Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 08/05/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump’s Tweets Distract Us From the Biggest Scandal of All
May 8, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Katrina vanden Heuvel
Scandal is the hallmark of the Trump administration, which increasingly seems to be rotting, like the proverbial fish, from the head down. -
Science — The Hidden Gem at the Heart of the EPA and Why You Should Support It
May 8, 2018 | Union of Concerned Scientists (Blog)
By Robert Kavlock
The role of science in EPA decision-making might, in the vocabulary of former President George W. Bush, be the most “misunderestimated” part of the EPA’s job. -
More Groups Demand Wider Scrutiny of Pruitt's Science Rule
May 8, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Not only must EPA hold a public hearing on a controversial proposal to overhaul its handling of scientific research, but it must also run the plan past two key advisory committees, an advocacy group made up mainly of former agency employees argues in newly filed comments. -
California Judge Affirms Ruling for Coffee Cancer Warnings
May 7, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times, The Washington Post)
A court ruling that gave coffee drinkers a jolt earlier this year was finalized Monday when a Los Angeles judge said coffee sold in California must carry cancer warnings. -
Environmentalists Petition EPA for PFOA, PFAS Rules
May 8, 2018 | Inside EPA
An Ohio environmental group has formally petitioned EPA to regulate perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and other perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) levels in surface water and drinking water, adding to calls from lawmakers and the Defense Department (DOD) for federal oversight of the substances blamed for environmental and human health risks. -
Pruitt Science Rule Seen Undermining EPA's 'War On Lead'
May 8, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has declared a "war on lead," and is also leading an assault on so-called "secret science." -
Pruitt Meets, Disappoints Families Harmed By Paint Stripper
May 8, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt met today with the families of three men who were killed by a paint-stripping chemical that the Obama administration sought to ban from commercial use. -
FDA Mulls More Resources for Little-Monitored Cosmetics Industry
May 8, 2018 | Bloomberg
By Lauren Coleman-Lochner and Anne Riley Moffat
America’s quest for the Fountain of Youth never dries up, and the ever-more-advanced elixirs and makeup hitting shelves could use some more monitoring, Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said. -
3 States Fight for Cities in Suits Against Oil Giants
May 8, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Anne C. Mulkern
California, New Jersey and Washington want to fight for two California cities suing oil companies for damages related to climate change. -
DOE Loan Guarantee Programs Hit Hard in White House Rescissions Package
May 8, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Anthony Andragna
More than $5 billion in Energy Department loan guarantee programs for clean energy and vehicle technologies would be cut under a $15 billion rescissions request unveiled today by the White House. -
Regulators Reject Dominion’s Renewable Energy Proposal
May 8, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
State regulators are rejecting Dominion Energy’s plan to offer 100 percent renewable energy plans to its big customers, saying the electric monopoly’s proposal isn’t fair or reasonable. -
BP's North Slope Gas Sales Agreement Lifts LNG Megaproject
May 8, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
One of Alaska's three major energy companies has signed a historic agreement to sell its massive gas holdings to the Alaska Gasline Development Corp., a state-owned entity that's proposing to build a $43 billion Alaska liquefied natural gas project. -
AAR, NS Seek Flexibility in Rail Automation Regs
May 8, 2018 | Progressive Rail Roading
The Association of American Railroads (AAR) is calling on the U.S. Department of Transportation to take a "supportive regulatory approach" to how railroads will use automation technology. -
Maryland to Other States: Stop Sending Us Your Dirty Air
May 8, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Kris Maher
From a grassy hilltop in western Maryland, a high-tech spying operation tracks the source of pollution and ozone coming into the state.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump’s Tweets Distract Us From the Biggest Scandal of All
May 8, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Katrina vanden Heuvel
Scandal is the hallmark of the Trump administration, which increasingly seems to be rotting, like the proverbial fish, from the head down. President Trump himself daily serves up everything from the salacious to the ominous. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke blows $12,000 to charter a private plane to fly from Las Vegas to Montana. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin takes a military plane to Kentucky and watches the solar eclipse. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, whose resignation should have been accepted months ago, is a standing punch line, blowing $43,000 for a private phone booth, flying first-class, handing out raises to cronies, exiling those who question him, all the while proclaiming his virtue. The media feeds on this. Not surprisingly, Democrats are talking about resuscitating their “culture of corruption” campaign theme from 2006.
The spectacle is appalling but focusing on it is mistaken. Just as Trump’s daily tweet rages obscure the real menace he poses, the unending stream of scandals involving Trump appointees diverts attention from the truly pernicious corruption of the administration. At a time when big money pervades our politics, this is the ultimate “pay for play” administration. What it has actually gotten done — primarily deregulation and tax cuts — benefits the few at the expense of the many, particularly the dispossessed and distressed whom Trump claims to champion.
The true scandal of Pruitt, for example, isn’t his sordid personal grotesqueries. It is, as actor and environmentalist Robert Redford pointed out, his utter contempt for the mission of the EPA, instead turning it from an agency dedicated to protecting our air, water and health into one serving the interests and profits of Big Oil and other industries.
Pruitt’s top deputy in the EPA toxic chemical unit, Nancy B. Beck, is a former executive of the American Chemistry Council. She has spearheaded a process that is reversing or weakening regulation on toxic chemicals such as the pesticide chlorpyrifos, essentially condemning more American children to unnecessary brain damage. Dow Chemical, which makes chlorpyrifos, contributed $1 million to Trump’s inaugural festivities. And now, big donors like the Koch brothers celebrate the regulatory rollbacks they have been able to achieve, such as a hold on safeguards that limit the amount of mercury, arsenic and other toxic chemicals.
Or consider that Robert Murray, CEO of Murray Energy, donated $300,000 personally to Trump’s inaugural; the company chipped in $1 million to Trump’s super PAC. Murray’s lead lobbyist — Andrew Wheeler — is now Pruitt’s deputy. If Pruitt’s risible peculation finally brings him down, Wheeler is likely to take his place. The rollback of basic environmental protections will continue; the denial of climate change remains unshaken.
Trump set out to push what he called an historic effort for deregulation, appointing lobbyists and revolving-door industry officials to lead his “regulatory reform task forces.” There is no shame. As ProPublica reported: “At least 187 Trump political appointees have been federal lobbyists, and . . . many are now overseeing the industries they once lobbied on behalf of. We’ve also discovered ethics waivers that allow Trump staffers to work on subjects in which they have financial conflicts of interest.”
Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, whom Trump named to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, raised eyebrows for telling a group of bankers and lobbyists that money talks, as if they needed to hear that. As a congressman, he said, he refused to meet with lobbyists unless they had contributed to his congressional campaigns. He offered this advice while mobilizing them to support his efforts to disembowel the CFPB, which since its inception in 2011 has recovered more than $12 billion for 29 million consumers who had been fleeced in credit-card or other financial scams. Upon being named head of the CFPB, he put a halt on hiring, stopped collecting fines, suspended rulemaking and ordered all active investigations reviewed. He canceled an investigation to a South Carolina payday lender that had previously donated to his congressional campaigns, and moved to suspend or weaken regulations of payday lenders, auto lenders and others preying on consumers.
This pattern repeats itself throughout the administration — most notably, in what Trump and Republicans consider their major accomplishment: the notorious tax deal. As Republicans admitted openly, they had to pass it or their donors would not answer their phone calls. Not surprisingly, the richest 1 percent will end up with some 83 percent of the benefit. And instead of a surge in investment, companies have largely used their tax breaks — as was predictable and predicted — for stock buybacks that benefit investors and CEOs with their stock options.
Trump, of course, campaigned on promises to “drain the swamp” in Washington. But the promise was a classic bait-and-switch. Trump views “the swamp” not as the entrenched interests and big money that have cleaned up by rigging the rules; he views the swamp as the public servants who labor to enforce the laws, helping to protect workers, consumers and the environment. “We have begun a historic program to reduce the regulations that are crushing our economy — crushing,” Trump said. “We’re going to put the regulations industry out of work and out of business.” When Stephen K. Bannon boasted about dismantling the administrative state, he was simply advertising to the predators that Trump would take the cops off the corporate beat. As Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva (Ariz.), the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, summarized: “This isn’t about increasing taxpayer returns, it’s about looting public resources, opening up more of everything for drilling, charging the industry less and pretending it’s all coming from outside experts.”
The serial scandals of top administration officials are villainous. But the deeper corruption of this administration is in plain sight. Trump and his aides are traducing a government and civil service already compromised by big money and entrenched interests. And the damage they are doing to everyday Americans is far more costly than the millions they make off with for themselves.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-tweets-distract-us-from-the-biggest-scandal-of-all/2018/05/08/0212817e-520a-11e8-9c91-7dab596e8252_story.html?utm_term=.8fdee8f25320
-
Science — The Hidden Gem at the Heart of the EPA and Why You Should Support It
May 8, 2018 | Union of Concerned Scientists (Blog)
By Robert Kavlock
The role of science in EPA decision-making might, in the vocabulary of former President George W. Bush, be the most “misunderestimated” part of the EPA’s job. Although their work is the foundation of virtually every EPA decision—from regulatory protections to reviews of new chemicals to Superfund cleanups—agency scientists have labored for years under the radar. Career and political professionals appreciate and routinely rely on their work, but their invaluable contributions remain largely invisible.
Not any longer. Scott Pruitt’s obvious distaste for science has pushed EPA science into the headlines. We’ve gone from a norm in which a top-ranking EPA science policy figure was on virtual speed dial to the administrator to a Pruitt-era multi-faceted attack on the scientists themselves. Initially Pruitt ignored them, then tried to defund them, and is now attempting to hobble their work.An attempt to slash the EPA’s Science and Technology Account
Let’s start with the 2019 Trump/Pruitt proposed budget, which is virtually identical to their 2018 proposal that was fortunately soundly rejected by the Congress. The 2019 budget would cut the EPA’s Science and Technology budget by 49%. The specifics—all programs funded by the S&T Account that President Trump proposes cutting—illustrate the insult to the health and safety of the American public.A 67% cut to the “Air and Energy” account that looks at how air pollution damages our health and well-being. This is essential information as the EPA decides which pollutants must be reduced and at what levels, and prepares the country to respond to climate change. The Trump budget would ax these programs despite analysis showing that since 1990 the American public has reaped clean air benefits to the tune of $2 trillion compared to estimated costs of $65 billion. Need one good example? This program helps advance the development and use of lower-cost, portable, and user-friendly monitoring devicesindividuals can use in their own communities to find out what they and their families are breathing. Why cripple one of the EPA’s biggest public health success stories when we actually need to be investing more in our clean air?A 37% cut in “Safe and Sustainable Water Resources” to protect the lakes, streams, and rivers across our country from which we get drinking water and where we fish, swim, and boat. This research is an essential part of making sure water bodies are healthy, that valuable water isn’t overwhelmed by pollution from factories and other industrial processes. You only have to look at the role of EPA scientists in monitoring and evaluating algae blooms in Toledo, Ohio that endangered drinking water for millions of people, or Flint, Michigan’s problems with lead in drinking water to understand why this account should be funded at even greater levels than it is today.A 61% cut in “Research on Sustainable Communities.” Cities and states across the country rely on the research and planning tools developed in this program as they go about their jobs assuring good environmental and health outcomes. This research also develops and demonstrates new and improved techniques for environmental protection. For example, program researchers found a way to estimate how drinking water, food, dust, soil and air contribute to blood lead levels in infants and young children.A 34% cut in “Research on Chemical Safety and Sustainability” to evaluate how thousands of chemicals, existing and under development, might affect people’s health and the environment. This research allows the EPA to develop the scientific knowledge, tools and models to conduct integrated, timely, and efficient chemical evaluations. Getting a bit wonky here—because I was personally involved in this effort and watched it grow from a concept to being the international leader in innovating approaches to chemical hazard: this account supports the EPA’s work in computational toxicology, which in turn helps the EPA take on the herculean task assigned it by the 2016 Lautenberg amendments to the bipartisan Toxic Substances Control Act to analyze possibly thousands of chemicals for potential risk. The tool integrates knowledge from biology, biotechnology, chemistry, and computer science to identify important biological processes that may be disrupted by the chemicals and thereby sets priorities for their review based on potential human health risks. Risking that program should be a non-starter.Completely eliminating Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Grants that support outside researchers for cutting edge work in all of the areas above.Political takeover of science
Scott Pruitt’s most recent attack on science at the EPA is a back-door attempt to institutionalize a very damaging idea that has failed to be enacted by Congress over multiple years. Pruitt is trying to railroad through a regulation that would throw out scientific studies used in setting EPA rules and other requirements unless the raw data on which the studies are based are made publicly available.
Why is this a terrible idea and threatening to public health? For five decades, EPA’s regulatory protections have relied on many thousands of health-related studies of pollutants, including epidemiological, human, and animal studies. Many examine the relationship between concentrations of various pollutants and their impacts on people’s health.
The raw data on which these studies are based often includes names, dates of birth and death, health, lifestyle information, and subjects’ locations—data that is personally damaging if released and has almost nothing to do with public understanding or the validity of the study’s results. Ethical and legal considerations rightly keep scientists from releasing such personal data. Restricting the use of the data cuts two ways, as often it is submitted by industry in support of its activities as well by groups that are arguing for more stringent regulatory controls. There are certainly ways to confirm independently the validity of the studies as has been done with two keystone air quality studies by the Health Effects Institute (HEI), an organization jointly funded by EPA and the industry.
The Pruitt proposal creates other problems as well: so much time has passed since the leading studies of the impacts of air pollution were compiled in the early 1990s that it would be logistically difficult to retrieve and redact all of the underlying data; this would effectively prevent the use of the most authoritative data available on the impacts of air pollution.
Put in plainer language, Pruitt’s latest attack on science is not good for anyone—industry or the general public.Attacks on science hit locally
There are many practical, local examples of why cutting science funding is so pernicious and bad for everyone. The EPA, for example, plays a role in the cleanup of Anchorage, Alaska’s Elmendorf Air Force Base and for that had the assistance of another federal body, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), which examined blood samples taken from residents at the base. ATSDR concluded on the basis of science that lead exposure there did not pose a health hazard. There is no way to make such determinations without science and data, in this case medical data such as blood sample test results, which are critical in drawing valid conclusions as to whether regulated facilities, such as Superfund cleanup sites, cause health effects in nearby communities.
Another notable example is the remote native village of Kivalina in Northwestern Alaska, which is downstream from Red Dog Mine. Unsurprisingly, Kivalina residents are worried about how mining activities might threaten their health by contaminating subsistence foods from their hunting and gathering activities. Personal medical data taken from Kivalina residents was analyzed to determine that Kivalina residents and their food are unlikely to be at risk. The same form of analysis of environmental impacts has been used at other sites such as the long-running cleanup efforts of asbestos contamination in Libby, Montana.
The EPA’s seminal achievements over almost 50 years include removing lead from gasoline; reducing acid rain to improve water quality; reducing second-hand smoke exposure; improving vehicle efficiency and emission controls; and encouraging a shift to rethinking of wastes as materials.
Evaluating and acting on science—the best available science—and having the funding to ensure science expertise is on tap at the EPA is the linchpin to any one of these. Congress and the American public should tell Pruitt to back off from his attacks on EPA science and make sure the agency has the funding it needs to do its job.
Robert Kavlock is the former Acting Assistant Administrator for the EPA Office of Research and Development and an EPA Science Advisor (retired). He is currently a member of the Environmental Protection Network, a nonprofit organization of EPA alumni working to protect the agency’s progress toward clean air, water, land and climate protections.
https://blog.ucsusa.org/guest-commentary/science-the-hidden-gem-at-the-heart-of-the-epa-and-why-you-should-support-it
-
More Groups Demand Wider Scrutiny of Pruitt's Science Rule
May 8, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Not only must EPA hold a public hearing on a controversial proposal to overhaul its handling of scientific research, but it must also run the plan past two key advisory committees, an advocacy group made up mainly of former agency employees argues in newly filed comments.
Under a 1978 law that apples to any proposed "criteria document," EPA must submit the draft rule to the Science Advisory Board for review, according to the filing released late yesterday by the Environmental Protection Network.
And because the proposed rule would amend air quality criteria for lead and particulate matter, EPA must also give the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee the opportunity to weigh in, two of the group's leaders said in the comments.
If the committee recommends any changes, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt must consider those recommendations and offer "a reasonable explanation" if he opts against adopting them.
"EPA cannot proceed with this action until these requirements are satisfied," they added in citing the need for the committee's review.
EPA press aides did not reply to an emailed request for comment this morning on that score.
The draft rule, published early last week in the Federal Register, would effectively bar EPA from using scientific studies in crafting significant new regulations unless the underlying data and models are "publicly available in a manner sufficient for validation and analysis."
While Pruitt has touted the proposal as a means of boosting public confidence in EPA regulatory decisions, critics say it's intended to block the agency from tapping valid research that might justify the need for stronger rules to protect public health and the environment.
Dozens of advocacy groups and Democratic elected officials have also called for an extension of the current 30-day public comment period by anywhere from two to five months.
The existing timetable will make it difficult to fully analyze and address "these far-reaching and long-lasting adverse impacts of this rule on the nation's air quality," the American Lung Association said in one such request last week.
In its own missive, the Environmental Protection Network sought a 90-day comment period, adding that EPA must also hold a public hearing in light of the potential ramifications for the Clean Air Act.
The group, founded early last year, is made primarily of ex-EPA staffers but also includes former state government employees, a spokeswoman said this morning. It has already released two critical analyses of the draft rule.
In arguing that two prominent EPA advisory panels also have a statutory role to play in evaluating the proposal, it has added to a growing chorus of objections.
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee is a seven-member panel that provides outside expertise to EPA during statutorily required reviews of the air quality standards for a half-dozen "criteria" pollutants named in the Clean Air Act.
Its input is needed in the case because EPA wants to bypass two court rulings that previously upheld the agency's prerogative to tap "non-public data" in setting standards for airborne lead and particulate matter.
The agency is now "proposing to exercise its discretionary authority to establish a policy that would preclude it from using such data in future regulatory actions," according to a footnote in the proposed rule that cites those two rulings, both by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The Science Advisory Board, which currently has 44 members, offers advice to EPA on a variety of topics. Under the 1978 law, known as the Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization Act, Pruitt must give the board the chance to assess "any proposed criteria document, standard, limitation, or regulation," the Environmental Protection Network said in its comments.
While the board can provide feedback on the proposal, however, Pruitt doesn't need its approval to move forward, the network said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/05/08/stories/1060081135
-
California Judge Affirms Ruling for Coffee Cancer Warnings
May 7, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times, The Washington Post)
A court ruling that gave coffee drinkers a jolt earlier this year was finalized Monday when a Los Angeles judge said coffee sold in California must carry cancer warnings.
Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle said Starbucks Corp. and other roasters and retailers failed to show that benefits from drinking coffee outweighed any risks from a carcinogen that is a byproduct of the roasting process. He had tentatively made the same written decision in March.
A nonprofit group sued about 90 coffee companies, including Keurig Green Mountain Inc. and Peet's Operating Co. Inc., under a state law that requires warnings on products and in places where chemicals that can cause cancer are present.
The coffee industry did not deny that the chemical acrylamide was found in coffee. But they argued it was at harmless levels and their product should be exempt from the law because the chemical results naturally from cooking necessary for flavor.
ADVERTISEMENT
The final ruling clears the way for the Council for Education and Research on Toxics to seek a permanent injunction that would either lead to ominous warning labels or a commitment by the industry to remove the chemical from their product — as the potato chip industry did years ago when sued by the same group.
Attorney Raphael Metzger, who represents the nonprofit, said he hopes mediation will lead to some settlement of the case that has been brewing for eight years. If no agreement is reached, another phase of trial would determine civil penalties as high as $2,500 per person exposed each day since the suit was filed in 2010.
"In all the years I've been practicing, I've never had a case that got to this point," Metzger said. "They've lost all their defenses and we proved our case. The only issues left are the nature and form of the injunction and the amount of penalties to be assessed. It's not a pretty place for them to be."
Berle had ruled about two years ago against the industry's best defense before issuing the tentative decision March 29 that rejected a secondary defense.
At the time, the coffee industry said it was considering all options, including appeals. It said that cancer warnings would be misleading and said numerous studies have shown health benefits of drinking coffee.
The industry and lawyers in the case did not immediately reply to an email seeking comment sent after business hours.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/05/07/us/ap-us-coffee-cancer-lawsuit.html
-
Environmentalists Petition EPA for PFOA, PFAS Rules
May 8, 2018 | Inside EPA
An Ohio environmental group has formally petitioned EPA to regulate perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and other perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) levels in surface water and drinking water, adding to calls from lawmakers and the Defense Department (DOD) for federal oversight of the substances blamed for environmental and human health risks.
The Ohio Environmental Council (OEC) in an April 20 petition urges EPA to craft five standards limiting PFOA and PFAS contamination in water, and argues that its petition should serve as a federal baseline for any actions that may be considered in an upcoming meeting between EPA and states on the emerging contaminants.
“By creating a federal baseline that protects the Waters of the United States and drinking water supplies from PFOA and PFAS, the EPA would demonstrate the national leadership Administrator [Scott] Pruitt seeks,” the petition says.
“[T]he OEC petitions the EPA to take immediate action to propose, allow for public comment, and promulgate standards and regulations related to perfluoroalkyl substances under the” Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
OEC is asking EPA to develop CWA water quality criteria and SDWA drinking water standards for PFOA of 0.014 micrograms per liter (ug/L) and similar limits for PFAS at 0.07 ug/L. EPA water quality criteria are guidances that states can use to set enforceable water quality standards. The advocates are also asking EPA to step in and set a water quality standard for the Ohio River that includes Water Quality Criteria at 0.014 micrograms per liter for PFOA and 0.07 micrograms per liter for PFAS.
The group recommends the use of 0.014 ug/L for PFOA rather than the 0.07 ug/L level in EPA's health advisory for the chemical because New Jersey, the first state to set a drinking water standard for PFOA, determined a more stringent standard than EPA's advisory level was necessary.
The formal petition comes as a host of entities including DOD and federal lawmakers are pressing EPA to develop standards regulating the substances, citing health concerns and a growing patchwork of state rules that is complicating cleanups.
EPA officials have said the agency is evaluating PFOA and another common PFAS, perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), for possible drinking water regulation but also warned that such regulation requires a lengthy process.
EPA has invited state regulators to a May 22-23 PFAS National Leadership Summit in Washington, D.C. EPA and other federal agencies have been under pressure from states to offer more clarity and uniformity on addressing PFAS.
While EPA in 2016 set health advisory levels for PFOA and PFOS at 70 parts per trillion, or 0.07 ug/L, the agency stopped short of setting an enforceable drinking water standard and provided limited guidance to states and public water systems on how to use the advisory levels.
In the petition OEC notes that communities have sought to address PFAS and PFOA contamination through lawsuits but that existing technology could allow regulators to prevent problems before they occur.
“State governments and customers of public water systems should not need to resort to bringing post-injury statutory and common law claims against polluting companies that damage their health and well-being,” petitioners say. “The public health threat itself should be controlled and eliminated before harm occurs.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/environmentalists-petition-epa-pfoa-pfas-rules
-
Pruitt Science Rule Seen Undermining EPA's 'War On Lead'
May 8, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has declared a "war on lead," and is also leading an assault on so-called "secret science."
His critics say the two initiatives are at war with each other.
Last month, Pruitt proposed a science transparency rule that would effectively bar EPA from using studies in crafting significant regulations unless the underlying data "are publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation."
If that rule is finalized, health advocates say, it could bar EPA from considering many studies that prove threats posed by lead.
"This is waging war on the war on lead," said Erik Olson, who directs the Natural Resources Defense Council's health program.
Pruitt proposed the science proposal as EPA is working to rewrite standards for lead in dust, paint and drinking water. It's unclear whether the proposed "transparency" rule would be finalized in time to be in effect for current lead rewrites, but it could still come into play for future decisions about Superfund sites contaminated with lead, as well as future lead air standards that must be rewritten every five years.
Lead is a potent neurotoxin that can be especially harmful to children. Long-term exposure can damage brain development, impair muscle coordination, and affect nervous systems, kidneys and hearing.
But much of the research on lead's health effects is decades old and involved studying children with extremely high lead levels in their blood. Independently validating those studies would be unethical and therefore impossible, advocates say, because it would require exposing kids to higher doses of the toxin than they currently encounter.
"If this is retrospective, it would be a disaster," said Ronnie Levin, a former EPA staffer who manages the water and health program at Harvard University's T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
"They could end up saying, 'We don't have to eliminate exposure because we don't have evidence that lead is bad.'"
Bruce Lanphear, a researcher at Simon Fraser University who authored many pivotal lead studies in the 1990s, called the science rule "insane."
"If this is retroactive," he said, "it would be a clear attempt to roll back regulations by knocking out the vast majority of research."
EPA failed to respond to requests for comment. But Pruitt has made reducing lead risk a priority for his agency in 2018, telling Congress multiple times he wants to wage a "war on lead."
Erik Olson. Natural Resources Defense Council
The science proposal asks the public to weigh in on whether older studies should be grandfathered in, and whether certain types of regulations should be exempt from the requirements.
NRDC's Olson said he's skeptical EPA would exempt lead regulations or older studies from the rule, noting that the Trump administration is industry-friendly.
"A lot of these studies about the health effects of lead, the chemical industry has been targeting for a long time," he said. "Pruitt continues to do the bidding of industry in other actions, so I'm skeptical that this would be any different."
Even if older studies could still be considered under the "transparency" rule, proposed data-sharing requirements in the rule also raise questions about how many researchers could comply.
Epidemiological studies about lead often rely on personal data that researchers might be uncomfortable sharing with the public or might be prohibited from sharing under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
In its proposal, EPA asks for comment about how it could implement a final rule that would be "consistent with statutory requirements for protection of privacy and confidentiality of research participants."
Lanphear said there is nothing wrong, on its face, with increasing data transparency. The National Institutes of Health already requires recipients of grants larger than $500,000 to share data with the agency.
Bruce Lanphear. Simon Fraser University
But, he notes, researchers know going into those grants that they'll need to set aside time and funds to go through data and remove any identifying information about study subjects. EPA's proposal, by contrast, would amount to an unfunded mandate targeting any number of studies, he said.
He also said he is skeptical of EPA's intentions, in part because the agency is not considering requiring similar transparency from chemical companies about, for example, the science proving pesticides are safe to use.
"In a less insane world, there is nothing wrong with data sharing," he said. "As it is, I can only see the reasoning behind this as meaning to gum up the system so you can't write new regulations and might have to undo old ones."Could computer models be trashed?
The proposed science rule wouldn't just have the potential to remove studies from EPA consideration; it could also eliminate computer models the agency uses to determine childhood lead exposure.
Computer models integrate multiple studies at one time, and if any individual study did not comply with the regulation, the whole model could be thrown out, warned Doreen Cantor Paster, former branch chief for EPA's lead paint program.
Models determining how much lead dust toddlers typically ingest are based on studies of how many hours toddlers are awake, how much of that time they would be crawling, how often they stick a hand in their mouth, how much lead dust might be on their hands and how that might affect their health.
The entire model would be "interrupted," Paster said, "if any given study for any given step was ruled out of bounds."
"These models are important for almost everything EPA does on lead," she said.
While those studying the health impacts of lead might be willing to comply with new transparency standards to allow EPA to use their data, the same might not be the case for those working in other fields, like behavioral science, said Betsy Southerland, who resigned in protest last year from her post leading EPA's Office of Water's Office of Science and Technology.
Researchers from other countries or working in other fields may not be aware of new EPA requirements or willing to tailor their work to them.
"There are researchers that wouldn't be dependent on EPA to use their science that wouldn't want to take the added time and effort," she said.
Ultimately, the proposed transparency rule could result in different federal standards for lead at different agencies.
A few years ago, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lowered its "reference level" for when lead in blood is considered elevated to 5 micrograms per deciliter.
In response, the Department of Housing and Urban Development rewrote its regulation for lead paint in public housing to bring it in line with the CDC's recommendation.
But EPA is still catching up. The agency is working to rewrite its standard for lead paint in private homes, which has not yet been proposed. If the science transparency rule is finalized first, Paster said, EPA and HUD might rely on completely different data to regulate the same kind of lead exposure.
"You could conceivably get different hazard levels for two different types of housing," she said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/05/08/stories/1060081099
-
Pruitt Meets, Disappoints Families Harmed By Paint Stripper
May 8, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt met today with the families of three men who were killed by a paint-stripping chemical that the Obama administration sought to ban from commercial use.
Drew Wynne and Joshua Atkins, both 31, and Kevin Hartley, 21, all died since last October while working with paint strippers containing methylene chloride.
The families sat down in the administrator's Washington office for about 35 minutes with Pruitt; Ryan Jackson, his chief of staff; Nancy Beck, the top political appointee in EPA's chemicals office; and two other aides, according to Brian Wynne, Drew Wynne's older brother.
They told the EPA leaders about how they lost their loved ones and pressed Pruitt to finalize an effective ban on the chemical proposed by the Obama EPA.
The previous administration moved to require methylene chloride to be distributed in 55-gallon drums, an effort to remove the toxic chemical from store shelves. But under Pruitt's leadership, EPA repeatedly pushed back the date the rule would take effect, and late last year, the Trump administration moved the regulation into its "long-term" action category for which there is no implementation date.
The response the families got from Pruitt was disappointing, Brian Wynne argued.
"We appreciate him meeting with us," he said. "But we're not satisfied with what we got out of it. And we made that very clear. Anything short of a ban is not going to work for us."
Brian Wynne pledged to continue pressing "the issue from a legislative angle and from a retail angle" and predicted that "we're going to get a ban very soon."
Brian Wynne called E&E News after meeting with Pruitt's team and a lawmaker who represents his family, Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina. Scott was one of three Republican lawmakers from the Palmetto State who urged Pruitt earlier this year to restrict the sale of methylene chloride, which has killed more than 50 people in the last 35 years.
The Wynne family is also urging Lowe's, where Drew Wynne bought the paint stripper that killed him, and other home improvement retailers to phase out sales of potentially deadly methylene-chloride-containing products (Greenwire, March 29).
Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers have been pressuring EPA to act, too. Pruitt faced questions about methylene chloride in both of his House budget appearances last month.
Pruitt told lawmakers then: "I take this issue very seriously."
When pressed for a timeline on when EPA would decide on the Obama administration proposal, he said, "It kind of depends on the volume of comments. But I would imagine that it's something that we can do this year."
Pruitt reiterated that commitment in today's meeting, which did little to satisfy Brian Wynne.
"Soon is not acceptable when people are dying," he said.
EPA didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on the meeting, which was arranged with the help of the public health advocacy group Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/05/08/stories/1060081133
-
FDA Mulls More Resources for Little-Monitored Cosmetics Industry
May 8, 2018 | Bloomberg
By Lauren Coleman-Lochner and Anne Riley Moffat
America’s quest for the Fountain of Youth never dries up, and the ever-more-advanced elixirs and makeup hitting shelves could use some more monitoring, Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said.
“I’ve looked within our own budget, and we’ll probably be channeling some more of our own resources internally into the cosmetics program,” Gottlieb said in an interview Monday at Bloomberg headquarters in New York. “It’s a small program in FDA, and the industry is growing very, very large, and many more of the cosmetics have active ingredients that have drug-like qualities associated with them. So there’s more sophistication in cosmetics; there’s also potentially more risk.”
Even in today’s regulation-averse climate, the rapid growth of the cosmetic industry and the often-mysterious nature of ingredients have prompted calls for more scrutiny. Senators Orrin Hatch, Susan Collins and Dianne Feinstein have introduced federal bills that would expand regulation of the category, while more than a dozen states have rules requiring ingredient disclosure or prohibiting certain substances, according to health and environmental coalition Safer States.Cosmetic Make-Over
Beauty and personal care sales continue to swell in the U.S.
Source: Euromonitor
U.S. sales of beauty and personal-care products grew more than 16 percent to $86 billion in the five years through 2017, according to Euromonitor. Responsible for their oversight at the FDA are about 25 workers, along with 30 who monitor color additives in cosmetics and other products. The FDA defines cosmetics as “products intended to cleanse or beautify,” including items like shampoo, skin creams and deodorants. Sunscreen, acne ointment and similar products meant to “treat or prevent disease” are regulated as drugs, though there is some overlap.
Related: Calorie Counts That Started Monday Not a Partisan Issue, FDA Says
As personal-care products get more complex, Gottlieb said the FDA has previously discussed moving the cosmetics program to the agency’s drug division, where it could have more resources. “The proximity to the drug program would have certain synergies,” he said.
Depending upon what happens in Congress, a move like that could still be still be on the table, Gottlieb said.
“Making sure that it’s on the right long-term footing is important to me,” he said of the cosmetics program. “As the industry gets more complex and as the products themselves become more complex, it does create the potential for more risk and so we want to be vigilant here.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-08/fda-mulls-more-resources-for-little-monitored-cosmetics-industry
-
3 States Fight for Cities in Suits Against Oil Giants
May 8, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Anne C. Mulkern
California, New Jersey and Washington want to fight for two California cities suing oil companies for damages related to climate change.
The three states have asked a court for permission to file an amicus brief, or legal argument in support of San Francisco and Oakland in their suits against BP PLC, Chevron Corp., Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell PLC and ConocoPhillips.
The states in separate cases argue that the oil companies' products cause sea-level rise and other damages, creating a public nuisance. The cases are before Judge William Alsup in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
"States have an interest in the protection of the health and welfare of their residents and the environment, which are profoundly threatened by climate change," the three states said in a court filing last week. "Given the interstate and global nature of climate change and its causes, Amici States have a strong interest in the development and application of state and federal common law to abate the harms caused within their jurisdictions by fossil fuels development elsewhere.
"Seeking abatement of environmental harms caused by conduct outside the states' jurisdiction is a textbook example of common law public nuisance," they added.
The San Francisco and Oakland suits are among several cases pitting municipalities against oil companies. In California, San Mateo County and Marin County in the San Francisco Bay Area; Imperial Beach in San Diego County; and Santa Cruz and Santa Cruz County also are suing multiple oil interests. In addition, Boulder, Boulder County and San Miguel County in Colorado sued Suncor Energy Inc. and Exxon Mobil, demanding "past and future damages" for warming impacts.
California, New Jersey and Washington with their new filing face off against 15 states supporting the oil companies: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Those states asked for permission to file amicus briefs, and Alsup last week granted approval.
The 15 states argue that allowing the cases to advance "would disrupt carefully calibrated state regulatory schemes devised by politically accountable officials." The courts shouldn't allow the suits to confound state and federal oversight "by establishing emissions policy (or, as is more likely, multiple conflicting emissions policies) on a piecemeal, ad hoc, case-by-case basis."
California, New Jersey and Washington in their legal filing noted their history fighting in climate cases.
"California and New Jersey brought state and federal common law public nuisance claims against several major electric utilities based on their contribution to climate change and litigated their claims to the United States Supreme Court," they said.
They cited their role in American Electric Power Co. Inc. v. Connecticut, a case that sought to limit utilities' greenhouse gas emissions. That case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that corporations cannot be sued for greenhouse gas emissions because EPA regulates those through the Clean Air Act.
"In addition, Amicus California brought state and federal common law public nuisance claims against the six largest global automobile manufacturers based on their contribution to climate change," California, New Jersey and Washington said in their filing. It cited a 2007 case against General Motors Corp.State flexibility at stake?
The cities in their court filing sought to counteract arguments made in an earlier filing from the states supporting oil companies. Indiana, leading the 15 states, said that the cities' lawsuits jeopardized a system of "cooperative federalism," where the federal government creates federal standards and leaves the implementation to the states.
"States use their political bodies to secure environmental benefits for their citizens without sacrificing their livelihoods, and each does so in a different fashion," Indiana argued. "A plan to modify greenhouse gas emissions that is acceptable to California or Vermont may be unacceptable to Indiana, Georgia, or Texas."
The California, New Jersey and Washington filing said the Indiana arguments were flawed. For example, it cited "the example of National Ambient Air Quality Standards ('NAAQS'), pursuant to which States adopt their own State Implementation Plans. ... Current NAAQS standards, however, do not regulate greenhouse gas emissions, much less levels of fossil fuel production."
Indiana also cited state climate programs led by states that are not part of the 15-state alliance supporting oil companies. Those include the Western States Climate Initiative, of which California and Washington are part, the 10-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and California's greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program.
"Indiana's examples miss the mark, because Amici States and others did not establish these programs to implement the Clean Air Act," California, New Jersey and Washington said. "Each program is a creation of state law."
These state laws also aren't threatened by the suits from San Francisco and Oakland seeking abatement from sea-level rise harms, California and the others said.
Meanwhile, the oil companies have filed motions to dismiss the cases. The cities have filed documents in response. Alsup will hear arguments on May 24.
Oakland and San Francisco in a filing rebutted several oil company arguments that the cases should be dismissed because they lack jurisdiction. Exxon Mobil, which is based in Texas, is among those making that contention.
Exxon has many ties to the Golden State, the filing said.
"Exxon does business in California and has been registered to do business in California since 1972," it said. "Exxon, through its ExxonMobil Production Company, which apparently is not a separate legal entity, has offices in California and produces oil in California."
In addition, the Texas company through its subsidiaries and agents owns or operates port facilities in California, the filing said. Until 2016, Exxon through agents owned and operated the Torrance refinery in Los Angeles County, Calif., and the Benicia refinery in the San Francisco area for 30 years until 2000. Through agents, it said, "Exxon transports crude oil from Alaska to California that is used to make fossil fuel products."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/05/08/stories/1060081077
-
DOE Loan Guarantee Programs Hit Hard in White House Rescissions Package
May 8, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Anthony Andragna
More than $5 billion in Energy Department loan guarantee programs for clean energy and vehicle technologies would be cut under a $15 billion rescissions request unveiled today by the White House.
The proposal would cut $684 million from clean energy loan guarantee programs, on top of the $4.33 billion in proposed cuts to Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing loan program already announcedby the Trump administration.
"This proposed rescission would eliminate subsidy amounts that are inconsistent with the President's policies," the proposal says of cutting from the loan guarantee programs.
In addition, the package would cut $10 million in water quality research grants, which the proposal says "are duplicative with other Federal programs."
WHAT'S NEXT: The package is expected to easily pass the House but faces a less certain fate in the Senate.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Regulators Reject Dominion’s Renewable Energy Proposal
May 8, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
State regulators are rejecting Dominion Energy’s plan to offer 100 percent renewable energy plans to its big customers, saying the electric monopoly’s proposal isn’t fair or reasonable.
The State Corporation Commission issued a ruling Monday saying Dominion’s proposed renewable plan would give the company “extraordinary discretion” in setting prices.
The ruling is a win for third-party energy providers who are hoping to grow their share of business in Virginia.
State law allows customers to shop around for renewable energy as long as their electric utility doesn’t offer an approved 100 percent renewable plan. Dominion is the state’s largest electric utility. The second largest, Appalachian Power, is also seeking approval of a 100 percent renewable energy plan.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/regulators-reject-dominions-renewable-energy-proposal/2018/05/08/40fda748-5290-11e8-a6d4-ca1d035642ce_story.html?utm_term=.cce7f50451e9
-
BP's North Slope Gas Sales Agreement Lifts LNG Megaproject
May 8, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
One of Alaska's three major energy companies has signed a historic agreement to sell its massive gas holdings to the Alaska Gasline Development Corp., a state-owned entity that's proposing to build a $43 billion Alaska liquefied natural gas project.
BP Alaska and AGDC announced the agreement yesterday to sell the company's gas reserves located at the state's North Slope Prudhoe Bay and Point Thomson sites. The parties are not disclosing how much the state would pay for the gas.
Alaska's North Slope holds roughly 34 trillion cubic feet of gas, which is owned by BP PLC, ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil Corp. BP, which operates the Prudhoe Bay oil field, owns a 26 percent share of the gas at Prudhoe Bay and a 32 percent share of the nearby Point Thomson field.
The BP-Alaska agreement marked the first time that a company has signed a pact to sell its gas into the Alaska LNG project. That proposed megaproject would consist of a gas treatment plant on the North Slope, an 800-mile pipeline through the heart of the state, and a liquefaction and export facility in Nikiski south of Anchorage.
In signing the agreement with Alaska, BP officials voiced support for the state gas line project. "We are very pleased to be part of the State's vision to bring Alaskan natural gas to new and expanding markets globally," BP CEO Bob Dudley said in a statement. "We think this is good for the state, good for BP and good for the environment."
The pact also won praise from Alaska Gov. Bill Walker (I), a major champion of a state-owned gas project. "This agreement means Alaskans are one step closer to finally monetizing the vast reserves of natural gas on the North Slope," Walker said. "The end result will be thousands of jobs, a significant reduction in energy costs to power homes and businesses, and cleaner air."
A small portion of the natural gas would be sold to Alaska customers. But 75 percent of the fuel might be shipped to China under a nonbinding joint development agreement that Chinese companies signed last year with Alaska. The two sides are aiming to complete the agreement by the end of 2018. In the meantime, either party can withdraw from the deal at any time.
Under that tentative agreement, Bank of China Ltd. and CIC Capital Corp. would provide 75 percent of the funding — roughly $32 billion — to build the Alaska LNG project. The state would repay that loan by providing China Petrochemical Corp. with 75 percent of the LNG capacity of the Alaska pipeline for the length of the loan.
Alaska anticipates financing the remaining 25 percent of the pipeline costs — $11 billion — from financial investors, Alaska Native corporations, and state municipalities and residents. The state also could issue tax-exempt bonds or use general funds with legislative approval.
AGDC President Keith Meyer described the BP agreement as a major step in moving forward with the Alaska LNG project.
"We have secured the customers, we have progressed on the pipeline build with regulators and the finance community, and now we have a commitment that there will be gas to sell and put through the pipeline," Meyer said. "I look forward to continued negotiations to secure supply from other North Slope producers."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/05/08/stories/1060081071
-
AAR, NS Seek Flexibility in Rail Automation Regs
May 8, 2018 | Progressive Rail Roading
The Association of American Railroads (AAR) is calling on the U.S. Department of Transportation to take a "supportive regulatory approach" to how railroads will use automation technology.
The AAR's comments were submitted in response to the Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA) request for public comments on the potential benefits, costs, risks and challenges to implementing automated railroad operations.
The U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration made a similar request. AAR submitted its comments to both agencies, which are part of the U.S. Department of Transportation.
"While railroading in America is safer than ever, we are at an inflection point and further progress requires a paradigm shift," said AAR President and Chief Executive Officer Edward Hamberger said in a press release. "The Department of Transportation has encouraged the development and deployment of this game-changing technology in other transportation sectors, and we hope this is the beginning of an ongoing conversation about how it can be put to work across the world's best freight-rail network."
Hamberger noted that technology — such as automated track inspections and wayside detectors — already has yielded dramatic rail safety benefits. Additionally, positive train control is an automated backup system that will prevent accidents caused by human error, he said.
The AAR is asking the department to apply the same "regulatory approach with railroads that they have with the automation of trucks and cars," AAR officials said.
Meanwhile, Norfolk Southern Railway officials also submitted comments to the agencies.
While noting automation's benefits, NS also pointed out the greatest obstacle to automated technology's deployment is "lack of regulatory clarity, as well as current regulations that impede their implementation," company officials said in a press release.
NS urged the FRA to "affirmatively signal its willingness to embrace and encourage automation in the rail industry … and begin reviewing and removing regulations that impede innovation in favor of a performance-based regulatory scheme," company officials said.
Moreover, NS asked the FRA to follow the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's lead by providing clear and flexible guidance to enable railroads to pursue technology and affirm that "automation is not a risk to be contained, but rather a safety and efficiency-enhancing standard to which the industry should aspire."https://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/news/AAR-NS-seek-flexibility-in-rail-automation-regs--54609
-
Maryland to Other States: Stop Sending Us Your Dirty Air
May 8, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Kris Maher
From a grassy hilltop in western Maryland, a high-tech spying operation tracks the source of pollution and ozone coming into the state.
The state’s regulators use such automated air-monitoring stations to distinguish if pollutants are coming from cars or power plants. Combining the measurements with federal data, Maryland has analyzed the emissions of every coal-fired power plant east of the Mississippi River and identified 36 in five states as top contributors to Maryland’s smog-producing ozone.Clearing the AirNumber of days per year ozoneconcentrations in Maryland exceeded the2008 health standard for an 8-hour period.Source: Maryland Department of the EnvironmentNote: 2016 and 2017 figures are preliminary.Threshold is 75 parts per billion or more.
2004’06’08’10’12’14’160102030405060
“We are literally in a position where we can’t control ozone in our own state,” said Tad Aburn, director of Maryland’s Air & Radiation Administration. “The only thing we can do is try to force upwind states to reduce emissions.”
The Frostburg lab, set amid dairy farms and wind turbines, is helping to bolster Maryland’s argument in a multistate legal battle that coal-fired power plants in other states are to blame for ozone problems in Baltimore and elsewhere. The state’s air-monitoring effort also deploys airplanes, balloons and lasers.
Maryland, Connecticut, Delaware and New York have petitioned or sued the Environmental Protection Agency in the past several years to step in to cut emissions in the Midwest and Appalachia. The EPA, under both the Obama and Trump administrations, has declined to do so.
Levels of ozone and other pollutants have plunged over the past several decades, with stronger air regulations and the reductions in coal-fired power plants. At the same time, tighter federal air-quality standards have forced states to do more to lower ozone emissions.
East Coast states say they must spend more than their fair share because the air has already been polluted before it reaches them. States including Maryland—which has seven coal-fired power plants of its own—say that makes it tougher for them to comply with federal ozone standards.
An EPA spokeswoman said the agency believes existing provisions under the Clean Air Act will be effective at addressing remaining ozone issues between states.
Midwest power producers argue that federal rules and some issued by the state, such as a rule adopted last year by Pennsylvania to cut nitrogen oxides emissions, are already causing ozone levels to fall fast enough that states will be able meet the 70 parts per-billion standard that takes full effect in 2023.
“Our friends in the Northeast obviously disagree,” says Dave Flannery, with the Midwest Ozone Group, an advocacy group of power-generation and industrial companies.
On a recent day in Frostburg, the hilltop station registered ozone levels entering Maryland close to 70 parts per billion. As the morning progressed, the levels crept up elsewhere across the state, in some cases climbing from the single digits to 65 parts per billion. The causes include local sources like cars and Maryland’s own power plants, but also wind-borne pollutants from elsewhere.The air-monitoring station is packed with equipment that helps to measure ozone and other pollutants that drift into Maryland. PHOTO:KRIS MAHER/THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
“You can see day to day, and sometimes hour to hour, the plumes move from one place to another,” said Russ Dickerson, a professor at the University of Maryland who helps coordinate the state’s observations, which include ground-based lasers to detect the plumes.
Last year, air-monitoring stations in Baltimore exceeded the 70 parts per billion standard on six days. EPA has required Maryland to show that the city and two other areas will be below that standard by 2020, which will mean cutting local emissions. Maryland argues that its ozone would be reduced 2 to 5 parts per billion if upwind power plants in other states used pollution controls more often.
The fight has been heating up in the courts. Maryland sued the EPA last fall in federal court in Washington, D.C. In February, a federal judge separately ordered the EPA to respond to Connecticut’s petition to lower emissions at a Pennsylvania power plant.
In March, New York state filed its own petition with the EPA asking it to cut ozone in nine upwind states, mostly in the Midwest.
Maryland has done more than other states to pinpoint where its ozone is coming from, but industry experts say the state is overestimating levels of emissions from upwind states and that Maryland is likely to be in compliance in the future.
Under modeling by the Midwest Ozone Group, high levels of ozone in some areas of Maryland and other states would be lower if exceptional events such as forest fires were excluded from calculations and some coal-plant retirements were factored in.
“The emissions are reducing at a speed that no one ever in a million years suspected they would decline,” said Vince Brisini, director of environmental affairs at Olympus Power LLC, an owner of coal-burning power plants.
Mr. Aburn, the Maryland air regulator, acknowledged his state had made “huge progress” in meeting federal ozone standards, but that pollution coming in from other states remained a big problem. “We still have more work to do,” he said.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/maryland-to-other-states-stop-sending-us-your-dirty-air-1525771800?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested