Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 9/13/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) Business Groups Ramp Up Push For Ex-Im Bank To Make Larger Loans
Sep 12, 2016 | The Hill - Policy
By Vicki Needham
A growing number of business groups are urging House and Senate leaders to approve a spending bill allowing the Export-Import Bank to approve larger loans again. -
(ACC Mentioned) Advocates Warn EPA 'Fit For Purpose' Risk Reviews Could Violate TSCA
Sep 12, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Environmentalists are cautioning that one EPA toxics officials' remarks that the agency is considering "fit for purpose" chemical risk reviews under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) -- in which EPA would target a review to inform regulatory decisions rather than a broader general assessment -- could violate the law. -
EPA to Make Industry Chemical Nominations Public
Sep 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency will make public the names of the high-hazard chemicals that chemical manufacturers ask the agency to assess. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Release Of TMBs Risk Review Marks First Final IRIS Analysis Since 2014
Sep 12, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA has published its final Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment of a trio of isomers of trimethylbenzenes (TMBs) found in petroleum, engine exhaust and some hydraulic fracturing fluids, the first assessment that the IRIS program has completed since the December 2014 release of the Libby amphibole asbestos analysis. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Asbestos Review May Trigger Probe of Chlorine Industry
Sep 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Chlorine manufacturers, which currently are the largest U.S. importers of asbestos, could have their use of the mineral reviewed soon if the Environmental Protection Agency selects asbestos as one of the first 10 substances it will analyze under the amended chemicals law. -
California Agencies To Sponsor Forum On BPA In Cans
Sep 13, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The Berkeley Center for Green Chemistry is holding a public forum on identifying and evaluating alternative materials to bisphenol A (BPA) in can linings. -
Work Halted on Dakota Access Oil Pipeline With Court Ruling
Sep 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Wolski
Work was halted on the Dakota Access pipeline near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in North Dakota under a temporary restraining order reinstated Sept. 12 by a federal judge (Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs,, D. D.C.,, No. 16-CV-1534,, 9/12/16). -
Sanders, Tribes Rally For White House Intervention
Sep 13, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey
Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe leaders and former presidential adviser Van Jones will rally near the White House this afternoon to call for an immediate and permanent halt to the $3.7 billion Dakota Access oil pipeline. -
Corps To Review Tribal NEPA Consultation After Halting Dakota Oil Pipeline
Sep 12, 2016 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
The Army Corps of Engineers is pledging a “serious discussion” reviewing how it engages with tribes as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) project review process, after halting approval for parts of the Dakota Access crude oil pipeline (DAPL) following protests from a tribe and others about inadequate consultation. -
California Bills Boost Oversight of Oil, Gas Operations
Sep 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Bills signed into law in California improve the state's oversight of oil and gas operations, encourage the capping of idle wells and aim to cut emissions of methane into the atmosphere and discharges of chemicals into groundwater. -
EPA Asks D.C. Circuit To Preserve, Remand Boiler MACT Emissions Limits
Sep 12, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to amend its ruling scrapping certain maximum achievable control technology (MACT) emissions limits for large industrial boilers for being too weak, saying the court should instead remand the limits to the agency without vacatur and allow it to revise them. -
Latest EPA Sulfur Dioxide Decisions Draw Three Lawsuits
Sep 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency's latest round of decisions on whether areas meet the 2010 sulfur dioxide standards drew a trio of lawsuits filed in federal appeals courts (Masias v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 16-1314, 9/9/16; S. Illinois Power Coop. v. EPA, 7th Cir., No. 16-3398, 9/9/16; Kansas City Bd. v. EPA, 10th Cir., No. 16-9547, 9/12/16). -
Trade Partnership Good for Environment, EPA Head Says
Sep 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily Pickrell
The environment stands to benefit from the improvements the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement would usher in, according to Gina McCarthy, administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Business Groups Ramp Up Push For Ex-Im Bank To Make Larger Loans
Sep 12, 2016 | The Hill - Policy
By Vicki Needham
A growing number of business groups are urging House and Senate leaders to approve a spending bill allowing the Export-Import Bank to approve larger loans again.
Fifteen groups on Monday sent a letter calling on congressional leadership to include a temporary change to the agency's quorum requirement for its board of directors in a continuing resolution (CR) so that it may again review transactions over $10 million.
Under current law, the five-member board must have three people to evaluate transactions above that level. There are only two board members now.
In a Monday letter to Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid(D-Nev.), the groups argue that without the change, U.S. businesses "are at a significant disadvantage to global competitors who are aggressively supported by their own governments’ export credit agencies."
The heads of two groups — the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — got the ball rolling last week by urging Congress to pass a CR with the temporary change to the board’s requirements.
The business groups say that since the 82-year-old agency has robust support in Congress and that a CR is the best way to to solve the issue amid an impasse in the Senate over approving a third board member.
Business groups and lawmakers supportive of the Ex-Im Bank are pursuing the provision as a way to get around Senate Banking Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), who has refused to take action on the nomination of Mark McWatters, a Republican who once worked for House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas).
“Continuing to leave the agency handicapped not only harms the large manufacturers that will lose projects to foreign competitors with better access to financing, it also harms the small and medium-sized companies in their supply chains and threatens the hundreds of thousands of American workers whose jobs depend directly or indirectly on Ex-Im Bank’s export financing,” the groups wrote.
Separately, John Engler, president of the Business Roundtable, which is one of the groups that signed on to the letter, said the Senate's nearly nine-month stall in approving a third board member has been "frustrating" and his group is urging congressional leaders to move forward on the lingering issue.
"With every passing day, businesses from the United States are missing out on new business opportunities overseas, to the detriment of local economies and American jobs," the groups wrote.
“When fully operational, the Ex-Im Bank supports millions of U.S. jobs by enabling businesses of all sizes to compete more successfully in the global economy," they wrote.
In Congress, Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have each won approval of identical language in the House and Senate state and foreign operations spending bills that would allow the Ex-Im Bank to operate for up to three years with only two board members.
McConnell said Monday he wants to pass a short-term spending bill this week that would keep the government running through Dec. 9.
The CR must be enacted before the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1 to avoid a government shutdown.
The embattled bank has faced its fair share of hurdles in the past year.
Conservatives who say the bank represents "crony capitalism" won a six-month shutdown of the bank in June of last year.
But supportive Democrats and Republicans in both chambers rallied and got the agency up and running before the end of 2015.
At this point, the bank has gone more than a year without being able to take action on those larger deals.
During that time, more than 30 transactions worth more than $20 billion have gotten stuck in the pipeline, according to the agency.
Besides NAM, the Chamber and BRT, 12 other groups signed the letter: Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), American Chemistry Council (ACC), Association of Equipment Manufacturers (AEM), Bankers Association for Finance and Trade (BAFT), Coalition for Employment through Exports (CEE), Emergency Committee for American Trade (ECAT) Financial Services Roundtable (FSR), General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC), Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), Small Business Exporters Association (SBEA) and the United States Council for International Business (USCIB).
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/295515-business-groups-ramp-up-push-for-ex-im-bank-to-make-larger-loans
-
(ACC Mentioned) Advocates Warn EPA 'Fit For Purpose' Risk Reviews Could Violate TSCA
Sep 12, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Environmentalists are cautioning that one EPA toxics officials' remarks that the agency is considering "fit for purpose" chemical risk reviews under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) -- in which EPA would target a review to inform regulatory decisions rather than a broader general assessment -- could violate the law.
"Nowhere in the extensively revised TSCA does Congress use the term 'fit for purpose' to describe the risk evaluations it wants EPA to undertake," say recent joint comments filed by several environmental groups on EPA's rule for developing a process to conduct risk evaluations under the updated law.
EPA has used the term "fit for purpose" for previous work, for example in a July 2012 draft "Framework for Human Health Risk Assessment to Inform Decision Making" released by the Office of the Science Advisor, in which the agency described it as the "consideration of the usefulness of the assessment for its intended purpose, to ensure that the assessment produced is suitable and useful for informing the needed decisions."
But the environmentalists in their comments warn that EPA would violate TSCA if it focused risk reviews based on how useful they would be to inform potential regulation of chemicals, rather than a general review of a substance's risks.
The groups -- Earthjustice, BlueGreenAlliance, Breast Cancer Action Fund, Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace, and others -- refer to an Aug. 9 presentation by Tala Henry, director of the agency's risk assessment division within its Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics at a Washington, D.C. meeting. At that meeting, Henry indicated that the agency intends to conduct "fit for purpose" risk evaluations, according to the comments.
EPA sought public comment at the recent meeting and through a docket open for input until Aug. 24 on a rule it will develop on its process for conducting risk evaluations to determine whether a chemical "presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment" under section 6 of the law. The section outlines requirements on chemical reviews and how chemicals should be prioritized to undergo those reviews. EPA has one year from the statute's June 22 implementation date to craft the rules on prioritizing substances and evaluating them.
Henry also indicated that as part of the TSCA work plan risk assessment program, staff have begun to transition from a more specific scoping exercise, where assessments looked only a few narrow uses of a chemical. The work plan effort was as designed to focus the efforts of its program to address risks from chemicals using authority under the existing TSCA, though the revised TSCA bolsters the agency's power to regulate substances.
EPA's Aug. 9 presentation says that EPA plans to in its risk evaluations to examine the ways chemical-specific uses affect exposure pathways, routes, and potentially exposed populations.
But the environmental groups in their letter say TSCA Section 6(b)(4)(F), which describes risk evaluation requirements under the new law, does not allow a "fit for purpose" approach.
They cite a later 2014 version of the agency's draft "Framework for Human Health Risk Assessment to Inform Decisionmaking," which indicates that the "fit for purpose" approach involves targeting risk evaluations toward risk management options. "TSCA envisions that EPA will design and conduct risk evaluations to identify and characterize risks with an open mind to what the data will show, and then determine the appropriate risk management -- not to design a risk evaluation with particular risk management options in mind," the comments say.
Risk Evaluation
Environmentalists are also urging EPA to reject industry's bid for a "tiered" evaluation process for chemical reviews consisting of an initial "screening level assessment," followed by a more in-depth risk evaluation, with different types of data appropriate to different tiers.
"We strongly urge EPA to reject the notion that tiered risk evaluation is even permitted under TSCA, let alone required," the groups say in their comment letter, adding, "Congress would have explicitly required EPA to conduct tiered risk evaluations if it had wanted EPA to adopt this practice."
Moreover, the groups say, if Congress intended EPA to develop a tiered process under section 6 of the new law for targeting existing chemicals, it would not have made specific references to tiered testing requirements under section 5, which governs chemical safety testing and data generation.
In developing the rule, EPA is seeking input on how to implement a directive in the revised TSCA for using either "sentinel" or "aggregate" exposures to evaluate chemicals, the latter being the approach advocates favor, saying it would better reflect real world risk compared to the sentinel method traditionally used by agencies.
Section 6(b)(4)(f) says that evaluations shall "describe whether aggregate or sentinel exposures to a chemical substance under the conditions of use were considered, and the basis for that consideration."
Environmentalists say that sentinel exposures are in line with EPA's traditional approach for risk assessment, taking the most serious risk and assuming that reducing that exposure will lower overall risk and that this is the chemical sector's preferred approach, unlike the aggregate exposures environmentalists prefer. Aggregate exposure assesses every possible exposure and leads to an evaluation that aims to reduce the sum total of risk. EPA speakers, however, said that they had little knowledge of the sentinel concept and are hoping for comments on it to further elucidate the approach.
Jeff Morris, deputy director of EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), said at the Aug. 9 meeting that, "Sentinel exposures, is one that we would like comment on," adding that, "It's not a term we've typically used in our program but it is used in other areas, such as occupational exposure risk assessment."
In their comments, the environmental groups say that the provision should not be read to mandate any particular exposure assessment technique. Rather, they say, it mandates that EPA "describe whether" it applied particular exposure techniques. "EPA's regulations and/or guidelines should clearly state that 'sentinel exposures' is never a replacement for aggregate exposure assessment under TSCA," they say.
Aggregate assessment must be considered as a requisite component of using the best available science, a requirement under section 26 governing the general administration of the statute, the groups argue.
'Tiered Approach'
Chemical industry groups, however, continue to seek a tiered approach to risk evaluation, with the American Chemistry Council (ACC) saying in its Aug. 24 comments, "We believe the statute contemplates a tiered approach to risk evaluation and recommend that EPA include a tiered approach in the rule."
The group says that because the law allows for up to six months in between when EPA designates a chemical a "high-priority substance" and when the agency must publish the scope of the risk evaluation, EPA could use the scoping phase to conduct a screening level review. "A tiered approach, where EPA uses the scoping step (step 1) to conduct a quantitative screening level analysis, will allow EPA to focus its limited resources on more robust refined risk evaluations for only those conditions of use where unreasonable risks cannot be ruled out," ACC says in its comments.
The first phase of the evaluation would require less data and be based on conservative, health protective assumptions. EPA could then do a second, more refined evaluation requiring more realistic and representative data, higher tier modeling approaches, and a more comprehensive consideration of human relevance and dose-response relationships, for chemicals it believes should receive further consideration.
On sentinel exposures, the group says, "We believe EPA should include definitions of both aggregate and sentinel exposures in the proposed regulation so the regulated community will understand how EPA intends to apply the terms, and to ensure consistency and regularity in application."
While ACC recognizes that EPA need not apply both types of exposure assessment, the group argues the statute gives EPA the discretion to do so and that sentinel exposure "should be thought of as the exposure that is judged to cause the plausible upper-bound individual human exposure to a substance of interest within a broad category."
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/advocates-warn-epa-fit-purpose-risk-reviews-could-violate-tsca
-
EPA to Make Industry Chemical Nominations Public
Sep 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency will make public the names of the high-hazard chemicals that chemical manufacturers ask the agency to assess.
“After Sept. 19, the agency expects to post on our website and/or issue a listserve for the chemicals for which requests were received,” the agency told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 9 by e-mail.
Chemical manufacturers have until Sept. 19 to let the agency know whether they would like it to fully evaluate the risks of any of up to to seven persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals and are willing to pay 50 percent of costs for that risk review, according to guidance for manufacturers that the agency posted Sept. 2.
EPA's guidance did not address whether the agency would let the public know which, if any, of the chemicals industry asks it to evaluate, so Bloomberg BNA inquired about that possibility.
The EPA will release the names of the chemicals nominated by industry along with the names of the companies or consortia that requested those risk evaluations—unless the company or group of companies has asked the agency to keep its identity confidential for business reasons and the agency agrees with the rationale for the request, the EPA told Bloomberg BNA.
When it releases the information about industry-requested risk evaluations, the agency also will identify the persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals that will go through an expedited review authorized by the Toxic Substances Control Act as amended June 22 by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. Law 114-182).
Expedited review means the agency will presume the chemical poses a hazard and focus on its uses and the extent to which people or the environment are exposed to it. If the agency determines the chemical poses an unreasonable risk, the EPA must propose—within three years of the law's enactment—risk management rules that would reduce exposure “to the extent practicable.” Those proposed risk management rules must be issued as final regulations 18 months later.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=97194265&vname=dennotallissues&fn=97194265&jd=97194265
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Release Of TMBs Risk Review Marks First Final IRIS Analysis Since 2014
Sep 12, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA has published its final Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment of a trio of isomers of trimethylbenzenes (TMBs) found in petroleum, engine exhaust and some hydraulic fracturing fluids, the first assessment that the IRIS program has completed since the December 2014 release of the Libby amphibole asbestos analysis.
EPA announced Sept. 9 the final IRIS assessment for the TMB isomers. Its release, nearly two years after that of the last final IRIS assessment, follows several years of efforts to overhaul the program in the face of longstanding criticism over its limited output and questions about its scientific underpinnings.
Ken Olden, who headed EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment until his retirement July 31,acknowledged in June the tradeoff of making process improvements to the overall IRIS program rather than producing more assessments.
EPA's final risk estimates for the TMBs are similar to those included in the June 2012 draft released for public comment and peer review, but the final version adds risk estimates for subchronic duration exposures as well as chronic. In this case, EPA says that the subchronic duration inhalation risk estimates are “intended for use with exposures for more than 30 days, up to approximately 10% of the lifespan in humans.” Typically, IRIS assessments only provide chronic duration risk estimates.
The assessment also provides multiple “organ- and system-specific” risk estimates for the isomers, before selecting one risk estimate as the overall oral or inhalation risk estimate because of its higher confidence. The change to providing multiple risk estimates in published IRIS assessments is one that program managers floated a couple of years ago as part of efforts to strengthen the IRIS program's scientific rigor, transparency and throughput following a critical 2011 National Academy of Sciences review of the agency's draft IRIS assessment of formaldehyde.
An EPA source suggested in 2014 that having multiple risk estimates for different health effects would make it easier for different agency offices, with different issues and approaches, to more easily use the IRIS numbers, and also for them to perform cumulative risk assessments of multiple chemicals -- as is alluded to in the newly completed IRIS assessment.
The final assessment explains that overall, the chronic reference concentration (RfC) “for all TMBs was set at 6x10^-2 [milligrams per cubic meter of air (mg/m^3)] based on neurological effects following exposure to 1,2,4-TMB,” one of the three TMB isomers. The RfC is the maximum amount that EPA estimates can be inhaled daily over a lifetime without experiencing an adverse effect. For ingestion risk estimate, the IRIS program calculates reference doses (RfD), which are analogous to RfCs.
EPA continues, “this overall RfC for TMBs can be used for any TMB isomer alone, or in situations when individuals are exposed to a mixture of TMB isomers. The individual organ- or system-specific RfCs may be useful for subsequent cumulative risk assessments that consider the combined effect of multiple agents acting at a common site.”
Multiple Estimates
In the past, however, industry representatives have raised concerns about the idea of providing multiple risk estimates, suggesting that they may be confusing to the public.
For example, at a September 2014 public meeting, Nancy Beck, with the chemical industry association American Chemistry Council (ACC) outlined the concern. “EPA calculating multiple endpoints is a little scary to us, because not all evidence is equal . . . It will be really confusing to the public," she said. "You really want to work on risk communications when you do that.”
The overall RfC that EPA has calculated is similar to the draft released in 2012 for peer review, of 2x10^-2 mg/m^3, also based on the same toxicology study and neurological effect of decreased pain sensitivity.
By contrast, EPA has slightly relaxed the final overall RfD from its draft estimate. The final document explains that “the RfD for TMBs is 1x10^-2 [milligrams per kilogram bodyweight per day (mg/kg-day)], based on decreased pain sensitivity observed in rats exposed to 1,2,4-TMB.” The draft, using the same study, proposed a slightly stricter RfD of 6x10^-3 mg/kg-day. It is unclear why the risk estimate changed.
In both cases, EPA relies on a toxicology study of neurological effects in rats exposed to one of the three isomers, 1,2,4-TMB, to calculate the risk estimate for all three isomers, though like the inhalation risk estimate, EPA also provides subchronic risk estimates and multiple health effect-specific RfDs as well.
As in its draft estimate, EPA reports in the final that it has inadequate information to assess the TMBs' cancer potential. “No chronic inhalation studies that investigated cancer outcomes were identified in the literature for 1,2,3-TMB, 1,2,4-TMB, or 1,3,5-TMB,” the assessment states. It adds that while one cancer study was performed of rats exposed by gavage to 1,2,4-TMB, EPA concluded that “A number of methodological issues limit the utility of this study . . . Therefore, a quantitative cancer assessment for TMBs was not conducted.”
The final assessment maintains EPA's decision in the draft to limit the risk analyses to three isomers of TMB, despite urging from the chemical industry that EPA expand the analysis to include several ethyltoluenes -- chemicals that are part of the C9 aromatic hydrocarbon group of compounds that includes TMBs. At a 2012 meeting, representatives of ACC and ExxonMobil questioned IRIS staff over their exclusion of data including these other chemicals, data that industry provided to EPA in response to a 1985 test rule from EPA's Office of Pollution, Prevention and Toxics.
“The data sets they left out are essential to understanding . . . the potential toxicities,” Richard Becker, a senior toxicologist at ACC, said during the August 2012 meeting.
OPP Assessment
At the 2012 meeting, ACC presented information from a 2008 study based on studies industry performed under a 1985 test rule by OPPT. The publication included weaker risk estimates than those now finalized by EPA, an RfD of 0.4 mg/kg-day, and an RfC of 3 mg/m^3. The publication, known as Firth et al, does not appear in the final IRIS assessment.
In comments on an “interagency science consultation” draft of the IRIS assessment, which EPA provided to other agencies and the White House last June, the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy (SBA) questioned EPA's decision to leave out any discussion of these studies in its response to public comments.
“EPA surprisingly failed to respond to major public comments,” SBA writes in June 29 comments, released in September with the final assessment. “Among the major comments that should be addressed are: (1) the assessment needs to take into account the September 2014 final rule published by the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) determining that complex C9 aromatics pose no appreciable risks to the general population, and (2) the assessment needs to address the inconsistency in the derived RfD values between [the IRIS program] and OPP.”
EPA does not address the concern in its written response to interagency comments, but during a June 2015 Science Advisory Board (SAB) telephone call, an OPP representative said that office's assessment was done to support a tolerance exemption for various C9 hydrocarbons. “The [reference doses] were specific to those mixtures, not for any individual TMB," and the OPP assessment was completed before the IRIS assessment, using available data, he said.
SAB in its peer review of the draft wrestled over the related question of whether information on the rest of the C9 hydrocarbon chemicals would be helpful to EPA in assessing the TMBs, and recommended that EPA discuss the issue in the IRIS assessment.
In its response to the advisors, also released with the final assessment, EPA writes that this discussion has been added to the assessment, but “Ultimately it was determined that the C9 fraction studies were not suitable for derivation of reference values.”
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-release-tmbs-risk-review-marks-first-final-iris-analysis-2014
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Asbestos Review May Trigger Probe of Chlorine Industry
Sep 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Chlorine manufacturers, which currently are the largest U.S. importers of asbestos, could have their use of the mineral reviewed soon if the Environmental Protection Agency selects asbestos as one of the first 10 substances it will analyze under the amended chemicals law.
Chlorine and caustic soda are manufactured by the chlor-alkali industry, which uses asbestos for one of three processes that companies can use to produce both chemicals. The U.S. Geological Survey has listed the chlor-alkali industry as the primary importer of asbestos in each annual mineral commodity summary the service has published since 2013. The industry's use accounted for 90 percent of the 358 tons of asbestos imported into the country in 2015, the geologic survey said in its 2016 summary.
The chlor-alkali industry's use of asbestos should be evaluated by the EPA as part of an assessment of the risks posed by the mineral, Linda Reinstein, president of the nonprofit advocacy group Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 9.
Top 10 Substances?
All domestic uses of asbestos should be reviewed by the EPA, which must make the mineral one of the first 10 chemicals it evaluates under the recently amended Toxic Substances Control Act, Scott Faber, vice president of the Environmental Working Group (EWG), told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 12.
“Few chemicals are as dangerous as asbestos; there is no question it poses a health risk,” Faber said.
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. No. 114-182), which amended TSCA on June 22, gave the agency new authorities to oversee the safety of chemicals, he said.
“Asbestos is the substance by which this new law will be judged,” Faber said.
As changes to TSCA were debated for years, members of Congress were among the many individuals who voiced frustration about provisions of the original TSCA that prompted the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to overturn the EPA's 1989 ban of many uses of asbestos The asbestos organization and Environmental Working Group have been joined by automotive brake manufacturers, some Democratic senators, and other environmental health groups in urging the EPA to examine the risks of asbestos as one of the first 10 chemicals it reviews under the Lautenberg Act.
By December the EPA must be examining the risks posed by 10 chemicals under the law. Those 10 chemicals must be selected from the agency's 2014 “Work Plan” list of approximately 90 substances the agency already announced it would evaluate prior to the Lautenberg Act becoming law.
“Work plan substances for which EPA has had significant work underway are logical candidates for the first 10 substances under review,” the American Chemistry Council told Bloomberg BNA in a Sept. 9 e-mail.
The EPA has not begun to work on asbestos.
If the agency does not make the asbestos evaluation part of the first 10 chemicals, the next administration could decide whether and when it would be reviewed.
Faber declined to comment as to whether the uncertainty of which administration will be elected is a reason his group and others are pushing now for asbestos to be one of the first 10 chemicals the EPA evaluates.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, however, has testified before Congress about asbestos’ benefits.
During a July 21, 2005, hearing before a Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee about U.S. financial involvement in the renovation of the U.N.'s headquarters, Trump testified: “there's a whole debate about asbestos. I mean, a lot of people could say that if the World Trade Center had asbestos, it wouldn't have burned down. It wouldn't have melted, okay? A lot of people think asbestos... a lot of people in my industry think asbestos is the greatest fire-proofing material ever made.”
Workers, Community Protected: Trade Association
If the agency were to evaluate asbestos, it will find that chlor-alkali companies already take extensive actions to prevent workers and the public from exposure, the American Chemistry Council said.
The agency already had reached that conclusion in 1989 when it restricted many uses of asbestos, the council's Chlorine Chemistry Division told the EPA in comments it filed Aug. 24 about a risk evaluation rule the agency must develop.
When EPA excluded the chlor-alkali industry from its 1989 asbestos ban the agency said: “exposure to asbestos during the life cycle of this product is limited because the product is generally fabricated on site, used saturated with isolation and disposed of while wet. Asbestos is not prone to be released into the ambient air during states after product fabrication.”
“The industry's practices have continued to improve since 1989 as handling and monitoring technology has evolved,” the chemistry council told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 9.
The council provided a list of actions companies take to prevent exposures beginning from the receipt of dry asbestos shipments, through the wet process used to transform that asbestos into a diaphragm that is designed to prevent dangerous chemical reactions while chlorine and caustic soda are manufactured, until the used wet diaphragm is disassembled in a closed process and made into non-reusable parts for disposal.
“Because of this continuous wet environment, the use of asbestos in the chlor-alkali industry is very different than historical processes associated with airborne release of asbestos fibers,” the chemistry council said.
Reinstein said chlor-alkali manufacturers may successfully prevent exposures while they use the asbestos, but that doesn't negate the need for the EPA to assess the risks posed by the mineral's life cycle.
Scope of Assessment Would Be Subsequent Decision
A life cycle assessment would consider the risks of mining the mineral even though that is done abroad, she said.
The agency also should review domestic risks from transporting it to companies that use it, from spills and accidents that could occur, from manufacturing processes that use asbestos, from the use of asbestos-containing products, and from the disposal of asbestos and the products it is used to make, Reinstein said.
Her perspective on issues the EPA should consider if it evaluates the risks of asbestos points to a step the agency would have to take after it declares a chemical to be a high priority subject to risk evaluation.
Within six months of declaring a chemical to be a high priority, the agency must publish a scope with information such as the hazards, exposures, conditions of use, and the potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations it plans to evaluate.
As the EPA determines the scope of any evaluation of asbestos, it should take into account that chlor-alkali companies have “essentially eliminated” potential exposures, the American Chemistry Council's Chlorine Chemistry Division wrote in comments it submitted to the agency Aug. 24 about a risk evaluation rule the EPA is developing.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=97194293&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=499268500&searchid=28391613&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0
-
California Agencies To Sponsor Forum On BPA In Cans
Sep 13, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The Berkeley Center for Green Chemistry is holding a public forum on identifying and evaluating alternative materials to bisphenol A (BPA) in can linings.
The event will take place on 4 November. It is sponsored by:the California EPA (CalEPA);the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha);the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC); andfederal partners.
https://chemicalwatch.com/49599/california-agencies-to-sponsor-forum-on-bpa-in-cans
-
Work Halted on Dakota Access Oil Pipeline With Court Ruling
Sep 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mark Wolski
Work was halted on the Dakota Access pipeline near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in North Dakota under a temporary restraining order reinstated Sept. 12 by a federal judge (Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs,, D. D.C.,, No. 16-CV-1534,, 9/12/16).
U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg ruled that pipeline construction can continue west of Highway 1806 near the reservation, but that work between the highway and 20 miles east of Lake Oahe must be halted. The order will only remain in effect until a scheduling conference is held Sept. 16.
The court denied the tribe's motion for an injunction against the nearly 1,200-mile oil pipeline, holding that it failed to show irreparable harm. The tribe appealed the ruling to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and again asked for an injunction.
The Standing Rock Sioux tribe said continued construction might cause the loss or desecration of sacred sites and water sources. Its call for a halt to the $3.8 billion project has been supported by hundreds of protesters, including groups that successfully asked the Obama administration to reject the Keystone XL pipeline.
In granting the temporary restraining order on Sept. 12, the district court again rejected the tribe's motion for a preliminary injunction.
Federal Agencies Want Halt
Work on the pipeline in North Dakota already was thrown into question shortly after Boasberg's ruling, when the departments of Justice, the Army and Interior called for a halt on project work in the state. The agencies said the tribe's lawsuit and protests had raised questions about the decision-making process for the pipeline. A joint statement from the federal agencies indicated they wanted to make a decision on whether past pipeline decisions should be reconsidered soon, given the work that is underway.
The agencies also called for government-to-government consultations this fall over tribal input on infrastructure projects and the protection of tribal lands and resources.
Despite the federal government's decision to slow down the pipeline project, the Standing Rock Sioux filed an appeal. Jan E. Hasselman, attorney for Earthjustice, which is representing the tribe, told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 12 that there are several issues it feels should be addressed by the appellate court, including the fact that not all federal agencies seem to be in agreement on the pipeline.
Tribed Sued Corps of Engineers
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe sued the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in late July, contending that the corps’ approval of a nationwide permit for the pipeline was made without ensuring the project complied with the National Historic Preservation Act. The tribe maintained that it should have been consulted about the pipeline's possible impacts on historic and culturally significant sites. The pipeline will pass within a half-mile of the reservation once it is completed.
Boasberg's ruling stated that the Corps of Engineers made numerous attempts to get tribal input on the pipeline. It also said the sites the tribe contends have been damaged were on private land near the reservation. The court noted that the Corps of Engineers had no jurisdiction over private lands.
Hasselman said while the temporary restraining order declaration was good news for the tribe, the federal agencies’ letter could very well become the focus of the tribe's attention. He said the tribe is taking the government at its word that it wants to investigate the tribe's views on the pipeline and its lands. If that truly occurs, he said, it could have a substantial impact on the pipeline.
He added that the tribe will ask the circuit court for a preliminary injunction on construction while the appeal is being heard.
Dakota Access officials were not immediately available for comment.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=97194276&vname=dennotallissues&fn=97194276&jd=97194276
-
Sanders, Tribes Rally For White House Intervention
Sep 13, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey
Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe leaders and former presidential adviser Van Jones will rally near the White House this afternoon to call for an immediate and permanent halt to the $3.7 billion Dakota Access oil pipeline.
Sanders, whose political fortunes rose during his failed presidential campaign, will call on the president to require the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an environmental impact statement for the 1,200-mile project, a move that the senator believes would end in its demise.
On Friday, the Obama administration froze construction on a portion of the pipeline just moments after a federal judge rejected a bid by Native American advocates to halt Dakota Access (E&ENews PM, Sept. 9).
"This is a temporary victory, it's a big one, but it's temporary," said Josh Miller-Lewis, a spokesman for Sanders. "Now we need the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to stop the pipeline completely."
Activists, hoping to replicate a successful campaign that torpedoed the Keystone XL pipeline, said they plan to keep pressure on the White House until Obama permanently halts the project.
"Obama took action on Keystone XL multiple times before he rejected it," said Jason Kowalski, a policy director at 350.org. "He took political heat long before he actually formally rejected it. We see the writing on the wall."
The issue of pipeline politics, as it has in the past, is shining a bright light on the differences between Sanders and his former rival, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, who has not yet weighed in on the fight.
Kowalski said he was hopeful the Clinton camp will issue a statement opposing the project given statements from her running mate, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine. Kowalski pointed to a video from 350.org Action in which Kaine says the legal challenge from the tribal nation should be taken "very seriously."
Kowalski said, "We think it's only a matter of time before Hillary's campaign joins us."
Jones, who advised the president on green jobs, has called on his former boss, as well as Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump, to speak out against Dakota Access.
Jones, in a Facebook video titled "Lakota Lives Matter," noted that Obama visited the same tribe in 2014, where he took part in a powwow, and that the same community is now in jeopardy of losing land and water resources.
"Certainly President Obama should speak out," Jones said. "If Donald Trump were president and he was allowing this to happen, every liberal in America would be marching down the streets, screaming and yelling, talking about how terrible is that President Trump is for allowing this to happen. ... We have a good liberal president who's also allowing it to happen."
Yesterday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest pointed to agencies like the Army Corps making decision on the pipeline. He appeared to downplay any White House role.
"I think they're trying to do the right thing here in terms of making sure that everybody's interests are taken into consideration," he said.
Protests surrounding oil and gas pipeline infrastructure will grow going forward, said Miller-Lewis.
"As these come up, we'll start to see more and more organizing around efforts to stop them," he said. "It really comes from the people on the ground, the activists, in this case it's tribal leaders."
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/09/13/stories/1060042708
-
Corps To Review Tribal NEPA Consultation After Halting Dakota Oil Pipeline
Sep 12, 2016 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
The Army Corps of Engineers is pledging a “serious discussion” reviewing how it engages with tribes as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) project review process, after halting approval for parts of the Dakota Access crude oil pipeline (DAPL) following protests from a tribe and others about inadequate consultation.
The Corps announced Sept. 9 that it would suspend approval for construction of two sections of DAPL that would be built on Corps-owned land under or near Lake Oahe in North Dakota. Members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and others have argued, in litigation and public protests, that the administration failed to adequately consider the potential that the pipeline's construction along the Missouri River waterbodies threatens their drinking water supply.
In a joint statement with the Department of Justice and the Department of Interior, the Corps said it will suspend approval for DAPL construction on its lands while considering “whether it will need to reconsider any of its previous decisions regarding the Lake Oahe site under [NEPA] or other federal laws.”
The administration also pledged a sweeping discussion on how the federal government should consult with tribes under NEPA on infrastructure construction for other projects.
“[T]his case has highlighted the need for a serious discussion on whether there should be nationwide reform with respect to considering tribes’ views on these types of infrastructure projects. Therefore, this fall, we will invite tribes to formal, government-to-government consultations on two questions: (1) within the existing statutory framework, what should the federal government do to better ensure meaningful tribal input into infrastructure-related reviews and decisions and the protection of tribal lands, resources, and treaty rights; and (2) should new legislation be proposed to Congress to alter that statutory framework and promote those goals,” the agencies said.
DAPL is planned as a pathway to transport crude oil from the Bakken and Three Forks oil fields in North Dakota to Illinois. EPA previously raised concerns over the Corps' NEPA review, where it echoed environmentalists' longstanding claims that the Corps often narrowly reviews "segments" of a pipeline in isolation rather than considering the cumulative impacts of the overall project.
The Corps ultimately rejected those criticisms and approved DAPL construction, only to suspend approval for the Lake Oahe portions of the pipeline on Sept. 9. That decision came soon after District Judge James Boasberg, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, denied tribes' request for a preliminary injunction against the construction of the entire pipeline -- not just the Lake Oahe reaches -- in their suit seeking to halt the project permanently.
That case involves the Clean Water Act, NEPA and other statutes, but the tribes' motion for a preliminary injunction did not invoke environmental law, instead warning of threats to historic sites.
“The Tribe thus cannot demonstrate that the temporary relief it seeks here -- i.e., a preliminary injunction to withdraw permitting by the Corps for dredge or fill activities in federally regulated waters along the DAPL route -- can prevent the harm to cultural sites that might occur from this construction on private lands,” Boasberg wrote in his Sept. 9 decision.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/corps-review-tribal-nepa-consultation-after-halting-dakota-oil-pipeline
-
California Bills Boost Oversight of Oil, Gas Operations
Sep 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Bills signed into law in California improve the state's oversight of oil and gas operations, encourage the capping of idle wells and aim to cut emissions of methane into the atmosphere and discharges of chemicals into groundwater.
Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed the two bills Sept. 9.
A.B. 2756 overhauls rules governing how the state Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources levies penalties for violations. It also strengthens the division's authorities to collect information on proposed and ongoing oil and gas projects.
The new law allows regulators to consider additional factors when assessing penalties, including the potential economic benefit of a violation and whether a violation is a major or minor infraction.
Major violations carry a daily penalty of $2,500 to $25,000. Regulators can assess up to $2,500 a day for each minor violation. The measure gives regulators the option of allowing violators to implement a supplemental environmental project to offset 50 percent of a civil penalty.
A.B. 2756 also creates a special fund to receive civil penalties to pay for plugging abandoned wells and addressing other environmental issues. The bill includes changes to administrative procedures for appealing violations.
A second bill, A.B. 2729, increases fees and blanket indemnity bonds for idle wells beginning Jan. 1, 2018. The fees and bonds are based on the number of wells owned and the length of time wells are not in use.
The measure also offers an alternative to fees if an owner agrees to reduce its inventory and long-term idle wells.
California has more than 21,000 idle oil wells, A.B. 2729 author Das Williams (D) said in a statement. Half have been idle for more than 10 years and 4,700 for more than 25 years, he said.
Higher fees and bond requirements “create a stronger incentive” to plug idle wells and help prevent harmful discharges near sources of drinking water, homes and farms, Williams said.
Neglected idle wells can leak methane and other pollutants including uranium, lead, iron, selenium, sulfates and radon into groundwater, he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=97194278&vname=dennotallissues&fn=97194278&jd=97194278
-
EPA Asks D.C. Circuit To Preserve, Remand Boiler MACT Emissions Limits
Sep 12, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to amend its ruling scrapping certain maximum achievable control technology (MACT) emissions limits for large industrial boilers for being too weak, saying the court should instead remand the limits to the agency without vacatur and allow it to revise them.
In a Sept. 12 petition for panel rehearing as to remedy, the Department of Justice (DOJ) on EPA's behalf warns that vacating the affected limits would hurt the environment through reduced air quality protections, and also create regulatory confusion about how different sub-categories of boilers should comply with the MACT.
“[V]acatur will result not only in adverse environmental consequences, but will be disruptive in that sources will be subject to standards for some pollutants, but not others,” DOJ says. “This petition for rehearing should be granted, and the vacatur of the numeric standards converted to a remand without vacatur to avoid the environmental consequences of vacatur.”
A three-judge D.C. panel in a July 29 per curiam opinion vacated the agency's boiler MACT standards for all the subcategories of boilers for which the agency failed to consider all sources in those different categories of units, and remanded other provisions to the agency for further action. EPA defined its subcategories in part by fuel type. It only considered emissions data from sources that were burning at least ninety percent of the subcategory fuel during the emissions test for existing sources, and 100 percent of the subcategory fuel for new sources, because it did not consider other sources to be representative of the sources in the source category.
The decision affects the boiler MACT that sets air toxics emissions limits for “major source” industrial, commercial and institutional boilers. Major sources are those emitting more than 10 tons per year of one hazardous air pollutant (HAP), or 25 tpy of a combination of HAPs. EPA also finalized related rules setting emissions limits from small “minor” source boilers, and separate emissions standards for certain types of incinerators.
Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, Janice Rogers Brown and Thomas B. Griffith said that while the agency has power to create subcategories for the major source rule, it cannot exclude certain units when calculating the minimum level of the MACT standard, or “floor,” for a subcategory. “This disparate treatment makes a difference; several sources excluded from the MACT-floor determination were among the best performing sources (or, in some cases, the single best performing source) in that fuel-based subcategory,” the ruling says.
The decision was a win for environmentalists, because if EPA were to consider better-performing sources that it excluded from the first set of calculations then the new results could lead to stricter MACT floors for some subcategories. But wood, paper and other industries lamented what they warned will be significant regulatory uncertainty -- and DOJ raises uncertainty as one of the reasons for not vacating the limits.
DOJ's Arguments
DOJ in the petition says that the outright vacatur of the limits is “directly contrary” to the relief environmentalist petitioners sought in the case for stricter limits, not the scrapping of the limits entirely.
The petition does not address the substance of the court's ruling, and instead focuses only on the practical effects of the court's decision to scrap subcategory MACT “floors,” or minimum emissions limits.
DOJ says, “the vacatur required by the Court’s opinion would eliminate many of the emission controls required by the Rule, a result not intended by the Environmental Petitioners, and EPA believes not intended by the Court. Furthermore, the vacated standards represent a disproportionately large percentage of the emission reductions anticipated from the Rule.”
DOJ says that EPA has “tentatively” determined that the court's decision would result in the vacatur of 11 of the 33 numeric emission standards applicable to existing sources, and nine of the 33 numeric standards for new sources.
This would not only be bad for the environment due to weaker air quality protections, it would be difficult to achieve in practice, DOJ says, arguing that “vacatur will result not only in adverse environmental consequences, but will be disruptive in that sources will be subject to standards for some pollutants, but not others, with the mix varying depending on the particular subcategory a source falls in.”
Industrial sources would, for example, continue to be subject to “work practice” restrictions on how much pollution they emit during boiler startup, yet would not be subject to ongoing numeric MACT limits after startup.
The government notes that the remand without vacatur in such a situation falls squarely within D.C. Circuit precedent, including under the Allied-Signal v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission line of cases that established a test for when the practice is appropriate.
In Allied-Signal, the court in a 1993 ruling set out factors to be met for remand without vacatur. These are where there is a likelihood of cure on remand, and a substantial disruptive effect that would result from vacatur.
“Those factors favor remand without vacatur of the numeric MACT standards as well,” DOJ says, noting in addition the disruptive effects to states that are relying in part on the boiler rule to help them attain national ambient air quality standards for sulfur dioxide, a pollutant reduced as a co-benefit of the MACT.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-asks-dc-circuit-preserve-remand-boiler-mact-emissions-limits
-
Latest EPA Sulfur Dioxide Decisions Draw Three Lawsuits
Sep 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency's latest round of decisions on whether areas meet the 2010 sulfur dioxide standards drew a trio of lawsuits filed in federal appeals courts (Masias v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 16-1314, 9/9/16; S. Illinois Power Coop. v. EPA, 7th Cir., No. 16-3398, 9/9/16; Kansas City Bd. v. EPA, 10th Cir., No. 16-9547, 9/12/16).
The rule in question, issued July 1, concluded that four areas in three states failed to meet the 75 parts per billion sulfur dioxide standards, a decision that will require regulators in Michigan, Illinois and Maryland to develop pollution control plans. The rule also classified 57 areas as being either unclassifiable or unclassifiable/attainment, which are designations that don't trigger any pollution control requirements.
The litigation filed over the rule included a:
Sept. 9 lawsuit filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by three residents of the Colorado Springs area;
Sept. 9 lawsuit filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit by the Southern Illinois Power Cooperative; and
Sept. 12 lawsuit filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit by the Kansas City Board of Public Utilities.
The Southern Illinois Power Cooperative operates the Marion Power Plant in Williamson County, Ill., one of the four areas the EPA designated as nonattainment. The utility asked the EPA to determine that Williamson County was in attainment, based on a modeling analysis it commissioned from the engineering firm AECOM. The EPA, in a supporting document issued alongside its designations rule, said modeling analysis omitted “significant receptor areas” that appear to be in violation of the sulfur dioxide standard.
The Kansas City Board of Public Utilities had urged the EPA in comments to reconsider its proposed unclassifiable designation for Wyandotte County, Kan., which is home to the utility's Nearman Creek Power Station. The agency said it could not rely on updated information that the Kansas City Board of Public Utilities provided to support an unclassifiable/attainment designation for the area.
Dispute Over Airport Data.
Robert Ukeiley, a Colorado-based attorney representing the petitioners in the lawsuit filed in the D.C. Circuit, told Bloomberg BNA that legal action was triggered by the EPA's decision to designate the Colorado Springs area as being unclassifiable under the 2010 standards. Ukeiley said in a Sept. 12 interview that two independent sets of modeling data showed violations of the sulfur dioxide standards, which would have supported a nonattainment designation for Colorado Springs.
The EPA said in its supporting document that it determined that meteorological data taken from the Colorado Springs Airport are not representative of conditions at the Martin Drake Power Plant, a nearby coal-fired power plant. The agency said modeling could “not adequately inform” a designation decision without representative meteorological data.
The decision that the airport data were inadequate is a “total deviation” from the EPA's typical position that it is acceptable to use data from nearby airports, as opposed to making pollution sources collect their own on-site weather data, Ukeiley said.
While the EPA said it could revisit the issue once better data are collected from the area around the Martin Drake Plant, Ukeiley said it is “unconscionable” that the EPA would delay taking action to reduce pollution that can cause irreversible harm to people.
“An unclassifiable designation is exactly the same as an attainment designation, especially for the people downwind,” he said. “It means the polluters won't have to do anything.”
The Southern Illinois Power Cooperative is represented by J. Michael Showalter of Schiff Hardin LLP in Chicago. The Kansas City Board of Public Utilities is represented by a team of attorneys at Stinson Leonard Street LLP in Kansas City and Washington, D.C.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=97194279&vname=dennotallissues&fn=97194279&jd=97194279
-
Trade Partnership Good for Environment, EPA Head Says
Sep 13, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily Pickrell
The environment stands to benefit from the improvements the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement would usher in, according to Gina McCarthy, administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
“I think everybody knows that when you do a trade agreement, that you want to make sure that the environmental standards will not just stay the same, but will continue to improve,” McCarthy said in an exclusive interview with Bloomberg BNA at the annual meeting of the Council of Environmental Cooperation, or CEC, an organization established by the North American Free Trade Agreement. “We are confident that under TPP, that will continue.”
The annual meeting, which took place Sept. 8–9 in Merida, Mexico, included McCarthy; Catherine McKenna, Canada's minister of environment and climate change; Rafael Pacchiano, Mexico's secretary of environment and natural resources, as well as several policy advisers and interested members of the public.
The future of the council, which spearheads coordinated environmental efforts on topics such as climate change and conducts investigations of trade-related environmental hazards, is expected to continue in some form even if the TPP passes, but its future role has not yet been defined.
Negotiate as a Team
Even so, McCarthy noted that it played an important role in helping the North American ministers negotiate as a team in the Paris climate change talks last December.
“I think our partnership had made a difference. It has helped initiate and get the Paris Agreement over the finish line,” McCarthy said, speaking at a group forum at the annual council conference. “Our continent is providing leadership, so don't sell it short.”
She noted that while the CEC is largely advisory and has no power to impose trade sanctions if environmental goals are not set, it still provides a lot of flexibility and a chance for countries to work together without limiting each country's autonomy.
“The role of the CEC is to get dinner on the table and for each country to take its own individual actions,” McCarthy said. “Every stakeholder is unique and has to determine its own path forward in its own unique way. The goal is to spark that and support it.”
Clean Transportation
McCarthy also made a strong push at the council meeting to encourage the three participating countries to focus on improving clean transportation, given its current role as one of the leading contributors not only to climate change, but also the reductions in air pollutants that improves public health.
“Vehicles are a direct reason why kids go to the hospital with asthma attacks and some people die,” she said. “We are going to have to make the health benefits well known and get serious about driving innovation. It is remarkable what business can do to respond when we send them the right regulatory signals.”
The growth of renewable energy in the U.S. has been linked to these kinds of signals and illustrates how government can best influence a better environment by encouraging business through regulatory actions, McCarthy said. In her view, the CEC has been part of this identification process, especially for issues common to all three countries in North America, such as protecting the migration path of Monarch butterflies.
“What our effort has been at the trilateral level is to identify the environmental challenges and to work with the business community on those solutions and to send all the right signals,” McCarthy told Bloomberg BNA. “This effort is to make it clear that the environment and the economy not only can work together; it must work together.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=97194275&vname=dennotallissues&fn=97194275&jd=97194275
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested