels by 2020. The 2050 goal would be 80 percent below that.
The bill was brought to the Assembly floor yesterday afternoon by Assemblymember Sebastian Ridley-Thomas (D), a Los Angeles-area representative. It didn't receive any debate and failed 30-35 with 15 lawmakers abstaining.
Pavley, who authored the 2006 law as well, said she would bring it back for another vote, as is permitted under state legislative rules.
"S.B. 32 was brought up today while many members were not on the floor and before several had a chance to review the recent amendments -- so rather than rush ahead we decided to reconsider this bill later this week," she said. "The fight continues. Between now and Friday we look forward to continuing the discussion on this important legislation."
Advertisement
Pavley had amended the bill last month to give lawmakers more authority by requiring the state Air Resources Board to report on where emissions reductions occurred and what the effect has been on the state's economy (ClimateWire, Aug. 26). The amendments also would require ARB to submit new emissions-reduction plans to the Legislature at least 60 days before adopting them.
Yesterday's vote was a "test," according to a Pavley staffer. But it could bode poorly for another bill expected on the Assembly floor by the end of the week: S.B. 350, a bill by Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León (D) that would raise the state's renewable portfolio standard to 50 percent and reduce petroleum use by up to 50 percent by 2030.
That bill must be on the Assembly floor by Friday night, as the session is drawing to a close, but is still being negotiated by Assembly and Senate members and Gov. Jerry Brown (D). Still to be resolved is how much oversight the Legislature would have over ARB and whether the bill would mandate a 50 percent reduction in petroleum use, or a lesser target.
The bills have been the subject of intense lobbying leading up to the final days of the legislative session, with Jane Fonda and Leonardo DiCaprio among the celebrities lending their support on Twitter.
"Majority of Californians support #SB350 #SB32 but oil companies want to hold us back," DiCaprio tweeted yesterday.
In The Sacramento Bee, former Gov. Pete Wilson (R) urged lawmakers Monday to rein in ARB and limit the economic effects of the bills.
"If the Legislature is to make California a global leader on climate change, lawmakers must choose ways that avoid placing economic hardship on our citizens. If they fail in this regard, they will lose public support," wrote Wilson, who co-chairs a business group, the Southern California Leadership Council, that includes the Metropolitan Water District, Southern California Gas Co., Chevron Corp. and BNSF Railway Co. among its board members.
Yesterday's vote was largely along party lines, but eight Democrats joined the Republicans in voting against the bill, and 14 out of the 15 who abstained from voting were Democrats.
One of the Democrats voting against the bill was Assemblyman Henry Perea (D), who leads a group of moderate Democrats who have expressed concern that climate regulations put a greater burden on more rural communities like the Fresno area he represents.
Another of de León's climate-related bills, S.B. 185, would require the state's massive pension funds for state employees and teachers to divest by July 2017 from any companies that derive more than half their revenue from mining coal that is used for electric generation. It passed the Assembly last week and is awaiting Brown's signature (Greenwire, Sept. 3).
-
Wyoming Produced Water Study Could Inform Drilling Sector Air Policies
Sep 9, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Wyoming's Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is launching what appears to be a novel study of emissions from produced water ponds that are used to store wastewater generated from oilfields in its Upper Green River Basin (UGRB), which could provide data that might inform air permitting and other regulatory policies.
The effort signals states' growing focus on environmental issues associated with handling of produced waterfrom drilling operations. State regulators at the Aug. 31-Sept. 2 Environmental Council of the States' fall meeting in Newport, RI, said that produced water is a growing concern but rather than crafting new regulations, they are looking at voluntary measures and industry best practices to encourage better handling of drilling produced water.
Ponds that are used to store produced water can generate ozone-forming volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from vapors, and the ponds are not regulated under the Clean Air Act to control those emissions.
One drilling industry source says that Wyoming's produced water study is "significant, but not entirely unexpected," given that EPA views produced water ponds as emissions sources for VOCs and other ozone precursors, and that states are gearing up for tighter ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The source says states may be looking at regulating emissions from ponds as part of their state implementation plans (SIP) -- air quality blueprints for attaining a stricter NAAQS.
DEQ announced the launch of its produced water study on Aug. 25, as part of its ozone strategy to bring the UGRB into attainment with EPA's national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone, after the agency in 2012 designated the region as "marginal" for nonattainment with its 2008 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb) in 2012. The area could face further pressure to cut emissions if EPA follows through on a plan to tighten the ozone limit.
Ozone-related pollution from the oil and natural gas sector is a growing concern for states struggling to attain EPA's ozone NAAQS, which EPA will decide by Oct. 1 whether to tighten to a limit within the range of 65 and 70 ppb. In Western states, regulators are facing unprecedented spikes in wintertime ozone levels associated with emissions from growing oil and gas drilling, even though ozone was previously not seen as a winter issue.
Industry groups such as the American Petroleum Institute, GOP lawmakers and others have warned that tightening the ozone standard will impose massive costs and place many areas out of attainment with the NAAQS for the first time. Nonattainment areas must craft strict pollution controls on sources of ozone such as power plants or industrial facilities including drilling operations, and EPA's critics say the status drives away industry.
Emissions Strategy
Wyoming is already wrestling with its nonattainment status for the UGRB and in response to that designation the state crafted a strategy that includes a mix of mandatory and voluntary emissions reduction measures in order to study and reduce emissions, including the produced water study, the goal of which is to develop methodology for accurately characterizing disposal pond air emissions. "The goal is to develop something that could be used statewide" as a tool for better characterizing emissions from wastewater ponds, a DEQ source says.
The study aims to measure air emissions on-site at facilities in Pinedale and LaBarge in collaboration with industry and researchers from Utah State University, Texas A&M University and others.
The study, which the state hopes to complete by the end of 2016, will use three different methods to monitor the concentrations of air emissions from wastewater ponds: an open path spectrometer that uses an infared beam to measure different compounds over a long distance and two types of cannisters for collecting air samples, according to a press release from DEQ. The measurements will be taken during summer and winter and be used in conjunction with water quality samples from the ponds and to develop a model to quantify emission rates.
One environmentalist welcomes DEQ moving forward with the study, and says there is not much measured data available on how much produced water ponds contribute to air pollution, even though the ponds are "increasingly recognized" as emitting ozone-forming pollutants including VOCs. "What I personally hope is that ultimately it leads to regulatory policy" to address emissions from produced water ponds, that source says.
EPA does not appear to have addressed produced water ponds specifically in its proposed new source performance standards (NSPS) for the oil and gas sector that would impose first-time limits on the greenhouse gas methane from drilling, or in its draft drilling control techniques guidelines (CTGs). The CTGs apply in nonattainment areas and throughout the 12-state Ozone Transport Region in the Northeast that has struggled with high ozone levels. The region includes Washington, D.C., portions of Northern Virginia, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont.
Produced Water
The CTGs do, however, address storage vessels or tanks that house produced water and wastewater. The CTGs do not directly impose binding regulations for sources of VOCs, but rather provide recommendations for states to consider in determining reasonable available control technology (RACT) to cut emissions from certain sources. RACT is one of several categories of Clean Air Act standards for air pollution controls.
States may use different technologies or approaches than are outlined in the CTGs, but RACT is subject to EPA approval and a state must show its approach will ultimately achieve the required pollution reductions.
Under section 182(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act, states would have to submit revisions to their SIPsfor complying with the NAAQS to EPA for approval within two years of the agency finalizing the CTGs. The agency has not said when it intends to issue a final version of the guidelines.
But the environmentalist notes that there does not appear to be any limit in the air law that would prevent EPA from including produced water ponds in either the CTGs or the NSPS rules.
The drilling industry source says that Wyoming's study "could be used as a baseline to demonstrate the value of those regulations and therefore the 'approvability' of the SIP."
But the source adds that the study "could also show that these ponds have only a very marginal impact on ambient ozone levels and therefore justify a decision to not ban open storage ponds or require increased use of tanks/etc. Either way, I think this study shows how important the ozone NAAQS is to states."
-
3 States Launch Separate Bid to Stop Obama Rule
Sep 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Annie Snider
The attorneys general for Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi are launching their own bid to halt the Obama administration's controversial water rule in their states.
Just hours before the Waters of the U.S. rule was to go into effect Aug. 28, U.S. District Judge Ralph Erickson for the District of North Dakota granted an injunction blocking it, which last week he confirmed applied only to the 13 states whose challenge he heard (Greenwire, Sept. 4).
Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi were not party to that suit, having instead filed their own challenge in a federal district court in Texas. That case was put on hold while a judicial panel on multi-district litigation decides whether the cases should be consolidated and which court will hear them.
Yesterday, the three states led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton asked Judge George Hanks Jr., an Obama appointee, to lift the stay on proceedings and issue a preliminary injunction that covers them.
They argued that the rule immediately impacts states' sovereignty over their lands, that the Obama administration had ignored their request to put implementation of the regulation on hold, and that leaked internal memos from the Army show that the agencies themselves do not think the rule will withstand judicial scrutiny.
"This lawsuit is about reining in the EPA's blatant overstep of federal authority," Paxton said in a statement. "Their latest attempt to control private and public lands and waters puts all Texas property owners at risk, making everything from ditches to dry creek beds subject to costly regulation. We must protect Texans' ability to use their own property, and my office will continue to fight the Obama administration's overly broad and unconstitutional water rule in court."
Three other federal district court judges -- in Oklahoma, Georgia and West Virginia -- have declined separate requests for injunctions.
Meanwhile, with Congress reconvened in Washington, D.C., top critics of the water rule are pressing forward with legislative efforts to halt it.
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) yesterday praised the North Dakota judge's injunction and said it buys lawmakers time to act legislatively.
"We'll continue forward both on defund or deauthorize, but it gives us time to do it," he said in a brief interview. "We've got the dual track going, where we've got both the legislative track and the judicial track."
Reporter Geof Koss contributed.
-
EPA Proposes Washington Water Toxics Rule
Sep 9, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA is proposing to tighten human health water quality criteria for toxics in Washington state to reflect more recent calculations of fish consumption rates and protect downstream waters in Oregon, following Washington state's failure to finalize controversial changes to its water quality criteria by the Aug. 3 deadline the agency had set for state action.
EPA signed the proposed rule Aug. 31, and an EPA spokesman said the rule could be published in the Federal Register as early Sept. 11.
However, “[i]f the state of Washington submits final criteria to EPA for approval under the Clean Water Act before EPA finalizes the federal human health water quality criteria, EPA will review and act upon the state’s submission in a timely manner and prior to any final action on the federal criteria,” EPA Region 10 says in a Sept. 2 press release announcing its proposal.
EPA's rule would update for Washington state the fish consumption rate (FCR) in the National Toxics Rule (NTR) and maintain current cancer risk calculation of 10^-6. The agency notes that fish consumption rate of 6.5 grams per day (g/day) contained in the 1992 NTR was based on available national data at the time but says in a fact sheet accompanying the proposed rule that “best available data now demonstrate that fish consumers in Washington, including tribes with treaty-protected rights, consume much more fish than 6.5 g/day.”
Therefore, EPA is proposing an FCR of 175 g/day. “This rate accounts for local data, reflects input from tribes in Washington, and protects fish consumers downstream in Oregon, where the state has also used a FCR of 175 g/day to derive its human health criteria,” the fact sheet says.
While the rule proposed in January by the Washington Department of Ecology would have also increased the FCR to 175 g/day, EPA had criticized the state's proposal to lower the cancer risk rate to 10^-5. Gov. Jay Inslee (D) had argued that using the 10^-6 cancer rate would have extremely tough standards, resulting in an unacceptable level of uncertainty for businesses and local government with little corresponding benefit for human health.
But Region 10 Administrator Dennis McLerran warned in March that lowering the cancer risk rate would not "fully reflect the best available science, including local and regional information, as well as applicable EPA policies, guidance, and legal requirements.”
Inslee withdrew the state's proposed rule at the end of July after the legislature failed to act on a legislative package that was intended to control toxic releases in concert with the proposed revised criteria and said the state would reassess its approach.
Industry groups have argued that increasing the FCR to 175 g/day is unjustified and represents only a small number of individuals who would consume fish at that rate.
And the National Association of Clean Water Agencies has criticized EPA's push to maintain the current cancer risk rate, arguing the agency's March objection to the state's proposal oversteps the agency's authority under the Clean Water Act to oversee states' development of such standards.
-
DOJ Bid For High Court To Hear CWA 'Jurisdiction' Suit May Ensure Review
Sep 9, 2015 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is urging the Supreme Court to resolve an appellate circuit split on when courts can review EPA and other agencies' Clean Water Act (CWA) determinations, which one attorney says all but ensures the justices will take the case as a recycling company already has a similar request pending with the high court.
DOJ had previously opposed Supreme Court review of the question on whether courts can review the jurisdictional determinations (JDs) prior to enforcement. The administration urged the justices against reviewingKent Recycling v. EAP, in which a recycling company has asked the court to reverse a unanimous 2014 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit decision that agreed with DOJ that JDs are not reviewable prior to an enforcement action.
The high court has not yet decided whether to take up Kent Recycling -- which was known as Belle Company, LLC, et al. v. Corps. at the appellate level -- but DOJ now wants the court to take up a related case.
The department Sept. 8 filed a petition for certiorari asking the justices to review Hawkes Co., et al. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in which a three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit issued a unanimous ruling April 10 that JDs are subject to pre-enforcement legal challenges because recipients of the determinations face new practical and legal consequences if they seek to discharge to waterbodies regulators consider jurisdictional even before an agency enforces the JD. This satisfies the test for “final agency actions” subject to judicial review, the court said.
In its petition to the high court, DOJ asks for a definitive ruling on whether JDs can be challenged before EPA or the Corps takes enforcement action or issues a CWA permit for the waters in question.
“This case presents a significant question concerning the proper mode and timing of judicial review of a jurisdictional determination,” and the conflict between federal appellate courts on the subject following the Hawkes and Kent Recycling split is “likely to endure until this Court resolves the issue,” DOJ argues.
Attorney Reed Hopper, representing the groups challenging JDs in both Hawkes and Kent Recycling, argues that DOJ's decision to now seek high court review significantly boosts prospects for the justices taking up the issue. “Now that the government is pushing for Supreme Court review, instead of opposing it, it is highly likely the court will grant review in both Hawkes and Kent Recycling, consolidating the cases for briefing and/or oral argument,” he wrote in a Sept. 9 blog post for the limited government advocacy group Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF).
Legal Precedent
Granting review would allow the Supreme Court to clarify or potentially revise the precedent it set in the landmark unanimous 2013 decision Sackett v. EPA, which granted pre-enforcement review of some environmental compliance orders on the basis that recipients faced enhanced fines when enforcement would eventually begin.
Both the 8th and 5th Circuits cited Sackett to justify their rulings on JDs. In Belle the 5th Circuit joined other federal courts in finding that JDs do not satisfy the Sackett test because the CWA levies no fines or other penalties specifically against operators who act in defiance of a JD, and therefore the findings are not final agency actions subject to review. Belle opted against joining Kent Recycling in seeking high court review of the case.
The justices rejected Kent's first request for certiorari without comment March 23, before the 8th Circuit ruled inHawkes, but is now weighing the recycling firm's request to reconsider its decision in light of the circuit split.
The 8th Circuit in Hawkes found that the practical effects of a JD, such as potential enhanced penalties for “knowing violations” of the law, qualify as “legal consequences” capable of supporting a lawsuit.
In its new petition to the high court, DOJ argues that the 5th Circuit has the correct reading of Sackett. It argues that the justices were swayed by the fact that compliance orders carry fines above and beyond those levied for other CWA violations, and that “pragmatic incentives” created by a JD do not satisfy the test.
“A jurisdictional determination possesses none of the characteristics that were dispositive in Sackett. It does not require the recipient to take any action, remedial or otherwise. Nor does it expose a recipient to any additional penalties beyond those that the CWA provides for violating the statute,” the petition says.
Pre-Enforcement Review
DOJ also claims that pre-enforcement review of JDs would be a poor way to resolve questions over CWA jurisdiction because they would be held to a different standard of evidence than conflicts over permits and enforcement actions.
The water law requires judges hearing permit and enforcement suits to find for whichever side is supported by a “preponderance of the evidence,” but DOJ says that without a clear standard to weigh for JDs courts would likely apply the Administrative Procedure Act's bar on “arbitrary and capricious” agency action -- a much more lenient test. Thus a property owner that loses a JD challenge, could go on to sue over a resultant permit or enforcement action and face a lower bar to winning that challenge -- setting the stage for conflicting rulings over whether a water is jurisdictional.
“Allowing immediate judicial review of the Corps’ jurisdictional determinations would therefore create a system of piecemeal and potentially duplicative proceedings,” DOJ says.
Finally, the petition touts Hawkes as the proper vehicle to resolve the JD question because, DOJ says, it lacks the possible procedural hurdles that the department has warned could prevent the high court from ruling decisively in Kent. In previous briefs opposing the recycling firm's petition, DOJ has pointed out that Belle, which owns the land at issue in the 5th Circuit suit, has not joined the Supreme Court petition, and that Kent may lack standing to pursue the case on its own since it only has a contract to eventually buy the property that Belle could cancel.
“If the Court concludes that the question presented here should be resolved now rather than left for further percolation in the courts of appeals, this case would provide a more suitable vehicle than Kent Recycling for resolution of that issue,” DOJ says.
But Hopper wrote in the PLF blog post that he is hopeful the justices will follow the precedent set in Hawkes.“Let’s hope the Supreme Court does the right thing and grants review and affirms a commonsense application of the law that allows landowners the right to challenge illegal government claims of jurisdiction over private lands under the Clean Water Act,” he wrote.
-
New Jersey PFOA, PFNA Drinking Water Standards May Speed EPA Action
Sep 9, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
A New Jersey advisory board is recommending a state drinking water standard for one persistent perfluorinated chemical, perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), and is working towards a recommendation for a second, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) -- both thought to be first-time standards for the chemicals and actions that could increase pressure on EPA to develop national limits, sources say.
EPA has been working on drinking water standards for PFOA and a related chemical, perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), for years. Last summer the agency's draft assessment of the chemicals underwent a peer review, but the document has yet to be finalized. New Jersey's pending drinking water standards for the chemicals are thought to be the first in the nation, spurred by high levels of water contamination near chemical plants.
While PFOA and PFOS contamination is widespread, PFNA detections are less common. Data from EPA's drinking water Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 3 showed only 17 detections, most of which are largely centered around a chemical plant in New Jersey, says a source with the Environmental Working Group (EWG). But testing by Garden State authorities with a 10-fold lower minimal reporting level "greatly increases the number of detects," the source says.
The levels and spread of PFNA in the vicinity of Paulsboro, NJ, and the Solvay Specialty Polymers USA plant in West Deptford, NJ, are far higher than anywhere else, a Delaware Riverkeeper source says, forcing five neighboring towns to shut down drinking water wells. Paulsboro threatened to sue Solvay in 2013, arguing that the company had improperly disposed of waste including PFNA, PFOA and PFOS for decades.
Paulsboro and Solvay came to an agreement last December where Solvay did not admit fault but agreed to install filtration treatment equipment to remove PFNA and other perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) for the borough, the Riverkeeper source says.
Recently, New Jersey's Drinking Water Quality Institute (DDWQI), an advisory board to the state's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), recommended that the Garden State set a level of 13 nanograms per liter of water (ng/L) for PFNA in drinking water. The DWQI's maximum contaminant level (MCL) recommendation indicates that there are no "guidance values or standards . . . for PFNA by U.S. federal agencies including USEPA, U.S. states, or other nations."
The DWQI's three subcommittees reviewed PFNA's health effects, treat-ability and the limit of detection. "Since neither treatment removal nor analytical methods are limiting factors for achieving the Health-based MCL of 13 ng/L (0.013 g/L), the Institute recommends an MCL for PFNA of 13 ng/L (0.013 g/L) to the Department as both protective and technically feasible," the DWQI concludes in its July 1 report.
'Long-Chain' PFCs
PFNA is one of a group of PFCs considered "long-chain" because of the string of carbon atoms included in its molecular structure. EPA and other regulatory agencies have sought to reduce their widespread use and contamination of drinking water sources and cleanup sites around the country since high levels of the chemicals were discovered in drinking water sources near a DuPont PFC plant in the 1990s, and their persistence in the environment became widely known.
A new publication on PFC chemicals by Philippe Grandjean and Richard Clapp, environmental and occupational health professors at Harvard and the University of Massachusetts Lowell, says PFCs were first introduced by 3M in 1947 in Cottage Grove, MN. At the time, the chemicals were thought to be "virtually inert and of low toxicity," but over time, studies began to show evidence of detrimental effects, first in plant workers -- including birth defects in children of female workers -- and eventually in residents of nearby communities.
"While the toxicology database is still far from complete, carcinogenicity and immunotoxicity now appear to be relevant risks at prevalent exposure levels," according to Grandjean and Clapp's June publication in the Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy.
"Existing drinking water limits are based on less complete evidence that was available before 2008 and may be more than 100-fold too high. As risk evaluations assume that untested effects do not require regulatory attention, the greatly underestimated health risks from [PFOA] and [PFOS] illustrate the public health implications of assuming the safety of incompletely tested industrial chemicals."
EPA has issued several significant new use rules under its Toxic Substances Control Act authority in recent years, barring the use of various long-chain PFCs in products, such as carpeting. The agency also negotiated a voluntary phase-out of PFCs including PFNA, PFOA and PFOS, by the end of 2015. Solvay is one of the signatories of that agreement.
EPA, however, has yet to set any drinking water standards for the chemicals. It issued drinking water health advisory levels of 0.4 mg/L (400 ng/L) for PFOA and 0.2 mg/L (200 ng/L) for PFOS, but these numbers are not mandatory.
Grandjean and Clapp's publication argues that newer studies suggest that effects can occur at levels below EPA's health advisory levels, suggesting the chemicals are more toxic than previously thought. "Recent data on mammary gland development in mice suggest that clear effects may result from much lower developmental exposures," they write.
They go on to calculate a risk estimate for PFOA based on this mammary gland data, published by researchers from EPA and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), of 0.8 ng/mL. "As the experimental studies that the regulatory agencies have relied upon so far correspond to serum concentrations 1,000-fold higher, current limits for water concentrations of PFOS and PFOA appear to be too high by at least two orders of magnitude," Grandjean and Clapp conclude.
While PFNA is less common than its ubiquitous counterparts PFOA and PFOS, DWQI's report also warns that while "the production and use of PFNA is being phased out by major U.S. manufacturers, environmental contamination and human exposure to PFNA are anticipated to continue for the foreseeable future due to its persistence, formation from precursor compounds . . . and the potential for continued production by other manufacturers in the U.S. and/or overseas."
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) last year agreed to undertake a review of the health effects of PFNA, and provided funds for New Jersey's health department to do so in its stead, according to the source with the Delaware Riverkeeper, which petitioned ATSDR to undertake the assessment in 2013.
DWQI is also tasked with recommending drinking water standards to DEP for PFOA and PFOS. "In 2014, New Jersey [DEP] Commissioner Bob Martin requested that the Institute recommend MCLs for" PFNA, PFOA and PFOS, DWQI's recommendation says.
New Jersey's work on PFOA and PFOS could "potentially increase pressure on EPA a little" to complete its long-pending assessments of those chemicals and set drinking water standards, the EWG source says, "especially if they rely on some of these more recent studies." The source explains that EPA's 2009 health advisories are based on liver weight changes in studies of exposed animals, studies that are far less sensitive than those discussed in the new Grandjean and Clapp paper, which discusses mammary gland development and a study of children with reduced antibody responses to childhood vaccines.
Literature Review
Meanwhile, the NIEHS' National Toxicology Program (NTP) announced in the Aug. 14 Federal Register that it is beginning a systematic review of literature regarding exposure to PFOA or PFOS and immunotoxocity. NTP is requesting by Sept. 30 submission of information as well as nominations of experts to peer review its work.
EPA's latest draft assessment of PFOA proposed a reference dose (RfD), the maximum amount of a substance EPA estimates can be ingested daily over a lifetime without adverse non-cancer health effects, of 0.00002 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) due to changes in the liver linked to developmental effects and changes in the kidney. In the accompanying PFOS assessment, the agency is proposing an RfD of 0.00003 mg/kg/day due to developmental toxicity and liver effects.
The documents were peer reviewed last year, but have yet to be finalized. They are expected to replace the existing health advisories and inform regulatory standards. The panel of peer reviewers questioned some of the agency's key decisions for the quantitative risk estimates, though some reviewers struggled to provide alternate recommendations and instead called on EPA to better justify its analyses of the ubiquitous chemicals,
The Riverkeeper source says that DWQI's chair indicated at its last meeting in April that its PFOA assessment is underway, and that an update on its progress will be provided at DWQI's next meeting, scheduled for Sept. 30 in Lawrenceville, NJ. The DWQI chairman, Keith Cooper, a toxicology professor at Rutgers University, did not return an email seeking comment by press time.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Add recipients
Suggested