Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 10/11/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Predicts U.S. Petrochemical Growth
Oct 11, 2017 | Bearbulk
An estimated US$185 billion in potential capital investment in the U.S. petrochemical sector is expected for 310 projects under construction or planned, according to the American Chemistry Council. -
Trump Eyeing NAFTA Proposal To Roll Back Protections For Foreign Investors
Oct 10, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Adam Behsudi
The Trump administration is expected to make its assault on NAFTA's investor-state dispute settlement process during this week's talks, coming out with a proposal that would effectively hobble the controversial arrangement. -
California Seeks Input On Safer Consumer Products Priorities
Oct 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
California's Department of Toxic Substances Control is taking comments on what product categories it should evaluate between 2018 and 2020 under the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) programme. -
DowDuPont, Chemours Named in GenX Lawsuit
Oct 10, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Marc S. Reisch
Lawyers have filed a class-action lawsuit charging Chemours and its former parent DowDuPont with contaminating drinking water in Wilmington, N.C., with the fluoropolymer processing aid GenX. The suit follows a furor in the spring over the chemical’s release from a Chemours plant. -
Declining Sperm Counts And Doubling Rates Of Testicular Cancer Could Be A Ticking Time Bomb For The Human Race - And Pesticides May Be To Blame, Scientist Claims
Oct 10, 2017 | The Daily Mail
By Alexandra Thompson
Declining sperm counts and doubling rates of testicular cancer could be a ticking time bomb for the human race, a leading scientist claims. -
Industrialists Want Lawmakers To Block Perry Proposal
Oct 11, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey
Operators of the nation's factories and industrial plants are trying to enlist Congress' help to halt Energy Secretary Rick Perry's request for market reforms to boost coal and nuclear power. -
Major U.S. Rail Customers to Air Complaints Over CSX at Hearing
Oct 11, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Eric M. Johnson
Cargill Inc, Dow Chemical Co and other major corporate rail customers are expected to speak on Wednesday before the top U.S. rail regulator about their experiences with CSX Corp's network, which has been dogged by service problems since the summer. -
E.P.A. Says It Will Write a New Carbon Rule, but No One Can Say When
Oct 10, 2017 | The New York TImes
By Lisa Friedman
When Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, signed a blueprint Tuesday to eliminate a major Obama-era climate change regulation, the text said the agency would at some point consider a new rule to ratchet down greenhouse gas emissions. -
Axing Power Plan Health Benefits May Signal EPA's New Tack
Oct 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu
The Trump administration downplayed the health benefits of reducing power plant emissions in its proposal to rescind the Obama EPA's signature climate change regulation, a policy shift that could have implications for various air pollution control programs. -
Clean Power Plan Only First Target for Foes of Climate Rules
Oct 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
Scrapping an Obama-era plan to cut carbon emissions from power plants doesn't prevent the EPA from revisiting its authority even to regulate greenhouse gases, conservative opponents of climate regulation said. -
Timing of Power Plan Repeal a Message to Global Climate Talks
Oct 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
Scrapping carbon dioxide limits from U.S. power plants should be viewed as “a provocation” to more than 190 countries just weeks before they meet in Bonn, Germany, to advance an international climate change pact, a defender of the EPA's actions told Bloomberg BNA. -
CPP Supporters Say Repeal Proposal Opens Up EPA, Utilities To Litigation
Oct 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
As EPA formally proposes to repeal the Clean Power Plan (CPP) to limit power sector greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, supporters of the rule warn that if the agency does not issue an “adequate” replacement, then industry will face tort suits and the agency will face citizen suits seeking to force emission cuts. -
Commerce Department Report Targets NSR As 'Top Priority' For Reform
Oct 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
The Commerce Department's long-awaited report outlining recommended actions on regulatory “reform” cites changes to the Clean Air Act new source review (NSR) program as a “top priority,” along with almost a dozen other EPA programs, ratifying industry calls for administrative and legislative changes to reduce the scope of environmental regulations. -
EPA Softens Pulp & Paper Mills Air Toxics Rule From Obama-Era Proposal
Oct 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA has finalized an update to its air toxics standards for chemical recovery combustion sources at Kraft and other pulp and paper mills, modestly tightening requirements for the facilities, but the final version backs away from more-stringent emissions control measures floated by the Obama administration in a December proposal.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Predicts U.S. Petrochemical Growth
Oct 11, 2017 | Bearbulk
An estimated US$185 billion in potential capital investment in the U.S. petrochemical sector is expected for 310 projects under construction or planned, according to the American Chemistry Council.
The figures are based on forecasts as of mid- 2017 and suggest growth in demand for the breakbulk sector will continue, even as a first wave of major petrochemical projects based on the shale gas boom now reach their final stages of production.
“Much of the investment is geared toward export markets for chemistry and plastics products, which can improve the nation’s trade balance. Fully 62 percent of the announced investment is by firms based outside the U.S.,” the ACC states.
The projections mark a significant improvement from the 97 projects and $72 billion in potential capital investment recorded in 2013.
http://www.breakbulk.com/news-acc-predicts-u-s-petrochem-growth/
-
Trump Eyeing NAFTA Proposal To Roll Back Protections For Foreign Investors
Oct 10, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Adam Behsudi
The Trump administration is expected to make its assault on NAFTA's investor-state dispute settlement process during this week's talks, coming out with a proposal that would effectively hobble the controversial arrangement.
The existing investor-state dispute settlement process — which allows foreign investors to seek steep damages for government actions that they believe violate their rights under the agreement — has strong backing among the business and agriculture sectors, making the administration's play a risky move.
The administration's proposal features an “opt-in” provision that would make the entire ISDS process voluntary for countries to observe, according to three sources briefed on the plans.
The administration floated the opt-in concept to congressional trade committees before the first round of negotiations in August. But now the administration wants to go even further by proposing to roll back two key protections that investors often use as a basis for filing disputes, the sources said.
First, the U.S. proposal would no longer permit a violation of the “minimum standard of treatment” as grounds for foreign investors to request an independent arbitration panel if they feel government action has diminished the value of their investment. The concept of a minimum standard of treatment, found in customary international law, establishes that governments must generally provide foreign investors with fair and equitable treatment under their laws. It is supposed to serve as a threshold for defining when a company experiences a "denial of justice."
But critics of ISDS argue the minimum standard of treatment has become subject to overly broad interpretations by arbitration panels and has become a catch-all argument for foreign companies that can’t successfully argue their case under the more prescriptive investment protections.
Trade watchdog group Public Citizen, in a 2015 analysis of the Trans-Pacific Partnership's ISDS language, said 75 percent of the 28 ISDS cases that U.S. companies won in other countries were successful in part because of violations of the minimum standard of treatment.
However, the U.S. has faced only 17 ISDS challenges over the past 25 years under the 50 agreements that include the dispute mechanism. Of those 17 cases, the U.S. has not lost one.
Second, the NAFTA proposal the administration is expected to unveil would also eliminate “indirect expropriation” as an argument a foreign investor could use to file a claim. That would make it harder for a foreign company to win damages based on a government action that has only partially devalued an investment as opposed to a full seizure of the investment without proper compensation.
Critics say the concept of indirect expropriation has also broadened interpretations beyond loss of physical property to include harm of other assets, such as intellectual property.
One business source told POLITICO that for the administration to call to ditch the two protections is “almost beside the point,” based on the fact that President Donald Trump's negotiators are expected to press for the entire ISDS system to be made voluntary.
If the opt-in provision were to become part of a reworked deal and the U.S. were to decide not to be subject to the dispute-settlement process, it is almost certain that Mexico and Canada would also refrain from opting in, this source predicted.
The pair of carve-outs on top of the proposal to make the ISDS system voluntary would represent a negotiating point consistent with the Trump administration’s “America First” approach to trade policy, which rejects the power of international bodies to reverse or penalize U.S. government action.
At the start of NAFTA talks in August, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said he wanted a new agreement to feature dispute-settlement provisions “designed to respect our national sovereignty and our democratic processes.”
U.S. trade promotion authority legislation, through which Congress gave directions to the administration on negotiating demands as a condition for fast-tracking passage of trade deals, provides some leeway to the administration on ISDS, only requiring that a deal “provide meaningful procedures for resolving investment disputes.” But the law also requires that any dispute mechanism be improved to cut down on frivolous claims, allow for more public input and include an appeals procedure.
Lighthizer could also argue that eliminating the two protections from ISDS is in line with the TPA's requirements that "foreign investors in the United States are not accorded greater substantive rights with respect to investment protections."
"What I understand their goal to be is to meet the fast track standard of having nothing greater than what's in U.S. law," said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, which has long opposed ISDS as an overreach.
Wallach argued that both protections provide companies with the ability to seek damages for legal standards that wouldn't otherwise be available under U.S. laws.
More broadly, critics of the ISDS process, including labor unions and many congressional Democrats, say it gives foreign corporations too much power to skirt domestic courts, thereby elevating their rights above those of U.S. citizens.
But for U.S. businesses that strongly support the ISDS mechanism, the administration's proposal would be the latest in a series of U.S. demands that are seen as “highly dangerous” departures from decades of established U.S. trade policy.
American business and agricultural groups see the ISDS process as a red line for any trade deal. U.S. firms often view ISDS cases as the only viable way to recover an investment in countries where the judicial system is considered inadequate or corrupt.
Supporters also argue that the U.S. model for investor disputes is firmly grounded in U.S. law. The protection covering minimum standard of treatment is reflected in the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution as well as in the Administrative Procedures Act’s standard on arbitrary and capricious treatment. Supporters would also argue that protections against indirect expropriation of both physical and intangible property are thoroughly covered under U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence.
It will also be a huge battle to incorporate such a provision, predicts the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
"Let me be forceful and direct. There are several poison pill proposals still on the table that could doom the entire deal," the U.S. Chamber of Commerce CEO Tom Donohue is expected to say in a speech he will give in Mexico City on Tuesday.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/10/trump-eyeing-nafta-proposal-to-roll-back-protections-for-foreign-investors-163145
-
California Seeks Input On Safer Consumer Products Priorities
Oct 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
California's Department of Toxic Substances Control is taking comments on what product categories it should evaluate between 2018 and 2020 under the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) programme.
The DTSC's first work plan covered the period 2015-2017. It included seven broad categories, such as beauty products and furniture, and "potential candidate chemicals" within each category.
The department is currently drafting its 2018-2020 work plan and is seeking public input until 15 November.
Children's sleeping items containing the flame retardants TDCPP or TCEP became the programme's first 'priority product' on 1 July. Manufacturers should have registered with the department by September and begun a statutory alternatives analysis to determine if a safer alternative is possible.
The public comment period on the second priority product – spray polyurethane foam (SPF) containing MDI – ended on 6 June. Regulations to list paint strippers containing methylene chloride are also under development.
State officials have said the next product in line is likely to be perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in carpets and upholstery, or chemicals used in nail salons. Both were subject of workshops earlier this year.
The DTSC said recommendations for its second work plan can include carrying over product categories from the first period as well as new products to consider.
https://chemicalwatch.com/59913/california-seeks-input-on-safer-consumer-products-priorities
-
DowDuPont, Chemours Named in GenX Lawsuit
Oct 10, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Marc S. Reisch
Lawyers have filed a class-action lawsuit charging Chemours and its former parent DowDuPont with contaminating drinking water in Wilmington, N.C., with the fluoropolymer processing aid GenX. The suit follows a furor in the spring over the chemical’s release from a Chemours plant.
Filed in Federal District Court in Wilmington on behalf of city resident Brent Nix, the suit seeks health monitoring for illnesses that may be caused by GenX and similar contaminants released into the Cape Fear River from Chemours’s plant 160 km upriver in Fayetteville, N.C. In addition, it seeks compensation for lost property value on behalf of Nix and as many as 100,000 additional plaintiffs should the court certify the case as a class-action suit.
According to the suit, “defendants have negligently and otherwise acted to cause toxic chemicals to be released from the Fayetteville Works Site, which then traveled to and contaminated and damaged the properties and household water supplies of plaintiff and class members, and exposed them to toxic chemicals.”
Chemours did not respond to a request for comment on the suit, which was filed by the Hannon Law Firm, a Denver-based toxic tort law practice, and the Law Offices of James Scott Farrin, a Durham, N.C., personal injury law firm. DowDuPont referred press inquiries to Chemours.
GenX was developed as a safer alternative to the fluorinated surfactants used for years at the Fayetteville plant to make Teflon fluoropolymers. A six-carbon fluorinated compound, GenX replaced two eight-carbon molecules, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS).
According to the lawsuit, DowDuPont submitted documents to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that “indicate that GenX has been associated with increased risk of health effects in laboratory animal studies.”
The suit also claims that levels of GenX in Wilmington’s drinking water reached as high as 720 parts per trillion in June. The North Carolina Department of Health & Human Services set an upper limit of 140 ppt for GenX in drinking water in July. EPA guidelines call for no more than 70 ppt of PFOA or PFOS in drinking water.
Earlier this year, DowDuPont and Chemours paid $670 million to settle 3,550 lawsuitsbought by Ohio and West Virginia residents who say they were sickened by drinking water contaminated with PFOA and PFOS released from Chemours’s Parkersburg, W.Va., plant.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i41/DowDuPont-Chemours-named-GenX-lawsuit.html
-
Oct 10, 2017 | The Daily Mail
By Alexandra Thompson
· Sperm counts have halved in the western world over the past four decades
· Fertility rates are plummeting and an increasing number of couples rely on IVF
· Hormone-disrupting pesticides sprayed on food may be to blame for the trend
· Fertility changes are occurring too rapidly for genetic alterations to be at fault
· Expert says 'inconvenient' questions need answering as we have waited too long
Declining sperm counts and doubling rates of testicular cancer could be a ticking time bomb for the human race, a leading scientist claims.Sperm counts have halved in the western world over the past four decades, which, alongside rising testicular tumours, could be behind plummeting fertility rates and couples' increasing dependency on IVF, according to Professor Niels Skakkebaek from the University of Copenhagen.
Hormone-disrupting pesticides sprayed onto everyday food may be too blame as the changes are occurring too rapidly for genetics to be at fault, he adds.
Professor Skakkebaek said: 'Alterations in our genome cannot explain the observations as changes have occurred over just a couple of generations.
'Modern lifestyles are associated with increased exposure to various endocrine-disrupting chemicals such as pesticides that may be harmful to humans even though exposure to individual chemicals is low.'
'Pesticides may be harmful to humans'
Professor Skakkebaek said: 'What could be causing such disturbing trends? The short answer is that we do not know.
'However, data suggesting that the incidence of testicular cancer has more than doubled in recent decades leaves little doubt that we should look into environmental causes, including lifestyle effects.
'Alterations in our genome cannot explain the observations as changes have occurred over just a couple of generations.
'Environmental exposures can come through food, water, skin, and work and home environments.
He said: 'Both wildlife research and experimental studies suggest that modern lifestyles are associated with increased exposure to various endocrine-disrupting chemicals such as pesticides that together may be harmful to wildlife and humans even though exposure to individual chemicals is low.
'However, little has been done to explore their potential effects on semen quality and testicular cancer.'
'We have already waited too long'
Professor Skakkebaek said: 'In particular, studies of maternal exposures in pregnancy and the subsequent reproductive function of their sons are needed.
'Should we be worried about our future ability to reproduce ourselves, as some media coverage has claimed?
'This inconvenient question makes sense when we look at what is going on in fertility clinics all over the world - more and more children are now born after in vitro fertilisation, intracytoplasmic sperm injection and insemination with partner or donor sperm.'
'Simple research questions urgently need answers.
He added: 'What is the role of exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals in reproductive trends? What is the role of lifestyle factors, including recreational drugs?
'Why is the incidence of testicular cancer increasing among young men of reproductive age?
'We have already waited too long. '
Professor Skakkebaek's comments appear in the British Medical Journal.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4966944/Lowered-sperm-counts-time-bomb-human-race.html
-
Industrialists Want Lawmakers To Block Perry Proposal
Oct 11, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey
Operators of the nation's factories and industrial plants are trying to enlist Congress' help to halt Energy Secretary Rick Perry's request for market reforms to boost coal and nuclear power.
Ahead of the secretary's appearance before the House Energy and Commerce Committee tomorrow, the Industrial Energy Consumers of America called on Republican and Democratic leaders to ask Perry to withdraw his request for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rulemaking (Greenwire, Oct. 6).
Calling Perry's proposal "anti-competitive," the group said grid overseers have concluded there is no such reliability "emergency" to support FERC action.
"The proposal would undo the competitive wholesale electricity markets that benefit all American consumers, replacing it with an unworkable and intrusive centralized pricing system," IECA President Paul Cicio wrote.
Congressional committees have jurisdiction over DOE and FERC, and the Trump administration — aside from campaigning to boost coal and nuclear — has made growing domestic manufacturing a high priority.
Perry has taken to Twitter to defend his proposal as "transparent, reasonable and proactive," an argument he'll likely make to lawmakers, despite pushback from the oil and gas sector and skepticism among prominent GOP members like Rep. Pete Olson of Texas.
FERC posted a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register yesterday, noting that Perry is asking for final action within two months.
The secretary as an alternative urged FERC to issue an "interim final rule" with the possibility of making changes after outside groups weigh in.
Oil and gas interests have asked for more time to digest Perry's request. Ohio-based utility FirstEnergy Corp., which would directly benefit from higher payments for coal electricity, has argued against allowing a lengthier comment period.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/10/11/stories/1060063263
-
Major U.S. Rail Customers to Air Complaints Over CSX at Hearing
Oct 11, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Eric M. Johnson
(Reuters) - Cargill Inc, Dow Chemical Co and other major corporate rail customers are expected to speak on Wednesday before the top U.S. rail regulator about their experiences with CSX Corp's network, which has been dogged by service problems since the summer.
The eagerly awaited "listening session" before the U.S. Surface Transportation Board (STB) in Washington will be the first public forum for customers to air grievances and give CSX, the No. 3 U.S. railroad, the chance to defend its new operating strategy, which it says will improve its network.
The STB announced the public hearing in late August after customers complained of service issues, including longer transit times, unreliable switching operations, inefficient car routings, poor communications with CSX customer service.
CSX's service disruptions have created logistical headaches for companies ranging from chemical and agricultural to automotive and steel producers whose supply chains, plants and distribution channels rely on CSX's rail network across the eastern United States.
CSX's chief executive, Hunter Harrison, appointed to the job amid investor fanfare in March, told Reuters in late September he would use the hearing to expound upon his vision for efficiency, which he calls "Precision Scheduled Railroading."Continue reading the main story
Harrison is also likely to highlight operating improvements, such as rail cars spending less time sitting idle and train velocity hitting its best level since June.
The STB has been reviewing CSX's performance weekly and talking to senior management for months.
While at least three companies have withdrawn requests to testify as service has improved, nine companies will deliver public remarks on Wednesday, including The Chemours Company, Kellogg Company and Murray Energy Corp, the largest private U.S. coal mining company.
An assortment of trade groups including automotive, grain, and paper lobbyists expected to speak on Wednesday have called on Congress to make it easier for shippers to file complaints and allow other operators to use CSX track during service disruptions.
Other stakeholders have filed comments with the STB.
Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue told the STB in a Sept. 12 letter that it should require CSX to provide performance data that is "wider in scope, more granular in detail, and fully explained."
Toyota Motor Corp's Canadian unit told the STB it has "noted numerous positive outcomes from the CSX changes," but highlighted misrouted rail cars as "one of the biggest challenges" it expects going forward.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/10/11/business/11reuters-csx-disruptions.html
-
E.P.A. Says It Will Write a New Carbon Rule, but No One Can Say When
Oct 10, 2017 | The New York TImes
By Lisa Friedman
WASHINGTON — When Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, signed a blueprint Tuesday to eliminate a major Obama-era climate change regulation, the text said the agency would at some point consider a new rule to ratchet down greenhouse gas emissions.
But those adept at reading between the lines of dense federal documents say the subtext reads more like: “Don’t hold your breath.”
Industry leaders and environmental activists predict that when the Trump administration formalizes its plan to repeal the Clean Power Plan, nothing will take its place for possibly years to come. The E.P.A. said it would seek public comment on how to fashion a more modest measure to address pollution from power plants, although the agency has not said when it would do so.
“I suspect this will drag out for years, many years,” said Robert Murray, chief executive of Murray Energy Corp. and a vocal opponent of carbon regulations. “They need to take the time to study this and see if they come up with anything to substitute. I hope they come up with nothing.”
Mr. Pruitt previewed his plan on Monday at a coal equipment supply company in Hazard, Ky., where he declared, “The war on coal is over.” There and in the repeal proposal, Mr. Pruitt accused the Obama administration of favoring renewable energy over coal and violating the Clean Air Act when it established state-by-state targets for carbon emission “The last administration just simply made it up,” Mr. Pruitt said. “When you think about the Clean Power Plan, it was not about regulating to make things regular. It was about regulating to pick winners and losers.” He said the Obama administration overstepped its authority in order to favor renewable energy over fossil fuels.Continue reading the main storyRELATED COVERAGEWhat Is the Clean Power Plan, and How Can Trump Repeal It? OCT. 10, 2017E.P.A. Announces Repeal of Major Obama-Era Carbon Emissions Rule OCT. 9, 2017Trump Takes a First Step Toward Scrapping Obama’s Global Warming Policy OCT. 4, 2017E.P.A. Chief’s Calendar: A Stream of Industry Meetings and Trips HomeOCT. 3, 2017
“We are committed to righting the wrongs of the Obama administration by cleaning the regulatory slate,” Mr. Pruitt added in a statement Tuesday. “Any replacement rule will be done carefully, properly, and with humility, by listening to all those affected by the rule.”
Under the proposed repeal, the bureaucratic process of unraveling the Clean Power Plan could take months, and that is before any court challenges. Separately, the E.P.A. said it would ask the public for ideas about how to write a different, more tapered regulation. It gave no indication, however, of when it would do so or even whether it actually intended to create such a new rule. Moreover, soliciting public comment — in federal jargon, an “advance notice of proposed rule making” — is usually used by an agency to test ideas far in advance of even putting forward a proposed new regulation.
“I think they’re just dragging their feet,” said Vicki Arroyo, executive director of the Georgetown Climate Center at Georgetown Law School.
“They’ve had all this time to figure out what it is they would do if they were in charge, and they’ve been in charge since January, and they’ve known since November. So it’s literally been a year and they really don’t have anything to come up with other than kicking the can down the road?” she said. “They’re basically running out the clock.”
Business leaders from the Chamber of Commerce and leading utility companies have urged the E.P.A. in recent months to design a replacement for the Clean Power Plan. The groups, all opponents of the Obama-era plan, have argued that some type of regulation must exist to protect the E.P.A. from lawsuits. Even if the Trump administration succeeds in killing the Clean Power Plan, a 2009 agency determination known as the endangerment finding still compels the agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
“When they finalize the repeal, there will certainly be a lawsuit. And separate and apart from that, if they don’t move forward with a replacement rule they will also have a lawsuit,” said Jeff Holmstead, a lawyer with Bracewell LLP, a firm representing energy companies that sued to overturn the Clean Power Plan.
Mr. Holmstead said challenging the E.P.A. will not be easy because there is no specific deadline for the agency to move forward with a replacement. But, he added, “I think there will be pressure from the business community for the E.P.A. to do something so there is a regulation in place.”
“We are concerned legally that not having a replacement regulation in place opens them up to liability,” said Ross Eisenberg, vice president of energy policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, which applauded Tuesday’s repeal. Mr. Eisenberg said he was not concerned that the agency appears to want some time to consider a replacement. But, he said, companies are eager to see that effort move forward.
Industry isn’t all on the same page. Mr. Murray said he didn’t believe a replacement was necessary. “Right now, there’s no urgency to do anything in my opinion,” he said.
Supporters and opponents alike point out that the E.P.A. may not have enough senior officials in place to design a new rule. President Trump only last week nominated a deputy administrator to the agency, and other key appointees are awaiting senate confirmation. Another factor is Mr. Pruitt himself, a vocal denier of the scientific consensus that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are the main cause of climate change. Policy analysts said they did not believe Mr. Pruitt wanted his name attached to any greenhouse gas regulation, even a weak one.
“It’s very clear that this administration has no interest in seriously taking on climate change, be it in the power sector or other sources of emissions,” said David Konisky, an associate professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University. “Delaying is the policy.”
But where some see cynical strategy, Mr. Pruitt’s supporters see considered reasoning. David T. Stevenson, policy director at the Center for Energy Competitiveness at the Caesar Rodney Institute in Delaware and a member of Mr. Trump’s E.P.A. transition team, said smart policy takes time. Designing and moving forward a replacement for the Clean Power Plan could take as long as two years, he said.
“If you do it right that’s how long it takes,” he said. “These kinds of rules were put in place for a reason, so you couldn’t just willy-nilly regulate the heck out of things.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/climate/epa-pruitt-climate-rule.html
-
Axing Power Plan Health Benefits May Signal EPA's New Tack
Oct 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu
The Trump administration downplayed the health benefits of reducing power plant emissions in its proposal to rescind the Obama EPA's signature climate change regulation, a policy shift that could have implications for various air pollution control programs.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt Oct. 10 signed a proposal to repeal the Clean Power Plan, arguing that the Obama administration overestimated the rule's health benefits. That approach may indicate that President Donald Trump's EPA will consider fewer health benefits to air pollution rules, making it more difficult to justify the cost of regulations.
William Yeatman, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market advocacy group, told Bloomberg BNA that the Trump administration's decision to discount some of the health benefits of lowering particulate matter pollution could establish a precedent that would extend to other air pollution rules as well.
The EPA said the Clean Power Plan's public health benefits relied on reducing emissions of particulate matter, which the carbon dioxide standards did not directly regulate, and included pollution reductions from regions currently meeting federal air quality requirements for particulate matter.
In 2015, the EPA estimated that overall benefits of the Clean Power Plan totaled $54 billion, with as much as $34 billion coming from ancillary pollution-reduction “co-benefits"—especially from reducing particulate matter emissions. Particulate matter exposure can cause premature death in people with heart or lung disease, aggravated asthma, and decreased lung function, according to the EPA.
The Trump EPA estimated that repealing the Clean Power Plan could lead to up to $33 billion in avoided compliance costs in 2030.
Other Rules Relied on Co-Benefits
The EPA identified co-benefits in analyses justifying many other Obama-era air pollution regulations, including a rule limiting mercury emissions from power plants and more stringent national standards for ozone.
“The EPA has always, always, recognized that when you reduce emissions associated with fossil fuel combustion, you have multiple co-benefits from reducing multiple co-pollutants,” John Walke, director of clean air programs at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told Bloomberg BNA.
“This is the opening salvo of scientific fraud under the Clean Air Act that the Trump administration appears dead set on adopting.”
The Trump EPA no longer considers reducing fine particulate matter below national ambient air quality levels a health benefit during the cost-benefit analysis, according to the agency's analysis of the proposal's economic and public health benefits. It also “shifts the focus” of the social cost of carbon from a global outlook to a domestic one, the agency said.
Office of Management and Budget guidance from 2003 requires agencies to consider co-benefits in their cost-benefit analyses.
“Until a few years ago, co-benefits were not a controversial thing,” James Goodwin, senior policy analyst at the Center for Progressive Reform, told Bloomberg BNA. “Co-benefits became controversial when we elected Barack Obama, apparently, but they have existed under [George W.] Bush.”
While the Trump EPA didn't ignore co-benefits, Goodwin said, they “bent over backwards” to minimize their impact.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=121963287&vname=dennotallissues&fn=121963287&jd=121963287
-
Clean Power Plan Only First Target for Foes of Climate Rules
Oct 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
Scrapping an Obama-era plan to cut carbon emissions from power plants doesn't prevent the EPA from revisiting its authority even to regulate greenhouse gases, conservative opponents of climate regulation said.
They are urging the Environmental Protection Agency to cast a broad net as it seeks input on whether to replace the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. They're encouraging the EPA to ask for comment on its 2009 finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health and welfare.
That finding is the legal underpinning for the EPA's regulation of carbon emissions from power plants and other sectors, and reversing it would halt most climate change regulation.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt signed an Oct. 10 proposal to repeal the Clean Power Plan, arguing that the rule exceeds the agency's legal authority. He also said the agency soon intends to solicit comment on potential options to replace the power plant rule.
But conservative groups like the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Texas Public Policy Foundation also want the EPA to reconsider the endangerment finding. Even if the EPA were to replace the Clean Power Plan, that wouldn't tie the agency's hands on the finding, they said.
“I think that door remains open no matter what happens on the Clean Power Plan,” Sam Kazman, general counsel for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told Bloomberg BNA.
At least one utility—Duke Energy—told Bloomberg BNA that it doesn't support a reconsideration of the endangerment finding. Some utilities have urged the Trump administration to issue a narrow rule replacing the Clean Power Plan, citing a need for regulatory certainty and saying it's a hedge against citizen suits that could surface if it's not replaced.
While other utilities—including Southern Co., Peabody Energy Corp., and Murray Energy Corp.—varied in their support for the EPA's efforts to repeal the Clean Power Plan, they did not comment on whether the agency should reconsider the endangerment finding.
Pending Petitions
Since the Trump administration took office, the EPA has been petitioned to reconsider the endangerment finding—though the agency has not yet responded to those requests. Kazman, whose group filed one of the three pending petitions, argued that “evidence continues to grow” that contradicts the scientific findings underlying the 2009 finding issued by the Obama administration.
Ted Hadzi-Antich, a senior attorney with the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which also filed a petition on the finding, pointed to a footnote in the EPA's proposal to repeal the Clean Power Plan that says the finding is “not at issue in this proposed rulemaking.”
“Frankly, this may be wishful thinking on my part, but the reason why that footnote is in there” is an indication from the EPA that “we want to deal with that issue now,” he told Bloomberg BNA. Hadzi-Antich and others from the foundation met with White House and EPA officials Sept. 28 to urge the EPA to seek comment on the finding alongside any options to replace the Clean Power Plan—a plan they outlined in a brief white paper presented to officials.
Kazman also suggested that the Competitive Enterprise Institute could file comments on the endangerment finding even if the EPA doesn't ask for input.
Both Kazman and Hadzi-Antich said the EPA has not yet responded to their petitions, and there is no legal timetable for responding. During his confirmation hearing, Pruitt told senators that the endangerment finding created an “obligation to address the [carbon dioxide] issue” and said he knew nothing “that would cause a review at this point.”
Environmental Pushback
Legal experts and environmental advocates acknowledge that nothing is preventing the EPA from soliciting comment on the finding, but the Trump administration would face a high burden to reverse it.
The finding has “already been upheld in court, and is based on significant peer-reviewed data,” Avi Garbow, who served as the EPA's general counsel from 2013 to 2017 and now co-chairs Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP's environmental practice, told Bloomberg BNA. “To reach a contrary conclusion would ostensibly require new or additional information with a similarly high degree of scientific integrity.”
Denise Grab, an attorney with New York University's Institute for Policy Integrity, told Bloomberg BNA that any potential replacement rule issued by the EPA “wouldn't really affect any position that the endangerment finding could be revisited.” But she noted that a replacement plan would have to rely on the endangerment finding, thus “re-endorsing it.” The EPA “could try later” to reverse the finding, she added, though said there is “still no basis for doing so.”
Andres Restrepo, an attorney with the Sierra Club, also told Bloomberg BNA that he would be surprised if the EPA decided to move forward with replacing the plan and reconsidering the finding. The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg L.P., the global business, financial information and news leader. Bloomberg BNA is an affiliate of Bloomberg L.P.
“I think Pruitt, despite public statements, knows he has little chance of succeeding in court to withdraw the finding,” Restrepo said. “I think he knows that would be a big blow to him, his legacy, and political ambitions if he were to go in that direction and fail.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=121963286&vname=dennotallissues&fn=121963286&jd=121963286
-
Timing of Power Plan Repeal a Message to Global Climate Talks
Oct 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
Scrapping carbon dioxide limits from U.S. power plants should be viewed as “a provocation” to more than 190 countries just weeks before they meet in Bonn, Germany, to advance an international climate change pact, a defender of the EPA's actions told Bloomberg BNA.
“The message to them is that the barn door is closed” on keeping the U.S. in the international Paris climate deal, said Myron Ebell, who directs the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Center for Energy and Environment.
Ebell applauded the timing of the administration's announcement and said it was no accident that it came shortly before the United Nations holds its big annual summit to discuss implementation of the 2015 Paris Agreement. The summit runs Nov. 6-17.
“Putting this out right now should be seen as a provocation” toward those in and out of the administration who are looking for any signs that President Donald Trump might reverse his decision on the Paris pact, Ebell—who headed Trump's EPA transition team shortly after the election—told Bloomberg BNA.
Speaking Oct. 9 in Kentucky coal country, Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt declared the “war on coal is over” because he had decided to repeal the Obama-era Clean Power Plan. The plan sets power plant carbon pollution limits that are the linchpin to the U.S. pledge to cut its emissions under the Paris climate pact.
Change of Course Still Possible
Because Trump can't technically withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement for four years, environmental and other groups such as the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) say plenty of time remains for Trump to reverse himself and simply water down the U.S. pledge under the Paris pact, which is to cut its emissions up to 28 percent by 2025 from 2005 levels.
Pruitt's decision comes before negotiators head to Bonn for the first round of United Nations climate talks since Trump announced he intended to withdraw from the pact.
Elliot Diringer, executive vice president for C2ES, told Bloomberg BNA the EPA announcement has long been expected and “doesn't materially change the situation.” But he acknowledged the action “makes it that much harder to meet the U.S. target put forward by Obama.”
EPA's action also “doesn't preclude the U.S. from staying in Paris with a revised target,” Diringer said.
The group is hearing from other countries that rolling back the U.S. pledge is still “a better outcome than the U.S. pulling out altogether,” he said.
States Fill Vacuum
Many states will continue to try to fill the vacuum if the EPA makes good on its proposal. Governors including Washington's Jay Inslee (D) are to travel to the Bonn talks to highlight their states’ efforts to make progress on emissions reductions with or without federal action.
Richard Kauffman, an energy adviser to New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D), said those state efforts, as well as a host of voluntary actions U.S. companies have announced in recent months, will reassure other nations the U.S. remains committed to battling climate change.
“I don't believe that the United States is viewed now by international participants as a monolith when it comes to climate change” action, Kauffman told reporters.
Ruchi Sadhir, an energy policy adviser to Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D)—who is to join Inslee in making the trip to Bonn—said the effort will reassure the world that U.S. commitment to addressing climate change is strong.
Their trip is “to give assurances to the international community that despite these types of rollbacks and despite the [EPA] action today, states like Oregon will be continuing to move forward on clean power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fulfill those types of commitments that are enshrined in the Paris” deal, Sadhir told reporters.
Congressional Democrats said the EPA action could slow U.S. progress on clean energy technologies.
Pruitt “may call the Clean Power Plan a war on coal, but the only war that was declared was on America's clean energy future with this decision,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in a statement.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=121963288&vname=dennotallissues&fn=121963288&jd=121963288
-
CPP Supporters Say Repeal Proposal Opens Up EPA, Utilities To Litigation
Oct 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
As EPA formally proposes to repeal the Clean Power Plan (CPP) to limit power sector greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, supporters of the rule warn that if the agency does not issue an “adequate” replacement, then industry will face tort suits and the agency will face citizen suits seeking to force emission cuts.
If EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt “does nothing at all, we can bring various kinds of litigation to force him to act,” said David Doniger, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), during an Oct. 10 press call. “The [U.S. Court of Appeals for the] D.C. Circuit itself has indicated he has an obligation to act and some judges are looking at their wrist watches.”
Also, Joe Goffman, one of the chief architects of the CPP who will soon join Harvard University's law school, tells Inside EPA that the Trump EPA appears to be “courting . . . a certain degree of legal chaos and a fair degree of uncertainty for the power sector” with its “clearly bifurcated” approach to repeal and replace the rule.
EPA announced Oct. 10 that Pruitt signed a proposed repeal of the Obama-era rule that would have required power plants to cut their GHG emissions 32 percent by 2030, from 2005 levels. EPA also issued a revised regulatory impact analysis (RIA).
The signed version is similar to a draft obtained by Inside EPA that said a decision on whether to replace the CPP at all has not yet been made.
However, EPA in an Oct. 10 status report in litigation over the CPP commits to issuing a formal call for comments on a proposed replacement. The agency “will be signing in the near future an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that will solicit information on systems of emission reduction that are in accord with the legal interpretation that has been proposed by EPA,” the report says.
The new proposed RIA also makes significant changes to original cost-benefit review, finding the repeal will save up to $33 billion in compliance costs in 2030, compared to $8.5 billion in costs the earlier CPP estimated. It also drastically deflates the estimated benefits of reducing GHGs and related conventional pollutants.
EPA says it will accept comment on its plan for 60 days after it publishes in the Federal Register. When the repeal is finalized, environmentalists and other supporters of the Obama rule will challenge the action in court as an illegally strict interpretation of the agency's air law authority.
In addition, as soon as Pruitt signs a final repeal, EPA and power companies immediately become vulnerable to citizen suits under the Clean Air Act, and the “possibility of tort litigation outside the” air law, Doniger noted.
He cited the 2011 Supreme Court Ruling in American Electric Power (AEP) v. Connecticut where justices held that such tort suits were preempted by the air act, which granted EPA authority to regulate power sector GHGs.
But if EPA repeals the power sector GHG rule, climate advocates could argue in such a tort claim that the agency has abdicated its responsibility to act.
“If EPA reaches a legal position that they can't do anything, then the basis for [the AEP] ruling would be undermined,” Doniger noted. “So that is why . . . some of the [power] companies want a replacement rule, any replacement rule, because that provides some insulation, they think, from tort litigation.”
Increasing Interest
However, Doniger also questioned that argument. “I don't know they are right,” he said, noting that there is an increasing interest in tort suits -- including state torts -- by cities and states seeking to recover damages to address sea-level rise and hurricane relief.
For example, several California municipalities are already pursuing a new common law climate change nuisance suit in state court in what legal experts say could be a groundbreaking tactic against fossil fuel companies. The July suit, County of Marin, et al. v. Chevron, et al. is not preempted by the Clean Air Act, according to the plaintiffs, and could be a new “pressure point” to spur the fossil energy to advance low-carbon alternatives. Legal experts said it is also difficult to argue federal law preempts state tort claims given the current administration's “outright resistance to using federal statutes to regulate GHGs at any stage.”
Another example of an already-proceeding novel approach is Juliana, et al. v. United States of America, a suit brought by youth plaintiffs arguing the federal government has violated their constitutional and public trust rights to a safe climate. The Trump administration is seeking to dismiss the suit for procedural reasons after a district court judge ruled it could be tried on the merits.
Goffman in the interview agreed that a repeal-only approach opens the door to more of those types of suits.
“I would expect that . . . some of the litigants in the currently pending litigation . . . as parties defending the CPP would take pains to call to the attention of the D.C. Circuit the potentially animus result of having a well-defined path for repealing but only a hazily defined path for replacing.”
He also noted that D.C. Circuit Judge David Tatel recently issued a statement “reminding the world that, at least in his view, the agency would continue to have an underlying obligation to set GHG emission standards.”
During a separate Oct. 10 press call, Sean Donahue, who represents the Environmental Defense Fund in the litigation over the CPP, said it is not clear if parties would need a definitive statement from EPA that it will not regulate, or whether they could wait a certain period of time before filing a suit that argues EPA is neglecting its statutory duty.
And citing the current state common law actions, he predicted that “if EPA is not acting like it is taking this issue in hand and moving forward aggressively, you're going to see [in] the entire rest of the legal system, more pressure for innovative remedies and approaches. . . . That picture of abdication is going to inject a lot of energy into efforts to find other ways to get at these emissions.”
Narrow Replacement
Both Goffman and Doniger agreed that a narrow CPP replacement is vulnerable to a court finding it “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act, with claims likely to focus on the key question of how EPA must set emission reduction targets under a power plant GHG rule.
NRDC and other groups vehemently disagree with Pruitt's claim that GHG targets in a replacement must be limited to steps taken inside a coal plant -- largely through efficiency upgrades that would generate only minor GHG cuts while possibly boosting other pollutants.
Instead, they believe that significant improvements can be made by requiring a shift from coal to gas at some plants and installing carbon capture and storage technology at others.
“And if you did that and had a credit system to spread the benefit around,” that could achieve significant GHG cuts because it would make coal plants more expensive and allow cleaner resources to run more. “So there is no way around the fact that the response of the power industry around any meaningful pollution control would be to change the mix” of resources, Doniger said.
Any replacement that is less than adequate can be challenged in court, Doniger also argued. He cited his Oct. 9 blog post that says despite Pruitt's claim that standards can be based only on “physical or operational changes to the source itself,” the law requires EPA's standards “to be effective,” and that “a standard doesn't represent the 'best system of emission reduction' if it does not achieve as much carbon pollution reduction as can be accomplished at an acceptable cost.”
The Supreme Court has “emphasized EPA's authority to solve complex air pollution problems as they arise, and has upheld standards that reflect how the power industry actually functions,” including setting standards that include emission credit systems that enable significant cuts at reasonable cost, he wrote, referring to the Supreme Court's 2014 decision to uphold EPA's cross-state air pollution rule that is based on credit trading.
Doniger argued that here, Pruitt “wants to ignore the real-world characteristics” of power plants and the grid, which “don't operate on their own, in isolation. They are all interconnected, and they are operated as a system over vast regions,” and “shift generation between plants . . . depending on what is the cheapest way to meet demand.”
Pruitt's view of how the plants' operate is more than a century out of date, and his “constricted view of the Clean Air Act will be rejected by the courts,” Doniger predicted.
Goffman also said courts could reject a narrow replacement as inadequate, but stopped short of predicting a successful outcome. He added that there are “lots of different potential petitions to the agency, and litigation to either compel a response to those petitions or to challenge any denial of those petitions that state governments and the public will be able to bring.”
Ultimately, Goffman noted that “with potentially multi-path litigation going forward, the utility sector” is “under a significant amount of stress” due to the uncertainty.
Both Doniger and Goffman say that is why the industry has been urging the administration to move forward with a replacement, particularly because it fears it will be vulnerable to tort suits without one.
The repeal, according to Goffman, is “much more an exercise in ideology than it is in being carefully responsive to the demand put on the regulated industry.”
Taken together, a repeal of the CPP and a “long, slow, potentially inconclusive process to replace” it, makes it “hard to believe that people from across the country would refrain from trying to reopen” tort suits, particularly in the wake of AEP, according to Goffman.
“It's one thing in 2011 to contemplate an orderly and consistent application of various provisions of the Clean Air Act, which is the circumstance that was present when the Supreme Court ruled six years ago. But it is something entirely different even for the Supreme Court or other federal courts to be looking at that question in the wake of the 180-degree reversal that the federal government is undertaking here,” Goffman said.
While court fights to counter EPA actions are necessary, Goffman also urged a parallel approach to effectively moot the Trump administration's efforts to halt clean energy. “I think the most productive thing that people who are concerned about clean energy and climate policy can do is use other tools and drivers that would in effect moot the retrograde agenda of this administration . . . which may in fact be more powerful in the end than simply trying to confront it head on.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/cpp-supporters-say-repeal-proposal-opens-epa-utilities-litigation
-
Commerce Department Report Targets NSR As 'Top Priority' For Reform
Oct 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
The Commerce Department's long-awaited report outlining recommended actions on regulatory “reform” cites changes to the Clean Air Act new source review (NSR) program as a “top priority,” along with almost a dozen other EPA programs, ratifying industry calls for administrative and legislative changes to reduce the scope of environmental regulations.
The list of priorities is not a surprise given the barrage of industry comments that featured the NSR program prominently in industry's list of complaints.
But it nevertheless tees up what is likely to be heated battles over the proposed changes to EPA programs even before any potential legislative efforts are taken into account.
“Consistent with previous studies on the costs of federal regulations, comments on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules dominated the responses from industry, and constitute the bulk of the Department's recommended Priority Areas for Reform,” states the report that the department quietly released Oct. 6.
Most of the report's EPA-focused recommendations focus mostly, but not exclusively, on EPA's air program, though it also addresses a range of other agency programs governing water, waste and toxics.
And the report also sets a Dec. 31 deadline for regulatory task forces at EPA and other federal agencies to deliver an action plan to the President that includes description of “specific actions that could be taken” to implement the report's recommendations.
On NSR, the report lists 10 potential changes to the program that would require a mix of administrative and legislative action.
The first five would: enforce a one-year turn around on permit applications; reduce a statute of limitations on challenges or appeals to one year; allow “nonemitting” construction activities to occur prior to receipt of a permit; “consider options” to revise the definition of routine activities exempt from the NSR program; and promote use of flexible permitting mechanisms including plantwide applicability limits.
The remainder of the proposed NSR changes would pursue “regulatory and guidance options” for easing emissions calculation methodologies related to project “aggregation,” “netting” and “debottlenecking;” issue guidance when national ambient air quality standards are promulgated to clarify modeling required in an NSR permit application; “consider opportunities” to grandfather NSR applications following revision of an ambient air standard; examine ways to streamline Best Available Control Technology demonstrations, and “consider opportunities” to allow purchase of emissions offsets beyond specific local areas.
Many of these proposals for reform have long been targets of industry and other deregulatory advocates, some of whom have previously raised doubts about whether the administration will have the bandwidth to tackle the issue given other priorities.
Other Programs
Beyond NSR, the Commerce Department report also focuses heavily on other air program concerns, calling for extending the term of Clean Air Act Title V operating permits from 5 to 10 years, and for the agency to “consider options” to provide relief from enforcement of “unforeseeable and uncontrollable” emissions during periods of start up, shutdown, or malfunction.”
With respect to the agency's air toxic programs, the report calls on EPA to “increase efforts to reduce costs” and avoid duplicative requirements and “take steps” to ensure any new requirements under the residual risk program are not “redundant or unreasonably costly.”
The report also wades into controversies over national ambient air quality standards. For example, it urges the agency to develop options for “real world measurements” rather than “probabilistic models;” calls for extending the period for revisiting air quality standards from 5 to 10 years, and endorses a delay of the implementation of the 2015 ozone standards.
The report also states EPA should “consider” exemptions from new source performance standards (NSPS) for research related activities “consistent with authorities under section 111” of the air act, and issue a unified coating rule that facilities could meet instead of eight overlapping rules under the NSPS and air toxics programs that apply to coatings.
The remainder of the report's focus on EPA touches on water and waste issues, referencing the ongoing withdrawal of the waters of the U.S. rule, asks that EPA provide permit applicants under the section 404 and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System “clear descriptions of required steps and additional tools to assist them in completing the permitting process.”
With respect to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the report calls for “aggressive” review of the lists of hazardous waste to consider delisting certain compounds/materials/liquids that could easily be reused or recycled, but for for the fact they are classified as hazardous waste.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/commerce-department-report-targets-nsr-top-priority-reform
-
EPA Softens Pulp & Paper Mills Air Toxics Rule From Obama-Era Proposal
Oct 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA has finalized an update to its air toxics standards for chemical recovery combustion sources at Kraft and other pulp and paper mills, modestly tightening requirements for the facilities, but the final version backs away from more-stringent emissions control measures floated by the Obama administration in a December proposal.
The agency is slated to publish in the Oct. 11 Federal Register its final risk and technology review (RTR) rule that complies with a Clean Air Act mandate to review existing national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutant (NESHAP) standards eight years after their promulgation to assess whether a sector's air toxics risks remain too high or whether new emissions control technology exists to further drive down emissions.
If EPA finds that either new controls are viable or risks remain unacceptable, it can tighten the rule. EPA issued its NESHAP for pulp and paper mills in 2001, and fell behind schedule in its RTR.
The Obama administration floated its proposed RTR rule in December, which found health risks “acceptable” but nonetheless concluded that deeper emissions cuts from the sector are achievable at reasonable cost due to advances in air pollution control technology. Environmentalists supported stricter standards, but industry groups urged the Trump administration against finalizing the proposed version.
EPA's final rule tightens some aspects of its regulations for the sector, such as limits on “opacity,” a measure of air pollution, but at a less stringent level than proposed by the Obama EPA.
Echoing the proposal, the final rule does not tighten numeric air toxics limits, but does eliminate regulatory exemptions for emissions during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM).
EPA's weakening of the final rule relative to the proposal comes despite warnings from environmentalists that EPA cannot use President Donald Trump's executive order requiring that federal agencies identify for elimination two regulations for every one they issue -- the so-called two-for-one order -- to excuse weaker regulations.
But EPA in the final rule says the NESHAP does not qualify for consideration under the order because it is not a “significant” regulation with an economic impact of at least $100 million. “We do not estimate any significant reductions in HAP emissions as a result of these final amendments. However, the amendments will help to improve the clarity of the rule, which will improve compliance and, therefore, minimize emissions. Certain provisions also provide operational flexibility with no increase in HAP emissions,” EPA says.
Final Rule
Nonetheless, the agency also states that the final rule's elimination of SSM exemptions will result in some HAP decreases.
EPA indicates that it backed away from the Obama administration's proposed tightening of opacity limits under industry criticism that the proposed tightening would be too onerous, but the agency still imposes some tougher compliance obligations with respect to opacity.
In its proposal, EPA proposed reducing the existing source opacity limit from 35 percent to 20 percent, and revising the “monitoring allowance” from 6 percent to 2 percent.
For existing lime kilns, EPA proposed revising the monitoring allowance from 6 percent to 1 percent. EPA defines monitoring allowance as “the percentage of the operating time within a semiannual period below which opacity can exceed the limit without it being considered a violation.”
In the final rule, EPA leaves opacity limits unchanged, but cuts the monitoring allowance for all recovery furnaces equipped with electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) from 6 to 2 percent, and from 6 percent to 3 percent for all lime kilns equipped with ESPs.
EPA further adds some new technical provisions, requiring recovery furnaces and lime kilns with ESPs to “maintain proper operation” of the ESP automatic voltage control, among other measures.
The agency says its elimination of SSM exemptions is required under rulings from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit finding such exemptions unlawful, and requiring that emissions limits apply at all times. However, EPA is reviewing its policy on such exemptions, in light of both EPA regulations and also state implementation plans (SIPs) outlining steps states will take to attain Clean Air Act pollution standards.
Litigation over the Obama EPA's “SIP Call” rule that requires 36 states to remove such exemptions from their SIPs is now on hold in the D.C. Circuit, pending EPA's possible reconsideration of the policy.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-softens-pulp-paper-mills-air-toxics-rule-obama-era-proposal
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested