Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 18/7/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) EDF Has Deep Concerns over Nomination of Industry Consultant to Lead Toxics Program at EPA
Jul 18, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
We are deeply concerned over the nomination of Michael Dourson to head the toxics office at EPA. -
(ACC Mentioned) Trump’s Pick to Head EPA Toxics Office Bad News for Children’s Environmental Health
Jul 18, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
In choosing Michael Dourson to be the head of the Environmental Protection Agency’s chemicals and pesticides division, President Trump has continued his fox-in-the-henhouse approach to children’s environmental health and environmental protection, said EWG Senior Vice President of Government Affairs Scott Faber. -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Says Framework Rules Give 'Every Reason to Be Optimistic' about New TSCA
Jul 18, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The American Chemistry Council says that the three TSCA ‘framework’ rules issued last month have given it "every reason to be optimistic about the implementation" of the new law. -
Cooper Urges Quick EPA Assessment of GenX
Jul 18, 2017 | Coastal Review Online
Gov. Roy Cooper, in a letter dated Monday, appealed to the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to move more quickly in assessing the chemical GenX found in the area’s drinking water supply and setting a maximum contaminant level for it. -
Appropriators Target EPA Bid to Ban 3 Industrial Solvents
Jul 18, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hier
House appropriators are quietly urging the Trump administration to abandon proposed U.S. EPA regulations that would ban certain uses of three dangerous chemicals and restrict the number of hazardous waste reviews done by the Department of Health and Human Services. -
Trump at 6 Months: An Unprecedented Assault on Children’s Health
Jul 18, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Alex Formuzls
No president and administration have ever done so much so quickly to roll back protections for children's health and safety. -
Water Tainted with Perfluorocarbons by U.S. Military Is Focus of Legislation
Jul 18, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Zach Coleman
The Pentagon would have to study whether drinking water tainted with perfluorinated chemicals used in firefighting causes health problems under a bill the U.S. House of Representatives passed on July 14. -
FERC Accused of Failing to Address Pipelines' Impacts
Jul 18, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has rejected only two pipelines over the last 30 years out of the hundreds proposed, according to an investigation that paints the regulatory body as particularly cozy with the industry it oversees. -
Twelve States Raise 'Deep Concern' over CPP Repeal
Jul 18, 2017 | Inside EPA
A dozen states that support the Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP) greenhouse gas rule for existing power plants are urging the White House budget office to reconsider its review of an EPA proposal to repeal the CPP, saying a repeal would hurt public health and the economy and “is contrary to EPA's obligation to implement the Clean Air Act.” -
WBI Seeking to Shutter PRB’s Billy Creek Natural Gas Storage Field
Jul 18, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passult
Bismarck, ND-based WBI Energy Transmission Inc. is requesting authorization from FERC to abandon the Billy Creek Storage Field in Wyoming's Powder River Basin (PRB), including associated injected and recoverable native cushion gas and associated facilities there. -
House Blueprint Could Open ANWR, Relocate NOAA
Jul 18, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By George Cahlink and Kellie Lunney
The House's budget proposal, set for markup tomorrow, could open up drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, much like President Trump's. -
Lawmakers Extend Cap and Trade, Tout Climate Leadership
Jul 18, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Anne C. Mulkern
California's Legislature passed a 10-year extension of the state's cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions with a robust, bipartisan two-thirds vote, a move leaders hailed as evidence that the Golden State will lead on climate change. -
California Votes to Extend Cap and Trade
Jul 18, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
California lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to extend the state's cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases through 2030. -
D.C. Circuit Remands Air Toxics 'Completion' Finding For EPA Justification
Jul 18, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Anthony Lacey
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a unanimous July 18 ruling has remanded EPA's final rule declaring that it has met a Clean Air Act mandate to regulate 90 percent of sources of seven air toxics, agreeing with environmentalists that the agency needs to better justify its explanation for the rule.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Jul 18, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
We are deeply concerned over the nomination of Michael Dourson to head the toxics office at EPA. Unfortunately, this nomination fits the clear pattern of the Trump Administration in appointing individuals to positions for which they have significant conflicts of interest. Dr. Dourson has extensive, longstanding ties to the chemical industry (as well as earlier ties to the tobacco industry). He also has a history of failing to appropriately address his conflicts of interest. For example:
After the 2014 chemical spill in Charleston, West Virginia, the state hired Dourson’s company, Toxicology Excellence in Risk Assessment (TERA), to convene and manage a health effects expert panel. TERA then appointed Dourson to chair the panel and act as its only spokesperson. The panel’s report failed to disclose that Dourson and TERA had done paid work for both of the companies that produced the chemicals involved in the spill. These conflicts only came to light upon questioning of Dourson by a reporter at the panel’s news conference.
Dourson and TERA have done extensive work on behalf of the so-called Perchlorate Study Group (PSG), which is actually comprised of producers and users of perchlorate. The work was aimed at reducing the stringency of federal standards. Dourson, who is on EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB), was asked to recuse himself from the Board’s 2013 meeting to review EPA’s work to develop a drinking water standard for perchlorate. Immediately upon doing so, Dourson provided “public” comments to the Board based on the work he had done for PSG.
In 2012, Dourson and TERA, with funding from the American Chemistry Council (ACC), set up and ran a website called “Kids + Chemical Safety.” (This website is now inactive and TERA itself has been migrated to be a center at the University of Cincinnati.) The site was designed to look like a neutral source of advice for parents concerned about chemical safety, but instead mirrored industry talking points about its chemicals and sought to shift responsibility for ensuring safety to the consumer or parent and away from the industry.
Dourson also has a history of undertaking work, often with significant funding from industry, to undermine public health protections and the science underlying them. For example:
Dourson and TERA have worked extensively for the Texas Department of Environmental Quality (TDEQ) to undermine EPA air pollution regulations.
Dourson set up the Alliance for Risk Assessment, and leads its “Beyond Science and Decisions” project. Heavily funded by industry (see here and here), the project is aimed at undermining the seminal 2009 National Academy of Sciences report “Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment.”
Dr. Dourson’s nomination comes at a critical time for the EPA toxics office, which is charged with implementing last year’s Lautenberg Act, which overhauled the ineffectual Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and passed with broad bipartisan support. That legislation was able to advance even in a highly partisan Congress because all stakeholders saw reform as needed to restore public and market confidence in our broken chemical safety system. The law struck a delicate balance between public and private interests.
Already, however, that balance has been upset when EPA recently finalized “framework rules” implementing the new law that skewed heavily in the chemical industry’s favor. If his track record is any indication, Dr. Dourson’s nomination threatens to move us further away from health-protective implementation of the new TSCA.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/07/18/edf-has-deep-concerns-over-nomination-of-industry-consultant-to-lead-toxics-program-at-epa/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump’s Pick to Head EPA Toxics Office Bad News for Children’s Environmental Health
Jul 18, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
In choosing Michael Dourson to be the head of the Environmental Protection Agency’s chemicals and pesticides division, President Trump has continued his fox-in-the-henhouse approach to children’s environmental health and environmental protection, said EWG Senior Vice President of Government Affairs Scott Faber.
“I’m on the other side of town from the offices of Croplife and the American Chemistry Council, but I swear I hear the faint sounds of champagne corks and confetti poppers coming from the C suites at both,” Faber said. “With Trump’s nomination of Mr. Dourson, the pesticide and chemical industries have a veritable murderers’ row inside the EPA’s offices responsible for national toxics policy.”
If Dourson is confirmed, he will join Administrator Scott Pruitt, and another long-time chemical industry representative, Nancy Beck, who, after many years as an executive at the ACC, is now the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention at the agency.
“Unsurprisingly, it appears President Trump has no interest in selecting individuals who would bring scientific expertise and a commitment to children’s environmental health to these key positions at the EPA,” said Olga Naidenko, Ph.D., EWG’s senior science advisor for children’s environmental health.
After a stint at the EPA more than two decades ago, Dourson went to the other side, working closely with tobacco and chemical companies as a “scientist for hire.” Dourson’s work on behalf of the chemical industry and his various conflicts of interest have been well documented. For more information on Dourson’s cozy relationship with industry, read this blog from our colleague Richard Denison at the Environmental Defense Fund.
http://www.ewg.org/testimony-official-correspondence/trump-s-pick-head-epa-toxics-office-bad-news-children-s#.WW5I3oSGPIV
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Says Framework Rules Give 'Every Reason to Be Optimistic' about New TSCA
Jul 18, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The American Chemistry Council says that the three TSCA‘framework’ rules issued last month have given it "every reason to be optimistic about the implementation" of the new law.
Speaking to reporters last week, Mike Walls, vice president of regulatory and technical affairs at the ACC, said that while there are still decisions to come in terms of processes outlined in each, they are "certainly consistent with the law and I think are indicative of EPA’s interest in implementing it to its fullest extent".
The ACC’s view are in line with comments from the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates’ (Socma) Dan Newton, senior manager of government relations. He told Chemical Watch earlier this month that the speciality chemicals group is "satisfied overall, and we can't think of anything that we're particularly troubled by".
The chemicals industry’s perspective is at odds with harsh criticism from NGOs and Democratic lawmakers, who have called the rules a "handout to industry" that potentially conflict with the statute.
Mr Walls agrees that his optimism "contrasts sharply" with those of some other stakeholders. And he said he can understand why those individuals are concerned.
But in the case of the new law’s implementation, he said there are "statutory provisions that are amenable to different interpretations when you start to look at their potential legal impact, or practical impact for that matter."
And based on its review to date, the ACC "would disagree with a conclusion that the framework rules do not comport with the legal requirements of the statute".
Judah Prero – an attorney with law firm Sidley Austin and former counsel to the ACC – told Chemical Watch that it is not a tenable argument that the final rules will result in an "ineffective programme", or that they indicate EPA caved to industry.
The rules were proposed under the Obama administration, which was "more ideologically aligned with some of the concerns being voiced by the environmental NGOs", and it’s clear that the Trump administration is not. "I don’t think anyone is surprised there may have been a shift" between the proposed and final rules, he said.
Mr Walls said it was reasonable to assume that there are "well-intentioned people on both sides of the debate that have a consistent objective – and that is to see the law implemented appropriately."
Industry groups, he added, remain "fully committed to seeing the Lautenberg Act implemented in a way that meets the Congressional objectives".'Beneficial' changes
Of specific adjustments, the ACC named the EPA’s change to the risk evaluation rule as most beneficial, to not necessarily assess all conditions of use, but instead focus on those that have the highest potential to pose risk.
Mr Walls said that this "sends an important message: that the EPA is going to be attentive to what are the relevant conditions of use and whether or not they need to be the subject of a deep-dive risk assessment."
And for the prioritisation rule, Mr Walls indicated the removal of the pre-prioritisation phase as the most significant.
"My own perspective on this is that EPA has demonstrated an ability to prioritise large sets of chemicals," including during the TSCA workplan effort. "I think that there can easily be opportunities for public input into that process, without necessarily designating an entire step that wasn’t even contemplated in the statute."
Both of these changes ranked high among the concerns raised by consumer advocacy groups after the rules were issued.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57717/acc-says-framework-rules-give-every-reason-to-be-optimistic-about-new-tsca
-
Cooper Urges Quick EPA Assessment of GenX
Jul 18, 2017 | Coastal Review Online
Gov. Roy Cooper, in a letter dated Monday, appealed to the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to move more quickly in assessing the chemical GenX found in the area’s drinking water supply and setting a maximum contaminant level for it.
Cooper urged EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to use the agency’s authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act to evaluate byproducts from other Chemours Co. production lines, including wastewater discharge. The company, which until recently discharged wastewater into the Cape Fear River from its Fayetteville Works facility, has stated that a 2009 consent order limiting emissions from GenX production doesn’t govern discharge of the same chemical when it’s a byproduct of other processes.
Cooper also asks in the letter for a requirement that companies submit multiple health studies when registering chemicals under the act.
“This will increase the public’s understanding of chemical compounds introduced into our waterways,” Cooper writes in the letter. “These safeguards are more important than ever as North Carolina and other states confront the presence of unregulated, emerging contaminants in our water.”
Also on Monday, Cooper told Wilmington-area officials he wants answers to lingering questions about GenX, the StarNews reported.
Cooper’s conference call on Monday he had discussed the GenX matter with area officials.
On Friday, state regulators revised the health goal for chronic toxicity, lowering the danger level for humans from 70,909 parts per trillion, or ppt, to 140 ppt.
https://www.coastalreview.org/2017/07/cooper-urges-quick-epa-assessment-genx/
-
Appropriators Target EPA Bid to Ban 3 Industrial Solvents
Jul 18, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hier
House appropriators are quietly urging the Trump administration to abandon proposed U.S. EPA regulations that would ban certain uses of three dangerous chemicals and restrict the number of hazardous waste reviews done by the Department of Health and Human Services.
The chemicals at issue: trichloroethylene (TCE), methylene chloride (MC) and n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP).
Late last year, EPA moved to prohibit the manufacture, import, processing and distribution of the carcinogenic TCE in degreasing and dry cleaning operations, the chemical's two primary uses in the United States (Greenwire, Dec. 7, 2016).
And six months ago, the agency proposed bans on MC and NMP for most commercial paint and coating-removal applications. MC is a suspected carcinogen and NMP has been linked to dozens of deaths from acute exposure (Greenwire, Jan. 13).
The solvent rulemakings were prioritized by the Toxic Substances Control Act update that was signed into law last June. A provision of the law — named in honor of the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) — said the EPA "administrator may publish proposed and final rules" for chemical substances with completed risk assessments.
EPA determined in June 2014 that there are "cancer risk concerns and short-term and long-term non-cancer risks for workers and occupational bystanders at small commercial degreasing facilities and dry cleaning facilities that use TCE-based solvents and spotting agents."
The following year, it reached a similar conclusion for MC and warned that NMP could produce "adverse reproductive and other systemic effects" to people using the paint stripper.
But in a report accompanying the Interior-EPA appropriations bill that is poised to clear the House Appropriations Committee today, lawmakers urge EPA to abandon those draft regulations.
"Rather than continuing with those rulemakings, the Committee encourages EPA to consider those chemical uses as part of the risk evaluation process for the ten priority compounds recently designated by EPA," the 178-page report says.
EPA doesn't have to comply with appropriators' suggestions, but it gives them significant weight since the lawmakers behind them control the agency's purse.
Under the reformed chemicals law, TCE, MC and NMP are set to receive comprehensive reviews of all their commercial uses — not just the ones EPA has already determined are harmful to human health and proposed to restrict (E&E News PM, Nov. 29, 2016).
Public health advocates are expressing outrage that lawmakers have urged EPA to slow-walk the worker protections — just as industry groups requested.
"The notion that we are going to force the agency to start over, ignore these risks and put them into a process that's going to take years to complete is an abdication of the agency's responsibility, if this were to go through," said Richard Denison, lead senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund.
The EDF scientist noted that three months ago, a 21-year-old worker in Tennessee died while refinishing a bathtub. Although the death of Kevin Hartley is being investigated by state labor regulators, acute MC exposure is believed to be to blame.
"The House is saying forget about that risk and defer any possible action for years into the future," Denison said. "This is one more example of private interest trumping public health of the most basic sort."
But the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance "believes that EPA should consider whether to regulate methylene chloride paint strippers and specific TCE applications under the new Lautenberg Act," said Faye Graul, the trade group's executive director. "EPA should look at the risk assessment of our mission chemicals in total."
The alliance has urged EPA to abandon the rulemakings in its comments on the proposals and in letters to the agency's rule-cutting task force.Capping contaminant reviews
The Interior-EPA bill would also limit the number of reviews of contaminants at hazardous waste sites that HHS's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry could complete next year.
"None of the funds appropriated under this heading shall be available for ATSDR to issue in excess of 40 toxicological profiles," the bill says.
Chris Portier, who led ATSDR from 2010 until he retired in 2013, said the provision appears to be part of the Trump administration's "general push to limit regulatory impact."
He added, "It makes no sense, it will have no impact."
Portier, who now works part time for EDF, said that under his leadership, the agency managed to produce around 10 toxicological profiles per year. Still, he was surprised to hear that appropriators were targeting his former agency.
"I don't recall a time when we got direction from Congress," he said. "Our work is generally noncontroversial. We go into communities and help them to understand what to do with Superfund sites in communities. The tox profiles are used to guide decisions about whether to act to remove exposure or not and the responsibility of EPA to clean them up."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/07/18/stories/1060057547
-
Trump at 6 Months: An Unprecedented Assault on Children’s Health
Jul 18, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Alex Formuzls
President Trump said last week that in his first months in office he has accomplished "more ... than practically any president in history." His claim is not supported by the facts, but at the six-month mark one thing is indisputable: No president and administration have ever done so much so quickly to roll back protections for children's health and safety.
Trump and the unqualified, uninformed sycophants with whom he's surrounded himself have spent the last six months trying to tear down virtually every program meant to shield kids from exposure to pollution, provide them with healthy diets, promote good nutrition, and ensure they have adequate and affordable health care. American children need a champion in the Oval Office, but the president has gone out of his way to implement policies that will hurt them.
"The president and his appointees display not only disregard of kids' needs, but outright hostility to the idea that the government has a duty to safeguard their health and well-being," said EWG President Ken Cook. “Just when you think the Trump administration's indifference to children's welfare has hit bottom, another assault is launched. What it amounts to is a war on American kids."
The spearhead of the administration's offensive is its plan to gut health insurance for children. The White House has proposed nearly $6 billion in cuts to the Children’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, which provides health care coverage for 8.9 million low-income children. The president's budget also proposes $1.4 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years to Medicaid, which provides health care to approximately 37 million more poor children.
Dirty Air, Dirty Water and Hungrier Kids
Not as much public attention has been paid to the steps Trump and his team have taken to reverse rules and reduce spending on programs designed to protect children from dirty air and water, toxic chemicals, and junk food. So far, the administration has:
Withdrawn a rule that protects the drinking water of 117 million Americans.
Slashed funding for the Environmental Protection Agency to its lowest level in 40 years.
Cancelled a scheduled ban of a pesticide linked to brain damage in kids.
Cut funding for programs designed to protect kids from lead.
Weakened new chemical safety rules that protect kids from toxic chemicals.
Reduced funding for programs designed to protect kids near Superfund toxic waste sites.
Scuttled the EPA’s plan to dramatically reduce childhood asthma.
Delayed clean air rules designed to reduce mercury emissions, which can cause brain damage in young children.
But that’s not all.
The Trump administration has also waged a full-scale war on America’s food and nutrition policies, delaying proposals designed to combat childhood obesity – such as more easily understood food labels – and relaxing rules to get junk food out of schools.
Trump is also demanding nearly $200 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. An estimated one in four American children receive food assistance through the program, and more than 40 percent of all SNAP recipients are children, according to the nonpartisan Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.
More Threats to Kids’ Health Ahead
Trump is not done yet. The president and his allies in Congress are pushing so-called regulatory reforms that would make it impossible to adopt rules to safeguard kids and other Americans from dangerous products and practices.
But EWG is fighting back.
EWG’s scientists, lawyers and media staff, with help from thousands of our supporters, have responded to the assault by fighting radical appointees like EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, conducting groundbreaking analyses and investigations, and sounding the alarm when Trump’s proposals threaten the health of our children.
EWG led the fight against Pruitt’s confirmation by exposing his efforts to protect poultry polluters as Oklahoma’s attorney general, including investigations of his campaign contributions and his time as a state legislator. We worked closely with Oklahoma experts, national reporters and congressional leaders to share our research with the public. When Pruitt lied to the Senate, we told you so and urged the Justice Department to investigate. When he put chemical industry lobbyists in charge at the EPA, we sounded the alarm.
Despite overwhelming evidence that Pruitt was unfit to lead the EPA, he was confirmed. EWG's Ken Cook predicted that Pruitt would “start on day one as the worst EPA administrator in history."
We didn't have to wait long for fulfillment of this prediction. One of Pruitt’s first decisions was to reverse the EPA’s decision to ban the use of chlorpyrifos, a pesticide shown to lower kids’ IQs.
“The chance to prevent brain damage in children was a low bar for most of Scott Pruitt’s predecessors, but it apparently just wasn’t persuasive enough for an administrator who isn’t sure if banning lead from gasoline was a good idea,” Cook told The Washington Post. “Instead, in one of his first major decisions as head of the EPA, like a toddler running toward his parents, Pruitt leaped into the warm and waiting arms of the pesticide industry.”
EWG documented how Pruitt sided with Dow, the maker of chlorpyrifos, to ignore the recommendations of the EPA's own scientists after the company made a $1 million donation to help fund Trump’s lavish inauguration. We also worked with the nation’s pediatricians to highlight the threats the pesticide poses to children, and went to court with American Oversight to demand records documenting Pruitt’s collusion with the pesticide industry. We provided advice on how to avoid eating Pruitt’s pesticide, and in the absence of federal action, we’re putting pressure on retailers and state legislators to help protect kids from exposure.
Trump and Pruitt are also trying to weaken chemical safety laws to help keep dangerous chemicals on the market, including 1,4-dioxane, a chemical the EPA says is a likely human carcinogen. EWG’s in-depth investigation found 1,4-dioxane in thousands of personal care products, including hundreds of products marketed to kids. We’ve told Trump and Pruitt we’ll see them in court.
Just this month, Trump and Pruitt withdrew a rule protecting rivers, lakes and bays from pollution – an action that threatens the drinking water of 117 million Americans. In response, EWG researchers dug into the data and published an interactive map that shows which communities will no longer be protected. EWG called out Trump and Pruitt for allowing polluters to treat our waters "like an ashtray."
EWG investigators also raised serious concerns about Trump’s pick to head the Department of Agriculture. Once leading the department, former Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue did not wait long to roll back efforts to help combat childhood obesity, including new rules to keep junk food out of schools.
More White Bread, Salt and Sugar in School Lunches
Our nutrition expert concluded that Perdue’s school lunch menu might as well be “white bread with extra salt and sugar,” and Cook told the New York Times: "Just because children would rather eat heavily salted, processed foods at school, doesn’t mean they should." Now Trump and his allies in Congress are setting their sights on anti-hunger programs, including funding for school meals.
To block future safeguards designed to protect our kids, Trump and his allies in Congress are planning to tie agencies like the EPA, the USDA, and the Food and Drug Administration in legal knots. The House has already passed its version of the Regulatory Accountability Act, or RAA, a law so bad it's been dubbed the “License to Kill” bill. If enacted, the bill would subject consumer protection agencies to an impenetrable gauntlet of studies and court reviews.
“This breathtaking six-month assault by President Trump and his minions rolls out a stark roadmap for the next three and half years for the most vulnerable Americans – our children foremost among them,” said Cook. “The lobbyists for chemical companies, Big Ag and other corporate interests have the ear of Trump, his cronies and their Congressional acolytes, but the administration turns a deaf ear to advocates for poor, hungry, sick and polluted children."
Trump's war on kids isn't done, but neither are we.
While Trump and his administration continue to tear down safeguards for children’s environmental health, ignore science, and work to keep Americans in the dark about their destructive agenda, EWG will be doing the exact opposite. Here are some of the priorities on our agenda:
Working to defeat the Regulatory Reform Act by highlighting how sensible safeguards have saved millions of lives and prevented millions of injuries.
Fighting the Trump EPA’s efforts to weaken air and drinking water rules and chemical safety reviews, and expanding efforts to review toxic chemicals in cosmetics and food.
Growing our efforts to keep your kids safe from dangerous chemicals, including lead and toxic chemicals in cleaners and cosmetics, through state legislation.
Helping you keep your kids away from toxic chemicals in everyday products, with tools including Skin Deep®, our Guide to Sunscreens, our Guide to Healthy Cleaning, and our guides to Pesticides in Produce and packaged foods.
Rolling out our national Tap Water Database next week, which will allow virtually anyone in the U.S. to enter their zip code and find out what contaminants their local utilities found in drinking water – along with the levels of those pollutants that scientists say are safe.
http://www.ewg.org/planet-trump/2017/07/trump-6-months-unprecedented-assault-children-s-health#.WW5BfISGPIV
-
Water Tainted with Perfluorocarbons by U.S. Military Is Focus of Legislation
Jul 18, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Zach Coleman
The Pentagon would have to study whether drinking water tainted with perfluorinated chemicals used in firefighting causes health problems under a bill the U.S. House of Representatives passed on July 14.
The proposed 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2810) includes provisions on perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), collectively known as perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). The chemicals persist in the environment indefinitely and have been linked to disease in people.
The military in the 1970s began using aqueous film-forming foam containing PFOA and other perfluorinated compounds that can degrade to PFOA or PFOS. Scientists have recently linked use of the foam at military installations to contamination of drinking water with PFASs. The Department of Defense is assessing its use of these substances and potential substitutes for them.
The bill would instruct the Pentagon to study the health of people who drank PFOS- or PFOA-contaminated water on or near current or former military installations. That study would include biomonitoring of community members and would have to be completed within five years.
The measure brings up the possibility that the Environmental Protection Agency might cap the amount of PFASs allowed in drinking water. EPA set a nonbinding health advisory levelfor PFASs in drinking water at 70 ppm in May 2016 but has not set a legally enforceable limit for these substances.
The bill would ask the Pentagon to consider whether setting an enforceable maximum would pose any significant challenges to the development of PFAS substitutes or the military’s cleanup of contamination.
The Senate is working on its own version of the legislation (S.1519), which is silent on PFASs.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/web/2017/07/Water-tainted-perfluorocarbons-US-military.html
-
FERC Accused of Failing to Address Pipelines' Impacts
Jul 18, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has rejected only two pipelines over the last 30 years out of the hundreds proposed, according to an investigation that paints the regulatory body as particularly cozy with the industry it oversees.
Dozens of FERC staffers have recused themselves in recent years while negotiating for jobs at energy firms. And 80 percent of former commissioners have gone on to work at energy companies or the law firms, trade groups or consultancies representing them.
Meanwhile, industry representatives enjoy expansive access to commissioners. Between mid-2010 and 2016, large energy companies scheduled at least 93 meetings with FERC officials, compared with the 17 meetings scheduled with environmental and public-interest groups, according to emails and official calendars.
Criticism of the agency has come from across the political spectrum. Under the Obama administration, U.S. EPA tried unsuccessfully to prod FERC to include more climate change analysis in its considerations. Industry consultants say there's not enough demand to justify more pipelines. And property-rights advocates worry about expanding companies' power to seize land through eminent domain.
"Climate change, stranded assets, the construction bubble — they are not coming to grips with that," said William Penniman, a retired lawyer who represented pipeline firms before the agency and is now involved with the Sierra Club's Virginia chapter.
FERC has offered little insight into its pipeline approval process. Jon Wellinghoff, a former FERC chairman who now works as a renewable energy consultant, said the agency has little leeway to deny a project.
The agency said it's a quasi-judicial body and has to be careful about its public statements.
Now, President Trump is poised to reshape FERC in his image. Four of the five commissioners' positions stand vacant (Lombardi/Hopkins, NPR/Center for Public Integrity, July 17). — AAA
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/07/18/stories/1060057502
-
Twelve States Raise 'Deep Concern' over CPP Repeal
Jul 18, 2017 | Inside EPA
A dozen states that support the Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP) greenhouse gas rule for existing power plants are urging the White House budget office to reconsider its review of an EPA proposal to repeal the CPP, saying a repeal would hurt public health and the economy and “is contrary to EPA's obligation to implement the Clean Air Act.”
In a July 14 letter to White House budget director Mick Mulvaney, the states express “deep concern” with the pending EPA proposal to scrap the CPP, which the agency sent to the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) for interagency review June 8.
“We are concerned that any effort to rescind the Clean Power Plan will substantially delay needed action to reduce greenhouse gases,” the states write. “We have seen that actions to reduce carbon emissions also have economic benefits, and the Clean Power Plan reflects our collective experience.”
The letter is signed by the environmental regulators of 12 states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington. They note they have requested an in-person meeting with OMB officials.
EPA's pending proposal is expected to repeal the CPP using a key legal critique that the agency's air act section 111(d) authority only allows it to base targets on actions taken at the power plant facility -- or “inside the fence.” Sources say the proposal could also include a separate argument for repealing the CPP that would exempt coal plants from any requirements if the agency is ultimately force to write a replacement rule.
It is also expected to include economic analysis recalculating the CPP's jobs impact.
But the states' recent letter backs the CPP as fulfilling the “criteria” they had laid out when EPA was developing the rule: establishing emissions guidelines based on a system representing the “full range” of approaches states and industry can use to reduce emissions, rather than just heat-rate improvements; “equitably” recognizing “the multiple starting points and circumstances of different states”; and placing all states “on a trajectory to reach final targets of comparable rigor” but allowing for a variety of compliance options.
“The Clean Power Plan fulfills all of these criteria as it incorporates and relies on existing state programs, existing trends in generation and use, and industry strategies to bring about needed greenhouse gas emissions reductions,” the states write.
The letter touts regional efforts to reduce GHGs, including the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and California cap-and-trade programs, as well as individual state climate and clean energy initiatives. The states note such efforts have proven that emissions reductions efforts can have economic benefits.
And in particular, the states emphasize the “net economic benefits” of energy efficiency investments, including American jobs and lower fuel costs. “Therefore, we ask that you fully consider the full benefits of energy efficiency measures that would be implemented to comply with the Clean Power Plan.”
The states also argue the CPP is a “cooperative federalism” approach, likely an appeal to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's support of the concept -- though Pruitt and CPP opponents reject the notion that the CPP embodies cooperative federalism.
“We encourage the Agency to maintain this collaborative approach to reducing pollution and growing the U.S. economy through innovation and the power of markets,” the states' letter reads. “A flexible approach such as this will put states in the lead while ensuring that all are operating on an even playing field.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/twelve-states-raise-deep-concern-over-cpp-repeal
-
WBI Seeking to Shutter PRB’s Billy Creek Natural Gas Storage Field
Jul 18, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passult
Bismarck, ND-based WBI Energy Transmission Inc. is requesting authorization from FERC to abandon the Billy Creek Storage Field in Wyoming's Powder River Basin (PRB), including associated injected and recoverable native cushion gas and associated facilities there.
In a notice posted Monday, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said WBI, a subsidiary of MDU Resources Group Inc., also asked for permission to "construct, install, modify and/or operate certain pipeline facilities to facilitate the withdrawal of the cushion gas prior to the abandonment of the storage facilities," in Johnson County, WY, in the northwest part of the PRB [CP17-469].
"The storage field has become unreliable due to water encroachment, making it incapable of providing firm storage service," WBI’s Lori Myerchin, manager for regulatory affairs, said in a filing posted in late June. "The firm storage deliverability previously provided by the storage field is now provided by another WBI Energy Transmission storage field; therefore, [Billy Creek] is no longer actively providing storage service” to any WBI customers.
According to Myerchin, the Billy Creek field has a certificated 2.4 Bcf of combined injected and recoverable native cushion gas. After the initial drawdown, if WBI determines it is "reasonable and prudent" to continue with efforts to recover the remaining 2.25 Bcf of cushion gas, the company could use or modify the existing storage facilities, install a replacement compressor unit, or drill a gas recovery well within the northern portion of the field.
"Any one or combination of these options may be utilized until [WBI] determines that continued cushion gas recovery efforts are no longer warranted," Myerchin said.
WBI is anticipating a withdrawal rate of 1,000 Mcf/d. The company plans to abandon in place most of the pipeline in the field and remove some sections of pipeline and above-ground facilities. WBI would also modify an existing interconnect at the Billy Creek Compressor Station with Black Hills Gas Distribution LLC. A customer service connection to a local residence may also need to be modified.
Besides Billy Creek, WBI operates underground storage reservoirs in Montana's Cedar Creek (Baker) Field and Wyoming's Elk Basin Field.
WBI has expanded its takeaway capacity for natural gas in the Bakken Shale six-fold since 2010, and it anticipates having significant capacity additions online by late next year. In late June, the company announced a $27-30 million plan to expand its Line Section 27 natural gas transportation system in the Bakken in northwestern North Dakota. The expansion includes constructing about 13 miles of 24-inch diameter pipeline and associated facilities, increasing the line's capacity to more than 600 MMcf/d.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/111123-wbi-seeking-to-shutter-prbs-billy-creek-natural-gas-storage-field
-
House Blueprint Could Open ANWR, Relocate NOAA
Jul 18, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By George Cahlink and Kellie Lunney
The House's budget proposal, set for markup tomorrow, could open up drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, much like President Trump's.
A provision in the Republican fiscal plan would require congressional committees to come up with $203 billion in savings over the next decade to balance the budget.
It specifically would seek $5 billion in savings from the Natural Resources Committee, which many observers see as coming from permitting energy exploration in ANWR.
Environmental groups pounced after the budget's release this morning. "The members on the House Budget Committee must think that they are pulling the wool over the American people's eyes," said Kristen Miller, interim executive director of the Alaska Wilderness League.
"It is not a secret as to how Congress will achieve their [savings] goals," she said. "They are banking on drilling in the Arctic refuge."
Other green groups, among them the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, Earthjustice and the National Audubon Society, offered similar concerns.
House Budget Chairwoman Diane Black (R-Tenn.) said it would be up to the different committees to determine where to find savings. Proposals would eventually be joined into a single package along with a tax reform bill later this year.
Black said this year's budget is far more than a visionary statement because, with the GOP in control of Capitol Hill and the White House, there is a real chance at implementing the party's agenda.
House action on ANWR would reflect Trump's budget proposal, which assumes cost savings of $1.8 billion over the next decade by allowing oil and gas drilling in the refuge — a longtime priority of Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).
Backers of drilling have long eyed the budget reconciliation process as a vehicle to move ahead on ANWR (Greenwire, June 19). Budget reconciliation is an expedited maneuver that allows certain budget and fiscal matters to pass by a simple majority in the Senate provided they offer savings.
"We're confident that Americans will see through this scam and once again demand that the Arctic refuge remain protected," said Drew McConville, senior managing director for government relations at the Wilderness Society.
Six moderate House Republicans in June sent a letter to Budget Committee leaders urging them to omit from the fiscal 2018 budget resolution any language that supports opening ANWR to oil and gas drilling, saying the "long debated and highly controversial" issue of ANWR development doesn't belong in a "responsible budgeting process" (E&E News PM, June 23).
ANWR might not be the only issue at play in the reconciliation instructions. Alex Taurel, deputy legislative director at LCV, said today that the savings provision could also open up "other public lands and waters" to drilling.Cutting EPA, relocating NOAA
Overall, the House Budget plan calls for $1.13 trillion in discretionary spending for fiscal 2018, with $511 billion for domestic programs and $621.5 billion for defense. Those figures match the 12 fiscal 2018 spending bills moving through the House Appropriations Committee this month.
The budget blueprint also spells out many GOP concerns with U.S. EPA and certain Energy Department programs, which are already being reflected in the annual spending bills. The plan itself offers only top-line numbers and policy goals, leaving the specifics to be hashed out by appropriators.
According to the budget plan, EPA has "long overreached in its duties," and the funding document calls for cutting back the agency's regulatory role. It would do so by reducing overall agency funding, eliminating the EPA Office of Regulatory Policy and Management, and streamlining and eliminating duplicative climate change programs across the government.
As for the Energy Department, the budget praises its "exemplary record" in basic research but calls for ending applied research that it wants left to the private sector.
It seeks to halt any future federal loan programs for green energy projects. Many of those already undertaken in recent years have not been "market viable," the plan states.
The budget also calls for unspecified savings from a Commerce Department reorganization, which would include moving NOAA into the Interior Department.
House Democrats are panning the plan and expect to offer a slew of amendments to spell out their differences with the GOP at tomorrow's markup.
Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), the ranking member on Budget, said the document "fails at every turn" and would end up increasing deficit spending.
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) today recounted the dates when the House adopted budget resolutions going back to the Carter administration, noting that this year was the latest.
"It's July 18, no budget has been adopted, and the Republicans control all levers of government," he said, adding that Republicans have been "pursuing a purely partisan budget process."
Conservatives, meanwhile, are not fully on board with the plan, arguing that mandatory cuts might not go far enough and seeking more details on the tax reforms. Those concerns could spell trouble for the budget once it move to the House floor.
"This budget is a start but it offers too little, too late, to truly rein in Washington's uncontrolled spending addiction," the conservative Heritage Foundation said in a statement.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/07/18/stories/1060057548
-
Lawmakers Extend Cap and Trade, Tout Climate Leadership
Jul 18, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Anne C. Mulkern
California's Legislature passed a 10-year extension of the state's cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions with a robust, bipartisan two-thirds vote, a move leaders hailed as evidence that the Golden State will lead on climate change.
"Tonight, California stood tall and once again, boldly confronted the existential threat of our time," Gov. Jerry Brown (D) said in a statement after yesterday's vote. "Republicans and Democrats set aside their differences, came together and took courageous action. That's what good government looks like."
Lawmakers approved A.B. 398, which extends cap and trade through 2030, and partner measure A.B. 617, which sets up rules aimed at cutting local pollution. They also passed A.C.A. 1, a constitutional amendment. Starting in 2024, it will put cap-and-trade auction revenues into one fund, then require a two-thirds vote to approve how they are spent.
It comes as the Golden State looks to enact the nation's most aggressive climate goal. California under S.B. 32 — passed last year — must cut greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent below 1990's level by 2030.
Some supporters of the bills approved yesterday said that California needed to act as a signal to the rest of the country and the world. That's essential, they said, because President Trump has rejected policies and partnerships aimed at limiting warming.
"When you look at what's happening in the country and world right now, where we have the president pulling us out of the Paris accord, and the United States commitment to the climate policy just collapsing, and the United States completely losing leadership, ceding it to other countries," said state Sen. Scott Wiener (D), "people around the world are looking to California for leadership, and we need to provide leadership."
Others criticized that the votes happened quickly, with the bills just released last week and limited hearings held. Some opponents said that the measures were rammed through partly in an effort to shore up an August cap-and-trade auction. Others suggested Brown wants to get it done before he leaves office in 2018.
State Sen. Jeff Stone (R) said the measures will raise prices, especially gas prices, and hurt people who must drive long distances to work.
"This package of bills is nothing more than a huge tax increase on California's working families who will now have to choose between gasoline and food while making the Coastal elites who fly around the world in their private jets talking about global warming feel good about themselves," Stone said in a statement. "These bills were rushed through the Legislature today because the Democrats in charge of Sacramento need the tax revenue to pay for the Governor's Choo-Choo-Train to nowhere and for more social programs."
The state's planned high-speed rail line to connect Los Angeles and San Francisco, which Brown supports, has received about one-quarter of all auction revenues to date because of an earlier deal between the governor and lawmakers.
Assemblyman Steven Choi (R), who opposed A.B. 398, said that "cap and trade expires in 2020. There is simply no urgency to ram this bill through the Legislature other than to provide a rubber stamp for the governor's extreme left-wing agenda."
Others described the need for the cap-and-trade extension as urgent. Assemblyman Bill Quirk (D), a former physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, said nuclear weapons as a potential source of world destruction once kept him awake at night. He now frets over global warming. He warned that migration from Syria and the political controversy it has spawned are just a taste of what could happen in the years ahead.
"If we get uncontrolled global warming, two-thirds of Bangladesh will be underwater. The U.S. will lose most of its coastal cities," Quirk said during floor debate. "This is the most important vote you will take."Green groups divided
A.B. 398 contains a provision that many say was inserted at the behest of the Western States Petroleum Association, or WSPA, the trade group for several major oil companies. The language states that only the California Air Resources Board (ARB) can regulate carbon emissions at oil and gas facilities, and solely through cap and trade.
That means the state's 35 local air districts cannot directly regulate carbon dioxide.
Some environmental groups supported A.B. 398 with the language, saying that although the provision was objectionable, passing the extension was a greater good. Others opposed the bill because of the language and other factors.
"The pre-emption language is a problem," Kathryn Phillips, director of Sierra Club California, said during a state Senate Appropriations Committee hearing yesterday. "We think it sets a precedent. I can't recall any other time a regulatory agency has been told not to regulate the thing that they're supposed to regulate," such as an air pollutant, she said.
Environmental justice groups, or those advocating for residents who live near refineries, factories and pollution sources, also objected to that language, as well as to other provisions. There were concerns about distribution of more free allowances and the creation of a new hard ceiling on the allowance price.
Other language added to attract Republican and moderate Democratic votes included a provision suspending until 2031 a fee applied to homes in areas where the state is responsible for fighting fires. A sales tax exemption for purchases of some equipment used in manufacturing was due to sunset and instead was extended and expanded. The money to replace that state income likely will come out of the cap-and-trade revenue fund.
Phillips warned that suspending the fire fee was risky, as part of the funds collected goes toward prevention programs, and "one of the consequences of climate change are increased fires."
A.B. 617 was offered to address some concerns about local pollution. It requires local air districts to speed up retrofits of industrial emission sources in places out of compliance with federal Clean Air Act standards. It mandates the installation of "best available retrofit control technology" no later than 2023. It also creates local monitoring systems for conventional air pollutants in disadvantaged communities and potentially at specific stationary sources.
Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia (D), the lead sponsor of that measure, said it would help places like her home of Bell Gardens in Los Angeles County that "have been treated like wastelands" for generations.
"This bill is a great down payment and carves the way for the work we have to do ahead," she said. "We've never done anything like this on air quality before." She pledged that she would follow up and make sure more of the work is done.
A.B. 617 passed 50-24 in the Assembly and 27-13 in the state Senate. A.C.A. 1 passed 59-11 in the Assembly and 27-13 in the Senate.7 Republicans support, 3 Democrats oppose extension
The governor and Legislature leaders had sought two-thirds approval for A.B. 398, the bill that extends cap and trade, because they hope it will insulate the measure from legal challenges. Some argue that auctions of environmental permits, or "allowances," under the system are a tax. New taxes or fees under state law require two-thirds approval. The state Senate voted 28-12 and the Assembly 55-22 for the measure.
Democrats have a supermajority in both chambers but couldn't spare any of those votes unless Republicans supported the bill. In the Assembly, three Democrats voted against A.B. 398: Assemblymembers Adam Gray, Monique Limón and Mark Stone. Limón had voted for A.B. 398 when it was four votes short of passage. When the vote was reopened, she changed to voting against. Seven Republicans in that chamber voted for the measure: Assemblymembers Catharine Baker, Rocky Chávez, Jordan Cunningham, Heath Flora, Devon Mathis, Chad Mayes and Marc Steinorth.
Mathis choked up when he talked about the bill during the floor debate. He said he had prayed with his pastor, seeking guidance, and that the pastor had advised him to "follow your heart."
"I personally think cap and trade sucks, but it is the program we have," Mathis said. "It is reality. It is existing law." He said that lawmakers with the measure had the "opportunity to make something that many of us think is horrible a little bit better. What I have to weigh out is, do I have the guts to stand up and do the right thing for my people?"
He said provisions in it would protect jobs in the agricultural industry through 2030. He did not identify which provisions, though there is language calling for the creation of new offsets that businesses can invest in for a portion of compliance. The group creating those must prioritize, among other factors, "rural and agricultural regions."
Mathis first voted "no" when the measure was four votes short of the needed two-thirds, then changed his vote when the vote was reopened.
Chávez, who represents a swath of coastal land in north San Diego County, said during the floor debate that sea-level rise poses a great threat.
Steinorth said he was persuaded to support A.B. 398 because it will protect 20,000 jobs in his district and will help the agriculture, food processing, cement and steel industries. It also "will keep energy prices low" and will "cut $16 billion in taxes," he said.
Steinorth said that he was "not a fan of the bullet train" and opposed S.B. 32, "but I am a big supporter of middle-class jobs."
"After hours of discussions with interest groups, I made my decision," he said, adding, "this bill strikes the right balance."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/07/18/stories/1060057521
-
California Votes to Extend Cap and Trade
Jul 18, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
California lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to extend the state's cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases through 2030.
The bipartisan, supermajority votes in both the state Assembly and Senate late Monday gave a major victory to Gov. Jerry Brown (D), who has been pushing hard to extend the landmark climate change program in the world’s sixth largest economy.
It also serves as a significant example of California’s willingness to fight climate change while the Trump administration and congressional Republicans work to dismantle Obama-era climate policies.
“Californians understand that we can’t truly have a healthy economy that’s built to last without taking meaningful steps to protect public health and preserve a livable environment,” Senate President pro Tempore Kevin de León (D) said in a statement.
“This deal strikes that balance and shows once again California is more than ready to step up and lead where Washington will not,” he said.
The state GOP support was key to reaching a supermajority vote.
“California Republicans are different than national Republicans,” Assembly Republican Leader Chad Mayes said, according to the Los Angeles Times. “Many of us believe that climate change is real and that it’s a responsibility we have to work to address it.”
The vote was 55 to 21 in the Assembly and 28 to 12 in the Senate.
The program earlier this year survived a court challenge from business interests who argued it is a tax and requires a two-thirds vote from both chambers. Brown sought the supermajority vote as insurance against a future challenge along those lines.
The legislation had support from numerous environmental and other interest groups.
But some greens opposed it due to the compromises made with industry. For example, the bill restricts the state’s ability to further regulate certain facilities that already are under the cap-and-trade system.
“California can do better,” Masada Disenhouse, organizing coordinator at 350.org, said in a statement. “This plan has Big Oil’s fingerprints all over it and doesn’t do enough to protect vulnerable communities or to achieve California’s ambitious targets for reducing carbon pollution.”
The bill now goes to Brown’s desk for his signature.
Legislators also approved a bill Monday meant to reduce other air pollutants, including those thought to cause or exacerbate asthma.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/342476-california-votes-to-extend-cap-and-trade
-
D.C. Circuit Remands Air Toxics 'Completion' Finding For EPA Justification
Jul 18, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Anthony Lacey
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a unanimous July 18 ruling has remanded EPA's final rule declaring that it has met a Clean Air Act mandate to regulate 90 percent of sources of seven air toxics, agreeing with environmentalists that the agency needs to better justify its explanation for the rule.
The opinion, written by Senior Circuit Judge David Sentelle, says EPA's finding failed to adequately address comments filed by environmentalists criticizing the agency for relying on reductions from existing rules for other air toxics as “surrogates” that counted toward the 90 percent goal for the seven air toxics listed in the air law.
The ruling in Sierra Club and California Communities Against Toxics (CCAT) v. EPA does not vacate the rule nor criticize it on the merits, but requires EPA to better explain itself.
EPA “cannot hide behind” explanations in years-old air toxics regulations as adequate justification for the Obama-era finding that the agency has issued policies sufficient to achieve the 90 percent mandate, the court says. The agency failed to fully respond to environmentalists' attacks on the reliance on surrogates, it adds.
However, “[w]e wish to make clear that we are not holding that EPA's decision is substantively incorrect. Indeed we express no opinion on that subject. We simply remand the matter to EPA for further proceedings, which should include the explanations omitted from the present determination,” Sentelle writes on behalf of fellow D.C. Circuit Judges Judith Rogers and Patricia Millett.
The remand means the Trump EPA will now have to provide a more-detailed justification of the use of surrogates, but given the administration's deregulatory agenda it is expected to do that instead of issuing any new air toxics rules for the seven pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act 90 percent mandate.
The decision is not entirely unexpected because the judges at Feb. 10 oral argument questioned the agency's rationale for relying on existing air toxics rules as surrogates for the 90 percent target.
EPA's counter argument to environmentalists' suit was that it was untimely and should be dismissed, because -- the agency said -- Sierra Club and CCAT were criticizing the existing surrogate rules as inadequate rather than the 90 percent finding. EPA said that air toxics reductions from its various regulations would act as surrogate reductions for the seven air toxics listed in the Clean Air Act for the 90 percent goal. Environmentalists could not contest those years-old rules in the suit because such challenges were past the 60-day window to sue over those rules, EPA said.
But the judges did not accept that claim and instead said that the suit was timely because it challenged the agency's rationale in the June 3, 2015, final rule declaring that it had achieved the 90 percent mandate. EPA's reliance on surrogates in that rule was not adequately explained and did not fully respond to environmentalists' comments on the earlier proposed version of the finding criticizing the use of surrogates, the court said.
Statutory Mandate
Under Clean Air Act section 112 (c)(6), EPA was mandated to list for regulation by 1995 sources accounting for 90 percent of seven hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) that are “persistent” and “bioaccumulative.”
These chemicals are: alkylated lead compounds, polycyclic organic matter, hexachlorobenzene, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofurans and 2,3,7,8- tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. Rules regulating then-listed sources were required by 2000 under the air law.
The agency for years declined to make a formal finding that it had met the mandate. After protracted litigation, the agency was forced by a legal deadline to issue such a declaration. It ultimately issued its 2015 finding as a formal agency action eligible for judicial review.
EPA found that it had, through various rules dating back years, met the 90 percent obligation, in part through use of surrogates to control for the seven HAPs at issue.
That declaration prompted the suit from Sierra Club and CCAT, and the court agrees with the groups that the case is timely because they had no chance to challenge EPA's final rationale for using surrogates in the 90 percent finding until the agency issued the 2005 rule.
“Sierra Club's present challenge to the interaction of the surrogacy decisions with the 90% (c)(6) requirements is timely,” the court said in rejecting EPA's motion to dismiss.
Explaining the decision to remand the finding to the agency, the court says, “We wish to make clear at the outset that the question before us is the narrow one of the adequacy of EPA's justification for the use of surrogates. Insofar as the parties characterize the petition as a challenge to the achievement of the 90% requirement, that question rises or falls with surrogacy,” according to the ruling. The court notes that it has in prior rulings approved the use of surrogacy in Clean Air Act rules, but adds that the agency needs to better justify it for the 2005 rule.
“Although EPA provided some explanation of the surrogacy relationships in this case . . . EPA failed to respond adequately to comments disputing those explanations” that environmentalists filed on the proposed version of the finding, the court says. EPA's “failure” to fully justify the use of surrogates in the 90 percent finding and to respond to comments “dooms the current determination,” Sentelle writes. -- Anthony Lacey (alacey@iwpnews.com)
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/dc-circuit-remands-air-toxics-completion-finding-epa-justification
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested