Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 12/20
-
Ewire: EPA Delays First TSCA Bans, Sparking Legal Threats
Dec 20, 2017 | Inside EPA
The Trump administration has formalized indications that it would delay first-time Obama-era proposals to ban certain uses of several substances under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), sparking warnings from Democrats that the agency is failing to utilize its legal authority, according to press reports. -
Beck Says EPA Required to Conduct Uncertainty Analysis in TSCA Studies
Dec 20, 2017 | Inside EPA
Nancy Beck, EPA's top toxics official, says the agency will seek to quantify scientific uncertainty in its evaluations required by the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), renewing a debate that has long plagued agency efforts to assess substances' risks and opening the door to risk ranges that could undercut regulators' use of single point estimates. -
Fragrance Body Adds Phthalates to Industry Transparency List
Dec 20, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
In what one NGO calls a "troubling" development, the International Fragrance Association has added four phthalates to its online transparency list of ingredients currently being used in consumer goods. -
GHS Study Highlights Worldwide Implementation Gap
Dec 20, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Nick Hazlewood
Regulatory capacity and government motivation are key factors in national implementation of the globally harmonized system of classification and labelling of chemicals (GHS). -
Germany and Sweden Propose Restrictions on Six PFASs
Dec 20, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The Swedish Chemicals Agency, Kemi, and Germany's federal environment agency (UBA) have submitted a joint proposal to Echa to restrict the manufacturing and placing on the market of six per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFASs). -
EPA Considering Future GHG Rule, Requesting Public Input on Regulatory Roles
Dec 20, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Days after unveiling a blueprint for rolling back several Obama-era regulations into 2018 and beyond, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it is considering a future rule to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from existing power plants, and it wants public input into what its role -- and the role of state regulatory agencies -- should be. -
Everyone's Fighting over BLM's Methane Rule — Again
Dec 20, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Get ready for yet another round of litigation over Obama-era methane rules. -
Drilling Opponents Take Fight to Courts, Public
Dec 20, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Kellie Lunney
Senate Democrats and environmental groups today vowed to continue the fight against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, even as Congress approved it as part of a historic tax reform package passed this week. -
The Refuge Is Almost Open for Business. What Happens Next?
Dec 20, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Brittany Patterson
A decadeslong desire by Republicans and oil companies to open a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling became all but certain last night when the Senate passed a sweeping overhaul of the federal tax code. -
Neb. Regulators Cue up Legal Challenges after Route Change
Dec 20, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
TransCanada Corp. will not be allowed to amend a route application for its Keystone XL project to pass through Nebraska, nor will the state toss out the company's existing application and require it to start the regulatory process fresh, regulators ruled yesterday. -
France to Ban Oil and Gas Production by 2040
Dec 20, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Avery Anapol
The French Parliament on Tuesday passed a law banning the production of all oil and gas by 2040. -
Railroads Say Spokane Tracks Equipped with Technology to Stop Trains from Speeding
Dec 20, 2017 | The Spokesman-Review
By Thomas Clouse
Local politicians and emergency responders have worked together for years to prepare for a train disaster if it were to hit Spokane. -
Court Orders EPA to Set Timetable for Ozone Designations
Dec 20, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
A federal appeals court is ordering U.S. EPA to spell out its timetable for remaining compliance decisions related to its 2015 ground-level ozone standard. -
Judge Overturns State's Carbon-Capping Rule
Dec 20, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn, E&E News reporter Published: W
A state judge has ruled against large portions of Washington Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee's carbon-capping regulation, but the full impact of the ruling is still to be determined. -
Court Asks EPA When It Will Move Forward with Smog Rule Compliance
Dec 20, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A federal court wants the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to report, with “precision and specificity,” how it plans to take a key step in implementing a 2015 smog pollution rule.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Ewire: EPA Delays First TSCA Bans, Sparking Legal Threats
Dec 20, 2017 | Inside EPA
The Trump administration has formalized indications that it would delay first-time Obama-era proposals to ban certain uses of several substances under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), sparking warnings from Democrats that the agency is failing to utilize its legal authority, according to press reports.
“EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is 'blatently ignoring Congress' clear directive to the agency to better protect the health and safety of millions of Americans by more effectively regulating some of the most dangerous chemicals known to man,” Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), ranking Democrat on the Senate environment committee, told the New York Times.
Carper's concern is directed at the Trump administration's Unified Agenda, which shows that officials have formally delayed plans to finalize proposed rules that would have banned uses of methylene chloride (MC) and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) in paint strippers, as well as a proposal to ban the use of trichloroethylene (TCE) as a vapor degreaser.
The agenda categorizes the rules as “long-term actions,” a change from the Spring agenda which had indicated to expect action on the items though it did not set deadlines for any action.
The move was expected as the Spring agenda had listed a proposed Obama-era rule banning uses of TCE as a spot cleaner in dry cleaning as a “long-term action.”
The Obama EPA in January proposed the three rules under TSCA section 6(a) authority, little used since EPA's attempt to ban most uses of asbestos in the 1980s. That rule was struck down by a federal court decision in 1991 in a decision that prompted critics of TSCA to seek reform of the statute, eventually enacted in June 2016.
Environmental groups have been urging the Trump administration to finalize the rules, while the chemicals' producers have met with the White House Office of Management and Budget seeking a reevaluation of potential risks.
In an October letter to Pruitt, several dozen environmental and public health groups, including
Earthjustice and Physicians for Social Responsibility urged EPA to quickly finalize the three rules, arguing that delays would needlessly expose more than two million workers and consumers to well-documented health risks.
And in a Nov. 7 letter groups including Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families and the Natural Resources Defense Council urged EPA's acting General Counsel and Ethics Officer Kevin Minoli to require the top Trump administration appointee in EPA's toxics office, Nancy Beck, to recuse herself from the ongoing rulemakings because of her past work for a trade group opposed to the bans.
While the delays are a concern for environmentalists, industry officials are welcoming the delay.
In a Dec. 19 article, in The Intercept, Faye Graul, executive director of the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance, Inc. which represents producers and users of the chemicals, faulted the Obama EPA's review of the substances and said the group has been pushing the Trump administration for a re-evaluation of the substances under the new law.
“When asked if the organization had gotten what it wanted with the proposed delay on action on these chemicals,” the article says, “Graul replied, 'That is exactly what we asked for, yes.'”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-epa-delays-first-tsca-bans-sparking-legal-threats
-
Beck Says EPA Required to Conduct Uncertainty Analysis in TSCA Studies
Dec 20, 2017 | Inside EPA
Nancy Beck, EPA's top toxics official, says the agency will seek to quantify scientific uncertainty in its evaluations required by the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), renewing a debate that has long plagued agency efforts to assess substances' risks and opening the door to risk ranges that could undercut regulators' use of single point estimates.
Beck, EPA's deputy assistant administrator in the agency's toxics office and its top political appointee, described during a Dec. 12 panel session at the Society for Risk Analysis (SRA) annual meeting in Arlington, VA, the risk evaluation process outlined in the agency's TSCA risk evaluation rule. She concluded, “most importantly, we have to take into consideration the uncertainties.”
“We can't hide the fact that we don't have perfect knowledge,” she said. “The statute and the regulations in place demand that we are honest about what we know and what we don't know and that we characterize these uncertainties throughout the process.”
But Beck later acknowledged in response to a question that there are still uncertainties about how EPA will address the issue in risk management decisions and whether analyses will be quantified or qualified.
Uncertainty analysis, in which regulators quantify scientific uncertainties and variability in risk assessments, has long been challenging at EPA. The practice was pushed by George W. Bush's research chief George Gray, who sought to include it in Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessments -- high level agency assessments that often form the basis for regulatory decisions. But Gray's efforts were fought by research office staff, who feared that quantifying uncertainty is resource intensive, delays an already slow process and results in risk ranges that confuse risk managers and undercut protective risk management standards.
Since then, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has recommended including uncertainty analysis in IRIS assessments, though the agency has yet to act.
But Beck noted multiple times in her remarks that both the reformed TSCA and EPA's risk evaluation rule, finalized by the Trump administration, require EPA to use uncertainty and variability analysis in its evaluation of chemicals. Beck described the reformed TSCA statute as a “game changer because I think it elevated the level of scientific rigor in EPA evaluations. The statute was very clear in section 26(h) about scientific standards.”
Beck acknowledged that some of the language in section 26(h), which was sought by industry in the TSCA reform negotiations, was controversial in the process of reforming TSCA. Critics worried that it would place too great of a burden on EPA, or require EPA to do a detailed, expansive assessment even when risk management options may not merit that level of review.
“Although this is apple pie to many of us in the room, this concept that we should use the best available science when making decisions was actually, believe it or not, very controversial, and there was a lot of concern that we were committing to this high standard. I can't even articulate it. Needless to say, the rule does commit the agency to using the best available science and methods and approaches in all of our TSCA evaluations of chemicals,” Beck said.
“As part of this best available science evaluation, we need to look at the extent to which the variability and the uncertainty in the information, procedures, methods, protocols methodologies or models are evaluated and characterized.”
'Science Is Uncertain'
Beck said that the directives in the statute and final rule mean that “even up front we are required to include discussion of the associated uncertainties in our analysis plan. We can’t hide the fact that science is uncertain, that it is not perfect. As scientists, our job as is to do the risk evaluation transparently, objectively, [then] present that information to the risk managers, who will then make the determinations about regulating safety.”
One attendee, Jim Hammitt, an economics professor and director of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis who has chaired EPA advisory panels, questioned how Beck would deal with decisionmaking in the face of uncertainty -- even while he agreed with her statements on the importance of characterizing uncertainty and variability.
“But what you didn't address is once we've done that, how do we make decisions?” Hammitt asked Beck. “One view is if we're uncertain that a regulation will have benefits and will impose costs, we shouldn't do it; the opposite view is that if we are uncertain that there's some harm, we should do all we can to avoid that harm.”
Beck replied, “Uncertainty evaluation takes many different shapes and forms. It can be qualitative, it can be quantitative, and I think the struggle will be, when we get there, how you present uncertainty in the right context to the risk managers for their decision. That's a bridge we're gonna have to cross in the future. We're very aware of that, and the need to educate the risk mangers and the decisionmakers about what uncertainties exist, how we've characterized [them], and what they may mean for the decision.”
Asked after her remarks whether she hopes to have quantitative risk analyses in TSCA evaluations, such as those performed for the first 10 chemicals selected by EPA for analysis, Beck replied that “each chemical will be different” and the type and extent of uncertainty analysis will depend on what “the data allows. If we can do sensitivity analyses, that'll be great.”
Beck declined to comment immediately on whether attempts to include risk ranges, rather than single point estimates of risk, will be included in the TSCA evaluations. Responding to a followup question, an EPA spokesman notes that the agency's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), which implements TSCA, produces risk assessments, rather than the hazard identification and dose-response analyses presented in IRIS assessments.
The spokesman says that one result of that difference is that the OPPT risk assessments “provide not only hazard ID and dose-response analysis for multiple hazard endpoints, but also combine these with multiple/many different exposure scenarios; hence, they include a range of risk estimates. In addition, consistent with EPA Information Quality Guidelines, the previous assessments have also presented a range of risk estimates for each endpoint carried forward to the risk characterization section. Consistent with the [TSCA] Risk Evaluation Framework rule, EPA will continue to provide ranges.”
NAS Report
Such risk ranges had been the most controversial aspect of uncertainty analysis that former Bush officials sought to introduce in the IRIS program, though calls for such actions were bolstered by the NAS' 2014 report reviewing the IRIS program.
The NAS committee's chairman, Jonathan Samet, told reporters on a May 2014 conference call that the panel recommends that "rather than bring forward a single number" in IRIS assessments, EPA should instead include two dose-response values, "the traditional lower-bound estimate, and to show the range, provide a central estimate as well."
The report explains that "[r]eporting both values provides information on statistical uncertainty, such as sampling variation, and makes available to the risk assessor the full range of information."
Since then, IRIS leaders and other agency risk assessors have considered how to address the recommendations, but no changes have been made within the IRIS assessments published to date. The recommendation is challenging in part because it could create difficulties for regulators that rely on the single point risk estimates to justify their decisions.
Still, the idea of presenting uncertainty around the single point estimate risk values contained in IRIS documents remains a long-standing sore point for some, who argue that such numbers do not reflect the reality of uncertainties and variabilities inherent in assessing the toxicity of environmental contaminants, often with limited data.
Beck, for example, notes that the final rule on how EPA will perform TSCA evaluations defines uncertainty as “basically the imperfect knowledge or lack of precise knowledge of the real world for evaluation.” -- Maria Hegstad(mhegstad@iwpnews.com)
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/beck-says-epa-required-conduct-uncertainty-analysis-tsca-studies
-
Fragrance Body Adds Phthalates to Industry Transparency List
Dec 20, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
In what one NGO calls a "troubling" development, the International Fragrance Association has added four phthalates to its online transparency list of ingredients currently being used in consumer goods.
The phthalates dimethyl phthalate (DMP), di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP) and dioctylphthalates (structural isomer to DEHP) were among 750 items added to the list in October. DBP and DEHP are banned from use in cosmetics in Europe.
Also added was styrene oxide which is included in the US on California's Proposition 65 and the National Toxicology Program's carcinogens list.
The list, which now totals 3,999 ingredients, was generated from the Ifra volume of use survey for 2015. This survey is carried out on a regular basis among the trade body's affiliated member companies, representing approximately 90% of the world’s production volume of fragrances.
Concern
However, US NGO Women's Voices for the Earth (WVE) has expressed surprise that the five phthalates were among the ingredients recently added.
Writing in a blog post, WVE director of science and research, Alex Scranton, said: "While we greatly appreciate the improved transparency with respect to the use of these chemicals (which we assume never really had disappeared from use in fragrance in the first place), their potential presence in fragrances we are exposed to everyday is certainly troubling."
She also questioned why the phthalates DBP and DEHP are included on the list when Ifra claimed ten years ago that these were not in use in the fragrance industry.
In response, Ifra scientific director, Matthias Vey, told Chemical Watch that more materials had been added to the list this year because a more refined nomenclature system for natural extracts had been introduced.
"This new system differentiates ingredients according to the part of the plant used or the processing method, providing greater detail and transparency than the Cas number system," he said.
He added that many ingredients are used "either in very low quantities, are present in natural extracts, or are in the final stages of phase-out." The Ifra Board, he said, has recommended industry not to use phthalates other than DEP, based on a positive opinion by the EU’s Standing Committee for Consumer Safety and its use not being restricted by the EU Cosmetics Regulation or REACH.
Despite this, he said, there remained "limited use" of five other phthalates by some companies. DEHP, for example, was reported in the global volume of use survey with a total of 37kg in North and South America but Dr Vey said it was being phased out in those regions.
Less than a kilogramme of styrene oxide was reported as being used globally, which he said was most likely as a process material rather than a fragrance ingredient.
"Ifra's approach is 'safety first', based on legal compliance, high standards set by the industry itself and a high degree of transparency," he added.Prioritisation call
WVE is now calling for the newly added chemicals to be prioritised for immediate safety review by the industry’s Expert Panel for Fragrance Safety.
Any new fragrance ingredients are automatically added to the list to be reviewed by the independent body. Its next meeting is due in January 2018, but the agenda has not yet been publicly released.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62714/fragrance-body-adds-phthalates-to-industry-transparency-list
-
GHS Study Highlights Worldwide Implementation Gap
Dec 20, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Nick Hazlewood
Regulatory capacity and government motivation are key factors in national implementation of the globally harmonized system of classification and labelling of chemicals (GHS).
And, along with GDP per capita, they help explain the worldwide gap in legal implementation, says a study carried out by Swedish and Dutch researchers. Their work during 2016-2017 has produced – possibly for the first time – a global overview of the current state of GHS.
Their research reveals that, as of 1 April 2017:50 countries had passed legislation aligned with GHS;15 countries had carried out partial implementation; and128 countries had yet to do anything on this front.
Full implementation was most common in central, east and southeast Asia and Europe. Here the EU’s 28 member states make up the majority of the 50 countries with full GHS. In Africa, only Zambia and Mauritius have fully implemented GHS; in Latin America, just Ecuador.
The countries that have partially implemented are: the US, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, Montenegro and Georgia. The researchers say no Arab countries have aligned their laws with GHS.
Since 1 April, Costa Rica, Chile and Colombia have reported developments in their implementation of GHS.Missed goal
GHS is a system of classifying and labelling chemicals according to their hazards and is a cornerstone of sound chemicals management. In 2002 the UN set a goal of all countries implementing the system by 2008.
However, it has clearly missed this goal.
The researchers, based at the Stockholm Environment Institute and Wageningen University in the Netherlands, found that although there was a correlation with a country's level of income and GHS, there were other, complicated factors.
The team, which received funding primarily from the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, says the reasons for the gap in implementation can broadly be broken down into two factors: motivational and capacity related.
Motivational factors include how much a state values:trade openness;occupational health and safety;the sound management of chemicals; andinternational cooperation.
Capacity-related factors include:financial capacity; andregulatory capacity.
Comparing GHS implementation status and GDP per capita, the researchers say, shows a positive correlation. All but ten of fully implementing countries have a GDP per capita above $14,000. But there are some quirks, for example Kyrgyzstan and Zambia, both of which have a GDP per capita below $4,000.
And while greater regulatory capacity also makes it more likely a country has implemented GHS, there are confounding factors here too. For example, if a country aspires to join a community, such as the EU, it is more likely to have done so. Cases in point are Albania, Georgia and Bosnia Herzegovina. A country is also more likely to have implemented GHS if it has received outside support – as Zambia has from Unitar and Vietnam from Sweden's chemical agency Kemi.Closing the gap
In looking to the future, the researchers say more support is needed, learning lessons from those countries with effective capacity building and "recognising the importance of regulatory capacity."
Strengthening chemicals management is of highest importance in countries with lowest capacity, they add.
Using the potential of GHS as part of a state's occupational health and safety commitment and as a way of reducing trade barriers "seem like promising options for increased GHS implementation across countries and regions".
https://chemicalwatch.com/62722/ghs-study-highlights-worldwide-implementation-gap
-
Germany and Sweden Propose Restrictions on Six PFASs
Dec 20, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The Swedish Chemicals Agency, Kemi, and Germany's federal environment agency (UBA) have submitted a joint proposal to Echa to restrict the manufacturing and placing on the market of six per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFASs).
The proposal concerns perfluoronic acid (PFNA), perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA), Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnDA), perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoDA), perfluoroethridecanoic acid (PFTrDA) and perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA).
It includes their salts and precursors as constituents of other substances, mixtures and in articles or any parts thereof in a concentration equal to or above 25ppb for the substances and their salts, or 260ppb for their related substances.
Exemptions are proposed for:the substances, their salts and related substances that occur as unintended byproducts during the manufacturing of other fluorochemicals with a carbon chain equal to or shorter than eight carbon atoms;a substance that is to be used, or is used, as a transported isolated intermediate, following the strictly controlled conditions provided for in Article 18(4)(a) to (f) of REACH; andthe production of, or placing on the market in articles or any parts thereof, before the restriction becomes effective.
Kemi says that as the proposal includes other PFAS substances that can be broken down to any of these six, the restriction "applies in total to a group of about 200 highly fluorinated substances".
PFASs are used in low concentrations in many products because they are capable of forming smooth, water-, grease- and dirt-repellent surfaces, Kemi says. They can be present in firefighting, textiles, food packaging, detergents and cosmetics products, it adds.
The purpose of the proposal, Kemi says, is to prevent the substances from being widely used on the market when other highly fluorinated chemicals are phased out in the EU, such as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) from 2020.Regulatory action
Echa has launched a consultation on the proposal, which will close on 20 June 2018. The agency says its Committees for Risk Assessment (Rac) and Socio-Economic Analysis (Seac) expect to begin discussing the proposal in March.
Recently, Nordic governments have ramped up their focus on the substances. In June, Swedish government agencies and research institutions signed a memorandum of understanding to collaborate on reducing risks and increasing knowledge of PFASs.
And a month later, inter-governmental cooperation body the Nordic Council, which represents Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, called for prompt regulatory action on them.
Meanwhile, earlier this month in the US, the EPA announced a 'cross-agency' initiative on PFASs, but did not promise regulatory action.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62729/germany-and-sweden-propose-restrictions-on-six-pfass
-
EPA Considering Future GHG Rule, Requesting Public Input on Regulatory Roles
Dec 20, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Days after unveiling a blueprint for rolling back several Obama-era regulations into 2018 and beyond, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it is considering a future rule to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from existing power plants, and it wants public input into what its role -- and the role of state regulatory agencies -- should be.
In an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) issued Monday, the EPA said that while it has proposed an outright repeal of the Clean Power Plan (CPP), the agency also "continues to consider the possibility of replacing certain aspects of the CPP in coordination with a proposed revision." Public input would get to the heart of "what the EPA should include" in a future proposed rulemaking, "including comments on aspects of the states' and the EPA's role in that process."
The Trump administration first targeted the CPP last March, when the president issued an executive order calling for, among other things, a review of the CPP. EPA followed up with an announcement in October that it would ultimately repeal the CPP. Last week, a biannual plan listing hundreds of rules in various stages of rulemaking at many federal agencies, including the EPA, showed a final rule to repeal the CPPis set for next October.
Trump, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, GOP and energy industry allies have been critical of several actions taken during the Obama administration on climate change, including the use of the "social cost of carbon" methodology for crafting regulation. They have also taken issue with the Obama regime using a 2007 court case, Massachusetts v. EPA, as the basis for regulating GHG emissions, specifically, through Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.
According to the EPA, 150 entities have filed legal challenges to the CPP, including 27 states, 24 trade associations, 37 rural electric cooperatives and three labor unions.
"Consistent with our commitment to the rule of law, we've already set in motion an assessment of the previous administration's questionable legal basis in our proposed repeal of the CPP," said Pruitt. "With a clean slate, we can now move forward to provide regulatory certainty.
"Today's move ensures adequate and early opportunity for public comment from all stakeholders about next steps the agency might take to limit GHG from stationary sources, in a way that properly stays within the law, and the bounds of the authority provided to EPA by Congress."
EPA plans to accept public comments on the ANPRM for 60 days after the notice is published in the Federal Register.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/112815-epa-considering-future-ghg-rule-requesting-public-input-on-regulatory-roles
-
Everyone's Fighting over BLM's Methane Rule — Again
Dec 20, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Get ready for yet another round of litigation over Obama-era methane rules.
States and environmental groups are going back to court after the Trump administration suspended an Interior Department rule designed to curb methane waste from oil and gas operations on public and tribal lands.
In two lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the rule supporters say Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and the Bureau of Land Management violated the law by sidelining the methane venting and flaring regulation until early 2019 (Greenwire, Dec. 19).
"We are hoping to prevent methane waste and restore some transparency and accountability at the federal level," New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas (D) said in a call with reporters yesterday. "Quite frankly, Secretary Zinke's action to suspend the BLM methane rule is not only short-sighted but ignores the strong local and national support for curbing methane waste."
The lawsuits are the latest in a game of legal pingpong that started immediately after the Obama administration finalized the rule in November 2016. The BLM rule aimed to cut waste of methane from well sites across the West, where drillers sometimes vent or flare the potent greenhouse gas when they lack equipment to capture excess volumes. The regulation set limits on emissions and required companies to check for leaks.
Interior's move to suspend the regulation follows the president's March "energy independence" executive order favoring domestic fossil fuel development. In announcing the rollback, BLM questioned whether it had authority to issue the regulation in the first place — building upon criticism that the rule amounted to an air quality regulation better-suited to U.S. EPA, states and tribes.
The agency also reworked the cost-benefit analysis for the regulation and concluded that the cost outweighed potential benefits. Oil and gas boosters have long complained that the rule was costly, unworkable and unnecessary in light of industry's own attempts to reduce methane emissions.
Environmental groups suing to reinstate the rule say the Trump administration rolled back the measure as a handout to oil and gas companies.
"Rather than moving forward to implement this common-sense rule that prevents waste, saves millions of taxpayer dollars, and protects the air we breathe, the Trump administration is wasting everyone's time with yet another attempt to stop the rule from taking effect, all to appease its friends in the oil and gas industry," Earthjustice attorney Robin Cooley, who is representing members of the environmental coalition, said in a statement.
Supporters of the Obama rule have hailed it as a win for both the environment and taxpayers who receive royalties from the recovered gas. In a press call yesterday, Aztec, N.M., City Commissioner Katee McClure warned that the suspension would mean a significant loss in potential royalty payments that help support local schools and other needs.
"I was really excited when the BLM methane waste rule was finalized to ensure not only people in my area but all over New Mexico got a fair return on the oil and gas that was developed in our area," she said. "But now that rule once again has been delayed, and our communities lose out on these revenues that would be generated from capturing this horrible waste of methane."
BLM previously estimated that the rule would generate up to $14 million in additional annual royalties.
The agency does not comment on pending litigation, but industry groups were quick to slam the new lawsuits.
"I think you have some AGs who are trying to make a name for themselves by opposing responsible oil and natural gas development whenever they can," Western Energy Alliance President Kathleen Sgamma told E&E News. "Obviously you have very well-funded environmental groups that have plenty of money to sue, so I don't think it will never end."
Independent Petroleum Association of American spokesman Neal Kirby similarly dismissed the challenges as "short-sighted" opposition. He argued that royalties lost by shutting in production due to high compliance costs would outweigh any gains from recovered gas. He noted that both California and New Mexico have authority to enact their own state-level restrictions if they see fit.
Both IPAA and the Western Energy Alliance are weighing whether to intervene in the new litigation.Inside the lawsuits
Yesterday's lawsuits challenge the Trump administration's suspension of the rule as a violation of several laws, including the Administrative Procedure Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Mineral Leasing Act, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act. They say BLM had no rationale for the rollback.
"Defendants entirely failed to consider how the Suspension would fulfill the important statutory mandates that the Waste Prevention Rule was designed to address, failed to explain why it reversed course based on the same information that it considered when it formulated and promulgated the Rule just a year earlier, and offered a purported justification for the Suspension that runs counter to the evidence before the agency," California and New Mexico's complaintsays.
They also argue that BLM's process for considering the suspension was unfair, as the agency had already determined the outcome. The filing notes that while the 30-day comment period on the proposal was still open, the agency told a Wyoming court that the suspension would "provide immediate relief" for industry groups concerned about the regulation.
The two lawsuits also take aim at BLM's cost-benefit math supporting the rollback. The rule supporters argue that the agency changed the way it calculates the social costs associated with methane to dramatically reduce the overall benefits of cutting emissions.
"The estimate used to evaluate the Waste Prevention Rule is based on peer-reviewed literature and analyses that have undergone extensive public comment and external review," the environmental lawsuit says. "The estimate used to evaluate the [suspension] has undergone no such review. Indeed, the Amendment is the first time the federal government has relied on this estimate in a rulemaking."
They added that the agency should have taken a closer look at the environmental impacts of freezing the Obama rule.
The environmental lawsuit also alleges that BLM failed to adequately consult with American Indian tribes affected by the suspension, sending just two letters and making one follow-up phone call. Sam Dee, a member of the Navajo Nation's Red Mesa Chapter House in Utah, said the agency made little effort to reach out to tribes.
"There is no question that BLM has a duty to consult with tribes and individual Indian mineral owners when they consider actions that would impact our oil and gas resources, which they failed to do," he told reporters yesterday.
Supporters of the Obama administration's rule have already won one lawsuit challenging Trump officials' attempts to sideline the methane rule. When the agency used an Administrative Procedure Act provision — Section 705 — earlier this year to postpone compliance deadlines, the same California district court handling the new cases rebuked the government (Energywire, Oct. 5).
The new lawsuits involve different legal issues. Sgamma noted that the recent suspension went through a full public comment process.
"This suspension rule went through notice and comment," she said. "It went through the full APA procedure. It is not at all like the 705 stay that was overturned."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/12/20/stories/1060069481
-
Drilling Opponents Take Fight to Courts, Public
Dec 20, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Kellie Lunney
Senate Democrats and environmental groups today vowed to continue the fight against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, even as Congress approved it as part of a historic tax reform package passed this week.
Sens. Maria Cantwell of Washington and Ed Markey of Massachusetts said during a press call this morning that they now are bringing the battle to protect the refuge to the courts and to the public.
"We are going to take our case to the American people now to educate them" about the ANWR language "buried in the deep bowels of the tax legislation," said Cantwell, the top Democrat on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
The Senate late last night passed the tax legislation, which includes a provision that would make the 1.5-million-acre coastal plain of ANWR available for oil and gas drilling, a decadeslong goal for the Alaska delegation and a setback for conservation groups and other opponents of energy development in the region (E&E Daily, Dec. 20).
Markey said in addition to court battles, drilling opponents would use "every legislative avenue that is presented for as many years as it takes for us to restore the protections."
Some recent polls have shown public opposition to oil and gas drilling in the refuge, and the two Democrats are hoping the court of public opinion will help yield electoral consequences in 2018 (Greenwire, Nov. 22).
Markey today also made clear that Democrats will use the vote to open ANWR's coastal plain to drilling — as well as the Trump administration's overall track record on environment and energy issues — against Republicans in the 2018 election cycle.
"We are hitting the tipping point where the environment becomes one of the top-tier issues that just tips the election in 2018" to Democrats, he said. If congressional Democrats win next year, Markey said, they would look to legislatively reverse energy development in the coastal plain and "permanently" protect it.
He and Colorado Democrat Michael Bennet earlier this year reintroduced legislation that would designate a portion of ANWR as wilderness to protect it from drilling.
But President Trump today proclaimed victory over the ANWR measure in the larger tax package. "ANWR by itself would be a big bill," Trump said.
Green groups, as well as members of the Gwich'in people who consider the area "the sacred place where life begins," were disappointed by this week's outcome on ANWR. But they also pledged to fight.
In a joint statement, multiple environmental groups, including the Alaska Wilderness League, Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, called the vote a "setback" but said it only "heightened" their resolve to defend ANWR in the "courts, in the corporate boardrooms and in Congress where, over time, we will seek to restore protections for this crown jewel of our National Wildlife Refuge System."
Bernadette Demientieff, executive director of the Gwich'in Steering Committee, said the community was "devastated" by the vote but wasn't giving up.
"We will not stop. We will not waver. We will continue to protect our way of life, as we always have. Our identity is non-negotiable and our human rights inalienable," Demientieff said in a statement.
The Gwich'in people depend heavily on the Porcupine caribou herd, which migrates 700 miles each year from ANWR's coastal plain, through much of the wildlife refuge and into Canada.
While the House easily passed the tax bill yesterday with the ANWR provision intact, due to a technical glitch the chamber will take a second vote early this afternoon on the version that passed the Senate last night, which removed provisions that violated budget reconciliation rules.
Cantwell, who in 2005 successfully defeated efforts to open ANWR to drilling, made a last stand on the Senate floor yesterday to oppose the provision's inclusion in the tax bill.
"In 100 years, when this economic tax bill will long be forgotten, the question will be whether something important in the universe still exists in the Arctic wildlife area," the Democrat said, decrying the reconciliation process where the drilling language found a home.
"We didn't create the Arctic Coastal Plain, but I can state this: We cannot recreate it. What we are doing today is taking a step toward destroying it," she said.
But Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), a champion of allowing energy development in ANWR's coastal plain, saw her longtime dream — and that of her father, former Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska), and her mentor, the late Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) — finally realized.
Murkowski, chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has said the move will create much-needed jobs in her state, strengthen national security and boost the overall economy, all while protecting the environment.
"We are going to take care of our land. We are going to take care of the people who live on our North Slope. We are going to take care of the environment, and we will protect the wildlife on the Coastal Plain," Murkowski said on the Senate floor last night.
The ANWR language in the tax bill would allow up to 2,000 acres of surface land in the coastal plain for production and support facilities.
It would direct the Interior Department to conduct two lease sales within ANWR's 1002 area within the 10-year budget window, the first within four years of enactment and the second within seven years.
Cantwell today said lawmakers will keep a close eye on Interior to make sure the department doesn't "skirt" any processes when it comes to implementing the law.
The ANWR language in the tax bill also would stipulate a 50-50 revenue-sharing split between the state and the federal government.
In addition, it would impose a 16.67 percent royalty on oil and gas produced in the refuge's coastal plain, also known as the 1002 area. By comparison, the government charges royalties of 12.5 percent for onshore oil and gas production and 18.75 percent for energy developed in the outer continental shelf.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that drilling in ANWR's coastal plain would bring in about $1.1 billion for Uncle Sam over the next decade after the federal government splits the revenue with Alaska.
That assumes a total $2.2 billion coming in between 2018 and 2027 from oil and gas drilling in the 1002 area, a figure that includes estimated proceeds from bonus bids paid by companies in search of leases.
Language in the final Senate tax bill, however, would allow the sale of 700 million barrels of Strategic Petroleum Reserve oil in fiscal 2026 and 2027, with sales ending once $600 million has been raised. That language was included in part to fill an estimated $300 million shortfall of ANWR's 10-year budget projections.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/12/20/stories/1060069571
-
The Refuge Is Almost Open for Business. What Happens Next?
Dec 20, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Brittany Patterson
A decadeslong desire by Republicans and oil companies to open a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling became all but certain last night when the Senate passed a sweeping overhaul of the federal tax code.
The House must revote on the bill today after the Senate parliamentarian ruled two provisions would have to be removed. It is expected to pass.
But it could be nearly as long before the first fossil fuels are extracted from the refuge's coastal plain, making it possible that President Trump will be out of office before the GOP dream is realized.
The bill would authorize lease sales for oil and gas development inside ANWR, and Trump is expected to sign it before Christmas.
The move cements a long-awaited policy change for the 19.6-million-acre refuge and ignited fierce debate during the first rewrite of the tax code in more than three decades.
Despite the impassioned feelings on both sides, nothing is expected to change on the ground for at least a few years.
The bill — which passed the Senate 51-48 with all Republicans voting in favor — directs the secretary of the Interior to create and administer an oil and gas leasing program in the non-wilderness portion of the refuge, also known as the 1002 area.
The language proposed by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, would require Interior to hold two lease sales of areas no smaller than 400,000 acres over the next decade. The first should happen in the next four years.
Environmental groups and Alaska Native communities say the fight is far from over.
"Frankly, if Donald Trump thinks there's going to be drilling in the Arctic refuge in his first and only term, he's mistaken," said Brett Hartl, government affairs director with the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD).
It remains unclear if and when opponents could challenge the provision in court.
Hartl said CBD will closely watch how Interior conducts environmental and endangered species reviews, which will be needed before the agency can hold lease sales.
"There is a feeling in the environmental community that we are going to fight and do our best to show how the Department of the Interior is going to steamroll this process," Hartl said. "If they try to do that, it's nonsense. They have to comply with environmental laws and frankly should comply to the highest levels."
Alaska Native communities that have close ties to the refuge may have a more immediate avenue to fight the drilling program.
The Gwich'in Nation relies on the coastal plain as a calving ground and nursery for the porcupine caribou herd, which the Gwich'in have hunted for millennia.
Bernadette Demientieff, executive director of the Gwich'in Steering Committee, said they are committed to doing "whatever it takes" to defend the refuge against oil and gas development but had not yet decided what actions to take.
One option could be to challenge the program on the grounds that it violates their human rights. Demientieff said opening the refuge to drilling threatens their food security. The U.S. also has a treaty with the Canadian government to protect the porcupine caribou, which could be undermined by drilling.
This is a hard-fought win for Alaska's congressional delegation. The lawmakers argue that opening the 1002 area would bring Alaska a badly needed economic boost at a time when the state is facing a budget crisis due to falling oil prices.
"This bill marks the 13th time the House has voted to allow for responsible resource development in the 1002 Area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which is crucial to the future of the American energy sector," said Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska). "Opening ANWR means more jobs for Alaskans, economic growth and securing America's energy independence for generations to come. I have fought this battle for over 40 years, and I am hopeful that we will see this to the finish line."
Congress has tried many times since ANWR was created in 1980 to open a portion of the South Carolina-sized swath of mountains and tundra in the northeastern corner of Alaska to fossil fuel development. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which enshrined the refuge, mandated that only Congress could authorize oil and gas drilling in the 1.5-million-acre coastal plain region located between the Brooks Range and the Beaufort Sea.
Congress failed to do just that numerous times, notably in 2005, when an attempt led by the late Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) was defeated in large part because of the objections of moderate House Republicans.
The tax reform bill passed last night by the Senate was shepherded through Congress using the special budget reconciliation process and only needed 51 votes to pass.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/12/20/stories/1060069515
-
Neb. Regulators Cue up Legal Challenges after Route Change
Dec 20, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
TransCanada Corp. will not be allowed to amend a route application for its Keystone XL project to pass through Nebraska, nor will the state toss out the company's existing application and require it to start the regulatory process fresh, regulators ruled yesterday.
The Nebraska Public Service Commission yesterday denied all motions to reconsider a permit issued a month ago to let TransCanada construct the Keystone XL pipeline along a little-scrutinized route through the eastern part of the state.
That decision, made by a split 3-2 vote by the permitting body, granted TransCanada a permit to build the project along a route that partly aligns with the existing Keystone mainline route but denied its main request, to build the pipeline along a new pathway that cut more diagonally across the state (Energywire, Nov. 21).
Following the vote, TransCanada asked the PSC to reconsider its decision to approve what was termed an "alternative route" in its application, asking to amend the application on which the permit was based. The commission denied that motion.
Environmentalists had asked for reconsideration of the decision, as well, asking the regulator to throw out TransCanada's existing application in light of the route change and start over. That request was also denied.
Opponents of the Keystone XL project quickly claimed the outcome as a victory. Attorneys for affected landowners suing to stop the pipeline have said that because the route approved by the state PSC was not fully considered in the project application, and because landowners and neighbors along the newly approved route had insufficient warning that they could be affected by the project, the state's review of the approved route falls short of statutory requirements.
In a statement following the decision, Brian Jorde, an attorney for the landowner group with the Domina Law Group, said the outcome was "the absolutely worst decision possible for TransCanada and the best possible outcome for landowners." The case now moves to appeals at the state court level, where the landowners group will likely argue that the PSC lacks authority to approve a pipeline route different from the one that company applied for.
Environmental groups, too, welcomed the PSC decision. In a blog post, Natural Resources Defense Council analyst Josh Axelrod said if appeals on the project go forward, it could take as long as two years for the Nebraska Supreme Court to resolve the route questions.
"If TransCanada were to eventually prevail, it would be stuck with a tar sands pipeline coming online at a time when Canadian energy regulators expect tar sands production growth to have slowed to almost zero in anticipation of a peak in the mid-2020s," Axelrod said. "In other words, delay of this length could equal obsolescence before tar sands ever flow through the line."
The project could also face a legal challenge at the State Department, where opponents have called for a review of a cross-border permit issued by the Trump administration in January, given changes since the underlying analysis was completed.
Terry Cunha, a spokesman for TransCanada, said the company "remain[s] committed" to the project and will take time to determine its next steps in Nebraska.
"Keystone XL remains a viable project with strong commercial support," Cunha said in an emailed statement. "The project continues to have widespread support of the U.S. and Canadian federal governments as well as state and provincial governments in Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Saskatchewan and Alberta. President Trump and his administration continue to actively support Keystone XL and we expect to secure final federal permits in early 2018."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/12/20/stories/1060069489
-
France to Ban Oil and Gas Production by 2040
Dec 20, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Avery Anapol
The French Parliament on Tuesday passed a law banning the production of all oil and gas by 2040.
France will not grant any new permits or renew existing ones that allow fracking or the extraction of fossil fuels in the country and its overseas territories.
France is almost entirely dependent on hydrocarbon imports, so the largely symbolic ban will not majorly affect the country’s industries, but some lawmakers said they hope it will inspire other countries to follow suit.
French President Emmanuel Macron tweeted after the vote that he is “very proud” of the measure.
Macron used the hashtag “Make Our Planet Great Again,” a nod to his efforts to push efforts to tackle climate change after President Trumppulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accord. Macron has said that he will continue trying to convince Trump to reverse his decision and rejoin the pact.
France has also committed to ending the sale of gasoline and diesel vehicles by 2040.
http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/energy-environment/365755-france-to-ban-oil-and-gas-production-by-2040
-
Railroads Say Spokane Tracks Equipped with Technology to Stop Trains from Speeding
Dec 20, 2017 | The Spokesman-Review
By Thomas Clouse
Local politicians and emergency responders have worked together for years to prepare for a train disaster if it were to hit Spokane.
The railways through Spokane have speed limits and both Union Pacific and BNSF officials confirmed that each has what’s known as positive train control technology, which is designed to slow or stop a train even if the conductor fails to act.
News reports indicated that the Amtrak train that crashed Monday, killing three passengers and closing Interstate 5 for days, did not have that safety measure working yet.
Investigators with the National Transportation Safety Board said Tuesday that the Amtrak train on its inaugural run was traveling 80 mph on a track posted for 30 mph. The engineer did not apply the brakes as the train coursed down a mild grade and toward a curve in the track to cross I-5.
Emergency brakes were engaged only after the train began going off the tracks.
The Associated Press reported that the new faster Amtrak route linking Seattle and Portland was pressed into service even though the control technology wasn’t set to be completed on the 15-mile span where the derailment happened until next spring.
The technology could have detected the train’s speed and automatically applied the brakes to slow the train before it entered the curve, according to the AP.
Railroads are required to install positive train control by the end of next year after several delays.
Positive train control had been on the wish list of safety regulators for years. Congress acted in September 2008 following the collision of a Metrolink passenger train and a freight train operated by Union Pacific in California.
The collision nine years ago killed 25 people and injured 135.
Amtrak officials said Tuesday they have taken steps to implement positive train control systems on about two-thirds of its rail lines and about half of its locomotives. Its route in the Northeast has the technology fully installed.
Richard Anderson, the CEO of Amtrak, said “no one wants PTC more than me” but would not directly answer questions Tuesday evening about why it is taking so long to get the speed-control technology up and running across the country, according to the AP.
“I’m a huge believer in positive train control,” he said at a news conference. “It just makes so much scientific sense.”
Anderson said the company’s safety culture can continue to improve and that the crash should be seen as a “wake-up call,” the AP reported.
First responders in Spokane have focused less on passenger trains and more on the potential of oil spills or chemical releases from the dozens of trains that roll daily through downtown Spokane, said Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich.
“We’ve conducted multiple table-top exercises … if we had an oil train derailment,” Knezovich said. “We’ve talked extensively for years now. We continue to talk about it, and assess where we are at … and if our hazard materials teams have what they need to deal with those situations.”
Despite that planning, elected officials from City Councilman Breean Beggs to Sens. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray have pushed for higher safety standards for the oil trains.
“I think the Amtrak crash shows that no matter how much money you spend on a line or how safe it is, there is always a risk of a catastrophic derailment,” Beggs said.
Cantwell and Murray both sponsored the Crude-By-Rail Safety Act of 2015, which would have required companies to reduce the gases in crude oil shipped by rail car and halted the use of older-model tankers. But the legislation failed to pass.
“While we don’t know yet what caused Monday’s tragic derailment in Dupont, what we do know is that we need to be doing more as a country to keep people safe no matter how they travel,” Murray said in a prepared statement. “I’ve long supported improvements and updates to our transportation infrastructure, including our rails, and will continue to make the case in Congress on this matter.”
Cantwell, too, offered her support to the first responders to the Amtrak crash.
“We need to let the investigators on the ground do their job, and we should pay close attention to their recommendations to ensure that this type of tragedy will not be repeated,” Cantwell said. “Until then, I will work with Senator Murray and the congressional delegation to ensure federal resources are available as needed.”
Even if the rules don’t change, local first responders will continue to practice for the worst-case scenario, said Chandra Fox, deputy director of the local emergency management office.
“The main crux is to bring all of the response partners together in one room at one time and talk through the issues,” she said. “The whole point is to get people together and talking about it so we have started down the road of relationship building and understanding roles and responsibilities beforehand.”
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/dec/20/local-officials-have-practiced-for-years-to-deal-w/
-
Court Orders EPA to Set Timetable for Ozone Designations
Dec 20, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
A federal appeals court is ordering U.S. EPA to spell out its timetable for remaining compliance decisions related to its 2015 ground-level ozone standard.
In the order, issued late yesterday and in the wake of contradictory signals from EPA, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit instructed agency officials to report "with precision and specificity" by Jan. 12 on when they will issue a final rule to set remaining attainment designations for the 70 parts per billion standard.
Under the Clean Air Act, all designations were due at the beginning of October. While the agency last month effectively declared about 85 percent of United States counties in attainment, it has yet to make final decisions for heavily populated metro areas like Los Angeles, Houston and New York City that will likely be out of compliance, based on state recommendations submitted more than a year ago.
EPA is reviewing the order, spokesman Jahan Wilcox said this morning.
Last week, Bill Wehrum, the agency's recently installed air chief, indicated the remaining designations would be coming by this spring. But days later, the agency clouded that forecast with the release of a list of regulatory priorities that appeared to indicate it was still pursuing a formal extension of the October deadline that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt had withdrawn in August.
The agency has so far not explained the discrepancy, but Democratic-led states and advocacy groups, which are suing to enforce the October deadline, cited it in court filings this week as reason to keep their litigation alive (E&E News PM, Dec. 19). Yesterday's order from the three-judge panel references those filings.
It "seems like they want a straight answer from EPA, rather than all the evasion, confusion, and delay that's been coming from the agency," Seth Johnson, an Earthjustice attorney who is representing the coalition of public health and environmental advocacy groups, said in an email.
Perhaps notably, the panel includes two members, Judges Judith Rogers and Patricia Millett, who in a separate case last month upbraided EPA attorneys over the agency's bid to wait until 2019 to finalize emissions standards for brick kilns that were originally due in 2000 (Greenwire, Nov. 9).
Ozone, a lung irritant that is the main ingredient in smog, is linked to asthma attacks in children and worsened breathing problems for people with cystic fibrosis and other chronic respiratory diseases. In October 2015, EPA tightened the standard from 75 ppb to 70 ppb on the basis of recent research showing that ozone is damaging at lower levels than previously thought.
For enforcement purposes, the attainment designations are a crucial milestone because they start the clock for states to come up with cleanup plans for areas that are out of compliance. But in his previous post as Oklahoma's attorney general, Pruitt, a Republican, joined in the legal challenges to the 70 ppb standard, which is also opposed by the oil and gas industry and other business interests, which noted that regulators are still implementing the previous 75 ppb standard set in 2008. As EPA chief, Pruitt has been in no evident hurry to enforce it.
In June, Pruitt announced a blanket one-year extension that would have pushed back the deadline for all attainment designations until October 2018. He did a U-turn two months later and withdrew the extension following the suits by states and advocacy groups. He has so far offered no legal justification for failing to make the Oct. 1 deadline.
In response to a congressional directive, EPA has also created what's been dubbed the Ozone Cooperative Compliance Task Force to examine ways to ease the compliance process for the 2015 standard. The group's impact remains unclear; it has held no public meetings, and agency officials have not said who is on the panel.
In a brief interview last week following her appearance at an EPA advisory committee, Brittany Bolen, the agency's deputy associate administrator for policy, declined to disclose the group's members, saying that it is an "internal task force."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/12/20/stories/1060069577
-
Judge Overturns State's Carbon-Capping Rule
Dec 20, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn, E&E News reporter Published: W
A state judge has ruled against large portions of Washington Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee's carbon-capping regulation, but the full impact of the ruling is still to be determined.
Thurston County Superior Court Judge James Dixon ruled Friday from the bench against Inslee's Clean Air Rule, which went into effect in January. The rule is intended to reduce the state's carbon emissions to 1990 levels by the end of the decade and 25 percent below that in 2035.
Trade groups from a wide variety of industries had sued over the rule after the state Department of Ecology approved it in September 2016. Opponents argued that the state lacked the authority to impose carbon caps without legislative approval.
The program subjects the state's 24 largest emitters to individual caps that decline by 1.7 percent annually. Inslee had directed the Department of Ecology to develop the rule after failing to get legislative approval for a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system; he said Friday that he intends to try again for a carbon tax next month (Greenwire, Dec. 15).
Dixon ruled that the state lacks authority to mandate reductions from indirect emitters — suppliers of petroleum and natural gas, which account for about two-thirds of Washington's emissions. He asked parties to submit briefs on how the ruling should be implemented. The program could still remain in effect for direct emitters, which include stationary sources and direct petroleum emissions.
"Washington's particularly vulnerable to climate change, and so we're disappointed in the decision," said Camille St. Onge, a spokeswoman for the Department of Ecology. "Our environment and our infrastructure are really dependent on us reducing greenhouse gases. This ruling threatens our good work."
The Association of Washington Business, which led the plaintiffs, said it was pleased with the decision.
"We did not believe this rule was the right way to accomplish the goal of reducing emissions," the group's president, Kris Johnson, said in a statement.
"It was unnecessary and, if the rule was allowed to stand, would have made it more expensive to heat homes, drive to work and grow a business in the state of Washington because it would have put Washington manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage to national and international companies," Johnson added. "We can and will do more to reduce our state's carbon emissions in a way that keeps businesses in Washington's clean economy instead of driving them to other states and nations with less stringent standards."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/12/20/stories/1060069519
-
Court Asks EPA When It Will Move Forward with Smog Rule Compliance
Dec 20, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A federal court wants the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to report, with “precision and specificity,” how it plans to take a key step in implementing a 2015 smog pollution rule.
The demand from the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit came after the EPA said in November which areas of the country comply with the regulation, but refused to say which areas do not comply.
Both kinds of designations were due Oct. 1, two years after the Obama administration finalized its major ground-level ozone rule. Environmentalists and Democratic states have sued the EPA to force the declarations known as “nonattainment” designations.
The order late Tuesday from a three-judge panel of the federal court mandated that the EPA file a report by Jan. 12 “identifying with precision and specificity when it plans to file a final rule establishing air quality designations for the 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standards for those areas in the United States that remain undesignated.”
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt opposed the regulation in his previous job as Oklahoma’s Republican attorney general and sued to stop it.
Earlier this year, Pruitt attempted to delay by one year the compliance designations. Facing lawsuits, he walked that back. But he still hasn’t said which areas don’t comply.
“In the spirit of cooperative federalism, EPA will continue to work with states and the public to help areas with underlying technical issues, disputed designations, and/or insufficient information,” the EPA said in November. “Additionally, EPA modeling, state agency comments, and peer-reviewed science indicate international emissions and background ozone can contribute significantly to areas meeting attainment thresholds. The agency intends to address these areas in a separate future action.”
In nonattainment areas, states must write plans to reduce ozone pollution. Since most ground-level ozone is a byproduct of burning fossil fuels, those plans would likely seek to restrict fossil fuel use.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/365803-court-asks-epa-when-it-will-move-forward-with-smog-rule-compliance
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
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