Preview Newsletter
acc am Jan 25
-
POSTPONED: H.R. 3797, the Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment (SENSE) Act and H.R.__, the Blocking Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns (BRICK) Act
Jan 26, 2016 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building/ 10:15 AM -
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Chamber Continues to Challenge EPA’s Regulatory Overreach in the Courtroom
Jan 22, 2016 | Yuma News Now
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, joined by other national business groups, today filed a motion to intervene in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to oppose a lawsuit by several special interest groups seeking to force the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to lower the National Ambient Air Quality Standard... -
(ACC Mentioned) As Washington State Decides On Stronger Toxics Law, Residents Are Breathing Flame Retardants
Jan 25, 2016 | Environmental Health News
By Brian Bienkowski
A new generation of chemicals added to furniture, building insulation and baby products like car seats to slow the spread of flames are escaping into air at higher levels than previously thought, according to a new study out of Washington state. The findings come as Washington lawmakers decide on bolstering flame retardant bans. -
State AGs Express Concerns About House-Senate Talks
Jan 22, 2016 | Safer Chemicals Healthy Families
By Tony Iallonardo
As the House and Senate begin reconciling their respective bills to reach a final deal to send to President Obama, 12 state attorneys general are urging Congress to keep a strong role for state governments to act on dangerous chemicals. There’s a lot at stake, they say in a January 19 letter, because states have historically done the hard... -
Barriers To Pollution Prevention
Jan 22, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
Many industrial facilities aren’t acting to prevent the release of toxic chemicals because they aren’t aware of less hazardous alternatives, according to new data released by the Environmental Protection Agency. This could mean opportunities for researchers developing greener chemicals or cleaner technologies, says Caitlin Briere, who works... -
Monsanto Sues California to Halt Cancer Listing of Glyphosate
Jan 25, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California's plan to list glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto Co.'s widely used herbicide Roundup, as a carcinogen under Proposition 65 is flawed, baseless and constitutionally illegal, the company said in announcing a lawsuit against the state Jan. 21 (Monsanto Co. v. OEHHA, Cal. Super. Ct., No. 16CECG00183, 1/21/16). -
Gas Leak in Los Angeles Has Residents Looking Warily Toward Flint
Jan 22, 2016 | The New York Times
By IAN LOVETT
Health officials have tested the air and deemed it safe. Yes, the awful smell from a huge natural gas leak near the Porter Ranch neighborhood may cause vomiting, nosebleeds and other short-term symptoms, they say, but they have assured residents that it does not pose long-term health risks. -
Report Underlines Recent Worker Hazards at Old Weapons Plants
Jan 22, 2016 | Truth-Out
By Jim Morris and Jamie Smith Hopkins
The toxic morass that was America's nuclear weapons complex is no secret. Hazardous conditions in places like the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Ohio moved Congress in 2000 to create a compensation program for former workers who developed illnesses that may have been caused by radiation or chemical exposures. -
DeFazio Urges Quicker Timeline for DOT Oil Spill Rule
Jan 25, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
A senior House Democrat is urging the Transportation Department to speed up its promulgation of a crude-by-rail oil spill response planning rule, following a letter from the department head that the rule would be finalized mid-2017. The rule that would affect trains carrying certain flammable liquids was required by Congress as part of the recent... -
House Panel Approves Fracking Bill After Amendments Are Voted Down
Jan 22, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Bruce Ritchie
A bill that would prohibit local governments from banning fracking cleared its last House committee stop on Thursday after the sponsor said he is close to an agreement with cities and counties. The House state affairs committee passed a rewritten HB 191 by a 12-6 party line vote after a series of amendments offered by Rep. Amanda Murphy... -
BLM Releases Proposal to Cut Gas Venting, Flaring
Jan 25, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
A proposed rule to reduce emissions of methane and other gases from oil and natural gas wells on federal and Indian lands was released Jan. 22 by the Bureau of Land Management. Interior Department officials said it would reduce the venting, flaring and leaking of emissions of the potent greenhouse gas methane and volatile organic compounds... -
Interior Proposes Tighter Caps On Gas Flaring
Jan 22, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
The Interior Department Friday proposed a monthly cap on the amount of natural gas drillers can burn off from their wells on public lands, drawing jeers from industry and raising the pressure from greens on EPA to strengthen its own plans for regulating the oil and gas industry's methane emissions. -
Obama Targets Methane Emissions On Federal Land
Jan 22, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Obama administration is targeting oil and natural gas drillers on federal land in its latest regulatory push to cut down on methane emissions. In a set of standards proposed Friday by the Interior Department, regulators want to restrict the rates at which drillers deliberately or accidentally release natural gas. -
Estimating The Environmental Impact Of Southern California’s Great Methane Leak
Jan 22, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Elizabeth K. Wilson
Over the past three months, more than 87,000 metric tons of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, have spewed into the atmosphere from a catastrophic leak in a failed natural gas well in Southern California. Southern California Gas Company, the well’s owner, announced Jan. 18 that it hopes to stop emissions from the Aliso Canyon Storage... -
Kentucky Wants Two-Year Clean Power Plan Extension
Jan 25, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bebe Raupe
Kentucky wants the Environmental Protection Agency to extend by two years the state's deadline for submitting a Clean Power Plan compliance plan. Gov. Matt Bevin (R) said Kentucky will ask the EPA for the extension, saying “it is in the Commonwealth's best interest that we retain control of our own energy future.” -
RGGI Recommends Changes to Clean Power Plan
Jan 25, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
The Environmental Protection Agency should adopt key design elements of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative into its Clean Power Plan, including the auctioning and reinvestment of carbon allowances, RGGI said in comments submitted to the EPA Jan. 22. -
Senate Unlikely to Vote to Override Obama on Carbon Rules
Jan 25, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The Senate may have tried to override President Barack Obama's veto of a bid to nullify a Clean Water Act regulation, but it appears unlikely the chamber will hold similar votes on two bids to kill the centerpieces of the administration's domestic efforts on climate change. -
NRG Energy Clarifies Position on RGGI
Jan 25, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
NRG Energy Inc. will meet with various stakeholders to clarify its position in support of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and its recommendations for how the nine states in the RGGI region can best comply with the Clean Power Plan. NRG will attend an upcoming RGGI stakeholders meeting in Wilmington, Del., on Feb. 2... -
8th Circuit Ruling Weighs In On Major EPA Regional Haze Policy Disputes
Jan 22, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit has issued a ruling weighing in on major disputes over EPA's regional haze air policy, including backing the agency's finding that an air trading program satisfies haze pollution control mandates and deferring to EPA on what it will accept as “reasonable progress” by a state in cutting haze. -
Industry, States Line Up Next Arguments on Mercury Standards
Jan 25, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Opponents of the Environmental Protection Agency's mercury standards for power plants alleged that an agency proposal intended to respond to a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision is legally flawed and identified several issues that could be raised in the next round of litigation over the standards. -
Business Groups Try To Block Greens’ Push For Tougher Ozone Rule
Jan 22, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Business organizations are asking a federal court to dismiss a push from green groups for more stringent ozone standards. The Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and others filed a motion Friday opposing a lawsuit, led by the Sierra Club, that challenges the current standard.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
Jan 26, 2016 | Energy & Commerce Committee
Location: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building/ 10:15 AM
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Chamber Continues to Challenge EPA’s Regulatory Overreach in the Courtroom
Jan 22, 2016 | Yuma News Now
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, joined by other national business groups, today filed a motion to intervene in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to oppose a lawsuit by several special interest groups seeking to force the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to lower the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone below the 70 parts per billion (ppb) level set in 2015.
In December, a U.S. Chamber-led coalition filed suit against EPA’s decision to tighten the ozone standard to 70 ppb. Several environmental special interest groups also filed suit against EPA to tighten the standard even further, threatening greater widespread economic impacts.
“As our own lawsuit details, the EPA’s 70 ppb mandate is unattainable for many communities and will stifle economic expansion opportunities in areas across the country,” said William Kovacs, senior vice president, Environment, Technology & Regulatory Affairs for the U.S. Chamber. “The even more stringent standard sought by these special interest groups would force a far greater number of cities and counties into EPA’s economic ‘penalty box,’ and would be devastating to American business. The Chamber will continue to push back against unreasonable regulatory overreach from the EPA and third-party litigants.”
The U.S. Chamber was joined in the motion to intervene by the National Association of Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, Utility Air Regulatory Group, Portland Cement Association, American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute, Independent Petroleum Association of America, National Oilseed Processors Association, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Chemistry Council, American Forest & Paper Association, American Foundry Society, American Iron and Steel Institute, and the American Wood Council.
-
Jan 25, 2016 | Environmental Health News
By Brian Bienkowski
A new generation of chemicals added to furniture, building insulation and baby products like car seats to slow the spread of flames are escaping into air at higher levels than previously thought, according to a new study out of Washington state.
The findings come as Washington lawmakers decide on bolstering flame retardant bans. The state was one of the first to ban an earlier generation of retardants, known as PBDEs.
The new research found flame retardant chemicals used to replace polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) also escape, are ubiquitous in indoor air and suggest inhalation is a major route of exposure for people.
The compounds, called chlorinated organophosphate flame retardants, found in the study have been linked to cancer and reproductive problems, and some can alter hormones essential for development.
“We’ve been underestimating what total exposure is,” said Erika Schreder, staff scientist at the Washington Toxics Coalition and lead author of the study published this month in the scientific journal Chemosphere.
Researchers gave 10 people from Washington state an air sampler that simulates breathing to wear during a normal day: office work, commuting, hanging out at home. They tested for a suite of the new generation of chlorinated flame retardants and found all 10 were breathing some amount of them throughout the day.
Exposure to one of the most prevalent compounds was up to 30 times greater than ingesting the chemicals via dust. The distinction is important: dust exposure occurs largely through the mouth, previously thought to be the major exposure route for banned PBDEs.
“With PBDEs, inhalation wasn’t considered as important," said Amina Salamova, an environmental chemist and researcher at Indiana University Bloomington who studies toxic pollutants. Inhalation of PBDEs accounted for between 10 and 20 percent of exposure, she added. “With the replacements, we see quite a different picture.”
Chlorinated flame retardants are used mostly in polyurethane foam, often in building insulation and everyday products such as furniture, children’s car seats and baby strollers. The compounds are substitutes for PBDEs, which were widely used as flame retardants until scientists reported they were building up in people and wildlife and various bans took hold.
The American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical manufacturers, has long maintained flame retardant chemicals are necessary to prevent fires and protect people. In response to the recent study, Bryan Goodman, director of product communications for the council, said in an email that exposure via ingestion and inhalation is “anticipated and regulators generally take this into account” when assessing the risk of chemicals.
However, Salamova, who was not involved in the recent study, said the inhalation concerns raised by Schreder’s study were especially alarming and novel because it was levels of really small particles that were quite high.
“These really go all the way down your air tract and penetrate into the lung tissue,” she said.
While chlorinated flame retardants have been around for decades, Salamova said scientists have recently started to understand them as, at first, it was thought they weren’t harmful or able to accumulate in people and wildlife. However there is evidence the replacement are following the same path as PBDEs: chlorinated flame retardants have been found in household dust, children’s products, drinking water, and mother-toddlers pairs.
Two chlorinated flame retardants have been flagged by the state of California as carcinogens, and animal research suggests they may hamper brain development as well.
Washington state legislators introduced bills in the state House and Senate to ban five flame retardants from furniture and children’s products, which would also set up a system to make sure new replacements are safe. The bill includes flame retardants found in the air in the recent study.
The House bill will have a hearing this Wednesday.
The study, said Schreder, the lead author, "doesn’t give us the final answer on exposure." But it does offer "a good indication of the range” that people are exposed to, she said.
EHN welcomes republication of our stories, but we require that publications include the author's name and Environmental Health News at the top of the piece, along with a link back to EHN's version.
-
State AGs Express Concerns About House-Senate Talks
Jan 22, 2016 | Safer Chemicals Healthy Families
By Tony Iallonardo
As the House and Senate begin reconciling their respective bills to reach a final deal to send to President Obama, 12 state attorneys general are urging Congress to keep a strong role for state governments to act on dangerous chemicals. There’s a lot at stake, they say in a January 19 letter, because states have historically done the hard work of regulating chemicals in the absence of a working federal law.
“[C]ooperative exercise of regulatory authority has been an important tool for reducing risks to our residents and the environment from toxic chemicals,” they write, and “we strongly believe that preemption of state actions beyond that of existing TSCA is counterproductive.” (Emphasis added.)
While TSCA, the Toxic Substances Control Act, has largely failed in allowing EPA to regulate chemicals, it has successfully allowed states to enact dozens of laws that protect public health. Unfortunately, both the House and Senate bills block states to varying degrees. That’s got state officials and advocates in our national coalition very concerned that reform could be counterproductive in some critical ways.
Our partners at the Environmental Health Strategy Center recently issued a handy chart that helps sort out this complex issue. A top concern is a Senate provision that starts blocking state action before EPA decides whether it may –or may not– clamp down on a hazard. EPA’s decision process could take years on any single chemical, so blocking states so early violates the AGs first principle for reform, that “states should not be preempted until EPA has taken a final action.” (Once again, emphasis added.)
-
Barriers To Pollution Prevention
Jan 22, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
Many industrial facilities aren’t acting to prevent the release of toxic chemicals because they aren’t aware of less hazardous alternatives, according to new data released by the Environmental Protection Agency.
This could mean opportunities for researchers developing greener chemicals or cleaner technologies, says Caitlin Briere, who works on EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) program.
It could also indicate that the operators of a facility simply don’t know about commercially available and economically viable substitute chemicals or less-polluting technology, adds Steve Witkin of the TRI program. This could signal an opportunity for those making or selling greener chemicals or technologies to “educate” industrial decision-makers about the availability of those alternatives, he says.
EPA asked industrial facilities about the barriers that hinder them from adopting pollution prevention practices as part of the TRI data collected for 2014. Under federal law, facilities in the U.S. that release any of hundreds of toxic chemicals must report on air emissions, water discharges, recycling, and disposal of those substances each year. EPA collates those data and then releases them to the public.
-
Monsanto Sues California to Halt Cancer Listing of Glyphosate
Jan 25, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California's plan to list glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto Co.'s widely used herbicide Roundup, as a carcinogen under Proposition 65 is flawed, baseless and constitutionally illegal, the company said in announcing a lawsuit against the state Jan. 21 (Monsanto Co. v. OEHHA, Cal. Super. Ct., No. 16CECG00183, 1/21/16).
Monsanto is seeking injunctions to halt an administrative process the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment launched in September to add glyphosate (CAS No. 1071-83-6) to the list of chemicals linked to cancer and reproductive harm. The list is maintained by the agency under the state's landmark right to know law (173 DEN A-6, 9/8/15).
The company also wants the court to declare that the administrative process OEHHA is using to list the chemical violates the California and U.S. Constitutions.
If Monsanto is successful, OEHHA's ability to administratively add chemicals to Proposition 65 could be limited.
Filed in California State Court in Fresno County, the complaint marks the first constitutional challenge to OEHHA's regulations for implementing the “labor code” listing process under Proposition 65.
The listing mechanism allows OEHHA to include on the list, by reference, hazardous chemicals identified in Labor Code Section 6582 and, also by reference, any substance the International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified as human or animal carcinogens.
Comments Restricted
OEHHA regulations prevent the agency, when using the listing process, from considering comments related to IARC's underlying scientific basis for determining a chemical causes cancer, the complaint said. All comments must be restricted to the issue of whether or not the chemical or substance meets the requirements for listing via the labor code mechanism.
A state appellate court has upheld the labor code mechanism for updating the Proposition 65 list, but parties in that case didn't raise, and the Court of Appeal didn't consider, the constitutional concerns involving the “delegation of authority” to IARC, “an unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable, foreign body,” Monsanto said the complaint.
Officially called the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Proposition 65 prohibits the discharge of listed chemicals into sources of drinking water. The voter-approved law requires businesses to provide warnings whenever exposing the public to unsafe levels of chemicals on the Proposition 65 list.
OEHHA's proposed administrative listing conflicts with its prior conclusion in 2007 and findings by the Environmental Protection Agency, European Food Safety Authority and Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Authority “that glyphosate does not cause cancer,” Monsanto said.
Irreparable Harm Claimed
“The listing of glyphosate would cause irreparable injury to Monsanto and the public,” the complaint said. “The listing would adversely affect Monsanto's reputation for manufacturing safe and reliable herbicides; would potentially result in lost sales due to consumer deselection of glyphosate-based herbicides; and would require Monsanto to spend significant sums of money to re-label and re-shelf its products.”
In a written statement, Phil Miller, Monsanto's vice president of regulatory affairs, said the listing of glyphosate under California's Proposition 65 is not scientifically warranted.
“Based on the overwhelming weight of evidence, regulatory agencies have concluded for more than 40 years that glyphosate can be used safely.” IARC's determination on glyphosate was erroneous and “based on selectively interpreted data,” he said.
Illegally Delegates Authority
OEHHA's application of the labor code mechanism delegates lawmaking authority to IARC without providing any procedural safeguards or government oversight in violation of the state's constitution and violates Monsanto's right to procedural due process provided under the U.S. Constitution, the complaint said.
At issue is the intent-to-list notice OEHHA published Sept. 5, citing an IARC document published in March concluding malathion (CAS No. 121-75-5) and glyphosate are probably carcinogenic to humans.
Agency Reviewing Complaint
OEHHA spokesman Sam Delson told Bloomberg BNA the agency is reviewing the more than 9,300 written comments submitted on the intent to list glyphosate by the Oct. 5 deadline.
“There is no timetable for a final listing decision,” he said.
-
Gas Leak in Los Angeles Has Residents Looking Warily Toward Flint
Jan 22, 2016 | The New York Times
By IAN LOVETT
Health officials have tested the air and deemed it safe. Yes, the awful smell from a huge natural gas leak near the Porter Ranch neighborhood may cause vomiting, nosebleeds and other short-term symptoms, they say, but they have assured residents that it does not pose long-term health risks.
Many people here, however, simply do not buy it. And now they look warily toward Flint, Mich., where the switch to a new water supply, which state officials insisted for months was safe, has left children with high levels of lead in their blood.
With Flint as a potent warning, confidence in public agencies has collapsed here after the gas leak. Unconvinced by health department reassurances, residents have turned for guidance to lawyers who are spearheading lawsuits. And the eroding public trust now poses its own threat to the community: Of the thousands of families who have fled the area, many say they are not sure when they will feel safe returning, if ever.
“Do we believe the health department? No,” said David Balen, a member of Porter Ranch’s neighborhood council. “The gas company? No. If the gas company called tomorrow and offered to buy our house, I’d do it in a heartbeat.”
Public trust has been a frequent casualty of environmental disasters. Hinkley, Calif., has slowly turned into a ghost town in the two decades since residents won a $333 million settlement from Pacific Gas & Electric for contaminating the water with chromium 6, a cancer-causing heavy metal, as fears about the water have persisted. And two years after a chemical spill in Charleston, W.Va., some residents still will not drink the tap water.
No consistently high levels of heavy metals or known carcinogens have been found in Porter Ranch, a wealthy master-planned neighborhood in the hills at the edge of the San Fernando Valley.
Still, health officials have found it nearly impossible to break through the public’s skepticism.
Last week, the Los Angeles Department of Public Health announced that air quality monitoring would be stepped up even further. And officials reiterated that, based on the current data, they saw no indication that the gas leak posed long-term health risks.
The gas well, which began spewing methane and other chemicals in late October, will not be plugged until late February at the earliest, according to the Southern California Gas Company, which owns the natural gas storage field where the leaking well is.
Angelo J. Bellomo, the health department’s deputy director for health protection, said the levels of benzene, a known carcinogen found in natural gas, “have generally been consistent with what we find throughout the L.A. basin.”
Mr. Bellomo acknowledged that it was “a difficult message to get out.” The public, he said, has “heard government reassure them before, only to find that government flip-flops on what they’re saying.”
Although benzene levels have largely been normal, they were elevated for a handful of days late last year, and some outside scientists questioned whether other chemicals whose effects are less known could be causing some symptoms.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
But little of the public skepticism in Porter Ranch is based on scientific measurements. More often, residents cited a broader distrust of the government, or the conclusion that breathing in gas all day simply could not be healthy.
Johnny Mikaili, 19, said he and his family were still waiting for the gas company to relocate them. In the meantime, his 11-year-old brother has developed a series of respiratory problems, which Mr. Mikaili said were caused by the gas leak, regardless of what medical officials or anyone else might say.
“I mean, use common sense, man,” he said. “It’s natural gas in the air, being pumped out of the earth from a thousand feet down, and now you’re inhaling it.”
And even as health officials have tried to calm nerves, some elected officials have emphasized the absence of scientific studies on some chemicals. Two big-name environmental health advocates, Erin Brockovich and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have also held community meetings in which they have recruited residents to sign onto lawsuits against the gas company.
“People have lost faith in the agencies that are supposed to protect them — look what happened in Flint,” said Mr. Kennedy, an environmental lawyer who was also involved in the case against BP over the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.
Speaking of Porter Ranch, he said, “They see the health department as a sock puppet for the industry it’s supposed to regulate.”
More than a dozen lawsuits have been filed against the gas company, and more than 2,000 families have left the area, with food and lodging paid for by the Southern California Gas Company. But the lawsuits have divided the community between those who have stayed in the area despite the smell — and who trust the science about the safety of remaining there — and those who believe that the area is unsafe.
Bryan Bernhard, 36, said some of his neighbors who had filed for relocation were still at home most of the time, and were eating at a hotel only for the free meals.
“It’s really a big money grab — I don’t think the smell is that bad,” he said. “The community’s really turning on itself, and it’s kind of sad. People don’t realize the lawyers are going to get most of the money.”
But he added that if his home were in an area where the smell of gas was constant, he would probably relocate.
Many of those who have relocated said they did go home sometimes — to check mail, to make sure their homes have not been burglarized or on occasion to spend a night in their own beds.
Convinced that many families will not come back as long as the gas storage field remains active, a group of residents wants to try to shut the field down entirely; many of the wells date to the 1940s.
Naheed Khaja, 61, said she wanted to move back once the leak was stopped. But asked if she trusted the health department’s assurances, she said, “No.”
Ms. Khaja, who works in real estate, said the value of some homes, many of which were worth nearly $1 million, had fallen by as much as 25 percent since the leak.
“I’d love to come back once things get back to normal,” she said. But she added, “Nobody knows the long-term effects. I am skeptical.”
Ciana Tallas, 37, a teacher who moved with her daughter out of the area, agreed. “I’m not thinking about a permanent relocation,” she said. But she added that she was not reassured by the health department. “How do they know?”
Ms. Brockovich, whose work exposing the chemical contamination in Hinkley inspired a 2000 movie named after her, said that in every community she had worked in, she had seen people who did not want to believe that anything serious was wrong.
“We don’t want to create a great deal of fear — it already exists,” Ms. Brockovich said. “But when you have 5,000 people all experiencing the same symptoms, why would you continue to believe what Southern California Gas says, that it can’t harm you?”
-
Report Underlines Recent Worker Hazards at Old Weapons Plants
Jan 22, 2016 | Truth-Out
By Jim Morris and Jamie Smith Hopkins
The toxic morass that was America's nuclear weapons complex is no secret. Hazardous conditions in places like the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Ohio moved Congress in 2000 to create a compensation program for former workers who developed illnesses that may have been caused by radiation or chemical exposures.
The program, run by the US Department of Labor, assumes that conditions significantly improved at nuclear sites after 1995 and processes claims accordingly. A new report by federal health investigators, however, casts doubt on that assumption.
The report from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, dated December 21, 2015, summarizes the results of a NIOSH inspection at Portsmouth begun two years earlier. The Center for Public Integrity, which highlighted historical problems at the site in an article last month, obtained it this week from a former worker.
The most notable finding: air sampling in Building 326 of the now-closed uranium enrichment plant, undergoing decontamination and decommissioning, showed the presence of hydrogen fluoride, a potentially lethal gas, in concentrations up to 30 times the NIOSH "ceiling limit," described as "a value that should never be exceeded." Apart from its capacity to kill, hydrogen fluoride, commonly known as HF, can cause chronic lung disease, skin damage and blindness, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Investigators also noted that there was no sampling for nitrogen dioxide, another dangerous gas. Acute effects of exposure include vomiting, labored breathing and dizziness, according to the CDC; there also can be long-term effects on the immune system and the lungs.
Hydrogen fluoride, a remnant of production in Building 326, can be unleashed by the cutting of pipes, compressors and converters. Nitrogen dioxide is generated by the cutting itself.
The NIOSH team met with 16 people who worked at Portsmouth at the time, 10 of whom "expressed concerns about poor communication between management and employees and concerns about retaliation for reporting safety problems," the report says. "Concerns included having inadequate information about chemical(s) used, chemical exposures, and potential health effects." Five workers reported rashes they believed to be work-related.
"Several employees expressed concern that they felt rushed to complete job tasks and that some managers placed production goals ahead of safety," the report says. "Employees believed these problems have led to near misses and accidents."
The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program is intended to provide payments to and cover the health care of people harmed by working at nuclear-weapons sites. Many claimants and some members of Congress find the program deeply flawed and question the Labor Department's rationale for denying claims.
A year-old department circular directs claims examiners to presume that no significant exposure to any toxic agents occurred after 1995 unless there is "compelling data to the contrary." Advocates who have pushed the Labor Department to reverse the policy say the NIOSH report is the latest example of recent problems. They worry about undocumented hazards going unnoticed.
"This is probably not an isolated incident," said Deb Jerison, director of the Energy Employees Claimant Assistance Project, whose physicist father worked at the Mound Laboratory in Ohio and died of bone cancer. "If people don't look, they won't find."
Labor Department spokeswoman Amanda McClure said the NIOSH report doesn't require a policy change.
The department's circular, based on Energy Department efforts to improve safety throughout the weapons complex, "does not negate the fact that there may have been higher levels of exposures at certain sites in individual cases after 1995," McClure wrote in an email. The agency "takes those circumstances into account when they arise, and we will take NIOSH's Portsmouth facility report into consideration on a case-by-case basis."
The dismantling of the Portsmouth plant involves more than 2,000 workers and is being overseen by Fluor BWXT, a contractor for the US Department of Energy. In a letter to NIOSH dated December 3, 2015, Fluor BWXT said it has "robust" industrial hygiene and hazard-communication programs and closely monitors workplace hazards. The company said it had taken more than 57,000 air samples for radiological hazards in Building 326 since 2012. These samples, combined with urine testing, "have shown no reportable internal exposures" to workers, it said.
In an interview, Bob French, Fluor BWXT's environment, safety, health and quality director, said NIOSH was invited to Portsmouth in 2013 by both the company and the United Steelworkers union.
Last month's report brought no surprises because NIOSH kept Fluor BWXT officials apprised during its two-year inquiry. As NIOSH would raise safety issues, the company would correct them, French said.
"There's nothing we want more than to assure the safety of our workers," he said. Building 326 is targeted for demolition in June 2017.
Energy Department spokeswoman Joshunda Sanders wrote in an email that the agency "considers worker health and safety to be a top priority, and we take all recommendations to improve safety seriously. This [NIOSH] letter is being reviewed in that context."
Jeff Walburn, a former security guard at Portsmouth, said he found the NIOSH report disconcerting.
On the morning of July 26, 1994, Walburn was working in the L-Cage - a storage area for contaminated liquid waste - in Building 326. The plant, then still in production, was operated by Lockheed Martin.
The atmosphere suddenly changed, Walburn said, and he became agitated. Another guard was in the same area. "It was like we were being stung by bees all over," Walburn said. His lungs were burned. His hair fell out in clumps. He wound up in the emergency room and spent 11 days in the hospital and two months recovering after that.
Walburn blamed his injury on HF exposure. NIOSH's findings suggest that similar risks remain for decommissioning workers, he said.
"There are thousands of miles of pipe and pockets of gas trapped within those thousands of miles of pipe," said Walburn, who brought an unsuccessful lawsuit against Lockheed Martin. "The 326 [building] is a catastrophe waiting to happen."
In a written statement to the Center last month, Lockheed Martin said it had investigated worker allegations of safety lapses and "could not substantiate" them.
-
DeFazio Urges Quicker Timeline for DOT Oil Spill Rule
Jan 25, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
A senior House Democrat is urging the Transportation Department to speed up its promulgation of a crude-by-rail oil spill response planning rule, following a letter from the department head that the rule would be finalized mid-2017.
The rule that would affect trains carrying certain flammable liquids was required by Congress as part of the recent omnibus funding law, which set a deadline for the final rule as Dec. 18. The department's Jan. 4 letter “completely ignores that mandate” and leaves the rule vulnerable to the whims of the next administration in 2017, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Ranking Member Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) said in his Jan. 21 letter.
“While the railroads are providing some information to responders, it is not nearly enough to adequately prepare them for a potential spill,” DeFazio told Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. “I strongly urge you to re-assess your timeline and make finalizing this rulemaking a DOT priority.”
The rule aims to address planning issues associated with a string of crude oil train derailments across the country over the past few years. This type of transport has increased as crude oil production in areas without pipeline has increased and has been accompanied by derailments that have resulted in public health and environmental damages (08 DEN B-24, 1/13/16).
Contents of Rule Unknown
It's unclear what precisely would be in the rule being discussed by Foxx and DeFazio. The rule (RIN 2137-AF08) that hasn't been proposed yet would consider whether to require railroads for trains carrying large amounts of flammable liquids such as crude oil and ethanol to submit more thorough response plans, provide specific information and to conduct alternative tests to better prepare for and deal with spills.
This rule follows an earlier Transportation Department rule—finalized in May 2015—that adds new tank car, speed, testing and other requirements for large shipments of crude oil by rail. That rule is being challenged by environmentalists, the oil and rail industry and others in court (Am. Petroleum Inst. v. United States, No. 15-1131, D.C. Cir., 6/29/15).
Foxx said in his initial letter to DeFazio the oil spill response rule would likely be proposed by June 2016, a year before the agency expects to finalize the rule. However, Foxx said the timeline could be changed moving forward.
-
House Panel Approves Fracking Bill After Amendments Are Voted Down
Jan 22, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Bruce Ritchie
A bill that would prohibit local governments from banning fracking cleared its last House committee stop on Thursday after the sponsor said he is close to an agreement with cities and counties.
The House state affairs committee passed a rewritten HB 191 by a 12-6 party line vote after a series of amendments offered by Rep. Amanda Murphy, a Democrat from New Port Richey, were voted down.
"I feel like I'm at home and my husband is working on a project," Murphy told the committee. "And when I ask, 'Can I do anything to help?' he says, 'Yes, you can go back downstairs and leave me alone.'"
HB 191 would prohibit cities and counties from adopting bans on fracking. The bill also would provide for a study of the practice before regulations and permitting are established.
Rep. Ray Rodrigues, a Republican from Estero who sponsored the measure in his chamber, told the committee fracking already is allowed and the bill is needed to provide needed regulations. He said drilling has been pre-empted to the state in law.
Murphy said her amendments were needed to alleviate public fears. One would have preserved local regulations in place by July 1 while others would have required oil producers to test aquifers around where they are drilling and to test well casings.
The Florida League of Cities and the Florida Association of Counties continue to raise concerns while environmental groups, including Sierra Club Florida and the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, oppose the bill.
The environmentalists are supporting HB 19 and SB 166, which would ban fracking in the state. Both bills are sponsored by Democrats and neither has been heard in committee.
Representatives of the Florida League of Cities and the Florida Association of Counties said they are working with Rodrigues on proposed bill language that would return traditional zoning authority to local governments.
"We are actually down to our last sentence, I believe, based on conversations I had with both of them (associations) yesterday," Rodrigues told the committee.
Rebecca O'Hara of the Florida League of Cities, said the law needs to be updated because fracking isn't specifically regulated. But, she said, it's not clear whether existing zoning maps or whether the overall land development code will be allowed or pre-empted.
"There are little details like this we need to continue to work on," she said.
Rodrigues has introduced fracking bills each year since 2013. Environmentalists and other bill critics continue to warn that fracking is a threat to groundwater and water supplies, although Rodrigues points to studies that dismiss the risk.
Ray Kimble of Dimock, Pennsylvania, an former gas worker who said he was sickened on the job, held up a bottle of green-tinted water from his home that he said was contaminated by fracking.
"We still don't have water there," he said.
Groups supporting the bill include the Florida Petroleum Council, the Associated Industries of Florida and the Florida Chamber of Commerce.
"We do believe this bill is going to create thousands of jobs within the state and untold financial resources for the state moving forward," said Brewster Bevis, senior vice president of Associated Industries of Florida.
Democrats who voted against the bill asked why there was any reason for the legislation.
"Everyone know what's going on here," said Rep. Irv Slosberg, a Democrat from Boca Raton. "It's all about the money."
But Republicans said the bill would provide a study of Florida's geology and needed regulations with fracking and produce needed petroleum.
"The idea is we need to make sure what resources we have but we do it in a safe manner," said Rep. Neil Combee, a Republican from Polk County.
HB 191 now goes to the House floor. The Senate companion bill, SB 318, is on the agenda for its final committee stop on Monday.
-
BLM Releases Proposal to Cut Gas Venting, Flaring
Jan 25, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
A proposed rule to reduce emissions of methane and other gases from oil and natural gas wells on federal and Indian lands was released Jan. 22 by the Bureau of Land Management.
Interior Department officials said it would reduce the venting, flaring and leaking of emissions of the potent greenhouse gas methane and volatile organic compounds from federal and Indian lands by an estimated 50 percent after being phased in during a three-year period.
The BLM proposal will require best practices to minimize venting of gases during oil or gas well development; push companies to swap out older equipment for better, newer equipment; and lead to the use of better leak detection technologies such as infrared cameras.
Janice Schneider, Interior assistant secretary for land and minerals management, said the rule will clarify when royalties can be assessed on flared gas and could generate additional royalties of $9 million to $16 million a year.
BLM Director Neil Kornze said 84 percent of oil and gas wells already meet the proposed standards.
The agency will hold public meetings on the proposal in February and March and intends to complete the rule by the end of 2016, Kornze said.
Critics Question Need
Industry groups and Republicans in Congress were quick to criticize the proposed rule as unnecessary.
“Existing BLM guidelines already require conservation,” Erik Milito, director of upstream and industry operations at the American Petroleum Institute, said in a statement protesting the proposal. “Another duplicative rule at a time when methane emissions are falling and on top of an onslaught of other new BLM and EPA regulations could drive more energy production off federal lands. That means less federal revenue, fewer jobs, higher costs for consumers and less energy security.”
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) were among the critics. Bishop said that emissions from oil and gas development have been falling steeply in recent years.
Environmental advocacy groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council welcomed the proposed rule as a useful step.
Most Venting to Be Blocked
Venting typically is a very temporary practice during the completion of an oil or gas well and is reduced to some degree by best management practices, including what are called green completions. Except under limited circumstances, venting will not be allowed, Kornze said.
Flaring is most likely when an oil well is producing natural gas as a sidestream in a location where no gas pipeline is available to transport the gases to market. The flaring burns the methane and smaller amounts of ethane, propane and other gases, converting them to carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is the most common greenhouse gas but less potent, molecule for molecule, than methane in terms of its short-term contribution to global warming.
Industry officials said they have difficulty obtaining permits to build pipelines that would allow capture and sale of the gases rather than flaring of them.
Flaring is notably common in the Bakken Shale region of North Dakota, where in addition to oil, wells also produce some gas in an area that still has minimal gas pipeline infrastructure.
Schneider said the capture rate for gases will go up “as we get more pipeline infrastructure developed.”
-
Interior Proposes Tighter Caps On Gas Flaring
Jan 22, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
The Interior Department Friday proposed a monthly cap on the amount of natural gas drillers can burn off from their wells on public lands, drawing jeers from industry and raising the pressure from greens on EPA to strengthen its own plans for regulating the oil and gas industry's methane emissions.
The Bureau of Land Management's proposed methane rule, which would predominantly affect producers in the West who operate on federal land, also adds new requirements to increase the use of state-of-the-art leak detection equipment. The regulation would gradually tighten limits on monthly flaring, according to a summary obtained by POLITICO, starting with a limit of 7,200 thousand cubic feet in the first year and dropping to 3,600 Mcf per month in the second year and 1,800 Mcf in the third year.
BLM estimates that the proposal would result in the capture and potential use of between 41 billion and 56 billion cubic feet of natural gas that is currently being burned off on public lands. That's equivalent to a savings of between 164,000 and 169,000 tons of methane emissions annually, equivalent to as much as 4.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions using the government's 25-fold projection of methane's greater global warming potential.
The rule also promises to put the industry on edge by ending the current 12.5-percent cap on royalty rates, which drillers fear could set the stage for a future rate hike.
Interior’s proposed rule is here.
Perhaps the most important aspect of the BLM regulation for environmental groups, however, is that it applies to existing as well as new sources of industry methane. The limits on oil and gas-related methane that EPA proposed in September, much to climate activists' chagrin, stopped short of addressing existing sources that generate the lion's share of the potent greenhouse gas.
"Now we need EPA to step up its game and issue standards to address existing equipment that causes the lion’s share of the problem," Sarah Uhl, director of the Clean Air Task Force's methane program, said in a statement. "If BLM can do it, certainly EPA can!”
But BLM's effort faces a potential legal challenge from the industry — particularly given that the agency's first bid to regulate fracking on public lands was hit with an injunction by a Wyoming federal judge in September.
"Another duplicative rule at a time when methane emissions are already falling and on top of an onslaught of other new BLM and EPA regulations could drive more energy production off federal lands," Erik Milito, the American Petroleum Institute's upstream director, said in a statement. "That means less federal revenue, fewer jobs, higher costs for consumers, and less energy security."
The BLM regulation applies to "associated gas" rather than methane burned off on exploration or wildcatting wells, according to the agency's summary. The proposal includes an exception for drillers who would be forced to stop production in order to comply and for emergencies. It would impact an estimated 16 percent of existing wells, which account for a projected 87 percent of gas currently burned off.
-
Obama Targets Methane Emissions On Federal Land
Jan 22, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Obama administration is targeting oil and natural gas drillers on federal land in its latest regulatory push to cut down on methane emissions.
In a set of standards proposed Friday by the Interior Department, regulators want to restrict the rates at which drillers deliberately or accidentally release natural gas.
The standards are also intended to restrict the deliberate burning of gas that is not captured.It’s the latest climate change-related push from the Obama administration, and comes after several organizations this week pronounced 2015 as the warmest year on record.
The administration has vowed to crack down not only on carbon dioxide but also on methane. Methane is the main component of natural gas, and though it doesn’t stay in the atmosphere very long, it has more than 25 times the global warming power of carbon.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in August proposed similar goals to cut methane output from drilling.
Officials pitched the rule both as a climate change crackdown and as a way to ensure taxpayer-owned resources on federal land are not wasted. The government is paid fees and royalties from the drilling of gas on federal land.
“The commonsense and cost-effective measures we are proposing reflect the recommendations of several government studies as well as stakeholder views and tribal consultation over the last two years,” Janice Schneider, an assistant secretary at Interior, told reporters.
Schneider added that the regulations would be phasd in over several years to allow operators to transition more "cost efficiently."
The new standards from Interior’s Bureau of Land Management would mandate that drillers use certain technologies currently available to cut down on gas flaring, periodically inspect their systems for leaks and replace old, leaky equipment.
Drillers would also need to limit leaks from storage tanks and limit gas leaks when drilling oil.
The BLM is also proposing to give itself more flexibility to increase royalty rates for oil and gas drilling on federal land, and to charge royalties for gas that is deliberately wasted.
BLM Director Neil Kornze said more than 80 percent of current wells on federal land meet the new standards.
While the EPA’s rule from last year would apply to all newly drilled wells around the country, Interior’s standards are targeted at all wells on federal and American Indian lands, including existing ones.
Republicans and the oil and gas industry dismissed the standards as an unnecessary attack on fossil fuels a week after President Obama put a three-year moratorium on new coal mining on federal land.
“This will stymie oil and natural gas development on federal lands, which is the president’s real goal: to keep it in the ground,” Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said in a statement.
“As the markets drop, and America’s saving and retirement portfolios suffer, it’s astonishing that this president would seek to further cripple America’s energy industry. The American people’s welfare should not have to compete with the president’s desire to cement his climate legacy,” he said, promising to “continue to fight back” against the rules.
The American Petroleum Institute said drillers do not need regulations as an incentive to reduce waste.
“Another duplicative rule at a time when methane emissions are already falling and on top of an onslaught of other new BLM and EPA regulations could drive more energy production off federal lands,” Erik Milito, the group’s upstream director, said in a statement. “That means less federal revenue, fewer jobs, higher costs for consumers, and less energy security.”
Environmentalists cheered the announcement.
“For too long, oil and gas companies have been able to vent and flare unlimited quantities of natural gas and ignore massive leaks from outdated infrastructure,” said Josh Mantell, carbon campaign manager at The Wilderness Society.
The Natural Resources Defense Council welcomed the proposal, but said it does not go far enough.
“These rules are an important start to reducing potent methane pollution — which fuels climate change and threatens public health — from oil and gas companies operating on our nation’s public lands,” said Meleah Geertsma, a senior attorney with the group. “However, they fall short of what’s necessary to tackle the full scope of the problem, including leaving significant gas leaks and flaring unaddressed.”
-
Estimating The Environmental Impact Of Southern California’s Great Methane Leak
Jan 22, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Elizabeth K. Wilson
Over the past three months, more than 87,000 metric tons of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, have spewed into the atmosphere from a catastrophic leak in a failed natural gas well in Southern California. Southern California Gas Company, the well’s owner, announced Jan. 18 that it hopes to stop emissions from the Aliso Canyon Storage Facility in northern Los Angeles by late February.
But the leak, one of the largest of its kind in U.S. history, will have a lasting environmental impact on local, state, and perhaps federal levels.
More than 2,500 households in the Porter Ranch neighborhood near the facility have been forced to relocate because of noxious odors from pollutants such as mercaptan, which is added to odorless natural gas for safety purposes. Some recent reports have also suggested that SoCalGas may have underestimated the amount of benzene, a carcinogen, which has been released during the leak. Timothy O’Connor, director of the Environmental Defense Fund’s (EDF) oil and gas program in California, says it may be difficult to know how much benzene exposure has occurred because of a variable emissions rate and a lack of extensive testing when the leak first started.
On Jan. 6, California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) declared a state of emergency and ordered increased regulations and inspections on gas facilities in the state. The leak could thwart California’s ambitious goals to cut greenhouse emissions statewide.
In addition to footing the bill for relocating people and addressing the leak, SoCalGas faces lawsuits from the city and local residents claiming that the company failed to properly maintain its facility.
Starting in mid-November, SoCalGas tried to plug the well but failed. So the gas company began drilling a relief well on Dec. 4, expecting to reach its target, 2,600 meters below the surface, in February. The company also proposed to divert and incinerate some of the methane, but that plan has been scuttled because of concerns about potential explosions.
SoCalGas did not respond to C&EN’s requests for comment.
Assessing the environmental impact of a leak like this is complicated because of the varying ways to evaluate a greenhouse gas’s global warming potential, says David T. Allen, a chemical engineering professor at the University of Texas, Austin, and former chair of the Environmental Protection Agency’s scientific advisory board. REAL TIME This counter compares methane released from the leak to the equivalent amount of CO2 that would be emitted or the amount of gasoline that would be burned in terms of warming potency over 20 years. Credit: EDF
The Earth-warming effects of greenhouse gases depend, in part, on the window of time being considered, Allen explains. For example, methane, at the time of its release, is 120 times as potent as the same amount of carbon dioxide in terms of radiative forcing—the capacity to trap heat in the atmosphere, leading to temperature increases.
But over time, methane gets oxidized to CO2, so a specific release of the hydrocarbon will lose some of its warming potency. Many scientists calculate greenhouse gas effects in terms of a 20-year time horizon, over which a methane release will have more than80 times the radiative forcing as the same amount of CO2. Others calculate the impact over 100 years, when methane’s warming potency drops to 28–35 times that of CO2.
Because of its potency, methane is a grave concern for climate scientists. In the U.S., leaks from natural gas systems account for 29% of all methane emissions. Nationally, nearly 6 million metric tons of methane in the natural gas supply chain leaked into the atmosphere in 2013, according to EPA estimates.
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), an environmental advocacy group, has been assessing the Aliso Canyon leak. At its peak in November, the leak was emitting 58,000 kg of methane per hour, or 25% of the daily emissions in California. To put that in perspective, the potential effect of radiative forcing from the leak’s daily emissions, calculated over a 20-year time horizon, was equivalent to that of the daily CO2 emissions of seven million cars. California, with its population of 39 million, has about 30 million cars.
“It’s an enormous-sized leak no matter how you compare it,” says Steven Hamburg, chief scientist at EDF.
“No single source is going to be enormous on a global scale of all greenhouse gases,” he points out, “but a single leak that equates to a quarter of the emissions of methane of a population of 39 million—that’s a big deal.”
As of Jan. 12, the leak had slowed by 60% to an emission rate of 21,500 kg of methane per hour.
Although the leak may slow California’s progress toward reaching its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030, “I don’t think we’ll be unable to meet it,” EDF’s O’Connor says.
On a federal level, environmental scientists say the event is a textbook example of a worst-case scenario that they’ve been trying to prevent, by calling for expedient upgrades of aging gas supply infrastructures in big cities across the U.S.
The long-term importance of the leak, Hamburg says, “is that it’s representative of a larger problem—which is making sure we have regulations and monitoring to make sure our natural gas supply chain is not leaking.”
-
Kentucky Wants Two-Year Clean Power Plan Extension
Jan 25, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bebe Raupe
Kentucky wants the Environmental Protection Agency to extend by two years the state's deadline for submitting a Clean Power Plan compliance plan.
Gov. Matt Bevin (R) said Kentucky will ask the EPA for the extension, saying “it is in the Commonwealth's best interest that we retain control of our own energy future.”
A formal request will be made following a series of public listening sessions by the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet. Based upon input, the Cabinet will develop a draft document open to public comment that, when finalized, will be submitted to the EPA, Bevin said Jan. 21.
Currently, Kentucky's deadline for submitting an initial Clean Power Plan compliance plan is Sept. 6.
The governor said the extension also is needed “to allow serious legal challenges to progress through the court.”
His announcement came as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected a motion by more than two dozen states, including Kentucky, to stay the Obama administration's power plant carbon pollution limits (West Virginia v. EPA, D.C. Cir., 15-1363, 1/20/16.
The court order, considered a victory by environmental groups, paves the way for the court to focus on the merits of the case against the Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33).
Clean Power Plan Resistance
During his gubernatorial campaign last year, Bevin promised to resist enacting any of Kentucky's Clean Power Plan obligations and pledged not to enforce any federal environmental regulations that he considers to be economically destructive to the state.
In his extension announcement, Bevin said nothing about the state submitting a draft or outline of an actual compliance plan.
Last month his recently appointed energy secretary asked the EPA to reconsider the rule in a petition for reconsideration, arguing Kentucky faces the most stringent emissions reduction requirements in the country driven by unrealistic assumptions about the availability of renewable energy.
“Kentucky was arbitrarily mandated a low emissions rate by placing it in the Eastern Interconnection region, which allegedly holds the most renewable potential, 67.8 percent as opposed to 9.7 percent for the Texas Interconnection Region for 2022,” Energy and Environment Cabinet Secretary Charles Snavely said. “Placement in that region requires Kentucky to have the lowest emission rate in the country, and to generate renewable energy at an unrealistic rate.”
In a statement regarding the extension, Snavely said, “This path forward doesn't commit us to any particular approach,” and it “will protect Kentucky from any attempt to impose a federal plan full of job-killing mandates.”
More Opposition
In a related development, a Kentucky lawmaker introduced a bill (H.B. 104) to make the commonwealth a “sanctuary” beyond the reach of the EPA and federal air quality regulations.
When he introduced the bill in early January, Rep. James Gooch (R) said it is a political statement against the Clean Power Plan.
If certain American cities can provide political sanctuary to undocumented immigrants in defiance of federal law, then Kentucky should be able to protect its coal industry and electric utilities, he said. “Why can't a state like Kentucky say we are a sanctuary state, and we will allow utilities to use whatever fossil fuel they want?”
The Clean Power Plan is the key regulatory action that the Obama administration launched to cut greenhouse gas emissions using the president's executive branch authority, given congressional inaction on climate change. The EPA anticipates the limits will cut overall carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector by 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, requiring states to meet individual emissions targets that would be phased in between 2022 and 2030.
-
RGGI Recommends Changes to Clean Power Plan
Jan 25, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
The Environmental Protection Agency should adopt key design elements of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative into its Clean Power Plan, including the auctioning and reinvestment of carbon allowances, RGGI said in comments submitted to the EPA Jan. 22.
The nine RGGI states, in joint comments, said EPA should adopt a mass-based program for its “federal plan” and incorporate a new-source complement to prevent “leakage” from existing sources to new sources.
RGGI, which has submitted two early sets of comments, also recommended that EPA adopt a trading platform that is “flexible and customizable to encourage broader trading markets.”
The nine RGGI states—New York, Delaware, Maryland, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine—also said EPA should allocate its Clean Energy Incentive Program allowances more equitably and continue to support state energy efficiency programs.
Cost-Efficient Reductions
“The RGGI states welcome the EPA's recognition in the final Clean Power Plan that well-designed multi-state, market-based programs like RGGI can deliver cost-effective emissions reductions,” RGGI said in its comments.
“The RGGI states have seen benefits to the economy and public health, as well as consumer savings, experiencing 8 percent GDP growth across the region while reducing power sector carbon pollution by more than 40 percent since 2005. These significant reductions have occurred while maintaining electric reliability,” it said.
One of the key features that has distinguished RGGI from other cap-and-trade programs is it auctions allowances quarterly and reinvests most of the proceeds into energy efficiency, renewable energy and other programs.
“Early in the development of the RGGI program, the RGGI states recognized that assigning allowances based on historical generation would provide windfalls to affected sources in RGGI,” it said.
“The RGGI states were concerned that, regardless of allocation method, the costs of allowances would be passed on to ratepayers,” it said. “In fact, for the firms that can pass most of the opportunity cost of allowances through to ratepayers, the value of the initial allowance windfall could substantially exceed any profit reductions incurred as a consequence of the need to charge higher prices to offset allowance costs.”
-
Senate Unlikely to Vote to Override Obama on Carbon Rules
Jan 25, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna
The Senate may have tried to override President Barack Obama's veto of a bid to nullify a Clean Water Act regulation, but it appears unlikely the chamber will hold similar votes on two bids to kill the centerpieces of the administration's domestic efforts on climate change.
Both chambers of Congress passed resolutions (S.J. Res 23; S.J. Res. 24) to nullify Environmental Protection Agency regulations on carbon dioxide emissions for new and existing power plants. Obama then vetoed those measures Dec. 18 (245 DEN A-1, 12/22/15).
A similar sequence of events occurred surrounding the EPA's Clean Water Rule, also known as waters of the U.S. or WOTUS, which aims to clarify the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. After the Senate fell well short Jan. 21 of the 67 votes needed to override the president's veto of the waters Congressional Review Act resolution (S.J. Res. 22), senators and aides indicated similar override votes for the carbon rules were unlikely.
“I think that ship might have sailed,” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) told Bloomberg BNA Jan. 21. “I think this [the bid to kill the Clean Water Rule] probably had more bipartisan buy-in from the beginning. Obviously it passed the House quickly, so I think that's why [waters of the U.S.] is first.”
Kristina Baum, a spokeswoman for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, told Bloomberg BNA the panel's focus had shifted to a broad energy package (S. 2012) slated for Senate floor time the week of Jan. 25.
The office of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who decides which measures will receive votes, did not respond to request for comment. The Kentucky Republican has vowed to use every tool possible to fight EPA regulations, including the Clean Power Plan.
-
NRG Energy Clarifies Position on RGGI
Jan 25, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
NRG Energy Inc. will meet with various stakeholders to clarify its position in support of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and its recommendations for how the nine states in the RGGI region can best comply with the Clean Power Plan.
NRG will attend an upcoming RGGI stakeholders meeting in Wilmington, Del., on Feb. 2, as part of its effort to explain how RGGI and a “state measures” approach could help achieve the carbon emissions goals of the regulation.
The effort stems from prepared comments that NRG submitted to RGGI, as part of the cap-and-trade program's ongoing review (04 DEN A-11, 1/7/16).
“We're not anti-RGGI,” Steve Corneli, NRG's senior vice president for sustainability policy and strategy, told Bloomberg BNA Jan. 19. “We could have done a better job of making that clearer.”
Gist of NRG Position
Corneli said the gist of the NRG's position is that states, including the nine in the RGGI region, should adopt the Clean Power Plan's state measures approach “above and beyond” and “in addition to” a trading-ready approach like RGGI.
“Were just saying there's this other stuff that is really helpful,” Corneli said. “We want states to look at additional state measures that are not part of the cap and trade program.”
The Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), which limits carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, allows states to use “state measures” that reduce carbon dioxide emissions beyond the standards imposed directly on power plants. A state would be required to include federally enforceable backstop programs if its measures fail to achieve the required emissions reductions.
Corneli said state measures could help achieve low-cost emission reductions alongside the cap-and-trade program and “make RGGI more palatable and more compatible” to the Clean Power Plan.
“In many states, it can take place before the trading regime kicks in as a backstop,” he said.
He said it's unclear if a state measures approach alone will be sufficient to meet the Clean Power Plan's emissions reduction goals, but it might meet the plan's goals in the first compliance period in some states.
State Measures
Among the measures that could help states meet emissions goals, according to Corneli are:
• retiring or repowering existing coal plants to cleaner fuels;
• renewable portfolio standards;
• distributed energy;
• demand response programs; and
• energy management systems for homes and businesses.
“In addition to using the trading regime, they should deploy more of these state measures in an effort to actually get clean energy innovation and investment,” Corneli said.
Corneli said these measures would drive down the price of carbon. “We think the state measures approach is actually much more helpful in driving investment in clean energy than trying to get a high price for carbon.”
-
8th Circuit Ruling Weighs In On Major EPA Regional Haze Policy Disputes
Jan 22, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit has issued a ruling weighing in on major disputes over EPA's regional haze air policy, including backing the agency's finding that an air trading program satisfies haze pollution control mandates and deferring to EPA on what it will accept as “reasonable progress” by a state in cutting haze.
The unanimous Jan. 21 ruling in National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) et al. v. EPA rejects environmentalists' petition for review of Minnesota’s state implementation plan (SIP) for curbing regional haze. Environmentalists object to the plan because they say it fails to impose adequate pollution controls to limit haze-forming pollution on power plants in the state.
The agency's haze program requires states to craft SIPs to impose best available retrofit technology (BART) on large sources of haze-forming air pollution, such as power plants that emit sulfur dioxide (SO2).
States must also demonstrate that their SIPs will ensure “reasonable further progress” (RFP) toward the program’s goal of restoring visibility in national parks and wilderness areas, known as Class I areas, by 2064.
Environmentalists objected to two major EPA determinations in the SIP approval, including its finding that a Minnesota power plant's participation in the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) emissions trading program for SO2 and nitrogen oxides, also known as the Transport Rule, will be “better than BART” in cutting haze.
Advocates also contested EPA's acceptance of an RFP plan in the SIP that does not guarantee Minnesota will meet the 2064 deadline. The agency approved this plan because it decided that haze in Minnesota’s Class I areas stems in part from emissions from other states that local regulators cannot control.
8th Circuit Judge Duane Benton, writing the unanimous opinion on behalf of fellow Judges William Riley and Kermit Bye, backs EPA and upholds the agency's June 2012 rule approving the SIP.
“EPA’s explanation that the Transport Rule is better than source specific BART is rational,” Benton writes. EPA’s “emission projections indicate that the Transport Rule is better than BART. The conservation organizations disagree with EPA’s projected emissions under BART. The EPA rejected the conservation organizations’ numbers, referring to its analysis in the Transport Rule. . . . The EPA is acting within its sphere of expertise and its determination here is supportable on a rational basis.”
The finding is therefore deferential to EPA’s technical expertise in analyzing the likely emissions associated with emissions trading.
'Better Than BART'
The ruling sets an important precedent on how courts will interpret whether CSAPR qualifies as better than BART, an issue pending in other cases. For example, EPA’s rule that first established CSAPR as “better than BART” is under litigation in the D.C. Circuit in a suit filed by NPCA.
Environmentalists object in principle to emissions trading as an alternative to source-specific controls because individual sources can purchase credits in order to comply, rather than actually reducing emissions, which means specific Class I areas do not derive the emissions cuts they need from some sources to improve visibility.
That suit, Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA, will shortly proceed to the briefing phase, after a long pause while the D.C. Circuit and Supreme Court considered broader aspects of CSAPR, largely upholding the rule. Motions to govern future proceedings in the case are due Feb. 1.
The 3rd Circuit in a recent challenge to Pennsylvania’s haze SIP avoided ruling on the validity of EPA’s policy on CSAPR as a haze measure, citing the ongoing D.C. Circuit action.
A three-judge panel of the 3rd Circuit in a unanimous Sept. 29 opinion in National Parks Conservation Association, et al. v. EPA, et al. partially rejected EPA's 2014 rule that approved the SIP, citing flawed BART analysis, but avoided the question of CSAPR being “better than BART.”
Judge Bye, however, in a concurring opinion, agreed with the 3rd Circuit’s view that the regional appeals courts lack jurisdiction because of the D.C. Circuit action, which in turn is premised on the national scope of EPA’s better-than-BART rule. “Thus, to the extent the conservation organizations claim source-specific BART is better than the Transport Rule as applied to Minnesota's Plan, I conclude we lack jurisdiction,” Bye says.
Reasonable Progress
Meanwhile, in the 8th Circuit ruling Benton writes of RFP that, “EPA determined that Minnesota adequately demonstrated -- given the uncontrollable causes and the weighing of the four prescribed factors -- that its progress goals are reasonable.” The four factors are: the costs of compliance, the time needed for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts, and the remaining useful life of the facility.
Further, “EPA’s determination on this matter is entitled to judicial deference, as it involves ‘technical matters within its area of expertise,’” Benton says, citing the court’s 2013 ruling in North Dakota v. EPA, another haze plan dispute.
Under the court’s precedent, EPA may therefore approve RFP plans, even if they fail to ensure compliance by 2064, if the state can demonstrate that meeting the 2064 deadline would be unreasonable, Benton finds.
Meanwhile, EPA Jan. 5 issued a haze FIP imposing pollution controls on several Texas power plants, after the agency disapproved Texas’ plan that would have required no additional controls on power plants.
EPA in the plan disapproved RFP both for Texas and for neighboring Oklahoma, on the basis that Texas’ failure to control its plants meant that Oklahoma cannot attain its goals either, given that in parts of the state most air pollution is coming from Texas.
One environmentalist says this marks an important new departure in how EPA treats RFP in SIPs, and may set a precedent for how EPA ultimately decides on contested RFP issues in Nebraska’s SIP.
The environmentalist believes that EPA may resolve a voluntary remand of its RFP approval for Nebraska along the same lines as the Texas plan -- which would imply disapproving the haze plans of surrounding states such as Colorado that have Class I areas impacted by Nebraska sources. EPA is voluntarily reconsidering RFP issues in Nebraska, after severing them from BART issues currently under litigation in the 8th Circuit. However, the 8th Circuit’s ruling over Minnesota’s plan would suggest that both the courts and the agency can accept an RFP plan if the state can demonstrate that out-of-state emissions make attaining the 2064 deadline impossible. “Much of the pollution affecting [Minnesota Class I areas] is not within Minnesota’s control; ‘Minnesota focused on the emissions it can control,’” Benton writes, citing EPA’s rule approving the SIP.
-
Industry, States Line Up Next Arguments on Mercury Standards
Jan 25, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Opponents of the Environmental Protection Agency's mercury standards for power plants alleged that an agency proposal intended to respond to a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision is legally flawed and identified several issues that could be raised in the next round of litigation over the standards.
The opponents, who include members of the power and coal industries and several states, used their comments to identify potential legal challenges that could be raised once the EPA issues its final rulemaking to address the Supreme Court's remand of the mercury and air toxics standards. The legal flaws alleged by those groups include the agency's failure to conduct a new cost-benefit analysis and the agency's reliance on co-benefits to justify the regulation of power plants.
The mercury and air toxics standards, commonly referred to as the MATS rule, are still in place while the agency works to address a June ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that found the agency was required to consider cost in its determination that it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate power plant emissions of hazardous air pollutants, including mercury (Michigan v. EPA, 135 S. Ct. 2699, 80 ERC 1577, 2015 BL 207163 (2015)) 125 DEN A-1, 6/30/15).
In November, the EPA proposed (RIN 2060-AS76) a supplemental finding that cost consideration doesn't alter the appropriate and necessary finding, a decision that would reaffirm the MATS rule (225 DEN A-13, 11/23/15).
EPA's Intentions Challenged
The groups that commented on the proposed supplemental finding included many of the states and industry groups that challenged the legality of the MATS rule up to the Supreme Court.
Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine (R) argued in comments that the EPA's proposal would violate the plain language of the Clean Air Act and the Supreme Court's directive in Michigan v. EPA because the agency is not considering the possibility of issuing a different rule to regulate power plant emissions.
DeWine cited a June 30 blog post by Janet McCabe, EPA's acting assistant administrator for air and radiation, as evidence that the agency has taken a “conclusions first, study to follow” approach to assessing cost. In that blog post, McCabe said the agency was “committed to ensuring” that the mercury standards remained in place despite the Supreme Court's decision.
“Everything about the proposed supplemental finding bespeaks its status as a conclusion preordained by regulators bent on achieving a particular regulatory regime,” DeWine said.
DeWine and other opponents of the MATS rule, including the Utility Air Regulatory Group and Southern Co., also criticized the agency's use of its regulatory impact analysis that was prepared in conjunction with the MATS rule as the basis for its cost analysis.
DeWine said the EPA needs to conduct a new, thorough analysis using all current, available data, rather than going back to “fix” the old appropriate and necessary finding, which was based on data from 2011.
Southern Co. argued that the EPA cannot rely on its old regulatory impact analysis, which the utility said included “vastly underestimated” costs on the power industry. That analysis projected $9.6 billion in annual costs on the industry as a result of the MATS rule, an estimate the agency used in its proposed supplemental finding to compare the cost of the regulation to the power sector's total revenue.
Co-Benefit Issue Returns
Several commentors, including the Utility Air Regulatory Group and a coalition of 11 states led by Michigan, also alleged the EPA's analysis illegally relied on indirect benefits of regulating power plant emissions of mercury.
The EPA's cost-benefit analysis for MATS (RIN 2060–AP52, RIN 2060-AR31) only included between $4 million and $6 million in quantified benefits that could be directly attributed to reducing emissions of hazardous air pollutants. While the agency said there were other direct benefits that could not be quantified, the rest of the up to $90 billion in annual benefits attributed to the rule were “co-benefits” associated with reducing fine particulate matter and other criteria pollutants.
The Supreme Court's Michigan v. EPA opinion did not address the legality of using co-benefits, though Chief Justice John Roberts did raise concerns about the agency practice during oral arguments in that case. Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said during December arguments on remand that the co-benefits issue will likely be a “key battleground” in future litigation against the EPA.
The state coalition argued in their comments that the co-benefits are irrelevant to the EPA's decision of whether it is “appropriate and necessary” to regulate power plant emissions under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. The states said the plain language of the Clean Air Act established that the EPA's finding must be based on the costs and benefits of regulating hazardous air pollutants, not other pollutants like fine particulate matter, which are regulated under other sections of the Clean Air Act.
“When the legally irrelevant co-benefit associated with fine particulate matter is eliminated from EPA's benefit-cost analysis, the quantified net benefits are overwhelmingly negative,” the states said. “That analysis establishes it is not appropriate to regulate hazardous air pollutants from power plants.”
The Utility Air Regulatory Group advanced a similar argument in its comments that the EPA may only rely on benefits from reducing emissions of air toxics in making its appropriate and necessary finding. The power plant trade group also argued that the co-benefits attributed to MATS are primarily associated with reductions in fine particulate matter concentrations at levels below the current national ambient air quality standards for that pollutant. The group echoed Chief Justice Roberts' comments that the use of co-benefits is an “end-run” around regulating particulate matter under the NAAQS program.
Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge and three Texas state agencies also filed comments objecting to the EPA's use of co-benefits.
State Regulators Offer Support
While several states and industry groups objected to the EPA's proposal, an association of eight state air pollution control agencies in New England and the mid-Atlantic defended the agency's use of co-benefits.
The Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management said in comments that the consideration of co-benefits is a “commonly and accepted practice” that many states used in adopting power plant standards for mercury that predated the MATS rule. Many states took a “multi-pollutant approach” to power plants that allowed for the use of a suite of control measures that addressed both mercury and criteria pollutants.
The other approaches used by the EPA to assess cost, including the effect of regulations on retail electricity prices, are similar to the factors considered by New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and other states when they adopted their own mercury emissions limits, NESCAUM said.
NESCAUM also argued that the actual costs imposed by the MATS rule have been even less than the agency's own estimates of $9.6 billion annually. The association of air regulators said actual costs on the power sector are now estimated to be $2 billion annually, substantially lower than the compliance costs projected by the EPA.
New York University's Institute for Policy Integrity, which filed an amicus brief in support of the agency in Michigan v. EPA, also filed comments in support of the agency's proposal.
The institute argued that the EPA properly relied on cost projections made prior to promulgation of the MATS rule because updating those cost estimates would effectively be a “retrospective review” of costs that have already been incurred by the agency.
“Such an exercise in hindsight is clearly not required by Section 112, which contemplates that the ‘appropriate and necessary' finding will be made before emission standards are promulgated and thus before any compliance costs are incurred,” the institute said.
The institute also defended the EPA's cost analysis methodology, including the agency's decision to factor in consideration of ancillary benefits from the reduction of pollutants not directly regulated by the MATS rule. The consideration of co-benefits is consistent with executive guidance, case law, the legislative history of the Clean Air Act and longstanding EPA policy, the institute said.
Coal Industry: Retirements Must Be Considered
In addition to the co-benefits issue, industry groups raised several additional arguments against the EPA's proposal, including a failure to adequately consider the effect of the MATS rule on the coal industry.
The National Mining Association argued in its comments that the EPA's proposal maintains that the mercury and air toxics standards have a limited effect on coal, even though about 60 gigawatts of coal-fired electric generation has either shut down or announced retirement since the standards were promulgated in 2012. The utilities that announced those retirements have stated that the shuttering of coal-fired plants is either fully or partially attributable to EPA regulations, including the mercury standards, the association said.
The association said the EPA's new proposal relied on its regulatory impact analysis prepared for the 2012 MATS rule, which projected the rule would result in the retirement of less than 5 GW of coal generation. It is “unreasonable” for the EPA to continue relying on data that have been proved wrong based on the real-world experience of the coal industry since the MATS rule was promulgated, the mining association said.
“By limiting its cost consideration in this fashion, the agency believes it can erase the actual experience of the last four years and the hardship the agency has wrought on our nation's coal communities and ratepayers who were previously the beneficiaries of affordable, reliable coal-based electricity,” the association said.
Both the mining association and Murray Energy Corp., the largest privately owned coal company in the U.S., argued that the EPA's cost consideration fails to adequately consider regional and industry-specific effects of the mercury rule.
Murray Energy said the decision to assess costs at a national level hides “significantly higher” costs that are imposed on particular regions and communities, including the effect on regions that produce coal and regions that rely on coal-powered electric generation. The coal company said the EPA's cost estimates are “meaningless” without identifying who will be burdened with those costs.
“Your initial refusal to consider costs and your subsequent wholly inadequate attempt to consider costs both strongly suggest that your are making an indefensible, irrational, arbitrary and capricious decision that you can only justify by entirely ignoring reality,” Murray Energy said.
-
Business Groups Try To Block Greens’ Push For Tougher Ozone Rule
Jan 22, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Business organizations are asking a federal court to dismiss a push from green groups for more stringent ozone standards.
The Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and others filed a motion Friday opposing a lawsuit, led by the Sierra Club, that challenges the current standard.The business groups — which have filed their own lawsuit against the ozone rules, seeking the opposite result — have said a standard like the one the green groups want would hurt businesses and communities.
“The even more stringent standard sought by these special interest groups would force a far greater number of cities and counties into EPA’s economic ‘penalty box,’ and would be devastating to American business,” said William Kovacs, the Chamber’s senior vice president of Environment, Technology and Regulatory Affairs.
“The Chamber will continue to push back against unreasonable regulatory overreach from the EPA and third-party litigants.”
The Environmental Protection Agency’s new surface-level ozone standard of 70 parts per billion is the subject of fierce litigation from businesses, as well as environmental and health groups.
Businesses say the standard is too difficult to meet and will hurt manufacturers as localities move to conform to it.
“This could be one of the most expensive regulations in history, creating significant barriers to manufacturers’ ability to open new plants and expand existing operations,” NAM senior vice president and general counsel Linda Kelly said.
“As the administration continues to pile regulations on our nation’s manufacturers, we will continue to challenge these overreaching rules in court.”
On the other side, environmental activists and health groups say the EPA should have instituted even tougher ozone standards for the sake of public health.
“This standard leaves kids, seniors and asthmatics without the protection doctors say they need from this dangerous pollutant,” Earthjustice attorney David Baron said in December, when the groups filed their lawsuit against the EPA.
“The EPA has a duty to set standards that assure our air is safe to breathe. We say they violated that duty here."
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested