Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 7/18/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) Cleland-Hamnett, Acting OCSPP Chief, To Retire in August
Jul 18, 2017 | Inside EPA
Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, the acting chief of EPA's toxics office, is retiring next month, leaving the office in the midst of efforts to implement the many aspects of the revised Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA), just as the Trump administration formally announced its intent to nominate Michael Dourson, a former EPA risk assessor, to lead the office. -
'It's Time To Start Trusting The States' — Pruitt Aide
Jul 18, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA should use a lighter touch in its dealings with states, focusing on results instead of procedural requirements, Administrator Scott Pruitt's top aides told state regulators today. -
New EPA Policy Sparks Fears About Enforcement
Jul 17, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Eric Wolff
EPA has instituted a new policy requiring its regional offices to get approval from Washington before seeking information from companies, a move the agency says will improve efficiency but that critics fear is designed to curb enforcement of environmental laws. -
Trump's NAFTA Goals Draw From TPP, Campaign Pledges
Jul 17, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Doug Palmer, Adam Behsudi and Megan Cassella
The Trump administration today released long-awaited goals for renegotiating NAFTA, borrowing heavily from the discarded Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and putting a strong emphasis on reducing the bilateral trade deficits with Canada and Mexico. -
EPA Veteran With Industry Ties Tapped To Lead Toxics Program
Jul 18, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Corbin Hiar
President Trump last night announced his intention to nominate a U.S. EPA veteran to be the agency's assistant administrator for toxic substances. -
Chemical Industry Eyes New Chance to Drive EPA Risk Analyses
Jul 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Chemical makers convinced their products are safe can now ask the EPA for a risk assessment, which could be used to allay concerns raised by customers, states, or the public. -
Congressional Leaders Push EPA to Scrap or Delay Proposed Bans on Toxic Chemicals
Jul 18, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
The House Appropriations Committee is urging the Environmental Protection Agency to scrap or delay proposed bans on three highly toxic chemicals – trichloroethylene, or TCE; methylene chloride, or MC; and n-methylpyrrolidone, or NMP. In December 2016 and January 2017, shortly before President Trump took office, the EPA proposed banning the chemicals for certain uses, which would have been the first such bans under the Toxic Substances Control Act in more than 25 years. -
Webinar: TSCA Hot Topics
Jul 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Bloomberg BNA and Bergeson & Campbell PC present a free webinar, “TSCA Hot Topics: Inventory Reset and Strategies for Complying, and Update on Section 5,” with a panel of former EPA officials and seasoned regulatory professionals discussing how to prepare for TSCA Inventory Reset deadlines and an update on EPA's progress regarding the premanufacture notification decision backlog. -
N.C. Governor Calls for Swift EPA Action on Chemours’ Chemical
Jul 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew M. Ballard
North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D) is calling on EPA to move quickly on limiting discharges of GenX, a chemical manufactured by The Chemours Co. -
Practitioner Insights: California Hexavalent Chromium Drinking Water Limit Falls; Now What?
Jul 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian E. Moskal
On May 5, 2017, Judge Christopher E. Krueger of the Sacramento Superior Court invalidated the maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 micrograms per cubic liter (μg/L), or parts per billion, for hexavalent chromium that the California Department of Public Health set through a rulemaking that concluded in 2014. -
Democrats Caught in Green Crossfire Over Senate Energy Bill
Jul 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
The sprawling Senate energy package is again sowing discord among environmental groups, but one of their biggest Senate allies says the bill may provide a good opportunity for bipartisanship. -
Environmentalists Make Case For Broader 'Block 1' Power Plant GHG Rule
Jul 18, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
Amid expectations that the Trump EPA will scrap the Clean Power Plan (CPP) by arguing its power plant greenhouse gas regulatory authority is limited to actions “inside the fence” of plants, some environmentalists are pushing back against the notion that such an approach would necessarily result in a rule requiring miniscule emissions cuts. -
What If Big Oil’s Bet on Gas Is Wrong?
Jul 18, 2017 | Bloomberg
By Jack Farchy and Kelly Gilblom
“In 20 years, we will not be known as oil and gas companies, but as gas and oil companies,” Patrick Pouyanne, chief executive officer of French giant Total SA, told a conference in St. Petersburg last month. -
Bill Would Expand Pipeline Climate Reviews
Jul 18, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Corbin Hiar
A new bill from Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern would expand the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's reviews of proposed natural gas pipelines to include more potential sources of greenhouse gas emissions. -
Opinion: Private Freight Rail Is Key To Our Infrastructure
Jul 18, 2017 | Daily Comet
By Ian Jefferies
The White House recently released much-anticipated specificity on addressing America’s public infrastructure and transportation systems – both of which require a massive facelift. -
Trump Plans to Move Environmental Issues to NAFTA's Core
Jul 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The Trump administration wants to move environmental concerns from a NAFTA side agreement to the core of the deal in an upcoming renegotiation with Canada and Mexico. -
Ozone Delay Bill With Dem Amendments Up For House Vote Today
Jul 18, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
House Democrats, unlikely to defeat a bill that would push back implementation of U.S. EPA's latest ozone standard, will get the chance to hack away at it today with a half-dozen amendments. -
Current Nitrogen Dioxide Air Standards Sufficient, EPA Says
Jul 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Existing air quality standards for nitrogen dioxide are sufficient to protect public health, the EPA said in a proposal released July 17. -
EPA Proposal Backs CASAC's Suggestion To Retain Existing NO2 NAAQS
Jul 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Anthony Lacey
EPA is proposing to retain its existing nitrogen dioxide (NO2) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) set at 100 ppb over one hour, backing a suggestion from its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) to keep the current standard in place because it is adequate to protect public health as required by the Clean Air Act. -
California Lawmakers Approve Landmark Extension To Climate Policy
Jul 18, 2017 | Reuters
By Dan Whitcomb
California's legislature passed a package of bills that extends the state's signature plan to address climate change by a decade, sending Governor Jerry Brown a cap-and-trade plan that uses market forces to cuts greenhouse gas emissions. -
Trump May Seek Solution on Climate Change, Macron Says
Jul 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Fabio Benedetti-Valentini
French President Emmanuel Macron, who welcomed Donald Trump to Paris to participate in Bastille Day celebrations, said the U.S. president may seek a solution over the next months for the fight against global warming.
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
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Cleland-Hamnett, Acting OCSPP Chief, To Retire in August
Jul 18, 2017 | Inside EPA
Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, the acting chief of EPA's toxics office, is retiring next month, leaving the office in the midst of efforts to implement the many aspects of the revised Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA), just as the Trump administration formally announced its intent to nominate Michael Dourson, a former EPA risk assessor, to lead the office.
Cleland-Hamnett sent an email to staff last week, stating that she would retire from EPA Aug. 24, according to Bloomberg BNA, which obtained the email. “It is hard to imagine a better opportunity to serve the American public, pursue a vitally important mission, learn an enormous amount, and work with incredibly smart, dedicated and collegial people,” Cleland-Hamnett wrote in the July 10 email.
An EPA spokesman confirms that Cleland-Hamnett is retiring from the agency, but said that no further information was available “at this time.”
Cleland-Hamnett started working “in the new chemicals program at EPA right out of law school,” she said at the Safer Sustainable Products Summit in Washington, D.C. last month. “I've been a senior manager in the chemical safety program since 2004. I'm very aware of the challenges we face at EPA to ensure the safety of chemicals that are used in commerce every day.”
She will be replaced as head of the Office of Chemical Substances and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) by Dourson, who the White House said July 17 it intends to nominate as the office's assistant administrator.
Cleland-Hamnett has two deputy assistant administrators, Louise Wise, another career EPA manager, and Nancy Beck, a political deputy who arrived last spring after working with the chemical industry trade association American Chemistry Council.
Beck, a toxicologist, has garnered much concern from environmentalists, who have questioned her objectivity and argued that she must recuse herself from many activities on which she lobbied for ACC. It is unclear if either would be offered the acting assistant administrator position.
In recent public appearances, Cleland-Hamnett has spoken extensively of the work that staff in OCSPP's toxics offices are doing to implement the TSCA reform law. “In the end implementation is going to tell us how well this law works. At EPA will feel as if it's a great opportunity and a great responsibility. We felt that as we were developing the framework rules, the scope documents for the first 10 risk evaluations, the guidelines for the external party risk evaluations, and the other things we've been doing over the past year,” she said at a June 28 conference on TSCA reform, managed by the Environmental Law Institute.
“EPA staff, as tired as they are after the last year, have already been gearing up to dive into implementation of the law,” Cleland-Hamnett added, pointing to the work on the risk evaluations of the first 10 chemicals assessed as part of the new program, crafting a pre-prioiritzation process for risk evaluations, preparing for the TSCA inventory reports for active and inactive chemicals, and addressing the backlog of new chemicals reviews.
Cleland-Hamnett also predicted early in June that the backlog in EPA's new chemicals program, which reviews companies' pre-manufacture notices of new industrial chemicals or new uses of industrial chemicals before they enter the market, would be eliminated by the end of July. The area quickly concerned industry after TSCA reform was signed into law last year, as Congress did not include a phase-in period for new review requirements of PMNs, resulting in a backlog of several hundred chemicals.
“That work is all going on. We'll propose a fees rule later this summer. We want this law to work, to work this year, and over the long haul. I think all the stakeholders want the same thing,” she said June 28.
Editor's Note: This item has been updated to reflect the White House announcement that it intends to nominate Michael Dourson to lead EPA's toxics office.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/cleland-hamnett-acting-ocspp-chief-retire-august
-
'It's Time To Start Trusting The States' — Pruitt Aide
Jul 18, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA should use a lighter touch in its dealings with states, focusing on results instead of procedural requirements, Administrator Scott Pruitt's top aides told state regulators today.
"It's really moving from this very paternalistic view of this agency that was created, you know, 40-plus years ago," Ken Wagner, senior adviser to Pruitt on regional and state affairs, told the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) conference.
Likening the EPA-states relationship to that of parents with grown children, Wagner added: "Lest you be living in your parents' basement at 40, it's time to start trusting the states."
Troy Lyons, EPA's associate administrator for congressional and intergovernmental relations, highlighted the importance of a partnership between the two levels of government, accompanied by "an open and honest dialogue."
The two were part of a panel discussion that also included several state regulators. While much of the conversation was couched in generalities, Wagner suggested EPA could better use its resources to audit, rather than directly review, state permitting decisions and then redirect its staff to more pressing responsibilities.
Pruitt, who in his previous post as Oklahoma attorney general repeatedly challenged EPA regulations in court, has made "cooperative federalism" a buzzword of his tenure. For proponents, the idea is geared toward allowing state agencies more flexibility to do the job of environmental protection.
Cooperative federalism "should lead to better outcomes," said Bob Martineau, commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation.
But in light of Pruitt's record, environmental groups suspect the concept is a smokescreen for EPA to step back from ensuring that states — where regulated industries are often powerful political players — fully enforce federal environmental laws.
In recent months, for example, EPA has taken a more lenient line on implementation of its regional haze program, which aims to clear the skies around national parks and wilderness areas.
Under the Obama administration, EPA repeatedly imposed stricter pollution controls on coal-fired power plants than states wanted. Federal regulators are now showing more willingness to delay or relax those requirements; last week, for example, the agency agreed to give three plants in Arkansas 18 more months to meet requirements for reducing emissions of nitrogen oxides.
The change has already been noticed. During the question-and-answer period, Julie Linck, a top official with the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, described herself as a Chicago Cubs fan who felt as if her team had won the pennant.
"The paradigm has shifted very quickly," she said.
Less enthused was Shawn Garvin, commissioner of the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, who had previously cited the need for a federal role in addressing pollution that crosses state lines.
Delaware officials are now facing changes in areas in which they thought they were on the right track, Garvin said without offering details.
"The dynamics amongst all of us in this room are kind of shifting in the opposite direction," he said.
ECOS represents the heads of state environmental agencies. The all-day conference, centered on the theme of "Reframing Our Environmental Future," drew about 160 registrants, including participants from states, EPA and industry.
In a recent report titled "Cooperative Federalism 2.0," ECOS said states should have the flexibility to chart their own paths to meeting national standards in a way that "enables them to incorporate and integrate their unique geophysical, ecological, social and economic conditions." The report also urged a prominent role for states in developing those national standards, citing their experience in communicating with the public and regulated businesses.
But the report also stressed the importance of adequate federal spending to meet statutory requirements. Absent from both the panelists' discussion and follow-up questions from the audience was any mention of the 31 percent budget cut the White House has proposed for EPA next year, including stiff reductions to state grants.
In a short interview after the panel discussion, Wagner said he is hearing about those proposed cuts "on a daily basis" but noted they still need approval from Capitol Hill.
"Before we bash our heads against the wall debating this, I think it's important to let Congress go through its process," he said.
Last week, the House Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee rejected the bulk of the White House's proposed EPA cuts.
The full Appropriations panel is scheduled to mark up the bill tomorrow.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/07/17/stories/1060057497
-
New EPA Policy Sparks Fears About Enforcement
Jul 17, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Eric Wolff
EPA has instituted a new policy requiring its regional offices to get approval from Washington before seeking information from companies, a move the agency says will improve efficiency but that critics fear is designed to curb enforcement of environmental laws.
The agency created the new policy this spring that requires staff in the 10 regional offices to seek permission from headquarters before sending requests for information to a company, which is often the first step in an enforcement investigation, an EPA official told POLITICO. The agency will track all these requests for information in a new database.
The new policy addresses a long-standing complaint of Sen. Jim Inhofe, the former chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee whose former staffers have filled several key positions the agency headed by Scott Pruitt.
“The President has made it very clear that his Administration is focused on increasing efficiencies in the federal government. One of the ways EPA is working to accomplish this is by eliminating overly broad and unduly burdensome requests for information," EPA spokeswoman Amy Graham told POLITICO in a statement. "These changes will enable the agency to efficiently and consistently gather the information it needs to assure compliance with environmental laws.”
Staff in the regional offices can request the companies provide information using EPA authority under Section 114 of the Clean Air Act and Section 308 of the Clean Water Act, among other laws. Those requests are the standard starting point for civil enforcement investigations to determine if a party is complying with regulations, and they often precede site visits or other actions.
Clean Air Act Information requests out of Region 5 in the Midwest led to a $2 million settlement last year with Citgo for violations its Lemont, Ill. refinery and an agreement for the company to make $42 million in improvements. In January of this year, EPA's Region 4 sent an information request to Dominion Energy related to alleged leaks at coal ash ponds in Virginia.
The requests have also been used for policy purposes. Under the Obama administration, EPA had used it's Clean Air Authority to send requests to oil and gas companies for information on methane emissions, though Pruitt withdrew those requests in March.
Regions have traditionally had autonomy in launching these investigations, but now many of the requests, especially ones applying to companies and facilities with no previous history of violations, will have to be reviewed in EPA's Washington headquarters. The new policy does not necessarily politicize the actions, as the requests can be approved by career leaders in the enforcement office. But sending them to headquarters could slow the process.
"A policy to aggregate all information requests for headquarters approval is more likely to diminish enforcement because you’re going to end up with bottlenecks," said Doug Parker, EPA's former head of criminal enforcement and a 27-year veteran of the the agency.
"If the headquarters-based SESes [executive civil servants] are going to deal with budget cuts and personnel cuts, and [now] have to deal with all information requests, that’s going to slow down the enforcement world. And maybe that’s the goal," he added.
EPA has already begun tracking information in preparation for launching a new database. The new tracking policy will make it easier to monitor requests for information across the agency and determine which regions are filing the most requests and for what purpose.
"[Sen. Jim] Inhofe has for years said 'You guys are always going on fishing expeditions that cost industry a lot.' He had this notion that we abuse the process," an EPA official told POLITICO. "When Inhofe staff came in here, we said we didn’t track information requests. Well they’ll track it now. They’ll be able to see early on which companies might be subject to enforcement."
Inhofe decried what he saw as abuse of the information requests at an EPW subcommittee hearing in June last year with then-enforcement head Cynthia Giles.
"We have heard from people that the oil and gas companies, that these are used to pressure them to curb and monitor methane emissions before the EPA has even issued a methane rule for the industry," he said at the hearing, citing a forthcoming regulation opposed by the industry.
Inhofe was termed out of chairmanship of the committee at the end of last year, and many of his former staff members moved to EPA. That includes Ryan Jackson, his former chief of staff, who is now Pruitt's chief of staff and, in the absence of an official deputy administrator, one of the most senior political appointees at the agency.
Inhofe said he wasn't aware of the policy changes at EPA, but he wasn't surprised that the agency was acting on one of his priorities.
"Since my chief of staff is his chief of staff and Pruitt is my friend, that's one of the things they're going to do," he told POLITICO.
But another former EPA official who served under a Republican administration said the effort to centralize the initial enforcement step and create the database could have positive side effects.
Brent Fewell, the head of EPA's Water Office under President George W. Bush and now Parker's partner at the Earth and Water Group consultancy, said the EPA's political leadership had been "wanting to do this for some time."
"It’s a good thing," he said. "Because sometimes the regions will bring cases in enforcement which are kind of outside what headquarters would believe is an appropriate case. It's good for regional enforcement to provide headquarters the opportunity to provide some input. One of the problems with EPA and enforcement is some of the inconsistencies in the cases that have been brought."
But environmental enforcement watchers are worried.
"I don’t think they’re trying to make enforcement more effective," said Eric Schaeffer, executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project and the former head of EPA civil enforcement under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. "I’m sure industry is complaining [about] having to respond [to the requests], and they [EPA] are responding to the people they treat as they’re only clients, as far as Pruitt is concerned."
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/07/new-epa-policy-sparks-fears-about-enforcement-159634
-
Trump's NAFTA Goals Draw From TPP, Campaign Pledges
Jul 17, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Doug Palmer, Adam Behsudi and Megan Cassella
The Trump administration today released long-awaited goals for renegotiating NAFTA, borrowing heavily from the discarded Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and putting a strong emphasis on reducing the bilateral trade deficits with Canada and Mexico.
“Too many Americans have been hurt by closed factories, exported jobs, and broken political promises,” U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said in a statement released along with the goals. “Under President [Donald] Trump’s leadership, USTR will negotiate a fair deal.”
The administration’s decision to target the trade gaps with Mexico and Canada as a negotiating goal is a significant departure from past practices. It is also one that may be hard to achieve, since many economists argue the deficit is driven by macroeconomic factors, rather the provisions of trade agreements.
However, it reflects Trump’s apparent belief that the United States’ $63.2 billion deficit with Mexico and $10.9 billion deficit with Canada are signs that the current deal has failed.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative said it wanted to keep many provisions of the 23-year-old agreement while bringing it into the 21st century. The proposal aims to add rules to govern digital trade, state-owned enterprises and currency practices. That will be a relief to farm and manufacturing groups worried about losing sales to Canada and Mexico if tariffs are reimposed after years of duty-free trade.
"We must preserve the advantages that our manufacturers, service providers, farmers, workers and consumers now enjoy with respect to NAFTA across our economy," House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady said. "Maintaining existing benefits, plus improving our access to Mexico and Canada, will allow us to continue to create American jobs, spur economic growth and open up new opportunities for all Americans through NAFTA.”
The objectives also reflect Trump’s insistence on reshaping the pact to try to bring back jobs to the United States. In one example that could affect North American automotive trade, the goals call for tougher rules of origin “to ensure that the benefits of NAFTA go to products genuinely made in the United States and North America.”
The goals also heavily discuss maintaining the United States’ ability to impose trade remedy measures, such as anti-dumping and countervailing duties, against imports that it believes are unfairly traded or that threaten domestic industries. Those provisions are likely to resonate in the industrial Midwest.
In a related vein, the White House wants to eliminate a chapter in the current agreement that established a special tribunal for NAFTA countries to challenge each other’s anti-dumping and countervailing duty decisions. They also have targeted another provision that excludes NAFTA partners from emergency “safeguard” tariffs that could be imposed to protect a domestic industry under stress from imports.
But House Democrats, who may hold the key to the ultimate fate of the renegotiated pact, blasted the objectives as overly vague and said they made it seem as if the administration "is only seeking to bevel the edges of a trade pact in need of an overhaul.”
"The summary of objectives published today raises more questions than it answers,” Rep. Richard Neal, the top Democrat on Ways and Means, said in a statement. "In certain areas, there continues to be a complete lack of clarity or specificity, suggesting the administration may not even know what it wants in a new NAFTA.”
Neal and Rep. Bill Pascrell, ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee, both criticized what they saw as a step to incorporate aspects of the TPP into NAFTA 2.0, even though Trump vilified the Asia-Pacific pact during last year's campaign and pulled out of it on his third day in office.
“The objectives reveal an approach to trade negotiations that looks like the same, conventional approach taken in previous trade agreements — suggesting that the ‘new' NAFTA might not be new at all,” Neal said.
“It looks as if he wants to take the contents of the TPP, a deal he rejected in his first week in office, and call it NAFTA,” Pascrell added.
The document did not directly address the inclusion of or any alterations to the controversial investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, which labor and environmental groups want to be dropped in any revamped deal. They charge that the system undermines the right of governments to regulate in the public interest by giving companies a special forum to challenge government decisions that they believe have adversely affected their investment in violation of the pact's rules.
The document’s investment section simply mandates that a deal should “secure for U.S. investors in the NAFTA countries important rights consistent with U.S. legal principles and practice.”
The objectives do outline expectations more broadly for dispute settlement, such as making procedures more transparent. However, it’s unclear if those demands apply only to disputes under the agreement between governments or if private companies would also be subject to those rules.
“We must be sure to enforce new and current rules through effective dispute settlement provisions, including the proven tool of investor-state dispute settlement,” Rep. Dave Reichert, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee, said in a statement. “The need for modern trade rules is clear — particularly in light of our withdrawal from TPP earlier this year.”
Another top Republican said the objectives should have gone further in pushing for stronger protections for intellectual property rights, among other areas.
“If we are to truly modernize NAFTA and establish the most advantageous rules for selling American goods and services around the globe, future negotiating objectives must include stronger protections for intellectual property rights, upgraded rules and enforcement procedures for American exporters and investors, and improved regulatory practices that treat American goods and services fairly,” Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch said in a statement.
Sen. Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Finance Committee and a vocal advocate for the need to implement stronger digital trade rules, criticized the provisions included in that areas as lacking “the level of ambition I would expect given the promises this president has made.”
Both Canada's and Mexico's top trade officials declined to comment on the negotiating objectives. Ottawa “will be ready to work with our partners to modernize NAFTA, while defending Canada's national interest and standing up for our values," Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland said.
USTR is required under U.S. trade law to publish negotiating objectives 30 days before it begins talks on a free trade agreement. The first NAFTA round is expected in mid-August, although no date or location has been announced yet.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/07/trumps-nafta-goals-draw-from-tpp-campaign-pledges-159737
-
EPA Veteran With Industry Ties Tapped To Lead Toxics Program
Jul 18, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Corbin Hiar
President Trump last night announced his intention to nominate a U.S. EPA veteran to be the agency's assistant administrator for toxic substances.
Michael Dourson, who currently teaches at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, is an environmental health professor at the college's Risk Science Center. The center's website says it seeks to provide "risk managers, legislators, and ordinary citizens with the toxicology information they need to make important decisions about chemical safety."
Dourson joined the college in August 2015 after two decades leading Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, a nonprofit consulting firm that he founded to swiftly evaluate chemical hazards.
The previous year, reporters at the Center for Public Integrity and InsideClimate News found that TERA had close ties to chemical manufacturers, tobacco companies and other industry interests. For instance, more than 50 percent of the peer-review panels the firm has organized since 1995 were for studies funded by industry groups.
Before launching TERA, Dourson served for 15 years at EPA, rising to the position of associate director of the agency's environmental criteria and assessment office.
Dourson is also the author of "Messiah's Star," a 2014 book that aimed to integrate scientific concepts with biblical text.
His nomination to EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention drew praise from faith leaders and scientists, including Gio Batta Gori, the editor in chief of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, a journal on whose editorial board Dourson sits.
"Dr. Dourson would bring an unparalleled breadth of experience and savvy to this position, and is ready to run full speed from the start," Gori said in a statement released by EPA. "Dr. Dourson has a can do and winning temperament that inspires confidence, and is well known as an engaging and skillful negotiator. I wholeheartedly endorse his nomination."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/07/18/stories/1060057505
-
Chemical Industry Eyes New Chance to Drive EPA Risk Analyses
Jul 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Chemical makers convinced their products are safe can now ask the EPA for a risk assessment, which could be used to allay concerns raised by customers, states, or the public.
It's unclear yet how companies might use that process, but businesses should “be creative and take advantage of what the statute has to offer,” Karyn Schmidt, senior director of chemical regulation, regulatory, and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council, said at a recent chemical policy meeting. She urged companies to start thinking strategically about what data they have, what information they may want to generate, and when risk evaluations could be useful.
The updated Toxic Substances Control Act added two options for chemical manufacturers seeking the evaluations. First, they can ask the EPA to evaluate a chemical—or certain uses of it—for a fee. Second, they can submit risks evaluations they have performed themselves to the EPA for evaluation, provided they meet the agency's recently issued guidance. The guidance calls for the peer review of industry-submitted risk assessments and requires EPA to publish its response to the issues raised in the peer review.
Environmental health groups are worried, however, that the chemical industry—rather than public health and environmental priorities—will drive the EPA's chemical assessment process. And some former agency officials say the EPA needs to make better use of its authority to demand chemical data from manufacturers.
Manufacturer-Requested Analyses
Speaking at a July 12 session of the Toxicology Forum's summer meeting in Annapolis, Md., Tala Henry, director of the EPA's risk assessment division for chemicals, described the process manufacturers would use to request agency risk evaluations.
Within 15 days of receiving a request, the EPA will publish and request comment on it, Henry said. If the EPA decides it needs to look at more uses of a chemical than the company asked it to examine, the agency will make that clear and request comment on whether there are additional uses, populations, environmental exposures, or other situations to analyze, she said.
Sixty days after the comment period closes, the EPA will make a decision to grant or deny the request, Henry said. The agency would launch the risk evaluation after it receives payment, she said.
Fees Uncertain
Exactly how much manufacturers would pay for chemical assessments they submit isn't clear because the EPA has yet to propose a fee rule. Nor is it clear how the EPA would deal with the costs of risk evaluation when it examines chemical uses at the request of a company and additional uses selected by the agency.
Nonetheless, manufacturer-requested chemical assessments are an important tool that can increase the number of chemicals the EPA evaluates, Mike Walls, vice president of regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council, told reporters following the Toxicology Forum.
“All risk evaluations—whether EPA-initiated or manufacturer-initiated—will be conducted in the same manner,” Henry said at the Toxicological Forum meeting.
Relying on Industry for Data?
Company and trade association officials urged the EPA to reach out to industries to obtain data to inform the risk evaluations.
“If we've paid for the data, we generally want regulators to see the results of those tests,” said Athena Keene, a senior toxicologist at Afton Chemical Corp.
Suzanne Hartigan, director of science policy and regulatory affairs at the International Fragrance Association North America, urged the EPA to use voluntary data call-ins and talk with companies to collect even more information.
Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families—a coalition of environmental and other organizations—is among the environmental health groups voicing concerns about what they say is the EPA's deferral to industry to get the data it will need.
The final rules the EPA issued to implement amended TSCA signal that it “will require little, if any, testing to fill data gaps” for chemicals it may be, or is, evaluating, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families said after the rules were issued.
EPA Urged to Demand Chemical Data
The EPA's recent rules don't mention any intention to use the agency's new authority under the amended chemicals law to order companies to provide toxicity or exposure data, Richard Denison, lead senior scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, said June 27 at a TSCA forum organized by the Environmental Law Institute.
Yet, the “long term success of the law lies squarely on Section 4,” Denison said, referring to the provision of TSCA that authorizes the EPA to get data using orders, consent agreements, and rules.
As one of many reasons Denison said he's wary, earlier this year the EPA rejected two petitions that asked it to obtain toxicity and exposure information on chlorinated phosphate esters and tetrabromobisphenol A.
Charles Auer, who used to run the agency's chemicals office, and Richard Engler, a chemist who worked for the EPA's new chemicals program, have told Bloomberg BNA they'd like to see the agency make greater use its new data-gathering authority. Both men now work in the Washington, D.C., office of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.
The central failing of the original law was the hurdle the EPA had to surmount before it could get the information it needed to assess and manage chemical risks, Auer said during the law institute forum.
‘We'll Get There’
Schmidt told Bloomberg BNA she understands the concerns various parties are raising about the EPA's reticence, so far, to discuss data it may want to collect from industry.
But, “it's extremely early in the process for EPA to be issuing test orders,” she said. “I think we'll get there.” Also, risk evaluations are ultimately led by the EPA, Schmidt said at the forum.
The EPA will hold public meetings this fall to discuss ways it could collect chemical data down the road for chemicals it may evaluate.
Chemical manufacturers hope the process the agency will eventually adopt will secure information in a systematic, rational and timely way, Schmidt said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=116857570&vname=dennotallissues&fn=116857570&jd=116857570
-
Congressional Leaders Push EPA to Scrap or Delay Proposed Bans on Toxic Chemicals
Jul 18, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
The House Appropriations Committee is urging the Environmental Protection Agency to scrap or delay proposed bans on three highly toxic chemicals – trichloroethylene, or TCE; methylene chloride, or MC; and n-methylpyrrolidone, or NMP. In December 2016 and January 2017, shortly before President Trump took office, the EPA proposed banning the chemicals for certain uses, which would have been the first such bans under the Toxic Substances Control Act in more than 25 years.
Melanie Benesh, legislative attorney for the Environmental Working Group, called the recommendation, contained in the committee's report explaining its proposed EPA budget, "more head-spinning action from the anti-public health wing of Congress."
Here is Benesh's statement:
If the Trump EPA rubber-stamps this outrageous demand, it means children and other Americans will be exposed to these toxic, cancer-causing chemicals for at least another five years, if not indefinitely. This report reaffirms the hostility toward protecting children’s environmental health from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, in the name of protecting the profits of the chemical industry.
The EPA says TCE is "carcinogenic to humans by all routes of exposure" and is also associated with developmental and reproductive harms. TCE became infamous after many residents, especially children, developed cancer when the chemical contaminated the water supply of Woburn, Mass., as chronicled in the book and movie “A Civil Action.” The agency is proposing to ban TCE from use as a spot cleaner, aerosol degreaser and vapor degreaser.
The EPA says long-term exposure to MC can cause liver and lung cancer. Both MC and NMP are linked to developmental, reproductive and neurotoxic disorders. MC has been linked to more than 50 worker deaths since the mid-1980s. NMP is particularly dangerous to women of childbearing age, as it can have serious fetal effects. The EPA proposed to ban the use of MC, and ban or restrict the use of NMP in paint strippers.
http://www.ewg.org/testimony-official-correspondence/congressional-leaders-push-epa-scrap-or-delay-proposed-bans-toxic#.WW3H3_mGOM8
-
Jul 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Bloomberg BNA and Bergeson & Campbell PC present a free webinar, “TSCA Hot Topics: Inventory Reset and Strategies for Complying, and Update on Section 5,” with a panel of former EPA officials and seasoned regulatory professionals discussing how to prepare for TSCA Inventory Reset deadlines and an update on EPA's progress regarding the premanufacture notification decision backlog. Speakers include Lynn Bergeson, managing partner of Bergeson & Campbell PC; Charles M. Auer, senior regulatory and policy adviser, Bergeson & Campbell PC; Richard E. Engler, senior chemist, Bergeson & Campbell PC; and Jeffery Morris, director of the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency. The webinar is Aug. 2, from noon to 1:30 p.m. More information is available at https://www.bna.com/tsca-hot-topics-m73014461608/
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=116857576&vname=dennotallissues&fn=116857576&jd=116857576
-
N.C. Governor Calls for Swift EPA Action on Chemours’ Chemical
Jul 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew M. Ballard
North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D) is calling on EPA to move quickly on limiting discharges of GenX, a chemical manufactured by The Chemours Co.
In a July 17 letter to Scott Pruitt, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the governor said the agency should immediately restrict all releases of GenX and speed efforts to set a water discharge limit for the compound.
“North Carolina residents need immediate help and long-term certainty about the safety of the water they drink,” Cooper said in requesting “urgent action.”
State and federal regulators currently are evaluating water samples taken after GenX from Chemours’ Fayetteville, N.C., facility, was found in the Cape Fear River.
Enesta Jones, an EPA spokesperson, told Bloomberg BNA July 17 that the agency is reviewing the letter and will respond to the governor. Company representatives didn't immediately respond to Bloomberg BNA's requests for comment.
Discharges Halted
After the state launched its investigation in mid-June, the company agreed to stop discharging GenX, a substitute for the widely used Teflon chemical perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). Chemours now is diverting wastewater containing the contaminant into storage tanks that will be shipped out of state for incineration.
Water quality data released by state agencies July 14 have found that levels of GenX in treated drinking water were dropping after the discharges stopped. However, regulators said they will continue sampling and evaluating potential health risks.
In his letter, Cooper urged the EPA to to move quickly on its health assessment of GenX and set a maximum contaminant level for it. The governor also asked that the federal agency expand a 2009 consent order with Chemours to limit all discharges of the compound, not just releases that come directly from production.
The governor also called for EPA to use its authority under the federal Toxic Substances Control Act to (TSCA) to evaluate byproducts from other Chemours production lines and require companies to submit more robust health and exposure information for new unregulated chemicals.
“The problem of unregulated, relatively unknown chemicals in the public water supply is nationwide and cannot be solved by our state alone,” Cooper said in his letter.
EPA's Jones said that EPA is analyzing water samples in partnership with state regulators, reviewing toxicity data to update its risk assessment for GenX, and has launched an investigation to determine whether Chemours is complying with the 2009 order requiring it to control releases of the chemical.
—With assistance from Sylvia Carignan
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=116857575&vname=dennotallissues&fn=116857575&jd=116857575
-
Practitioner Insights: California Hexavalent Chromium Drinking Water Limit Falls; Now What?
Jul 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian E. Moskal
On May 5, 2017, Judge Christopher E. Krueger of the Sacramento Superior Court invalidated the maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 micrograms per cubic liter (μg/L), or parts per billion, for hexavalent chromium that the California Department of Public Health set through a rulemaking that concluded in 2014. Hexavalent chromium is a form of the metallic element chromium, which is naturally occurring and found in rocks, animals, plants, soil, and other natural sources. The compound is also produced by industrial processes such as electroplating, stainless steel manufacturing, leather tanning, and textile manufacturing and has been deemed a human carcinogen by some sources. Hexavalent chromium is perhaps best known as the chemical at issue in the movie “Erin Brockovich.”
The court ruled the department failed to evaluate the economic feasibility of the compliance cost that would be imposed on water utilities and their customers as a result of the new MCL, especially water utilities with fewer than 200 service connections. The department projected the MCL would impose a compliance cost of $5,630 per service connection on those systems. The court found that, although the department conducted an adequate financial analysis to arrive at this and other cost figures, it failed entirely to evaluate whether those costs were economically feasible. This failure resulted in non-compliance with the California Safe Drinking Water Act and California Administrative Procedure Act. California regulators must now return to the drawing board to establish a hexavalent chromium MCL.
Legal and Regulatory Background
The state's drinking water law, like its federal counterpart, was promulgated “to ensure that the water delivered by public water systems of this state shall at all times be pure, wholesome, and potable.” One of the ways the statute seeks to achieve this goal is by requiring state regulators to “adopt primary drinking water standards for contaminants in drinking water . . . .” Primary drinking water standards are health-based, while secondary standards relate to aesthetic issues like odor, color, and taste. The state adopts these standards in the form of MCLs, which are concentrations of contaminants allowable per liter of water. Although MCLs are established for drinking water, they are also often used as groundwater screening levels and cleanup standards at properties where potential environmental impacts are being investigated and remediated. Contamination levels below the MCLs are generally not required to be further investigated or cleaned up, while contamination above the MCLs sometimes necessitate further investigation or remediation.
Amid the backdrop of the attention and controversy regarding hexavalent chromium resulting from toxic tort litigation against Pacific Gas and Electric Co. related to a facility in Hinkley, Calif.—and the movie “Erin Brockovich,” which featured that litigation—the California legislature amended the act in 2001 to require the department to establish an MCL for hexavalent chromium by Jan. 1, 2004. The department did not meet this deadline. Until the 10 ppb standard was adopted in 2014, hexavalent chromium was subject to a total chromium standard of 50 ppb adopted in 1977. Total chromium in drinking water consists primarily of hexavalent and trivalent chromium. Thus, as a practical matter, under this standard hexavalent chromium could not exceed 50 ppb and would often be lower, depending on how much trivalent chromium was in the water sampled.
Like other MCLs, the law required the newly adopted standard for hexavalent chromium:
• To be no less stringent that the relevant MCL adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, which was a total chromium standard of 100 ppb;
• To be set at “a level that is as close as feasible to the” public health goal (PHG), which is established by the California Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment as “an estimate of the level of the contaminant in drinking water that is not anticipated to cause or contribute to adverse health effects, or that does not pose any significant risk to health.” The PHG for hexavalent chromium is 0.02 ppb, or 2 parts per trillion, an extremely small number. But the hexavalent chromium PHG was not at issue in the case; and
• To “avoid any significant risk to public health” to the extent “technologically and economically feasible.” In undertaking this analysis, the state regulators must “consider the costs of compliance to public water systems, customers, and other affected parties with the proposed primary drinking water standard, including the cost per customer and aggregate cost of compliance, using best available technology.”
Taken together, these criteria required the hexavalent chromium MCL to be set between 0.02 ppb and 50 ppb and as close to 0.02 ppb as technologically and economically feasible. In addition, because MCLs are set via regulation, the process of establishing them is subject to the California Administrative Procedure Act. That statute requires an agency to assess the “potential for adverse economic impact on California business enterprises and individuals” of a regulation.Cost Analysis, Adoption of Hexavalent Chromium MCL
The department began a rulemaking proceeding in 2013 to comply with its long-overdue statutory obligation to promulgate a hexavalent chromium MCL. It considered seven possible standards: 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 ppb.
The court determined the department thoroughly evaluated the compliance cost of each potential MCL. To do so, the department divided water utility systems into four size categories based on the number of service connections each serves. A service connection is generally one water utility customer, such as a household or business (although sometimes multiple households or businesses can share a single service connection). Those four sizes were: (1) fewer than 200 connections (small); (2) 200-999 connections (medium); (3) 1,000-9,999 connections (large); and (4) 10,000 connections or more (very large). For each size category and each of the seven MCLs considered, the department estimated the monitoring costs, capital costs (total and annualized), operation and maintenance costs, annual cost per system, annual cost per water source, and annual cost per service connection that would be incurred to comply with each potential MCL.
The department then estimated the number of systems that would be affected by each of the seven potential MCLs—in other words, the number of water systems with water supply that exceeded a given potential MCL. For example, 340 small systems and 122 very large systems would have been affected by the most conservative potential MCL of 1 ppb, whereas only two small systems and seven very large systems would have been affected by the least conservative potential MCL of 30 ppb.
The department also thoroughly estimated the annual compliance cost of each potential MCL for water utilities in each system size category. For example, it estimated affected small systems would each spend $278,000 per year to comply with an MCL of 1 ppb and $197,000 per year for an MCL of 30 ppb. The affected very large systems would each spend $10,271,000 per year to comply with an MCL of 1 ppb and $1,292,000 to comply with an MCL of 30 ppb.
The department also comprehensively estimated the annual compliance cost per service connection for each system size category. For example, the most conservative potential MCL of 1 ppb would cost $7,160 annually per service connection for small systems but only $300 annually per service connection for very large systems, primarily because large water utilities, despite having higher aggregate compliance costs, can achieve economies of scale by spreading those costs among many more customers. By contrast, the least conservative potential MCL of 30 ppb would cost $4,140 annually per service connection for small systems and $11 per service connection for very large systems. Importantly for the court's analysis, the department estimated that its adopted MCL of 10 ppb would cost $5,630 per service connection for small systems but only $64 per service connection for very large systems.
The department set forth its rationale for proposing 10 ppb—“such as it was,” as the court indicated—in a document titled Initial Statement of Reasons. The department received 18,000 public comments on this proposal, with many comments arguing the proposed standard was too low to be economically feasible and that the department had underestimated the compliance costs. The department nevertheless issued a Final Statement of Reasons setting the standard at 10 ppb. The standard took effect on July 1, 2014.
Ensuing Litigation
After the department adopted the 10 ppb hexavalent chromium MCL in 2014, the California Manufacturers and Technology Association and Solano County Taxpayers Association filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Sacramento Superior Court challenging the standard on several grounds. Their primary arguments were that the department failed to consider the economic feasibility of this standard, and the standard was, in fact, economically infeasible. They contended these defects violated both the act and the California Administrative Procedure Act, with the costs of compliance prohibitively expensive for water utilities and their customers, especially small utilities.
The petitioners conceded the department prepared estimates of the compliance costs of potential MCLs, which, as discussed above, the court found to be thorough. However, they argued the department failed to analyze whether incurring those estimated costs was economically feasible for water utilities and their customers.
The department offered several arguments in response. First, it pointed out that customers of very large water systems would see their water bills increase by only about $5.33 per month, or $64 per year, under the 10 ppb MCL. The department implicitly argued this cost was economically feasible on its face. Although the court suggested that it agreed, it pointed out that the department merely noting this fact in a legal brief during a challenge to the MCL does not demonstrate that it considered economic feasibility when adopting the MCL. The court also stated this fact was “cold comfort” to customers of small water utilities whose bills could rise by $5,630 per year, or $469.17 per month, which the court indicated, without deciding, is probably economically infeasible on its face for most customers.
The department's second argument was that small water system customers would not necessarily experience bill increases of $5,630 per year because, under the act, water systems can seek an exemption from an MCL if they show “compelling factors” exist, such as economic factors and serving a disadvantaged community. The court responded that complete exemptions are difficult to obtain and effective only for a limited period of time while the utility works to achieve compliance.
The department's third argument was that, if small water systems could demonstrate that centralized hexavalent chromium treatment would not be immediately economically feasible, they might be able to comply by using point-of-entry devices, which treat water at the service connection—for example, as it enters a building or home—or point-of-use devices, which treat water at the device used, such as a filter on a water faucet. But the court noted that, to use these devices, water systems must submit applications for funding to address the MCL exceedances at a centralized treatment location that cause the use of these point-of-entry and point-of-use devices. These devices can only be used for three years or until centralized treatment funding is available, whichever comes first.
Fourth, the department argued small water systems could meet the MCL by blending non-compliant water with compliant water, rather than fully treating non-compliant water, or replacing sources impacted with hexavalent chromium with sources that are not. The court noted that these techniques might reduce compliance costs to a more feasible level but, as with the other options, the department failed to consider them during the rulemaking process.
Fifth, the department noted that, with an annual compliance cost of $155.4 million and 12.5 million California residents, this cost equated to only about $12.46 per household per year. But the court pointed out, and the department admitted, that not all households will be affected by the regulation. Only one-third of monitored water sources contained any hexavalent chromium, and fewer still had impacts above the 10 ppb MCL that would require action. The court thus found it was unreasonable to evaluate the compliance cost as if it were spread across every California household. (Although not noted by the court, this analysis also ignores business service connections.)
Finally, the department argued that, while the estimated annual cost per service connection for small systems was high, the projected number of affected customers of small systems was low. The court ruled that, even if only a small number of users is affected by a $5,600 increase, it does not follow that the increased cost is economically feasible. The department recognized as much in its final statement of reasons during the rulemaking process, conceding that the increased cost for small systems “may not be affordable.” The court also dismissed the District's argument that “economically feasible” does not necessarily mean “affordable,” noting that any analysis of economic feasibility must at least consider affordability.
The court rejected each of the department's arguments in support of the MCL. In the court's view, the fatal flaw with the department's arguments and proposed compliance options is that it did not consider them in a meaningful way during the rulemaking process when it set the MCL, devoting only three sentences in the entire administrative record to a few of the options discussed above. Instead, the department only raised these arguments and compliance options during the writ proceeding challenging the MCL. Moreover, the court found that, even during the writ proceeding, the department did not consider whether its proposed compliance options, such as exemptions, point-of-treatment and point-of-use devices, and water blending, would affect the economic feasibility of the MCL and render it economically feasible, especially for small water utilities and their customers.
Accordingly, despite the department's thorough analysis of the compliance cost of each potential hexavalent chromium MCL, the court agreed with the petitioners that the department failed to consider whether the standard it selected, and the proposed compliance cost of that standard, were economically feasible. The issue, according to the court, was not that the department conducted a flawed economic feasibility analysis. It was that the department failed to conduct any meaningful economic feasibility analysis at all.
The court noted that the department did conduct a cost-benefit analysis, under which it—“very briefly and not entirely clearly”—estimated the benefits of complying with the proposed 10 ppb MCL, which the department determined was 12 cancer cases avoided per year. (The department apparently did not estimate the number or cost of cancer cases avoided for other potential MCLs.) However, the court found this limited cost-benefit analysis did not satisfy the department's obligation to evaluate the economic feasibility of the selected standard.
Ruling on separate but related issues, the court rejected the petitioners’ argument that there were fatal flaws in the department's data used to generate its cost estimates and, as a result, in those estimates themselves.
Nevertheless, the court reluctantly agreed with the petitioners that the department failed to consider the economic feasibility of the 10 ppb hexavalent chromium MCL and remanded the case to the department for consideration of economic feasibility. Under a state law enacted in 2014, the function of establishing MCLs now falls to the California State Water Resources Control Board.
Implications, Next Steps
The state board will have to return to the drawing board and undertake another rulemaking to establish a hexavalent chromium MCL, which could take several years and end up back in litigation. The court rejected the department's request to leave the 10 ppb MCL in place while the state board conducts its rulemaking, indicating that doing so might “create an inexorable amount of momentum for [the State Board] to simply readopt 10 ppb without adequately considering its economic feasibility.” The court also rejected the department's request to invalidate the MCL only as to small water systems. The court did not place a time limit on establishing a new MCL but noted that the legislature set a two-year deadline for doing so, although this deadline expired in 2004 and the department was under a separate court order to submit an MCL by 2014.
The invalidation of the MCL will also affect cleanups throughout California. The 10 ppb hexavalent chromium standard would likely have been used as a screening level or cleanup standard at many sites being investigated and remediated. Instead, the pre-existing total chromium standard of 50 ppb will probably continue to be used in those circumstances, likely reducing the cost of environmental investigations and remediations.
Brian Moskal is counsel in Greenberg Glusker's Environmental Group. He has represented clients in environmental litigation and counseling matters with a focus on contaminated sites and water and wastewater issues and has worked on investigation and enforcement matters before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and California Regional Water Quality Control Boards.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=116857581&vname=dennotallissues&fn=116857581&jd=116857581
-
Democrats Caught in Green Crossfire Over Senate Energy Bill
Jul 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
The sprawling Senate energy package is again sowing discord among environmental groups, but one of their biggest Senate allies says the bill may provide a good opportunity for bipartisanship.
Friends of the Earth and Food and Water Watch are spearheading opposition to the bill (S. 1460), branding it a “pro-fracking” measure that perpetuates U.S. dependence on fossil fuel energy. But other conservation-minded groups, such as the National Wildlife Federation and The Nature Conservancy, argue that the legislation's public lands provisions outweigh any drawbacks.
Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) are pushing for Senate floor time for the bill before the now-delayed August recess. A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), however, said it's so far not on the chamber's schedule.
The nearly-900 page bill, which generated similar environmental crossfire last Congress, would require the Energy Department to expedite approval of liquefied natural gas (LNG) export projects and authorize funding for methane hydrate research. A broad range of energy efficiency measures, power grid modernization, and cybersecurity provisions are also included.
Dissent Faces Uphill Battle
Environmental critics are pressuring lawmakers to reject the bill, but face an uphill battle. So far, no Democrat has publicly voiced opposition.
“There's been no slaking of the thirst for bipartisan work because none's been available, and I think in energy, there are areas where we can work together,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who is one of environmental groups’ biggest Senate allies, told Bloomberg BNA. “We're not going to agree on everything, but it's worth a try.”
A nearly identical version of the legislation passed the Senate last Congress with no Democrats voting against it and 85 total votes in favor.
Still, the legislation would entrench natural gas into the U.S. energy portfolio for years to come, which would exacerbate climate change, Ben Schreiber, political strategist at Friends of the Earth, told Bloomberg BNA.
“You can't add energy efficiency measures to a ‘pro-fracking’ bill and sell it as a good bill. This takes us in the wrong direction,” Scheiber said.
The legislation would compel the Energy Department to make a decision on an LNG export project within 45 days of approval at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) or Maritime Administration. Separately, the bill would require FERC and other regulators to finalize a decision on natural gas pipelines 90 days after an environmental review, while also requiring all federal and state agencies to show deference to FERC.
Natural gas production continues to skyrocket due to hydraulic fracturing. Natural gas produces less carbon dioxide than coal, but environmental groups say a transition to carbon-free energy is needed to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.
Conservation Support
Meanwhile, the legislation includes permanent reauthorization of an Interior Department program designed to acquire federal land and dole out state conservation assistance grants. Democrats and many Republicans on Capitol Hill praise the Land and Water Conservation Fund as a critical conservation tool.
The acquisitions aim to protect natural resources and facilitate tourism. Interior officials use the fund, which is derived from offshore energy development revenue, to absorb some of the nearly 3 million acres of private land existing with national park boundaries, the National Park Service says.
The Senate package also tacks on a new fund, the National Park Service Maintenance and Revitalization Conservation Fund.
It also would draw revenue from offshore production would pay for “high-priority deferred maintenance needs of the [National Park Service] that support critical infrastructure and visitor services.” None of those funds would be used for acquisition, according to the bill.
‘On Balance, We're Supporting’
Those provisions, along with some other habitat conservation programs, are fueling support among some environmental groups. “On balance this is a bill we're supporting,” Josh Saks, legislative director at the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), told Bloomberg BNA.
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), one of the lawmakers that tried to negotiate a compromise on the bill last Congress, opposes the LWCF authorization without substantial changes to the program. Bishop labeled the bill a “federal land grab.”
Saks said a bicameral conference this Congress may chip away at the authorization language, particularly with President Donald Trump in the White House.
The Nature Conservancy joins NWF in urging support but echoes that concern. “We always worry about how process in Congress will play out,” Tom Cors, director of lands at The Nature Conservancy, told Bloomberg BNA. “But I think the desire to have an energy bill is something that would allow for conservation provisions to prevail.”
The Senate hasn't passed a large-scale energy bill since 2007.
Democratic Defections?
Despite the conservation provisions, opponents of the bill are “making traction” in enticing Democrats to oppose the bill, Mitch Jones, a lobbyist for Food and Water Watch, told Bloomberg BNA.
Food and Water Watch teamed up with Friends of the Earth and other organizations to pressureSenate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) to oppose the bill. Food and Water Watch has organized 500 calls on the issue to Schumer's office and nearly 3,000 Senate-wide, Jones told Bloomberg BNA.
Cantwell said the bill would authorize $10 million annually for the Energy Department to develop advanced cybersecurity protections against grid attacks and sanction current and former FERC commissioners that disclose critical infrastructure information.
“Our critical infrastructure is under attack by the Russians, and we need to do more for cyber infrastructure security,” Cantwell told Bloomberg BNA. “I like this package and would like to get this package done.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=116857564&vname=dennotallissues&fn=116857564&jd=116857564
-
Environmentalists Make Case For Broader 'Block 1' Power Plant GHG Rule
Jul 18, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
Amid expectations that the Trump EPA will scrap the Clean Power Plan (CPP) by arguing its power plant greenhouse gas regulatory authority is limited to actions “inside the fence” of plants, some environmentalists are pushing back against the notion that such an approach would necessarily result in a rule requiring miniscule emissions cuts.
In a recent meeting with Trump administration officials over a draft proposal to rescind the CPP, one environmentalist reprised arguments that several emission reduction strategies -- such as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and co-firing coal plants with natural gas -- could fit within a narrow, “inside the fence” interpretation of EPA's authority under Clean Air Act section 111.
It seems unlikely that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt would readily accept such arguments, given reports that the draft proposal undergoing White House review also includes a separate argument for repealing the Obama CPP that would exempt coal plants from any requirements if the agency is ultimately forced to write a replacement rule.
But the effort could lay the groundwork for a future legal challenge to any CPP replacement that environmentalists view as insufficiently stringent.
EPA's proposal to scrap the CPP, sent June 8 to the White House for interagency review, is expected to use a key legal critique that the agency's section 111(d) authority only allows it to base targets on actions taken at the power plant facility -- or “inside the fence.” Only the rule's first “building block,” which called for heat rate improvements at power plants, represents such a strategy.
The Trump EPA, as one possibility, could offer a CPP replacement that is limited to improving coal plants' heat rates and would require very little GHG cuts.
If EPA develops such a rule, environmentalists would likely challenge it as unreasonably weak, arguing that the agency has authority -- like the Obama rule claimed -- to base targets on “outside the fence” actions such as displacing coal with gas or renewables.
In addition, they could also argue that even if the agency is limited to “inside the fence” steps, the rule could encompass a wide variety of measures beyond heat rate improvements.
“We would not agree that a block 1 approach means” a revised CPP must be weak, one environmentalist says, adding that fuel switching -- such as from coal to natural gas -- “is allowed” under such an interpretation.
During a July 11 meeting with White House regulatory reviewers and EPA officials, a representative of the group Clean Air Task Force (CATF) distributed an excerpt of the group's comments on the Obama administration's proposed CPP arguing that “at a minimum,” the rule's block 1 components should have included: heat rate improvements, natural gas co-firing, “retirements of affected sources” and CCS retrofits.
When the comments were first submitted in December 2014, one CATF source said they offered “options of either having stricter targets than what's been proposed or it gives the option of configuring them in ways that are better for legal defense purposes.”
'Technically Feasible'
The Obama EPA in the final CPP largely rebuffed the effort to expand block 1 beyond heat rate improvements, generally finding that they were costlier than the GHG reduction strategies it finalized, including deploying more gas power and renewable energy to displace coal.
The agency in the final rule said it “found that some of these co-firing and CCS measures are technically feasible and within price ranges that the EPA has found to be cost effective in the context of other GHG rules, that a segment of the source category may implement these measures, and that the resulting emission reductions could be potentially significant.”
However, it added that co-firing and CCS “are more expensive than other available measures for existing sources. This is because the integrated nature of the electricity system affords significantly lower cost options.” Additionally, EPA found that “as a practical matter” if it included CCS and gas co-firing in the targets, most power plants would still likely comply with cheaper options such as substituting lower- or zero-emission power, or energy efficiency.
EPA's prior findings likely present some hurdles to any effort by environmentalists to force a rule with a broader “block 1” scope.
Even so, its findings that the strategies are “technically feasible and within price ranges that the EPA has found to be cost effective” could still enable those efforts, particularly if the agency is barred from considering “outside the fence” strategies that might be cheaper.
Prior Warnings
Observers have previously warned that CPP opponents' “fence line” argument might result in a scenario that is less than ideal for them.
For instance, Dallas Burtraw of the think tank Resource for the Future in a July 2015 blog post warned that if courts limit EPA's authority to “inside the fence” actions, “EPA might double down on the changes that are required at coal-fired power plants in order to achieve overall emissions reduction goals, and it could likely justify these changes as technically feasible with biomass and/or natural gas co-firing even if they were not ideal or efficient.”
Similarly, Virginia-based Dominion Resources in an April 2016 amicus brief supporting the CPP slammed challengers' “rigid interpretation” of EPA's Clean Air Act authority as limited to “inside the fence” measures.
The coal-heavy utility warned that view would result in “more premature and inefficient closures” of coal plants and would be more disruptive to the power sector, compared with an “outside the fence” approach that allowed market-based trading of emission allowances.
Dominion argued that such a scenario could result in GHG targets based on heat rate improvements, fuel switching or CCS, but utilities would face restricted compliance options and could not using trading or emissions averaging.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/environmentalists-make-case-broader-block-1-power-plant-ghg-rule
-
What If Big Oil’s Bet on Gas Is Wrong?
Jul 18, 2017 | Bloomberg
By Jack Farchy and Kelly Gilblom
Talk to a Big Oil executive these days, and the chances are they’ll steer the conversation toward gas.
“In 20 years, we will not be known as oil and gas companies, but as gas and oil companies,” Patrick Pouyanne, chief executive officer of French giant Total SA, told a conference in St. Petersburg last month.
Pouyanne and his peers have pitched the fuel as a bridge between a fossil-fuel past and a carbon-free future. Gas emits less pollution than oil and can be burned to produce the power that grids will need for electric cars.
But with the cost of renewable technologies falling sharply, some are warning that the outlook may not be so rosy. Forecasters are beginning to talk about peak gas demand, spurred by the growth of alternative power supplies, in the same breath as peak oil consumption, caused by the gradual demise of the internal combustion engine.
In a long-term outlook published last month, Bloomberg New Energy Finance predicted that gas’s market share in global power generation will drop from 23 percent last year to 16 percent by 2040, and that gas-fired power generation capacity will start to decline after 2031. BP Plc has highlighted “risks to gas demand” as a key uncertainty, including the possibility that consumption plateaus by 2035, “squeezed out by non-fossil fuels.”
If those forecasts play out, it has huge implications for Total, BP and other oil majors already grappling with a possible surge in electric car use. Gas-exporting nations most notably Russia, Qatar and Australia will also be exposed. The global gas industry, based on multi-billion dollar pipelines and export plants, has decades long investment cycles and decisions being made today rely on rising demand until the middle of the century.
The energy transition is “fundamentally a force that cannot be stopped,” Royal Dutch Shell Plc Chief Executive Officer Ben van Beurden said last month. “It is both policy and public sentiment, but also technology that is driving it.” Oil demand will probably peak in the 2030s or 2040s, he said, while “gas will not peak before the 40s if not in the 50s.”
Shell is still betting heavily on the future of gas after last year’s $50 billion purchase of BG Group Plc, but it’s also planning to spend $1 billion a year on new energy technologies such as renewables.
“There’s no question that gas usage declines over time,” Geisha Williams, CEO of PG&E Corp, the largest investor-owned utility in the U.S., said at a conference in San Francisco. “But I don’t think it’s overnight. I think it’s something that we have to manage.”
Until recently, the energy industry had been hoping that natural gas would play the role of a bridge fuel between polluting coal and emissions-free renewables. That’s because producing electricity from gas generates around half the carbon dioxide emissions that burning coal does. The International Energy Agency predicted a “golden age of gas.”
But rapid changes in the economics of renewables, combined with low coal prices, have put that outlook in doubt. The IEA last week predicted global gas demand for power generation would rise just 1 percent a year in the next six years, down from 4 percent a year in 2004-2010.
Driving the shift has been a sharp decline in the cost of building new renewable power –- which, unlike generating electricity from coal or gas, is almost free to run after the initial capital investment has been made.
“Wind and solar are just getting too cheap, too fast" for gas to play a transitional role, said Seb Henbest, lead author of the BNEF report.
The consultant estimates that onshore wind and solar power are already competitive with coal and gas in Germany, and that within five years they will be cheaper to build than new coal and gas plants in China, the U.S. and India. By the late 2020s, it will start to even be cheaper to build new onshore wind and solar power than run existing coal and gas plants.
The trends that are undercutting optimism about the global gas outlook are already playing out in Europe. Natural gas demand remains well below a 2010 peak, as greater energy efficiency, rapid adoption of renewables and resilient coal consumption cut into its market share.
The IEA does not see European gas demand returning to its 2010 high. In its base case scenario, European gas demand would be at the same level in 2040 as in 2020.
Still, most forecasts anticipate strong growth globally for natural gas demand for two decades or more. In the U.S., plentiful cheap supplies thanks to the shale boom helped gas displace coal as the primary fuel for power generation for the first time last year.
The IEA sees global natural gas demand growing almost 50 percent by 2040. Exxon Mobil Corp. sees a 44 percent increase. BP’s base case forecast is for a 38 percent increase in demand by 2035.
Several things could upend those predictions.
Much of the forecast growth in gas demand is dependent on China and India adopting policies that favor gas rather than coal in an attempt to improve air quality. The Chinese government, for example, has set a goal of getting as much as 10 percent of its energy from gas by 2020 and 15 percent by 2030, up from 6 percent in 2015. The country also plans to more than double import capacity by 2025. If that doesn’t happen, gas demand could peak sooner.
And the power sector, while the largest single source of natural gas demand, only accounts for 40 percent of the market. By contrast, nearly 60 percent of global oil use is as a transport fuel and vulnerable to the rise of electric vehicles.
“The future of oil is down to whether electric vehicles take off or not; the future of gas is quite nuanced,” said James Henderson, director of natural gas at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. “Gas producers are talking about how to adapt to a different type of gas market.”
While the outlook for wind and solar for power generation appears limitless, renewables will have a harder time replacing fossil fuels in other sectors. The IEA last week said industry will drive gas demand’s 1.6 percent a year growth through 2022 as it replaces crude oil as a raw material for petrochemical manufacturing, especially in the U.S.
“Gas will play a significant role in the decades to come,” Johannes Teyssen, chief executive officer of EON SE, told Bloomberg on May 24. “Coal will decline much, much faster, but gas probably needs also to accept that its own role will not grow to eternity."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-17/big-oil-sees-salvation-in-gas-but-what-if-it-s-the-wrong-bet
-
Bill Would Expand Pipeline Climate Reviews
Jul 18, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Corbin Hiar
A new bill from Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern would expand the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's reviews of proposed natural gas pipelines to include more potential sources of greenhouse gas emissions.
H.R. 3241 would require FERC take into account "greenhouse gas emissions associated with the construction and operation of the pipeline" when considering it for a certificate of public convenience and necessity.
It would also require FERC to look at the greenhouse gas impacts of the production, transportation and combustion of the natural gas that would be carried through a pipeline.
Currently, FERC only examines the greenhouse gas emissions that will result from the pipeline itself. A guidance issued under President Obama directed federal agencies to quantify greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews, which FERC earlier this year included in a manual for pipeline developers (Greenwire, Feb. 24).
Activists have said similar measures would make important information public and help the people hold government officials accountable. But the bill is unlikely to move forward under GOP control of Congress.
For years, environmental advocates and many Democrats have been demanding changes in how FERC processes energy infrastructure projects.
This week, Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) wrote the agency expressing concern over its review of the Mountain Valley pipeline, a 303-mile natural gas project from West Virginia to Virginia, which recently received a final environmental impact statement and is awaiting final FERC approval.
Beyer, who has opposed the project vehemently, said FERC didn't give people a chance to comment on thousands of pages of supplemental information for the pipeline's application.
"Local communities affected most by proposed energy infrastructure naturally have concerns regarding projects of this size and complexity," Beyer wrote. "They deserve the opportunity to express their views fully and participate in a robust public engagement process, especially for projects which will use eminent domain to seize private land from homeowners and projects."
Several of Beyer's Virginia colleagues filed legislation, S. 1314, last month that would expand FERC's public outreach to communities in the paths of pipelines (E&E Daily, June 9).
Separately, Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) introduced H.R. 3256 to revive incentive payments for hydroelectric projects, a production incentive and an efficiency incentive. Authorization for both ended in fiscal 2015.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/07/18/stories/1060057503
-
Opinion: Private Freight Rail Is Key To Our Infrastructure
Jul 18, 2017 | Daily Comet
By Ian Jefferies
The White House recently released much-anticipated specificity on addressing America’s public infrastructure and transportation systems – both of which require a massive facelift. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, our interconnected system of roads, bridges, waterways, electric systems and the like are less than satisfactory, scoring a “D-plus” collectively across 16 categories.
Louisiana received the same, unfortunate grade in the engineers’ state assessment, a problem that drivers and even boaters across the state are all too familiar with. “We run the risk of being left behind by the larger states,” State Rep. Walt Leger, D-New Orleans, said in regard to Louisiana infrastructure. “And we’re just kind of left in the middle, alone and disconnected.”
Bipartisan action on infrastructure revitalization should be prioritized, including in empowering states to tackle their most pressing problems. The privately owned freight rail industry – which received the highest grade of any U.S. infrastructure system and which takes trucks off these systems in staggering numbers – has some simple advice: advance policies that allow the freight rail industry to succeed while simultaneously crafting laws that will address road and bridge repairs and maintenance in a sustainable fashion.
While any infrastructure package will be complicated, ensuring the viability of this industry that serves almost every industry and lessens deterioration of roads and bridges, is a common sense place to start.
Most immediately, Washington regulators must ditch numerous proceedings to re-regulate freight rail, especially a proposed measure called forced access, which would allow the government to order one rail company to use its own privately owned facilities on behalf of a competitor. Because rail routing is complex, further injecting bureaucrats into the private sector would slow rail traffic, push freight on to overburdened highways and in turn reduce dollars available for investment. Less investment by a sector that has spent more than $100 billion over the past four years could hurt businesses that rely on railroads, hence why economic re-regulation of railroads is widely opposed, including by package delivery giant UPS, small businesses and prominent free market and taxpayer advocates.
More broadly, lawmakers should forge sustainable funding solutions to the insolvent Highway Trust Fund, the pool of money funded almost solely by the gas tax and which is used to fund federal and state transportation infrastructure projects. Because the gas tax does not cover operating expenses, and because commercial users such as trucks do not pay for their proportional use of roads, taxpayers have subsidized the fund to the tune of $143 billion since 2008. We need measures such as a weight distance fee that accounts more realistically for commercial road use.
Next, we should not make matters worse by pushing heavier trucks onto transportation networks. Any federal program that boosts truck weight limits at the federal level further subsidizes commercial highway users at the expense of taxpayers, exacerbates deterioration of crumbling infrastructure and tilts the policy scale against a critical freight rail industry. Trucks today do not cover their current impact and heavier trucks will only force taxpayers to further bankroll the underpayment of even heavier trucks.
Last, we must make our tax code, the highest in the industrial world, simpler and more competitive while also streamlining government processes that will similarly unshackle the business community. By generating policies that focus more on desired outcomes than prescriptive steps and cutting red tape in the permitting process, long-delayed infrastructure projects may finally come to fruition. Not by eradicating regulation, but by instilling good government principles — transparency and complete and sound science — railroads, trucks and other transportation stakeholders would gain efficiencies that make room for greater innovation and investment.
Fixing U.S. infrastructure, particularly roads and bridges, is no small task. But by spurring private investments and ensuring the vitality of freight rail, a messy picture is at least a bit neater.
Jefferies is senior vice president for government affairs at the Association of American Railroads.
http://www.dailycomet.com/opinion/20170718/opinion-private-freight-rail-is-key-to-our-infrastructure
-
Trump Plans to Move Environmental Issues to NAFTA's Core
Jul 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The Trump administration wants to move environmental concerns from a NAFTA side agreement to the core of the deal in an upcoming renegotiation with Canada and Mexico.
That proposal at first blush appears to address what environmental groups have long considered a shortcoming to the 1992 trade deal. But the proposal, detailed in a U.S. Trade Representative list of priorities released July 17, was viewed as little more than window dressing by environmental groups that see the language as virtually identical to what they view as weak environmental provisions included in more recent trade deals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
The U.S. trade representative's Summary of Objectives for the North American Free Trade Agreement renegotiation—essentially a laundry list of priorities the Trump administration was required to release at least 30 days ahead of any renegotiation—would move “environment provisions into the core of the Agreement rather than in a side agreement,” where they have resided since NAFTA entered into force in 1994.
But Ben Beachy, director of the Sierra Club's Responsible Trade Program, told Bloomberg BNA that language, along with other environmental proposals listed in the summary, “looks like a copy and paste of the environmental provisions of the defunct TPP,” a deal that U.S. environmental groups widely opposed. Beachy said the similarities are “ironic” in that the language was drawn “from a deal that Trump proclaimed to hate.” President Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. from that deal shortly after his inauguration.
The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg L.P. Bloomberg BNA is an affiliate of Bloomberg L.P.
President George H.W. Bush signed NAFTA in 1992, but the agreement's silence on the environment prompted his successor, President Bill Clinton, to pledge to strengthen its environmental protections. NAFTA, with resulting side deals on labor and the environment, went into force in 1994 over the objections of many environmental concerns that viewed the protections as virtually unenforceable.
U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer formally notified Congress on May 18 of the Trump administration's intent to initiate a renegotiation of NAFTA with Canada and Mexico.
While reopening the trade deal was one of Trump's top campaign pledges, significant obstacles remain, including what are likely to be Canada's and Mexico's significant demands to strengthen protections for their own industries.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=116857566&vname=dennotallissues&fn=116857566&jd=116857566
-
Ozone Delay Bill With Dem Amendments Up For House Vote Today
Jul 18, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
House Democrats, unlikely to defeat a bill that would push back implementation of U.S. EPA's latest ozone standard, will get the chance to hack away at it today with a half-dozen amendments.
The proposed delay, part of H.R. 806, is coupled with a package of broader changes to the Clean Air Act.
The House Rules Committee approved the structured rule for floor debate late yesterday on a 6-3 party-line vote after a brief hearing.
Among the six amendments ruled in order is one by Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) that would block the implementation delay from taking effect if an EPA advisory committee finds that it would add to health risks for pregnant women and other vulnerable populations. Another by Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) would close what he described as a loophole for the oil and gas industry on aggregation of smaller pollution sources.
Also in line for debate is a substitute measure by Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.) to strike H.R. 806 and replace it with a grant program to aid regions with particularly bad air quality.
The bill was introduced in February by Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) and cleared the House Energy and Commerce Committee late last month. A predecessor, H.R. 4775, won House approval last year, only to die in the Senate following an Obama administration veto threat. Among the 24 co-sponsors of this year's measure are House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and two Democrats, Reps. Sanford Bishop of Georgia and Henry Cuellar of Texas.
A keystone of the bill is the provision that would effectively delay enforcement of EPA's 2015 ground-level ozone standard for most of the coming decade. The agency had been scheduled to make attainment designations for the 70-parts-per-billion standard by this October, thereby starting the clock on statutory cleanup requirements. Olson's measure would postpone that milestone until 2025.
Ozone, a lung irritant linked to asthma attacks in children, is the main ingredient in smog. While environmental groups have accordingly dubbed Olson's bill the "smoggy skies act," he again defended the legislation yesterday as needed to let states catch up with implementation of the previous 75 ppb ozone standard set in 2008.
The bill "is about cleaning up our air," he said at the Rules Committee hearing. "It's not about going backward; it's about charting the best path forward."
In the future, the legislation would stretch the Clean Air Act's timetable for reviewing the standards for ozone and five other key air pollutants from once every five years to once every decade. It would also allow EPA for the first time to take technological feasibility into account when having to choose among a range of options in setting a new air quality standard.
The legislation "takes an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach to weakening the Clean Air Act," said Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), an Energy and Commerce Committee member, during the hearing.
The League of Conservation Voters, echoing its view of last year's bill, urged lawmakers yesterday to reject H.R. 806 and said in a letter that it would "strongly consider" including votes on the legislation in its next annual scorecard.
The Rules Committee also blocked several proposed amendments from getting a vote today. They included a measure by Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) to spell out that state air quality cleanup plans could incorporate local land-use policies. Pressed for an explanation on Republicans' refusal to let the amendment advance to the floor, Rules Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) said that the bill was about ozone standards, not land use.
Since Olson introduced his bill in February, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has postponed the ozone standard attainment designations until October 2018. EPA is also rethinking its position on the 2015 threshold, which is the target of lawsuits both by industry and environmental groups.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/07/18/stories/1060057509
-
Current Nitrogen Dioxide Air Standards Sufficient, EPA Says
Jul 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Existing air quality standards for nitrogen dioxide are sufficient to protect public health, the EPA said in a proposal released July 17.
The Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to retain the existing national ambient air quality standards for nitrogen dioxide follows a September 2016 recommendation from its panel of scientific advisers that the current requirements are sufficient.
Nitrogen dioxide primarily comes from burning fuel. Retaining the current standards would avoid the possibility that some states would need to set new emission limits on vehicles and power plants if the requirements were made more stringent.
The current health-based standards for nitrogen dioxide are 100 parts per billion measured hourly, which was set in 2010, and 53 ppb measured annually, which was set in 1971. Exposure to high levels of nitrogen dioxide can aggravate asthma and other respiratory diseases and potentially increase susceptibility to respiratory infections, according to the EPA's website.
Stronger Standards Sought
Environmental and public health advocates have been pressing the EPA since 2010 to set more protective standards. Better data from air pollution monitors near roadways would likely show that the current standards are not sufficient to protect public health, Janice Nolen, assistant vice president for policy and advocacy at the American Lung Association, told Bloomberg BNA.
“We need more data, we need more research, and unfortunately it just didn't happen,” she said.
The EPA in December issued a rule limiting roadside nitrogen dioxide air pollution monitoring requirements to only the largest cities.
The EPA will accept comments on its proposal to retain the nitrogen dioxide standards for 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. Comment can be made at https://www.regulations.gov/and should reference Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0146.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=116857568&vname=dennotallissues&fn=116857568&jd=116857568
-
EPA Proposal Backs CASAC's Suggestion To Retain Existing NO2 NAAQS
Jul 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Anthony Lacey
EPA is proposing to retain its existing nitrogen dioxide (NO2) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) set at 100 ppb over one hour, backing a suggestion from its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) to keep the current standard in place because it is adequate to protect public health as required by the Clean Air Act.
The proposed rule, posted to EPA's website July 14, says the decision to retain the existing standard “has been informed by a careful consideration of the full body of scientific evidence and information available” for its review of the NAAQS mandated by the air law. The Clean Air Act says the agency must reviewed its NAAQS for NO2 and other criteria pollutants every five years, although EPA has fallen behind schedule with some reviews.
Environmentalists sued to force a deadline for the NO2 NAAQS review which should have occurred in 2015, and a court order mandated issuance of a proposed review by July 14 and a final rule by April 6, 2018.
In the proposal, EPA says that its assessment of scientific data on NO2 emissions' health effects -- including an integrated science assessment that summarized the latest research on the pollutant, and a policy assessment (PA) that outlined options for updating the standard -- justifies keeping the 100 ppb standard in place.
EPA notes that the decision is in line with the recommendation of CASAC, which advises EPA on where to set the level and form of its six NAAQS. CASAC agreed with EPA's assessment that NO2 directly causes short-term respiratory harm, such as worsened asthma symptoms. But the advisers also said that the evidence for other health effects such as long-term respiratory damage or cardiovascular effects is less conclusive.
In a March 7 letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, CASAC said that EPA should pursue further research on possible health effects that occur below the 100 ppb limit. The Obama EPA tightened the standard to 100 ppb in 2010, using a novel one-hour averaging time, in order to protect against brief spikes in pollution. An older annual standard of 53 ppb, dating from 1971, remains in effect and is also being kept in place.
Following CASAC's advice, EPA in April published the PA that recommended leaving the NO2 NAAQS in place, and the new proposal codifies that through rulemaking.
EPA will take comment on the proposal for 60 days following its upcoming publication in the Federal Register, and will then weigh that input before issuing a final decision on whether to retain the existing NAAQS.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-proposal-backs-casacs-suggestion-retain-existing-no2-naaqs
-
California Lawmakers Approve Landmark Extension To Climate Policy
Jul 18, 2017 | Reuters
By Dan Whitcomb
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - California's legislature passed a package of bills that extends the state's signature plan to address climate change by a decade, sending Governor Jerry Brown a cap-and-trade plan that uses market forces to cuts greenhouse gas emissions.
The legislation puts California at the forefront of plans by mostly Democratic governors to reduce carbon emissions and adhere to the goals of the Paris climate change agreement even after Republican President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the pact.
Brown and other state Democratic leaders have vowed to make California the leader in opposing the environmental policy of Trump, who has rolled back the programs of his predecessor, Barack Obama.
The new California legislation emerged from long negotiations, although only a single Republican joined Democrats in voting in favor of the legislative package in the state Senate on Monday afternoon. Hours later, the Assembly voted 55 to 21 to send the legislation to Brown.
"Tonight, California stood tall and once again, boldly confronted the existential threat of our time. Republicans and Democrats set aside their difference, came together and took courageous action. That's what good government looks like," Brown said in a statement.
Speaking in opposition, State Senator Andy Vidak said the laws represented a "regressive" tax that would not make any impact on climate change.
"We could shut down the entire state of California and it would have no effect on the global climate," Vidak said.
The legislation extends California's cap-and-trade program, which was set to expire in three years, through 2030 and attempts to strengthen it by requiring large industrial facilities to upgrade old equipment with cleaner, more modern technology by 2023.
California's cap-and-trade plan sets a state limit on emissions of greenhouse gases and lets companies, such as factories and refineries, buy and sell permits to emit carbon dioxide. The system uses market forces to find the most efficient ways to cut pollution, supporters say.
The new package seeks to reform the state's existing cap-and-trade market by curbing the number of free carbon allowances by 40 percent by 2030 and requiring that offsets be sourced from California, not elsewhere.
Despite holding a supermajority, Democrats had failed in previous attempts to pass new cap-and-trade legislation over opposition from more liberal members of the party who felt it did not go far enough and moderates concerned about the impact on business.
Republicans were largely united in opposing the legislation, saying it places unfair burdens on consumers and employers, especially on top of a 12-cents-a-gallon gasoline tax hike passed by state lawmakers earlier this year.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-budget-idUSKBN1A30RD
-
Trump May Seek Solution on Climate Change, Macron Says
Jul 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Fabio Benedetti-Valentini
French President Emmanuel Macron, who welcomed Donald Trump to Paris to participate in Bastille Day celebrations, said the U.S. president may seek a solution over the next months for the fight against global warming.
“We've spoken in detail on what may allow him to return into the Paris accord,” Macron said in comments published July 16 in the newspaper Le Journal du Dimanche. “It's important to maintain a dialogue” with the U.S. about its potential comeback in multilateral actions for climate, he said.
In June, Trump announced that the U.S. would withdraw from the 2015 Paris deal and earlier this month Washington was the only member of the Group of 20 nations that didn't agree that the accord on cutting harmful emissions was “irreversible.” Trump softened his position at a press conference July 13 with Macron, saying, “something could happen with respect to the Paris accord. We'll see what happens. We'll talk about that over the coming period of time. If it happens, that'll be wonderful, and if it doesn't, that'll be OK too.”
Macron and Trump will speak soon about the fight against Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, the newspaper reported. Mentioning his relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Macron told the outlet that removing Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad wasn't a “prerequisite” any longer but use of chemical weapons and restricting humanitarian access to civilians were “red lines.” Macron added that France and Russia were making progress on these two topics.
France and Russia are also working on a “protocol” to avoid a repeat of hacking of computer systems, Macron said. Macron met Putin in Versailles on May 29.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=116857579&vname=dennotallissues&fn=116857579&jd=116857579
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
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested