Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 12/11/17
-
Hearing On Fuel Economy And GHG Rules
Dec 12, 2017 | Energy and Commerce Subcommittees on Environment, and Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection
Location: 2123 Rayburn / 10:00 AM. -
Hearing On Energy Permitting
Dec 12, 2017 | Energy and Natural Resources
Location: 366 Dirksen / 10:00 AM. -
Hearing on North America Energy Trade
Dec 13, 2017 | Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy
Location: 2322 Rayburn / 10:15 AM. -
(ACC mentioned) US Chem Output To Rise In '17, Continue Growing In '18-20 – ACC
Dec 11, 2017 | ICIS
By Al Greenwood
US chemical output will rise in 2017 and continue growing for the next three years, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) said on Friday. -
(ACC Mentioned) Year-End Outlook for Chemical Industry Appears Positive, ACC Says
Dec 8, 2017 | Chemical Engineering
By Scott Jenkins
The U.S. chemical industry is riding a global wave of growth as the world’s major economies experience an upswing for the first time in a decade. -
'Legacy Uses' May Be Reconsidered In Us Asbestos Risk Assessment
Dec 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The US EPA may be reconsidering its decision to exclude "legacy installed" building materials from its risk evaluation of asbestos, the agency's administrator Scott Pruitt told a congressional committee. -
EPA’s New Chemicals Review Program—Highlights from the December 6, 2017, Public Meeting
Dec 8, 2017 | The National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham
On December 6, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) convened a much anticipated public meeting on implementing changes to the new chemicals review program under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
Advisors Urge Fixes To EPA Drinking Water Advisories After Public Concerns
Dec 11, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Lara Beaven
EPA advisors are calling for greater transparency in how and when the agency develops drinking water health advisories as well as increased clarity in communicating the risks of exposure to the covered substances, following the release of advisories in 2015 and 2016 that gained more high-profile public attention and concern than they usually do. -
Xcel to Pay Boulder, Colo., $3.6M to Clean Contaminated Site
Dec 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Xcel Energy Inc. agreed to pay Boulder, Colo., $3.6 million for the cleanup of a site contaminated with cancer-causing and other hazardous chemicals adjoining a landmark teahouse. -
Help Close Microplastic Knowledge Gaps, Denmark Tells Commission
Dec 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The Danish government urged the European Commission to help plug the gaps around knowledge of microplastics as it prepares to publish its EU plastics strategy. -
Members Mull Energy Concerns As NAFTA Fears Mount
Dec 11, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
As high-stakes trade talks between the Trump administration and Mexico and Canada continue, a House Energy and Commerce panel this week will delve into the future of the continent's energy trade. -
House to Take Up Cybersecurity, Hydro Bills
Dec 11, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk,
The House will fast-track a grab bag of bills on hydropower and the federal workforce this week, as well as a measure to revamp the Department of Homeland Security's cyber office. -
Railway Wins Legal Battle Over Vermont Hazmat Ordinance
Dec 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
A Vermont town can't enforce an ordinance that would severely limit the storage of road salt, fuel, and hazardous substances by Vermont Railway Inc., the District of Vermont ruled Dec. 7. -
Lawsuit Seeks Incident-Reporting Rule from Chemical Safety Board
Dec 11, 2017 | Reuters
By Dena Aubin
Four environmental and safety groups have asked a federal court in Washington D.C. to order the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board to issue a long-overdue rule requiring the reporting of accidental chemical releases. -
Northeast Carbon Allowance Prices Drop 12.6 Percent
Dec 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
The cost for power companies to comply with the Northeast's cap-and-trade program dropped 12.6 percent in the second auction since the program announced plans to lower its emissions cap. -
EPA Won't Second-Guess Industry Pollution Estimates, Pruitt Says
Dec 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu
The EPA will take industries at their word when they estimate how much air pollution will result from new or expanding operations, Administrator Scott Pruitt told regional agency officials. -
More Climate Change References Missing From Webpages
Dec 11, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Maxine Joselow
The Trump administration has scrubbed more references to climate change from U.S. EPA's website, according to a report released today. -
Pruitt Vows To Issue Replacement Rule After Scrapping Clean Power Plan
Dec 8, 2017 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss & Lee Logan
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt for the first time firmly is pledging to replace the high-profile Clean Power Plan (CPP) utility greenhouse gas rule, siding with many industry groups that are seeking a replacement rule once the administration finalizes its plan to repeal to Obama-era CPP GHG standards for existing power plants. -
'Sue-And-Settle' Directive Appears To Revive EPA Air Monitoring Policy Suit
Dec 8, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's recent directive barring the agency from entering into settlements with groups committing it to undertake rulemakings appears to be causing the resumption of a paused Sierra Club suit over an EPA air monitoring policy, because Pruitt is dropping Obama administration plans to settle the litigation. -
EPA Works To Ease Air Pollution Permitting Process
Dec 11, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Trump administration wants to ease the air pollution permitting process for certain power plants and manufacturers.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Hearing On Fuel Economy And GHG Rules
Dec 12, 2017 | Energy and Commerce Subcommittees on Environment, and Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection
-
Dec 12, 2017 | Energy and Natural Resources
-
Hearing on North America Energy Trade
Dec 13, 2017 | Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy
-
(ACC mentioned) US Chem Output To Rise In '17, Continue Growing In '18-20 – ACC
Dec 11, 2017 | ICIS
By Al Greenwood
HOUSTON (ICIS)--US chemical output will rise in 2017 and continue growing for the next three years, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) said on Friday.
Output is rising just as the major global economies are expanding in unison, the ACC said.
"American chemistry is riding a synchronised global upswing," said Kevin Swift, chief economist of ACC and lead author of a report providing a year-end outlook. "Manufacturing has turned a corner, business investment is on the rise, and domestic oil and gas production is on the rebound. It all sets the stage for tremendous momentum, expansion and capital investment."
US chemical production is expected to rise by 0.8% in 2017, excluding pharmaceuticals, the ACC said. It should increase by 3.7% in 2018, 3.9% in 2019 and 3.0% in 2020.
Basic chemicals production should be flat in 2017 before rising by 4.7% in 2018 and 5.2% in 2019.
For specialties, production should rise by 3.0% in 2017 and 2.3% in 2018. The sector is benefitting from improvements in oilfield and mining chemicals, adhesives and electronic chemicals.
The US should have a chemical trade surplus of $32bn in 2017, excluding pharmaceuticals, the ACC said. Exports rose by 4.9% to $127bn, and imports rose by 2.8% to $96bn. Two-way trade between the US and its foreign partners will reach $223bn in 2017, up 4.0%.
The growth in the nation's chemical industry comes amid a wave of new plants starting up. Companies have announced nearly 320 chemical projects worth $185bn. Out of this amount, 62% is foreign direct investment.
Nearly 65% of the investments announced since 2010 has either been completed or is under construction.
In addition to new projects, capital spending continued to rise, reaching $38bn in 2017, up 6.0%. It should rise by 6.3% in 2018 and 6.8% in 2019. By 2022, spending should reach $48bn.
US chemistry is a $768bn industry, accounting for more than 14% of all US exports and 15% of the world's chemicals, the ACC said.
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2017/12/08/10172536/us-chem-output-to-rise-in-17-continue-growing-in-18-20-acc/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Year-End Outlook for Chemical Industry Appears Positive, ACC Says
Dec 8, 2017 | Chemical Engineering
By Scott Jenkins
The U.S. chemical industry is riding a global wave of growth as the world’s major economies experience an upswing for the first time in a decade. Increased output and accelerating growth rates that surpass the previous twenty-year average will help cement the business of American chemistry as $1 trillion industry within the next five years, according to the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com) “Year End 2017 Chemical Industry Situation and Outlook,” released today. Despite disruptions from this year’s historic Hurricane Harvey, chemical production volumes continued to improve in 2017, with significant gains expected in 2018 and 2019.
“American chemistry is riding a synchronized global upswing,” said Kevin Swift, chief economist of ACC and lead author of the report. “Manufacturing has turned a corner, business investment is on the rise, and domestic oil and gas production is on the rebound. It all sets the stage for tremendous momentum, expansion, and capital investment” he added.
U.S. chemical manufacturers remain advantaged with access to cheaper and more abundant feedstocks and energy, helping push the number of announced chemical production projects to nearly 320 with a cumulative vale of over $185 billion. Nearly sixty-five percent of the chemical industry investment announced since 2010 has been completed or is under construction. As these investments have come online, chemical production volumes have continued to increase. Excluding pharmaceuticals, production volume for 2017 is expected to be up 0.8 percent, increasing to 3.7 percent in 2018, and 3.9 percent in 2019 before easing to 3.0 percent in 2020.
Stronger export markets and gains in investment spending continue to boost demand in key end-use markets including light vehicles and housing. Though production has eased from last year’s robust pace and light vehicle sales are expected to retreat slightly, the outlook is for sales to progress at a solid, though slower, pace over the next several years. Housing activity improved to 1.20 million starts in 2017 and will rise to 1.29 million in 2018 as the level of activity gradually returns to its long-term underlying demand pace of 1.5 million units per year by 2022.
The report also noted that in addition to end-use markets, improved export markets will also drive strong gains in U.S. chemistry. Basic chemicals production is expected to be flat in 2017, before growing by 4.7 percent in 2018, and 5.2 percent in 2019 as new capacity comes online. Major export markets such as Latin American and Asia will play a large role in expanding production.
In the specialties chemicals segment, production will increase by 3.0 percent in 2017 and grow further by 2.3 percent in 2018. Gains in specialty chemicals were led by improvements in oilfield and mining chemicals, adhesives, and electronic chemicals.
Increased exports will result in a $32 billion trade surplus in chemicals (excluding pharmaceuticals) this year. Total chemical exports (on a dollar basis) rose 4.9 percent to $127 billion, while imports rose 2.8 percent to $96 billion. Two-way trade between the U.S. and its foreign partners will reach $223 billion this year, a 4.0 percent expansion over 2016.
“Our fundamentals remain incredibly strong and the U.S. remains the destination for chemical investment,” said Swift, noting that 62 percent of the $185 billion in announced projects is foreign direct investment. In addition to the new projects, chemical industry capital spending continues to surge, reaching $38 billion in 2017 and accounting for one-half of total construction spending by the manufacturing sector. Capital spending increased 6.0 percent this year, but will grow by 6.3 percent in 2018 and 6.8 percent in 2019, reaching $48 billion by 2022.
The business of chemistry is a $768 billion enterprise and one of America’s most significant manufacturing industries, accounting for more than 14 percent of all U.S. exports and 15 percent of the world’s chemicals. More than ninety-six percent of all manufactured goods are touched by products of chemistry.
Prepared annually by ACC’s Economics and Statistics Department, the “Year-End 2017 Chemical Industry Situation and Outlook” is the association’s annual review of the U.S. and global business of chemistry. It offers global and domestic chemical industry data related to production, trade, shipments, capacity utilization, R&D spending, capital spending, employment and wages.
http://www.chemengonline.com/year-end-outlook-for-chemical-industry-appears-positive-acc-says/?printmode=1
-
'Legacy Uses' May Be Reconsidered In Us Asbestos Risk Assessment
Dec 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The US EPA may be reconsidering its decision to exclude "legacy installed" building materials from its risk evaluation of asbestos, the agency's administrator Scott Pruitt told a congressional committee.
The EPA's interpretation of the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act amendments is that risk assessment should focus on "current and prospective uses". The framework rules and scoping documents for the first ten substances subject to risk evaluation under TSCA generally exclude "legacy uses" of chemicals from consideration. Instead they focus on current and prospective applications.
In questioning Mr Pruitt on 7 December, Representative Frank Pallone Jr (D-New Jersey) said that ignoring the danger of asbestos disposal "will produce a risk assessment that fails to capture the risk to workers and ordinary Americans".
"You raise a meaningful concern," Mr Pruitt answered, adding that this issue is under active discussion at the EPA and will be addressed.
In comments on the scoping documents, asbestos abatement professionals argued "the most prevalent source of asbestos exposure to the general public in the US" is from existing, deteriorating building materials containing the substance.
Mr Pallone also reiterated the complaint of Democrats and environmental advocates that deputy assistant administrator Nancy Beck should not have been allowed to "rewrite" key TSCA regulations to benefit her former employer, the American Chemistry Council. This he said was "in flagrant violation" of ethics rules.
Mr Pruitt responded that all EPA employees abide by the decisions of the agency's ethics officials.
Hearings on an agency agenda typically involve many rounds of questioning. But Mr Pruitt, who was making his first appearance on Capitol Hill since his confirmation, met for only an hour with the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Environment Subcommittee. The panel's chairman said Mr Pruitt had to cut the session short to attend a meeting at the White House.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62379/legacy-uses-may-be-reconsidered-in-us-asbestos-risk-assessment
-
EPA’s New Chemicals Review Program—Highlights from the December 6, 2017, Public Meeting
Dec 8, 2017 | The National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham
On December 6, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) convened a much anticipated public meeting on implementing changes to the new chemicals review program under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). EPA offered brief prepared remarks and previously solicited questions from stakeholders. Stakeholders expressed their appreciation to EPA for developing the draft Points to Consider and related documents made available in advance of the meeting, and for OPPT’s continuing interest on new chemical issues. For more information, see our blog “EPA Posts Agenda and Other Meeting Materials for December 6, 2017, New Chemicals Review Program Implementation Meeting.” Below are some key takeaways regarding the meeting as related to EPA’s presentations and input from industry and non-governmental organizations (NGO).
Conditions of Use, SNURs, and PMNs: EPA stated that one of its main concerns is when EPA does not identify unreasonable risk for intended use, but nonetheless has concerns with reasonably foreseen conditions of use. EPA stated that it will assess whether those concerns can be addressed through significant new use rules (SNUR) that it would promulgate prior to making its Section 5 finding. EPA stated that, in identifying reasonably foreseeable uses, it will rely on knowledge, experience, and facts to support what is foreseen, not simply what is possible. Several commenters requested clarification and examples on the information that will support such identifications. This is plainly an area of intense interest and on which EPA pledged to clarify.
EPA confirmed that the SNUR would mirror the premanufacture notice (PMN) in a way that would clearly state what deviations would be permitted to ensure protections for portions of the PMN about which EPA had identified concerns. In response to a direct question, Jeff Morris, Ph.D., OPPT Director, confirmed that he personally is looking at each new chemical notification decision to ensure a consistent and coherent approach to chemical reviews. Dr. Morris assured stakeholders that his engagement would not slow down the PMN review process.
NGO groups, that were ably represented at the meeting, expressed disappointment that they were not a part of the pilot testing component of the new chemicals Points to Consider document. OPPT clarified that the purpose of the pilot was to have parties who are actually preparing PMNs pilot use of the document while preparing PMNs and that as a result, non-PMN submitters were not a part of the pilot. Following a request from several NGOs, EPA stated that it would of course make the original and redline versions of the Points to Consider document publicly available to ensure full transparency. Several NGOs also voiced concern with the delay of EPA getting PMN information posted online. Commenters noted the need for access to more content related to the new chemicals review, such as detailed PMN determinations, as the determinations that are publicly available at this point are boilerplate. Interestingly, concerns were expressed on issues not germane to the workshop, such as existing and accidental releases of chemicals (not related to TSCA).
Of the parties that weighed in on the issue, industry representatives who addressed the issue were supportive of using SNURs to cover reasonably foreseeable conditions of use that are not reflected in the submitted PMNs. Some NGOs were supportive of the use of SNURs to reduce consent orders, while others stated that SNURs are not an adequate substitute for consent orders and that Congress intended for Section 5(e) orders to come first and to trigger SNURs. The concern over the use of SNURs rather than consent orders may relate to a concern of chemicals being introduced prior to the SNUR being published in final. Industry representatives also suggested that EPA seek to scale its information needs appropriately. For instance, less detailed exposure information should be required for EPA to determine that it has sufficient information on a low hazard chemical. Similarly, EPA should adjust the hazard profile requirements for a chemical with low exposure.
Chemical Categories: EPA reviewed the ongoing effort to develop four new chemical categories that could be used in future new chemical reviews. These are: Lung Effects Categories: Polycationic substances (cationic binding); general surfactants; waterproofing agents; and insoluble polymer lung overload; Photo-Acid Generators (PAG) Category; Tracer Chemical; and Perfluorinated Chemicals.
EPA asked for input and ideas on how to move forward with chemical categories -- either by updating existing categories or reviewing internal data to identify new categories -- and how the information should be presented (e.g., to publish separately or together in one document).
OSHA Focus: On behalf of the TSCA New Chemicals Coalition (TSCA NCC), Richard E. Engler, Ph.D., Bergeson & Campbell, P.C., provided comments that included feedback to EPA that it needs to develop a consultation process with the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) per the Section 5(f) legislative language. Dr. Engler suggested that EPA’s assessments could be communicated to submitters and OSHA to inform both on the endpoints of concern and EPA’s assessments of safe exposure limits. In this way, employers are obligated under the Occupational Safety and Health Act to assess hazards and exposures, provide information to workers, and ensure that exposures are controlled under OSHA’s authority, thereby satisfying EPA’s obligation to regulate “to the extent necessary” to protect such workers.
Sustainable Futures Program: EPA asked for input as to whether it should continue the Sustainable Futures Program. Some commenters supported the Sustainable Futures Program; no commenters spoke against it.
The presentations from the meeting are listed below and available online:
· New Chemical Review under Amended TSCA -- Jeff Morris, Ph.D., Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
· Points to Consider (PtC) When Preparing TSCA New Chemical Notifications -- David A. Tobias, Ph.D., Risk Assessment Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
· New Chemicals Decision Guidelines Manual Detailed Outline
· Chemical Categories -- Tala R. Henry, Ph.D., Director, Risk Assessment Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
· Other Advance Questions -- Tanya Hodge Mottley, Acting Deputy Director of Programs, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
EPA’s next public meeting on TSCA’s implementation of Existing Chemicals Prioritization is coming up on December 11, 2017. More information on this upcoming meeting is available on our blog under key phrase public meeting.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-s-new-chemicals-review-program-highlights-december-6-2017-public-meeting
-
Advisors Urge Fixes To EPA Drinking Water Advisories After Public Concerns
Dec 11, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Lara Beaven
EPA advisors are calling for greater transparency in how and when the agency develops drinking water health advisories as well as increased clarity in communicating the risks of exposure to the covered substances, following the release of advisories in 2015 and 2016 that gained more high-profile public attention and concern than they usually do.
During the Dec. 7-8 meeting of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) in Washington, D.C., EPA drinking water chief Peter Grevatt noted that while the agency has issued many health advisories that received little attention, “there's something different” about the public reaction to the 2015 advisory for the cyanotoxins microcystin and cylindrospermopsin, as well as the 2016 advisory for two per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS).
In the case of PFOA and PFOS, for example, a host of states, including New Hampshire, are now grappling with public concerns over contamination stemming from local waste sites.
Sara Pillsbury, administrator of the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Drinking Water and Groundwater Bureau, said the PFOA and PFOS advisory “was a wakeup call. Now everyone is interested in health advisories.”
In the face of such concerns, EPA in 2016 tasked NDWAC with developing recommendations on what information EPA should consider when deciding to develop or revise health advisories; what factors EPA should consider when prioritizing the advisories; how to communicate the status of advisories to key stakeholders, including states and utilities; and what core components EPA can consider including in the advisories.
“This is a very, very important issue,” Grevatt said. “It matters a lot to a lot of people around the country.”
Health advisories, which are non-enforceable, provide information on contaminants that can cause human health effects and are known or anticipated to occur in drinking water. The advisories can be both short-term, responding to an emergency such as a chemical spill into water that is a drinking water source, or long-term addressing chronic exposure.
During discussions at the meeting, some NDWAC members spoke of health advisories as being a precursor to enforceable maximum contaminant levels under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
But Grevatt clarified that while this is a possibility, “there are many, many health advisories for compounds[that] we don't intend to set a standard.” In most cases, this is because while the compound is causing a problem where it is found, its occurrence is not widespread enough to meet the SDWA requirements for setting an enforceable standard, he said.
Grevatt said EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt would like more advice from NDWAC on how to allow stakeholders more input on health advisories without slowing down the development process.
NDWAC Chairperson Carrie Lewis, who is general manager of the Portland (ME) Water District, responded that NDWAC members recognize more input will slow things down but the recommendation is “not to slow it down too much.”
Draft Recommendations
During the meeting, Lewis summarized the advisors' draft recommendations, based on discussions by an ad hoc subgroup as well as discussions by the full NDWAC, in seven points.
These include increased transparency of the steps involved in developing a health advisory and that status of development; allowing stakeholders time for input and review of draft health advisories; emphasizing the use of sound science; clearly stating all known information about a substance and what is unknown; using a template for the health advisories to provide consistency in what types of information are included and where to find it; making sure risk communication is easy for everyone to understand; and addressing the real-world impacts of the advisories, including the public's view that utilities should do more to address the subject of the advisory.
The ad hoc subgroup suggested using a listserv open to anyone to allow EPA to provide updates on health advisory development without going through a lengthy notice-and-comment rulemaking. Under this scenario, stakeholders could provide comment but EPA would not be required to respond to the comment. However, James Salzman, a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, noted the subgroup is uncertain whether this would be allowed under administrative law.
In Dec. 1 written comments, NDWAC member Mark Sanchez, executive director of the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority, said that while health advisories were intended to be non-enforceable informal technical guidance to utilities, it is challenging to communicate to the public the role of the advisories.
“If EPA communicates that a particular contaminant has health effects and issues [a health advisory], then the public believes that the Utility should be doing something about it with potential questions about why nothing is being done,” Sanchez writes.
During a public comment period Dec. 8, Steve Via, director of federal relations for the American Water Works Association, encouraged EPA to actively engage with stakeholders and to communicate clearly that the purpose of health advisories is to assist risk managers at drinking water utilities.
Via noted that EPA developed both the cyanotoxins and PFOA/PFOS advisories over a period of several years, showing there is “enough time to engage the public.”
NDWAC members also encouraged EPA to include information in health advisories about what methods may be available to analyze other media, such as surface waters, groundwater and soils, noting that health advisories are often used as references for contaminated site cleanups.
Janice Willey, a senior chemist with the Navy , told state waste regulators in October that there is “a huge vacuum right now” in terms of validated PFOA and PFOS methods for non-drinking water media. An EPA work group, comprised of representatives from the Office of Land & Emergency Management, Office of Research & Development and Region 3 representing regional labs are currently working to develop other test methods for PFAS.
Eric Burneson, director of EPA's Standards and Risk Management Division within the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, said health advisories include a section on analytical methods although this is often limited to drinking water methods, in part because drinking water methods are the easiest to develop and thus are developed first.
Adding test methods for other media is “doable” although “that is an expansion of what we do now,” Burneson said.
June Anne Swallow, chief of the Rhode Island Department of Health's Center for Drinking Water Quality, said information about the impact on food and fish would also be helpful. She said when health advisories are issued, the public is quick to call local health departments asking if it is safe to eat fish they have caught, eat food from their gardens that was watered with tap water, or eat food that was canned with tap water that now has been identified as having a potential health risk.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/advisors-urge-fixes-epa-drinking-water-advisories-after-public-concerns
-
Xcel to Pay Boulder, Colo., $3.6M to Clean Contaminated Site
Dec 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Xcel Energy Inc. agreed to pay Boulder, Colo., $3.6 million for the cleanup of a site contaminated with cancer-causing and other hazardous chemicals adjoining a landmark teahouse.
The agreement settles a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability complaint Boulder filed July 24 in the U.S. District Court of the District of Colorado against Xcel subsidiary Public Service Co. of Colorado, the state's largest utility, over the contamination at the 13th Street Plaza property near downtown Boulder.
The Boulder City Council approved the settlement Dec. 5.
The parties said they reached the settlement to avoid additional costs of litigation over the roughly 1.5-acre site, where two predecessors of Public Service operated a coal-gas plant from 1902 to 1952.
The plant was demolished in 1962, and the site was backfilled with contaminated debris from the plant and contaminated soil. Benzene, naphthalene, and polyaromatic hydrocarbons were found there during a 2010 groundwater investigation.
Health Effects
Benzene can cause cancer and damage the immune system, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Symptoms of exposure include drowsiness, headaches, and eye, skin, and respiratory tract irritation. The EPA has classified naphthalene a possible carcinogen.
The city's cleanup expenses at the site are about $5 million, according to a presentation given to the City Council.
The city, which purchased the site in 1975, has been conducting the investigation and remediation at the property under Colorado's Voluntary Cleanup and Redevelopment Program. Adjoining the plaza is the Dushanbe Teahouse, which was built by hand in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, disassembled, and shipped to be rebuilt in Boulder.
Jerome Davis, regional vice president of Xcel, said in a statement emailed to Bloomberg Environment the company was pleased to reach agreement with the city.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=124723440&vname=dennotallissues&fn=124723440&jd=124723440
-
Help Close Microplastic Knowledge Gaps, Denmark Tells Commission
Dec 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The Danish government urged the European Commission to help plug the gaps around knowledge of microplastics as it prepares to publish its EU plastics strategy.
In a recent letter to the EU executive’s environment, industry, consumers and health commissioners, Denmark said it is "central" to the strategy that the European Commission supports the strengthening of the knowledge base for this area "so that measures can be based on a solid foundation of knowledge and scope".
"It is important to close some of the knowledge gaps" such as harmful effects of microplastics and the degradation of macroplastics to microplastics in natural and man-made water systems, the letter said.
The letter was signed by a cross–party group of Danish parliamentarians with Environment and Food Minister Esben Lunde Larsen as its lead signatory.
"Increased knowledge on not only the sources, but also the scope of the issues at hand and on how the plastic escapes from land and sea–based sources allows for initiation of more targeted and efficient measures," the letter said.
The European Commission should also have a separate focus area on knowledge generation at a European level in the plastics strategy, the letter added.
In addition, the letter said, the reduction of microplastics in water systems also "necessitates common European definitions", as well as standardised methods of analysis.
"Establishing new plastic value chains requires a supportive regulatory framework across Europe and working in tandem with businesses to find good solutions."
Denmark says the following measures should be included in the plastics strategy:ban microplastic beads in personal care products;phase out problematic additives and constituents in plastic;include civil society in the reduction of plastic pollution;reduce overall waste generation, short-lived and single–use products through innovative projects;increase recycling and promote high quality and functional markets for secondary plastic materials; andsecure a basis for standardised national efforts to reduce microplastics in the aquatic environment.
It hopes the European Commission will be "ambitious" and apply "long term thinking" when addressing the challenges posed by plastic consumption and disposal.
Once legislative measures are proposed across the sectors, Denmark wants the European Commission to consider that the problems related to plastic "are not merely a waste management issue". They need to be solved, it says, by also establishing new plastic value chains and replacing the current ‘take–make–dispose’ system with a circular system. This will recirculate high quality waste material streams to be used in new high quality products, without compromising health and safety, it added.Nordic action
In May 2016, Mr Larsen called on the European Commission to ban microplastics in cosmetics. And a year later, environment ministers from the Nordic Council countries launched a two-year programme to reduce the global impact of plastics on the environment. The Nordic Council is an inter-governmental forum for cooperation, with representatives from Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden.
Last month, the European Council rejected the idea of implementing a ban on microplastics in cosmetics in those countries. It said that before it takes further action it is waiting to see the scope of the EU strategy on plastics, which it said it expects to be ready on 6 December.
In December 2015, the EU announced its circular economy action plan to boost recycling and preserve resources. As part of this, the European Commission is expected to issue a recommendation on policy options that address the interface between chemicals, products and waste legislation by the end of this year.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62446/help-close-microplastic-knowledge-gaps-denmark-tells-commission
-
Members Mull Energy Concerns As NAFTA Fears Mount
Dec 11, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
As high-stakes trade talks between the Trump administration and Mexico and Canada continue, a House Energy and Commerce panel this week will delve into the future of the continent's energy trade.
The Subcommittee on Energy meets Wednesday morning to consider "the Impacts and Future of North American Energy Trade," according to an advisory.
The hearing comes amid growing concerns among key business interests that struggling negotiations for a new North American Free Trade Agreement may result in President Trump making good on his pledge to exit the 1992 landmark pact.
American Petroleum Institute CEO Jack Gerard reinforced that point last week in a speech, during which he emphasized the energy benefits of liberalized trade among the three nations.
The oil and gas industry supports a modernized NAFTA to reflect changes in global energy dynamics, including Mexico's market reforms and surging U.S. production over the last decade, Gerard said in remarks at the Washington International Trade Association.
But if the event talks falter, "the administration must retain its commitment to the current trade agreement," he said.
The worry from the oil and gas industry's top lobbyist echoes mounting concerns by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and pro-trade Republican lawmakers.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the Senate's second in command, has repeatedly aired such fears, including in a recent Senate Finance subcommittee field hearing that highlighted NAFTA's economic benefits to his home state's economy.
"I do know the failure to renegotiate and modernize NAFTA would be very bad for Texas and the United States," he said last month in San Antonio.
Texas ranks fourth on the chamber's list of states that would be hit the hardest by withdrawing from NAFTA, with 970,000 jobs on the line.
Nearly half the Lone Star State's exports are to Mexico and Canada, which are valued at $112 billion, according to the chamber.
Notably, the state most at risk from terminating NAFTA is Michigan, home of Energy Subcommittee Chairman Fred Upton (R).
Almost 39 percent of its gross domestic product depends on trade, the highest level in the nation, says the chamber.
While Energy Secretary Rick Perry struck an optimistic tone on the trade talks last month, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer a few days later said he was troubled by "the lack of headway" (Energywire, Nov. 15).
Last week, Mexico's ambassador to the United States put the odds of termination at "50-50," CBS News reported.
Schedule: The hearing is Wednesday, Dec. 13, at 10:15 a.m. in 2322 Rayburn.
Witnesses: TBA.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/12/11/stories/1060068579
-
House to Take Up Cybersecurity, Hydro Bills
Dec 11, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk,
The House will fast-track a grab bag of bills on hydropower and the federal workforce this week, as well as a measure to revamp the Department of Homeland Security's cyber office.
H.R. 3359, the "Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Act," would restructure the National Protection and Programs Directorate, which handles infrastructure and cybersecurity.
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), first offered the legislation in the last session of Congress but reintroduced it this year after the measure failed to come up for a vote on the floor.
McCaul has made restructuring the cyber wing at DHS one of his "biggest priorities" this year, and he aims to give NPPD independent operating authority (Energywire, April 28).
Lawmakers will also vote on a handful of other measures under fast-track procedures, including two bills on hydropower development:
· H.R. 2880, from Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.), to promote closed-loop pumped storage projects, which are not continuously connected to a naturally flowing waterway.
· H.R. 2872, offered by Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.), to allow the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to make exemptions from licensing requirements for hydro projects at existing nonpowered dams.
· H.R. 1733, from Rep. Susan Brooks (R-Ind.), to require the Department of Energy to update its 2006 study on the benefits of refining used lubricating oil.
· H.R. 4171, from Rep. Greg Gianforte (R-Mont.), to extend a telework test program for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that was set to end this month to December 2020.
· H. Res. 357, from Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), to reaffirm the strategic partnership between the United States and Canada and urge cooperation on energy, security and economic issues.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/12/11/stories/1060068595
-
Railway Wins Legal Battle Over Vermont Hazmat Ordinance
Dec 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
A Vermont town can't enforce an ordinance that would severely limit the storage of road salt, fuel, and hazardous substances by Vermont Railway Inc., the District of Vermont ruled Dec. 7.
The ruling, which granted a permanent injunction to the railway, is the latest in litigation over the Town of Shelburne's proposed regulation of a storage facility it claims is a health hazard.
A 72-hour limit on salt storage and “health order” violations punishable by $10,000-a-day fines were unreasonable, unsupported, and preempted by federal law, the court said.
The salt facility constructed by Vermont Railway—which maintains rail interchanges with Amtrak and other railroad companies—is environment-friendly and there was no evidence other states or the federal government classified road salt as hazardous, the court said.
“This court is not convinced that the town had a reasonable basis for classifying road salt as a hazardous substance that is harmful to the public health and safety and attempting to regulate it as such,” the court said.
The ordinance also was discriminatory, evidenced in town board members’ testimony that indicated “a desire to specifically target the Railway's facility,” the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont said.
It ruled last year that at least some of the ordinance was also preempted by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act, a federal law that vests jurisdiction over railroad tracks and facilities in the Surface Transportation Board.
It deferred ruling on the railway's request for a permanent injunction pending the town's decision on what parts of the ordinance it intended to enforce.
Judge William K. Sessions III wrote the opinion.
Downs Rachlin Martin represented Vermont Railway. Monaghan Safar Ducham represented the town.
The case is: Vt. Ry. v. Town of Shelburne, 2017 BL 438498, D. Vt., No. 16-CV-16, 12/7/17.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=124723453&vname=dennotallissues&fn=124723453&jd=124723453
-
Lawsuit Seeks Incident-Reporting Rule from Chemical Safety Board
Dec 11, 2017 | Reuters
By Dena Aubin
Four environmental and safety groups have asked a federal court in Washington D.C. to order the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board to issue a long-overdue rule requiring the reporting of accidental chemical releases.
In a complaint filed on Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the groups said the need for the rule was underscored by fires and explosions at the Arkema chemical plant in Crosby, Texas in August, when several first responders who were not aware of hazardous chemicals in the air were sickened and sent to local hospitals.
To read the full story on WestlawNext Practitioner Insights, click here: bit.ly/2y8Gre6
https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-csb-lawsuit/lawsuit-seeks-incident-reporting-rule-from-chemical-safety-board-idUSL1N1O901L
-
Northeast Carbon Allowance Prices Drop 12.6 Percent
Dec 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
The cost for power companies to comply with the Northeast's cap-and-trade program dropped 12.6 percent in the second auction since the program announced plans to lower its emissions cap.
Carbon allowances for the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative sold for $3.80 in the Dec. 6 auction, according to auction results announced by the initiative Dec. 8. The price marks a 12.6 percent decline from the September auction, but a 7 percent increase over the auction price from a year ago.
The auction comes at a critical time for RGGI and states in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. The program is expected to expand in 2018 when New Jersey rejoins and Virginia links up.
A plan to lower the overall emissions permitted from electricity generation in the covered states—the emissions cap—by 30 percent by 2030 is expected to move forward next year.
In addition, seven states—Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont—are looking at RGGI as a possible model for a new cap-and-trade program to control carbon emissions in the transportation sector. RGGI requires that electricity generators of more than 25 MW purchase one carbon allowance for each ton of carbon emissions.
$55.8 Million
The latest auction, which was RGGI's 38th since it began in 2008, raised $55.8 million for the nine states—Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont—taking part in the program.
RGGI prices are in a short-term bearish period because carbon emissions in the region are down, leading to a decline in demand for allowance, Paul Tesoriero, a director at Evolution Markets Inc., a White Plains, N.Y., environmental markets brokerage, told Bloomberg Environment.
He described some participants in the latest auction as “discretionary buyers” who don't need the allowances to comply but will hold on to them for future compliance periods.
The expansion of the program to New Jersey and Virginia and the revised emissions cap are not having an immediate impact, but could influence prices in the future, he said.
‘Impressive Progress’
Jordan Stutt, a policy analyst at the Boston-based Acadia Center, said carbon emissions in RGGI states have declined this year by 23 percent over 2016.
“The rapid de-carbonization of the region's power sector continues to outpace the RGGI cap decline,” he told Bloomberg Environment in an email.
“The region's impressive progress in cleaning up electricity generation is dampening demand for allowances, but the implementation of proposed changes to the RGGI program should strengthen the market going forward.”
Stutt said the region's success at reducing emissions in the power sector was enabling the transportation sector to transition to a cleaner and “electrified future.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=124723434&vname=dennotallissues&fn=124723434&jd=124723434
-
EPA Won't Second-Guess Industry Pollution Estimates, Pruitt Says
Dec 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu
The EPA will take industries at their word when they estimate how much air pollution will result from new or expanding operations, Administrator Scott Pruitt told regional agency officials.
The Environmental Protection Agency will no longer “substitute its judgment for that of the owner or operator by ‘second-guessing’ the owner or operator's emissions projections,” Pruitt said in a Dec. 7 memo to regional administrators.
Pruitt sent the memo the same day he announced that William Wehrum, recently confirmed to lead the Office of Air and Radiation, will head up a task force on the air pollution permitting program, known as new source review.
“It's a major shift on how EPA implements and enforces new source review,” Richard Alonso, a partner at Sidley Austin LLP in Washington who works on Clean Air Act issues, told Bloomberg Environment.
New source review requires new and expanding industrial facilities, such as power plants and refineries, to install modern air pollution controls if construction activities will lead to significant increases in emissions.
But industries can disregard higher emissions linked to increased demand in production, and they are not penalized if their projected emissions turn out to be wrong, even though the EPA can question the facility's projections if it doesn't agree.
Industry Benefits
In light of Pruitt's memo, Alonso said he would advise industry to “document what you do, put it in a file, and if you do that, EPA isn't going take an enforcement against you unless your projection is fraudulent or really far out of the ballpark.”
“It gives a lot of discretion to owners and operators of a facility to decide whether new source review applies to them,” he said.
Environmental advocates worry that this hands-off approach removes safeguards put in place to keep expanding facilities from spewing excess pollution into the air.
The memo was “an invitation for those who are inclined to commit fraud,” Bruce Buckheit, a former Justice Department and EPA official who pursued new source review enforcement cases against coal-fired power plants during the Clinton administration, told Bloomberg Environment.
The environmental benefits of enforcing pollution controls under new source review far outweigh those from enforcing permit violations, as do the costs of installing pollution control upgrades.
“So this is where the money is for companies,” said Buckheit, now an environmental consultant. “These are the violations that are expensive [for companies] to correct.”
When industries do overhaul their facilities to make their units more efficient, the plants run longer and at higher capacity while consuming less fuel.
This means a company could run a more efficient plant more frequently, in lieu of an older, less-efficient plant, increasing the amount of pollution that the newer plant emits beyond its projected estimates.
But instead of triggering new source review requirements, if a company attributes the increased pollution to greater demand for product and then satisfies all its procedural requirements, the EPA won't second-guess its operations, John Walke, climate and clean air director at the National Resources Defense Council, told Bloomberg Environment.
Defining ‘Clear Error’
The EPA would step in only if there was a “clear error,” according to the memo, which used an incorrect significance threshold as an example of error.
“What if the IRS, the police, or any other official that exercises the law announced, we're not going to second-guess your compliance with the law? If you tell us it was your intent [to comply], then that's good enough for us,” Walke said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=124723438&vname=dennotallissues&fn=124723438&jd=124723438
-
More Climate Change References Missing From Webpages
Dec 11, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Maxine Joselow
The Trump administration has scrubbed more references to climate change from U.S. EPA's website, according to a report released today.
Several "Greening EPA" webpages changed in September to remove links to climate change adaptation, the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative said in its most recent report. The initiative keeps track of such changes.
A webpage titled "EPA Strategic Sustainability Plans" no longer includes links to the agency's "Policy Statement on Climate-Change Adaptation" or its "Climate Change Adaptation Plans" from 2012, 2013 and 2014.
Also gone are the bullet point "climate change resilience" and the sentence "EPA and other federal agencies are also required by Executive Order 13693 to update plans for how they will adapt to climate change."
The report builds on EDGI's earlier finding that EPA webpages were altered in July to delete references to rising temperatures (Climatewire, Oct. 20).
It also further confirms an E&E News story about EPA's Superfund climate adaptation page no longer including a report on the possibility of storms leading to toxic waste releases (Greenwire, Sept. 18).
The latest findings are a "continued example of a reduction in access to climate resources on the EPA's website," said Toly Rinberg, a member of the EDGI Website Monitoring Committee.
It's not unusual for administrations to update federal websites. But the changes have raised eyebrows because of President Trump's stated skepticism of climate science.
An EPA spokesman declined to comment for this story.
In October, an EPA aide told E&E News, "The previous administration's webpages are still available by clicking the large link plainly visible on the banner at the top of EPA.gov."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/12/08/stories/1060068541
-
Pruitt Vows To Issue Replacement Rule After Scrapping Clean Power Plan
Dec 8, 2017 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss & Lee Logan
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt for the first time firmly is pledging to replace the high-profile Clean Power Plan (CPP) utility greenhouse gas rule, siding with many industry groups that are seeking a replacement rule once the administration finalizes its plan to repeal to Obama-era CPP GHG standards for existing power plants.
“We are going to be introducing a replacement rule, too, in place of the Clean Power Plan,” Pruitt testified during the second half of a Dec. 7 House Energy & Commerce Committee environment panel hearing, which reconvened after Pruitt returned to Capitol Hill from a White House meeting on the renewable fuel standard.
The statement is important because debate is raging between major industry groups and hard-line conservatives about whether EPA should have some level of GHG regulation for the power sector to create legal and regulatory certainty, or whether the agency should attempt to scrap all of its GHG controls.
It appears Pruitt, in opting to craft a replacement rule, has sided with industry groups, including nearly all facets of the power sector, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers.
However, any replacement is likely to be far weaker than the Obama-era CPP, and it might not come soon. EPA plans to issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to take early input on the issue, a move that likely will delay the rule's timeline by months.
Pruitt made his statement in response to a question from Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-CA), who had voiced concerns that EPA's cost-benefit review for its CPP repeal reversed prior agency findings that all reductions in fine particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution should be counted as offering health benefits, even though PM2.5 is a “no-threshold” pollutant.
While Pruitt is now pledging a replacement rule, the ANPR could open the door for conservative opponents of GHG regulation to offer their views about why EPA should either scrap its landmark 2009 finding that GHGs endanger public health and welfare, or should make a sector-specific finding that utility GHGs do so.
During the first portion of the House hearing, Pruitt agreed with Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) that the Obama administration's finding that GHGs endanger human health and the environment was procedurally flawed, though he stopped short of agreeing with Barton that EPA should heed conservatives' calls to reconsider it.
“You are correct that the work done by the agency in 2009 was accelerated,” Pruitt said, and continued that the Obama EPA committed a “breach of process” by using data provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its work rather than domestic research. “That process was again, I think, in 2009, short-shrifted.”
On the CPP and several other rule rollbacks, Pruitt offered a statutory rationale for the moves while outlining more details on plans for potential replacements.
For instance, Pruitt defended his proposal to repeal the CPP that assumes fewer co-benefits from reducing PM2.5 as a result of implementing the regulation than the Obama administration found in justifying the rule.
Pruitt agreed with Ruiz that PM2.5 is a “non-threshold pollutant” with no safe level of exposure -- which Ruiz said would seem to undercut arguments that the agency should not consider health benefits from reducing levels below the existing PM2.5 national ambient air quality standard.
“Despite the well-established scientific reality, your proposal for repeal of the Clean Power Plan assumes for the first time that there is a safe level of fine particulate pollution, and that is a concern of mine,” Ruiz said.
Ruiz also noted that EPA air chief William Wehrum and deputy administrator nominee Andrew Wheeler both worked on air policies that were justified through PM2.5 co-benefits during the George W. Bush administration.
But Pruitt countered that the repeal proposal does not rely solely on recalculating co-benefits, and instead rests on a limited view of EPA's Clean Air Act authority. “We did not base our withdrawal of the Clean Power Plan on the issues that you cite,” he said, and added of the PM2.5 co-benefits finding, “We did not reverse it.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/pruitt-vows-issue-replacement-rule-after-scrapping-clean-power-plan
-
'Sue-And-Settle' Directive Appears To Revive EPA Air Monitoring Policy Suit
Dec 8, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's recent directive barring the agency from entering into settlements with groups committing it to undertake rulemakings appears to be causing the resumption of a paused Sierra Club suit over an EPA air monitoring policy, because Pruitt is dropping Obama administration plans to settle the litigation.
In a Dec. 8 joint motion in Sierra Club v. EPA, the environmentalist group and the agency ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to bring the case out of abeyance and set a briefing schedule. The case challenges the Obama EPA's March 2016 rule on revisions to ambient air monitoring quality assurance, which environmentalists claim provides inadequate opportunity for public scrutiny of air quality monitoring networks.
The parties agreed to place the suit in abeyance in January on the expectation that they would finalize a settlement agreement requiring EPA to ensure sufficient input from the public on monitoring.
However, one environmentalist says that draft Trump EPA guidance issued to its regional offices and a separate guidance for states and tribes falls short of what the proposed settlement requires. The guidance “didn't comply with the settlement agreement,” the source says.
Talks to craft a settlement agreement that were launched in the Obama administration are now at an impasse, the filing notes. “The EPA Administrator has decided to withhold consent. Accordingly, lifting of the abeyance is warranted,” it says, proposing a briefing schedule for 2018.
Pruitt's decision appears to be in line with his Oct. 16 directive preventing EPA from entering into so-called “sue-and-settle” agreements with environmental groups. The administrator said he wants to stop pacts through which he says special interest groups, such as environmental organizations, have forced the agency into legal agreements that impose binding deadlines for issuing discretionary regulations.
Industry and GOP critics of such settlements claim that prior practice under the Obama Administration saw EPA settle on timelines for completion of rulemakings with environmentalists, to the exclusion of non-parties to the litigation, including states and industry groups.
Environmentalists, meanwhile, claim the term “sue-and-settle” is meaningless, because citizen petitioners have a right to bring suit to force EPA to perform legally mandatory duties it has neglected.
The Obama EPA in its final days published a proposed settlement of the case in the Jan. 19 Federal Register and took public comment on it. The case was put on hold pending the notice-and-comment process ahead a final agreement, but the Trump EPA has now decided to drop plans to finalize the pact.
Settlement Agreement
Even before the request to resume the Sierra Club litigation, comments filed on the proposed consent decree outlined various concerns that could have complicated efforts to finalize it.
For example, in a July 12 comment letter to EPA, law firm Earthjustice, on behalf of Sierra Club, points to several ways in which two draft guidance documents -- one for EPA regions, the other for states and tribes -- are not as stringent as the settlement agreement requires.
Rather than specifying that states issue public notice to stakeholders by email “at the beginning” of a required 30-day comment period on their network monitoring plans, the guidance only requires that states “promptly” announce the plan to the public through an email “or other comparable process.”
“A state might try to claim that 'promptly' means 2-3 weeks (or more) after the start of the comment period, leaving commenters with grossly insufficient time to research and prepare detailed comments,” Earthjustice writes.
The settlement also requires that EPA's regional air quality directors notify interested parties by email within 15 days of monitoring plan approvals or disapprovals by EPA. But EPA's draft guidance to regions only requires that regions “should endeavor to contact interested parties by email within 15 business days.”
Earthjustice further argues that the draft guidance language could allow regions to unfairly limit those groups it informs to a list provided by states, again contradicting the proposed settlement, which does not limit the groups that should be informed in this way.
EPA opened the settlement agreement for public comment after complaints from Texas and Ohio that they lacked an opportunity to see it and comment.
In its Feb. 24 comments, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), the state's air regulator, said, “TCEQ is concerned that there is no opportunity for anyone but the parties to the settlement agreement to comment on the guidance to be issued by EPA. Soliciting comments is of utmost importance because it provides an opportunity for the entities that will be most affected by the recommendations - the state and local air monitoring agencies - an opportunity to review and provide input to EPA.”
Further, “Issuance of the guidance a mere 30 days after finalization of the settlement agreement does not provide any time for input from all parties that are responsible for planning and development of ambient air monitoring plans and networks,” TCEQ added.
Under the proposed briefing schedule, opening briefs in Sierra Club would be due from petitioners March 1, and EPA's response brief due by May 1.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/sue-and-settle-directive-appears-revive-epa-air-monitoring-policy-suit
-
EPA Works To Ease Air Pollution Permitting Process
Dec 11, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Trump administration wants to ease the air pollution permitting process for certain power plants and manufacturers.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruittpublished a memorandum Thursday saying the agency won’t “second guess” the analyses that companies have to conduct before construction projects on their plants to determine whether they might emit more pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and particulate matter.
It’s the first step in a major initiative the Trump administration is undertaking to ease the process, dubbed New Source Review, of obtaining permits for new or reconstructed plants’ emissions under the Clean Air Act. That is part of a larger Trump administration effort to ease regulatory burdens for manufacturing and related business sectors.
“The point is to allow a company to have a level of certainty before beginning a project, that so long as they do the analysis and meet the requirements, they can move forward with that project,” an EPA official told The Hill.
“The previous administration distorted the requirements of that analysis as a means to limit expansion or improvement projects, primarily at coal-based power plants,” the official said.
The agency will still punish companies if their emissions end up exceeding what they had predicted. But it’s retreating from the Obama administration’s practice of sometimes refusing to grant permits if regulators suspect the companies didn’t properly conduct their emissions projections.
John Walke, clean air director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, sharply criticized the memo in a Friday blog post, saying it “gives polluters amnesty.”
“The Trump EPA enforcement retreat amounts to permission for industrial polluters to commit fraud and make false projections about their increased emissions, so long as those projections are ‘procedurally’ adequate — even if they are substantively bogus and ultimately harmful to air quality,” Walke wrote.
“This is not simply capitulation by the Trump EPA. It is abdication of EPA’s law enforcement responsibilities to uphold the law against polluters that may be knowingly breaking the law, and that EPA believes may be breaking the law,” he said.
The EPA defended its action, saying that it is not at all retreating from enforcing the law and going after polluters. That includes stepping in if a company violates the process set out for predicting pollution levels before getting reconstruction permits.
“What we are not doing is changing what is foundational EPA enforcement authority to go after the analysis on the front end if it doesn’t comport with the regulations as they are laid out,” the EPA official said.
“It also doesn’t prevent EPA from taking enforcement actions on the backend if the actual measured emissions associated with the power plant or the facility don’t align with the projections,” the official said.
The memo is, in part, a response to years-long litigation regarding EPA enforcement against DTE Energy over a Michigan plant. Judges in that case concluded that the EPA does have the authority to “second guess” pre-construction pollution estimates, but the exact nature of that second-guessing is still being sorted out.
The policy, which the EPA emphasizes is not a new regulation, comes weeks after the Senate confirmed Bill Wehrum to be the EPA’s top air pollution official.
Wehrum is taking the lead on the agency’s efforts to reform the permitting process for new and reconstructed air pollution sources. But the agency said Wehrum was not involved in Thursday’s memo, having recused himself because his former law firm, Hunton & Williams, represents DTE in the litigation.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/364015-epa-works-to-ease-air-pollution-permitting-process
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested