Preview Newsletter
AM ACC Clips Report - September 28, 2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) First Trade War Casualties in Chemicals and Beyond
Sep 28, 2018 | ICIS
By Will Beacham
With $250bn in US trade tariffs now in place and $110bn from China, we are starting to see some early casualties in this trade war. -
(ACC Mentioned) Senate Passes Bill to Reduce Ocean Trash, Boost Recycling
Sep 27, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
A bill to help reduce the amount of waste in the ocean and promote recycling in developing nations passed the Senate on Sept. 26. -
E.P.A. to Eliminate Office That Advises Agency Chief on Science
Sep 27, 2018 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport
The Environmental Protection Agency plans to dissolve its Office of the Science Advisor, a senior post that was created to counsel the E.P.A. administrator on the scientific research underpinning health and environmental regulations, according to a person familiar with the agency’s plans. -
Trump’s EPA Weighs Merger That Could Muffle Voice of Scientists
Sep 27, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy and Ari Natter
The EPA is actively weighing a plan to merge two science offices in a bid to pare redundancies—an effort that is feeding criticism that the agency is diminishing the stature of scientists. -
EPA to Merge Two Key Science Offices and Disband Office Focused on Science Grants
Sep 27, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will merge two key science offices as part of an overhaul of the Office of Research Development (ORD), the EPA confirmed to The Hill Thursday. -
Committee to Vote on Kavanaugh, but Uncertainty Remains
Sep 28, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote this morning on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court, with a confirmation vote by the full Senate to follow "in the coming days," Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said last night. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Makers Expected to Pay EPA $20 Million Annually in Fees
Sep 28, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Many chemical manufacturers will have to pay the EPA between $4,700 and about $2.5 million in fees starting Oct. 1 for specific responsibilities the agency has overseeing their products, according to a final rule the agency released Sept. 27. -
(ACC Mentioned) Final TSCA User Fees Rule Expands 'Small' Firm Method, Assessment Costs
Sep 27, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA has finalized its user fees rule under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a measure that largely follows a proposed version though the final measure will likely expand the universe of firms that qualify for lower “small business” fees and increases fees that large firms will have to pay when they ask EPA to assess chemicals. -
Seeing Loophole, Groups Ask EPA To Require TSCA Asbestos Reporting
Sep 27, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Environmentalists are petitioning EPA to amend the agency's Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule under the revised toxics law to require businesses to report their uses of asbestos, an effort aimed at closing what the petitioners say is a loophole EPA created when it said the rule does not cover asbestos because it is “naturally occurring.” -
EPA Finalises New TSCA Fees Structure
Sep 28, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has issued a final rule governing how it will collect fees from industry under the recently reformed TSCA law. -
EPA Finalizes TSCA Fee Structure
Sep 27, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
EPA will collect approximately $20 million a year from manufacturers to offset around a quarter of its costs related to studying chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act, according to a final rule released today. -
EPA Finalizes Fee Structure For Chemical Control Efforts
Sep 28, 2018 | Law 360
By Juan Carlos Rodriguez
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday finalized a new fee structure expected to raise $20 million for its Toxic Substances Control Act programs, the last of four framework rules the agency was required to promulgate to implement 2016 amendments to the law. -
Despite Senators' Frustration, EPA Expects PFAS Actions To Take Years
Sep 27, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
EPA's top official leading efforts to address perfluorinated chemicals appeared to do little to ameliorate senators' concerns over the slow pace of agency action on the issue, telling lawmakers at a Sept. 26 hearing that if the agency decides to regulate the substances under various environmental laws, it would take years to complete. -
EPA Tackling Emissions from Chicago-Area Plant
Sep 27, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
EPA is working to address emissions of a hazardous chemical from a plant in a Chicago suburb, the agency's air chief, Bill Wehrum, said in a letter today to Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner (R). -
New Texas Petrochemical Projects Add Millions of Tons of Greenhouse Gas Pollution, Report Finds
Sep 27, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Nick Powell
Texas, the United States’ leading emitter of greenhouse gases, has approved 43 petrochemical projects along the Gulf Coast since 2012 that will add millions tons of greenhouse gas pollution to the atmosphere, according to an environmental study released this week. -
BLM Advances First Oil Shale Project in Utah
Sep 27, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s Utah office on Wednesday authorized the American unit of an Estonia-based company to build infrastructure needed to open an oil shale production plant in Uintah County. -
New Oil and Gas Leases in Colorado, Utah Basin Violate Law, Suit Says
Sep 27, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
The Trump administration’s leasing of more than 115,000 acres of land in Colorado and Utah for oil and gas development will worsen air quality in an area already heavily laden with harmful levels of ozone pollution, according to a lawsuit filed by environmental groups. -
Green Groups Sue Zinke, BLM to Cancel Drilling Leases
Sep 27, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Scott Streater
A coalition of environmental groups today filed a federal lawsuit challenging three already-held Bureau of Land Management lease sales in Utah and Colorado, including some parcels less than 3 miles from Dinosaur National Monument. -
More Offshore Oil, Gas Production Safety Rules Made Mandatory
Sep 27, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Oil and gas companies operating in federal offshore waters will have to meet additional requirements under a final rule released Sept. 27 updating production safety regulations. -
Trump Signs 'Moonshot' Storage Bill
Sep 28, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Christa Marshall
President Trump has signed legislation that mirrors a bill setting what backers call "moonshot" goals and spending for energy storage. -
Rejecting State-Led Policy, MATS Review Will Target Cost Finding, RTR
Sep 27, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA's imminent proposal to reconsider the Obama-era mercury and air toxics standards (MATS) for power plants will target the “appropriate and necessary” finding that underpins the entire rule and also address a review of the rule's current adequacy, the agency's air chief says, rejecting some industry calls to replace MATS with a state-led policy. -
Energy Official Not Confident Utilities Prepared for Cyberattacks
Sep 27, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The head of the Energy Department’s cybersecurity office said she doesn’t feel confident that U.S. utilities are prepared enough to defend against cyberattacks from Russia and North Korea. -
DOE Cyber Official Lacks Confidence in Grid Defense
Sep 28, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Blake Sobczak
The Department of Energy's top cybersecurity official told lawmakers yesterday that she is not convinced U.S. utilities could fend off a crippling cyberattack on the power grid. -
NERC Sees Chance of Major Outage as 'Very Low'
Sep 28, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
It is "very, very unlikely" that a foreign entity would be able to attack the U.S. bulk power system resulting in a catastrophic outage, the nation's top grid overseer said yesterday. -
Senate Positive Train Control Hearing Wednesday
Sep 27, 2018 | American Shipper
By Kim Link-Wills
The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation will convene a hearing on the implementation of positive train control Wednesday. -
Sierra Club Asks for Delay in EPA Air Monitoring Rule Suit Argument
Sep 27, 2018 | Inside EPA
Sierra Club has filed an unopposed motion asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to delay until at least Nov. 26 oral argument scheduled for Nov. 7 in a suit over an EPA rule detailing state emissions monitoring mandates, citing conflicting commitments for the group's attorney that will argue the case. -
Review Likely Won't Ease Ozone Standard — Wehrum
Sep 27, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
A newly launched review of the ground-level ozone standard likely won't lead to a loosening of the existing limit of 70 parts per billion, EPA air chief Bill Wehrum said yesterday, taking a stance that seemingly shuts down an option floated by the agency in a recent court filing. -
Climate Caucus Chair Vows Midterms Will Not Weaken Group
Sep 28, 2018 | Inside EPA
Sierra Club has filed an unopposed motion asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to delay until at least Nov. 26 oral argument scheduled for Nov. 7 in a suit over an EPA rule detailing state emissions monitoring mandates, citing conflicting commitments for the group's attorney that will argue the case.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) First Trade War Casualties in Chemicals and Beyond
Sep 28, 2018 | ICIS
By Will Beacham
With $250bn in US trade tariffs now in place and $110bn from China, we are starting to see some early casualties in this trade war.
Owners of US chemical projects, which are export-oriented and were planned with the colossal China market in mind, are now reconsidering these plans.
And on 27 September one – Austria’s Lenzing – went public with the news that it has shelved plans for construction of a specialty fibre plant at Mobile, in the US state of Alabama.
The company cited “the rising likelihood of increasing trade tariffs, paired with the potential surge in construction costs due to the buoyant US labour market” for the decision.
The 90,000 tonne/year project, when announced in 2016, had a $293m investment with completion scheduled for the first quarter of 2019.
Lenzing claimed it would have been the largest Tencel lyocell fibre plant in the world.
One wonders if this could be the tip of the iceberg. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) said earlier in September that a total of 333 US chemical projects worth an accumulative $202.4bn have been announced since 2010.
Of those, 53% are complete or underway, while 41% of projects are still in the planning phase.
These projects rely not only on the availability of cheap and abundant ethane and other natural gas liquid (NGL) feedstocks, but increasingly on export markets.
With China business under threat, and uncertainty around the future of the North Atlantic Free Trade Area (NAFTA) trade agreement, the country’s three largest chemical export markets are in jeopardy – Canada, Mexico and China.
CHINA PVC COLLAPSES
ICIS reported another early trade war victim this week – China's polyvinyl chloride (PVC). The US has imposed tariffs on a range of Chinese finished goods which contain PVC.The products totalled around $120m in general imports from China to the US last year, according to US International Trade Commission (ITC) data.
This has spooked converters in China who are now holding back on PVC raw material purchases, reducing demand.
Prices dived by 9% in the space of a week, not helped by an influx of cheap US PVC.
China has not yet imposed a tariff on US PVC. China was the US’s second-largest buyer of export PVC in 2017, according to the ITC.
US FACTORIES AND CONSUMERS HIT
Ford Motor's CEO, James Hackett, said this week that 25% steel and 10% aluminium tariffs have cost his company $1bn, as domestic prices rose in tandem with higher import prices.The tariffs will add $400 to the price of a car, according to the American Automotive Policy Council (AAPC).
If President Donald Trump proceeds with a 25% tax on imported cars and parts, new car prices will rise by $6,000-$7,000 per vehicle, said US Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, who is a Republican.
The earlier January round of US tariffs has already impacted some white or electronics markets.
For example, since then US washing machine price inflation has spiked from below zero (for the last four years) up to 16% in the first half of the year.
And on a smaller scale, the US Palm Beach Post reports that some waiting times for aluminium hurricane shutters have gone from one up to four months as manufacturers switch to scarcer domestic supplies of the product.
The latest round of tariffs will increase prices for $42bn of US consumer goods, according to some estimates.
This is bound to fuel inflation and this week the US Federal Reserve raised interest rates for the third time this year.
“The new tariffs imposed on Chinese imports are likely to result in more inflationary pressure," said this week Friedrich Heinemann, head for corporate taxation and public finance at ZEW, a German research institute.
"As a consequence, US consumers will be the ones to bear the economic burden of Donald Trump’s punitive tariffs in the form of higher prices for Chinese goods.”
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2018/09/28/10262630/first-trade-war-casualties-in-chemicals-and-beyond/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Senate Passes Bill to Reduce Ocean Trash, Boost Recycling
Sep 27, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
A bill to help reduce the amount of waste in the ocean and promote recycling in developing nations passed the Senate on Sept. 26.
The Save Our Seas Act (S.3508) reauthorizes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program and empowers other federal agencies, including for the first time, the Office of Trade Representative, to address the problems posed by ocean debris and trash.
It would also support funding for research and development of bio-based alternatives to plastic or environmentally feasible improvements to materials that reduce municipal solid waste.
“Hold your breath,” said Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), during a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing Sept. 26, “this is a fiercely bipartisan issue.”
Sullivan noted that close to 9 million tons of trash wind up in oceans every year, and unraveling exactly how it gets there is critical.
“This bill would strengthen the federal response to marine debris and stem the tide of ocean plastic, and we encourage the Trump administration to pursue international agreements in pursuit of this goal,” he said.
The bill was passed by unanimous consent at the end of the Sept. 26 legislative day. The House passed a similar, though not identical, version of the bill July 25. The Senate had passed a previous version Aug. 3, 2017.
Trash and TradeIn addition to providing four more years of funding for prevention and research grants through the Marine Debris Program, for the first time ever, the bill also brings the waste issue into the trade realm.
A 2017 study found that roughly 90 percent of the plastic that ends up in the ocean, comes from just 10 river systems, eight which are in Southeast Asia.
“Most of this plastic originates is a few countries and a few rivers, and we could do a lot to clean that up through trade agreements and public shaming,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said.
In practice, Whitehouse said, that could be as simple as requiring new trade partners to meet elementary standards of waste collection.
“There’s a lot of cheating that goes on,” he said, “where an American company has to keep its junk out of the river but our foreign competitors don’t.”
Trade has been at the center of ongoing drama since Jan. 1, when China cut off a lifeline to the global recycling industry by ending its long-running practice of importing much of the world’s scrap paper, plastics, and metals.
Priority for Public-Private PartnershipsThe relationship with China shows no signs of improving any time soon, and business groups said if headway is to be made on the issue of ocean trash, more priority needs to be given to propping up markets for recycled materials.
“We’re good at making beverages and selling. When we get involved in waste we have to rely on others,” said Bruce Karas, vice president of sustainability for Coca Cola North America.
Speaking before the Senate Environment Committee, Karas said even in the U.S., recycling infrastructure is a complicated system tied together by various state and local rules. Forming partnerships is one way to get around some of those differences.
“In the Asia Pacific region, we have formed cooperative partnerships. What we’re seeing is brands engaging with [non-governmental organizations] and governments, but that takes time to build those out,” Karas said.
“We also need to make sure that we are incentivizing plastic that is more recyclable, as well as finding new uses and applications of that plastic already in the waste stream,” said Cal Dooley, president of the American Chemistry Council. The Washington-based trade group represents plastic makers.
Federal Plastic Limits Still Not on the tableEnvironmental groups often point out that recycling alone can’t solve the plastic waste problem.
“We produced 2.3 million tons of plastic in 1950 and now it’s 500 million tons. And we haven’t moved to that closed loop economy—there’s just too much plastic,” said Jonathan Baillie, chief scientist for the National Geographic Society.
Baillie points to the increased number of restrictions on certain kinds of single use plastics, as well as 5-cent charges for plastic bags or bottle deposit regulations that make a huge difference in the amount of waste generated.
That line of thinking has never held much water with companies that want to keep the focus on more and better recycling, not producing less.
“Increased use of plastics has been very significant for global sustainability,” Dooley said. “What is the environmental cost to alternatives to plastic? Oftentimes it’s much worse.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/senate-passes-bill-to-reduce-ocean-trash-boost-recycling
-
E.P.A. to Eliminate Office That Advises Agency Chief on Science
Sep 27, 2018 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport
The Environmental Protection Agency plans to dissolve its Office of the Science Advisor, a senior post that was created to counsel the E.P.A. administrator on the scientific research underpinning health and environmental regulations, according to a person familiar with the agency’s plans. The person spoke anonymously because the decision had not yet been made public.
The science adviser works across the agency to ensure that the highest quality science is integrated into the agency’s policies and decisions, according to the E.P.A.’s website. The move is the latest among several steps taken by the Trump administration that appear to have diminished the role of scientific research in policymaking while the administration pursues an agenda of rolling back regulations.
Asked about the E.P.A.’s plans, John Konkus, a spokesman for the agency, emailed a prepared statement from the science adviser, Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, in which she described the decision to dissolve the office as one that would “combine offices with similar functions” and “eliminate redundancies.”
In an email, Dr. Orme-Zavaleta referred questions to the E.P.A.’s public affairs office.
Dr. Orme-Zavaleta is an expert on the risks of chemicals to human health who has worked at the E.P.A. since 1981, according to the agency’s website. It was unclear whether she would remain at the E.P.A. once the decision takes effect.
Separately, on Tuesday, in an unusual move, the E.P.A. placed the head of its Office of Children’s Health, Dr. Ruth Etzel, on administrative leave, while declining to give a reason for the move. Agency officials told Dr. Etzel, a respected pediatric epidemiologist, that the move was not disciplinary. As the head of an office that regularly pushed to tighten regulations on pollution, which can affect children more powerfully than adults, Dr. Etzel had clashed multiple times with Trump administration appointees who sought to loosen pollution rules.
Michael Mikulka, who heads a union representing about 900 E.P.A. employees, said, “Clearly, this is an attempt to silence voices whether it’s in the agency’s Office of Children’s Health or the Office of the Science Advisor to kill career civil servants’ input and scientific perspectives on rule-making.”
The changes at the two offices, which both report directly to the head of the E.P.A., come as the agency’s acting administrator, Andrew Wheeler, a former coal lobbyist, is overseeing a reorganization of the agency.
After dissolving the office of the scientific adviser, Mr. Wheeler plansto merge the position into an office that reports to the E.P.A.’s Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science, a demotion that would put at least two more managerial layers between the E.P.A.’s chief scientist and its top decision maker.
“It’s certainly a pretty big demotion, a pretty big burying of this office,” said Michael Halpern, the deputy director of the Center for Science and Democracy with the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group. “Everything from research on chemicals and health, to peer-review testing to data analysis would inevitably suffer,” he said.
The move comes after several months in which the leaders of the E.P.A. have systematically changed how the E.P.A. treats science. The agency’s previous administrator, Scott Pruitt, who resigned in July amid allegations of ethical violations, in April proposed a regulation that would limit the types of scientific research that E.P.A. officials could take into account when writing new public health policies, a change that could weaken the agency’s ability to protect public health.
Last year, Mr. Pruitt significantly altered two major scientific panelsthat advise the E.P.A. on writing public health rules, restricting academic researchers from joining the boards while appointing several scientists who work for industries regulated by the E.P.A.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/27/climate/epa-science-adviser.html
-
Trump’s EPA Weighs Merger That Could Muffle Voice of Scientists
Sep 27, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy and Ari Natter
The EPA is actively weighing a plan to merge two science offices in a bid to pare redundancies—an effort that is feeding criticism that the agency is diminishing the stature of scientists.
Under the reorganization plan, the Office of Science Advisor and the Office of Science Policy would merge. The offices are currently located within the Office of Research and Development, and the shift would effectively downgrade the science adviser within the Environmental Protection Agency.
The reorganization was developed by the EPA’s Office of Research and Development “in order to reduce redundancies,” said Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, the agency’s principal deputy assistant administrator for science.
Orme-Zavaleta cast the effort as a proposed plan and downplayed the potential effect on the EPA’s work: “The fact of the matter is that the Senate-confirmed assistant administrator for ORD has customarily served as the EPA science adviser, which will continue to be the case.”
Alter StatusThe move could diminish the role and stature of scientists at the EPA, muffling their voice in the agency’s regulatory decision-making, critics said. The shift, which was described to EPA staff in a Sept. 26 meeting, follows other moves under President Donald Trump to alter the status of agency scientists and their outside advisers.
It also comes one day after the EPA put its children’s health chief on administrative leave. Ruth Etzel, head of the EPA’s Office of Children’s Health Protection, told colleagues that her removal wasn’t for disciplinary reasons, Bloomberg Environment reported Sept. 26.
The EPA Office of Science Advisor helps coordinate scientific standards across the agency and is tasked with providing unfiltered advice to the administrator.
“By dissolving the science adviser’s office and putting it several layers down in ORD, that greatly accelerates the decay of science advice within the EPA administrator’s office,” said Michael Halpern, deputy director of the Center for Science & Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “That kind of coordination is much more difficult to do if they’re buried down inside an office.”
QuashedOrme-Zavaleta has been serving as the EPA’s acting science adviser, effectively leading one of the offices that could be quashed as a part of the reorganization. Other Office of Research and Development agencies and activities also could be pared back under the plan.
EPA staff briefed on the effort Wednesday said it was cast as a done deal, with the reorganization definitely taking place, according to two people familiar with the meeting who asked for anonymity because the session wasn’t public.
“Clearly, this is an attempt to silence voices whether it’s in the Agency’s Office of Children’s Health or the Office of the Science Advisor to kill career civil servants’ input and scientific perspectives on rulemaking,” said Michael Mikulka, president of the union that represents hundreds of EPA workers and a spokesman for the Save the US EPA Campaign.
The Office of Science Advisor has shifted over time, with at least two changes during the Obama administration.
For instance, the science adviser at one time under former President Barack Obama reported to the EPA administrator and was separate from the head of the Office of Research and Development. Former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy recombined those roles.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/trumps-epa-weighs-merger-that-could-muffle-voice-of-scientists
-
EPA to Merge Two Key Science Offices and Disband Office Focused on Science Grants
Sep 27, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will merge two key science offices as part of an overhaul of the Office of Research Development (ORD), the EPA confirmed to The Hill Thursday.
ORD leadership announced to staff Wednesday that it will move forward with plans to reorganize multiple offices housed under ORD, the scientific research arm of EPA.
Offices with “similar functions” will be funneled into two new offices: the administrative focused Office of Resource Management and the science focused Office of Science Integration and Policy, an EPA spokesperson told the Hill.
The new science office will combine the agency’s Office of Science Policy and the Office of the Science Advisor into one, which environmentalists fear will shrink the voice of scientists at EPA.
The EPA official said the mergers will “reduce redundancies in our operations, streamline management oversight, and better align our structure with the resources we have.”
The Office of the Science Advisor, as described on EPA's website, provides leadership across the agency on science policy development and implementation issues It is currently lead by EPA Science Advisor Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, who has been at EPA since 1981.
The Office of Science Policy focuses on incorporating ORD's own science and technology into the EPA's regulatory actions. It's headed by Fred Hauchman, who has worked at EPA for over 30 years.
An ORD spokesperson said Orme-Zavaleta was out of town and not available for comment Thursday. A voicemail box for Hauchman said he'd be out of town until October 1 and to contact the directory in his absence.
Additionally, the reorganization would disband the National Center for Environmental Research (NCER), a federal environmental office that works to test the effects of chemical exposure on adults and children.
The NCER is largely known for the funding it provides through its premier program, Science To Achieve Results (STAR). Under the STAR program, grants are given to the Children's Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research Centers, which were established in 1988 to discover methods to reduce children's health risks from environmental factors.
Under the reorganization, “relevant functions” of NCER will be distributed among the two new offices including the STAR grants management, the official said.
The Hill was first to report on the planned reorganization in February. Officials at the time said the reorganization would also include merging EPA’s Office of Administrative and Research Support, the Office of Program Accountability and Resource Management, and the office that handles Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
Michael Halpern, a deputy director of the Union of Concerned Scientists called the changes within the science offices alarming.
“Any time you try to merge science and policy functions there tends to be confusion. That’s why a lot of the laws EPA implements like the Clean Air Act have separate sections for the science and the policy,” he said.
“Muddying the waters makes it much easier for the science to be politicized or misrepresented.”
Halpern surmised that the new rearrangement will likely bury the office farther down the totem pole from the EPA Administrator's office.
"We’ve seen what happens when an office gets de-prioritized, they become less visible. The office of environmental justice, which is a shell of what it was before, the Office of Children Health Protection would be equally vulnerable. It's the more cross cutting programs that tend to be the most vulnerable to politicization," he said.
Earlier in the week the EPA reportedly placed the director of its Office of Children’s Health Protection Director Dr. Ruth Etzel on administrative leave without explanation. Etzel told reporters she believed the move was done to ultimately shrink the office, an accusation EPA officials denied to The Hill.
EPA did not respond to requests about who will be leading the new offices or when the merger will officially commence but said there would be no reductions of full time staff as a result of the changes.
https://thehill.com/regulation/energy-environment/408809-epa-to-merge-two-key-science-offices-and-disband-office-focused
-
Committee to Vote on Kavanaugh, but Uncertainty Remains
Sep 28, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote this morning on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court, with a confirmation vote by the full Senate to follow "in the coming days," Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said last night.
However, at least one Republican senator on Judiciary — Arizona's Jeff Flake — was said to be undecided on whether to support the nomination, while a handful of undecided moderates from both parties huddled behind closed doors to discuss the situation.
Flake said little during yesterday's extraordinary hearing, which featured Christine Blasey Ford, who testified that she was 100 percent positive that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her at a high school gathering more than three decades ago (Greenwire, Sept. 27).
Flake made only a brief entreaty that senators recognize that "in the end, there is likely to be as much doubt as certainty." He didn't ask Kavanaugh any questions.
Flake later yesterday met with Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), all of whom have expressed some reservations about Kavanaugh in recent days.
Murkowski told reporters last night that she planned to "go home, have dinner and have a chance to think about all that's gone on today," according to CNN.
Earlier yesterday, she told E&E News that she found Ford's testimony "very credible" but wanted to hear Kavanaugh's side (E&E News PM, Sept. 27).
Even if Flake were to oppose Kavanaugh in committee, McConnell could bring the nomination to the floor without a favorable recommendation, an unusual move but one that would still allow for confirmation with just 50 senators — and Vice President Mike Pence stepping in to furnish the 51st vote.
A procedural vote could happen as early as tomorrow, although it's unclear whether the votes are there for confirmation.'The Senate must vote!'
McConnell's statement came after the Senate Republican caucus huddled following the conclusion of the hearing, where Kavanaugh delivered a fiery and emotional defense, lashing out at Democratic senators whom he accused of attempting to derail his confirmation in part as payback for his role in the Ken Starr investigation of President Clinton.
Kavanaugh's performance won accolades and praise on Twitter from the man who nominated him to the court.
"Judge Kavanaugh showed America exactly why I nominated him. His testimony was powerful, honest, and riveting. Democrats' search and destroy strategy is disgraceful and this process has been a total sham and effort to delay, obstruct, and resist. The Senate must vote!," Trump tweeted yesterday.
McConnell piled on, as well, expressing regret "that Senate Democrats declined to apologize for disregarding Dr. Ford's request for confidentiality or for cheering on a public campaign to assassinate Judge Kavanaugh's character based on uncorroborated allegations."
He said that he had "no reason to think that Dr. Blasey Ford offered the committee anything less than her sincere best recollections. Her testimony was heartfelt. I listened to her intently. Likewise, senators have no reason to doubt the sincere and heartfelt testimony of Judge Kavanaugh."
"The nominee forcefully and firmly restated his complete and unequivocal disavowal of the misconduct Dr. Ford alleges. The Senate and the nation heard two witnesses testify under oath to completely conflicting recollections. What we did not hear was any evidence whatsoever to bolster the allegation made against Judge Kavanaugh."
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) released a statement saying he was voting yes. Alabama Democratic Sen. Doug Jones tweeted his opposition.
For her part, Judiciary ranking member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) defended her decision not to share Ford's July letter with her colleagues, noting that she had to honor Ford's request that it remain confidential. Feinstein insisted she and her staff did not leak Ford's letter to the media.
"The constant drumbeat by Republicans that sexual battery allegations against Brett Kavanaugh were mishandled is clearly an effort to discredit the women who have come forward over the past couple weeks," she said in her own statement.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/09/28/stories/1060100011
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Makers Expected to Pay EPA $20 Million Annually in Fees
Sep 28, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Many chemical manufacturers will have to pay the EPA between $4,700 and about $2.5 million in fees starting Oct. 1 for specific responsibilities the agency has overseeing their products, according to a final rule the agency released Sept. 27.
Small businesses, which the final rule defined as companies with 500 or fewer employees, generally would pay 80 percent less across the board for the specific tasks the agency carries out.
The fees, authorized by the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act amendments, are designed to defray some of the agency’s costs overseeing the safety of new and existing chemicals.
The fees largely align with what the agency proposed in February and would bring an estimated annual revenue of $20 million in fiscal years 2019, 2020, and 2021.
Of that annual $20 million, the EPA estimated the total fees small businesses would pay each year would add up to $1.3 million.
The $20 million would help offset the agency’s estimated annual $80.2 million expenditure carrying out the tasks for which the fees are levied.
Who Pays?Chemical manufacturers will be responsible for most of the fees, the EPA final rule said.
Chemical processors—companies that mix chemicals into other products such as waxes, paints, polishes, and cleaning products—would have to pay in some cases. For example, if a paint manufacturer asked the EPA to allow it to use a regulated chemical in a new way, the company would have to pay for the agency to review that proposed application.
Processors also may have to pay the agency to review toxicity or exposure data the agency requires them to generate.
“We hope that increased fees will help support more efficient and effective decision-making under TSCA,” Michael Walls, vice president for regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council, said in a statement that followed Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler signing the final rule. The council represents the bulk of the U.S. chemical manufacturing industry.
New Chemical FeesThe fees the EPA levied are designed to defray up to 25 percent of the agency’s costs for three types of activities it carries out under the amended chemicals law.
Two “new chemical” fees the EPA will charge cover its review of new chemicals and microbes as well as new uses of previously regulated new chemicals and microbes.
The new chemical fees medium and large chemical manufacturers would pay are $4,700 for the relatively quick reviews the EPA does for some chemicals. For example, an EPA review of a new chemical that will be made or released at very low volumes is simpler than those the agency typically conducts for new chemicals.
The agency would normally charge medium and large chemical manufacturers $16,000 to review new chemicals, new microbes, and certain new uses of both.
Small businesses would pay the EPA $940 or $2,800 to help defray the agency’s costs for those same tasks.
It’s easy for the EPA to know who to charge for new chemical tasks, because individual companies ask the agency to carry these out, the agency’s final rule said.
Data Review, Risk AssessmentThe agency often will have to figure out which chemical manufacturers and processors would have to pay the other two types of fees.
The first of these other types of fees help cover the EPA’s costs of reviewing new toxicity, exposure, and other chemical information it required companies to generate.
The fees to review new toxicity, exposure, and other chemical information companies generate in response to an EPA order, regulation, or a negotiated agreement with one or more manufacturers range from $9,800 to $22,800 for medium and large companies. Small businesses would pay $1,950 to $4,600.
The second other type of fee would help pay for the EPA to evaluate the potential of chemicals in commerce to injure people’s health or the environment, a process generally called risk assessment.
Medium and large chemical manufacturers, and possibly processors, would pay $1.3 million toward the risk assessments of chemicals the agency has selected. Small businesses would pay $270,000.
Manufacturer-requested and paid-for risk assessments would cost $1.25 million initially for any-size manufacturer if the chemical is pulled from a list of compounds the EPA already teed up for analysis. The final cost could be more or less to cover 50 percent of the agency’s actual expenditure.
Manufacturer-requested and paid-for risk assessments of chemicals that are not on the EPA list would cost an initial $2.5 million. The final fee would be designed to recover 100 percent of the agency’s actual costs.
Potential Payees, Free RidersThe final rule details how the EPA will identify companies that may have to pay the data review or risk-assessment fees.
The EPA publishes for public comment a list of companies that may have to pay when it knows it will need data or that it will conduct a risk assessment, the final rule said.
Companies that make the chemical under review must give their name and contact information to EPA.
To prevent free riders—companies that make a chemical getting away without paying a required fee—the EPA requires companies that it believes make a chemical, but don’t, to certify they have exited the market and will not begin making the chemical for five years, the EPA said.
The EPA will host a series of webinars focused on making TSCA submissions and on fees. The webinars will be held Oct. 10, Oct. 24, and Nov. 7.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/chemical-makers-expected-to-pay-epa-20-million-annually-in-fees-1
-
(ACC Mentioned) Final TSCA User Fees Rule Expands 'Small' Firm Method, Assessment Costs
Sep 27, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA has finalized its user fees rule under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a measure that largely follows a proposed version though the final measure will likely expand the universe of firms that qualify for lower “small business” fees and increases fees that large firms will have to pay when they ask EPA to assess chemicals.
“After consideration of public comments, EPA is finalizing a number of provisions from the proposed rule without modification, including the general methodology for calculating fees (except in the case of manufacturer-requested risk evaluations), the program cost estimates, the eight proposed fee categories, the fee amounts, the allowance of payment of fees through consortia, the discounted fees for small business concerns, and the provision of refunds under certain circumstances,” the rule EPA released Sept. 27 states.
The rule, which authorizes the agency to collect as much as 25 percent of the costs of the program from chemical industry companies up to $25 million, represents the last of four “framework rules” that are intended to implement the updated statute's enhanced responsibilities for EPA through its toxics program. The first three rules, describing how EPA will prioritize existing chemicals for risk analysis, analyze them, and maintain an inventory of existing chemicals, were finalized last year to meet a statutory deadline.
Congress provided no such deadline for the fees rule, which has lingered despite its importance to agency operations in part over disagreement among stakeholders over whether EPA had accurately assessed the costs of the new TSCA program, who should be assessed fees and how.
The rule responds to language in the revised TSCA allowing EPA for the first time to establish a fee structure to defray up to 25 percent of the costs of implementing several key TSCA programs, such as new and existing chemical reviews, issuing test orders, and weighing claims of confidential business information or up to $25 million, whichever number is lower.
EPA has said that it will begin collecting fees in fiscal year 2019 and will adjust the schedule for inflation every three years, though EPA officials also expect implementation challenges. For example, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Director Jeff Morris told staff during a meeting last February that money from fees could bring new hires but that he does not expect to begin receiving fees until 2020.
“With today’s action EPA has once again met another important milestone under TSCA,” acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler says in a Sept. 27 statement. “This rule will provide resources needed to support the valuable work EPA does to review chemicals for safety, manage risk as required, and make chemical information available as appropriate.”
The proposed rule from last February says that in crafting a methodology for assessing industry fees, the agency considered industry calls for fees to be proportional to the costs EPA incurs in conducting a review.
Industry groups, however, worried that the increased fees will hinder innovation of new chemicals and the rule fails to adequately address refunds when EPA misses deadlines, while environmentalists feared that EPA lowballed its cost estimates, and therefore would not charge industry enough to cover its share of the program's costs.
Final Rule
While much of the proposed rule was left in place, EPA says it made “certain modifications and clarifications,” including “a new process for identifying manufacturers subject to fee obligations for TSCA section 4 test rules and TSCA section 6 EPA-initiated risk evaluations.”
The final rule also changed the proposed methodology for calculating fees for manufacturer-requested risk evaluations, the timing for consortia formation, payment due dates, and the standard for small business concerns.
And the final rule also clarifies proposed language on the allocation of fees in complex multi-payer scenarios, the estimation of program costs and activity level assumptions, and the circumstances for providing refunds.”
For example, the final rule acknowledges concerns from environmentalists that “fees, particularly those for TSCA section 6 activities, should more closely align with EPA's actual costs for carrying out the specific activity on the specific chemical.”
But the agency argues in the rule that it “does not currently track costs with this level of specificity and … does not believe it would be feasible or appropriate to implement an actual cost approach for all fee-triggering events at this time.”
EPA explains that one of its changes to the final rule, however, is an exemption to that concern. TSCA requires that industry pay 100 percent of the costs of risk reviews of existing chemicals that companies request, unless the chemical is on the agency’s 2014 TSCA work plan, in which case the company making the request must pay 50 percent. The work plan was an Obama-era attempt to review chemicals using the agency's limited authority under the original 1976 law. Limitations of that law led to the revised TSCA that expanded the agency’s oversight on chemicals.
The final rule explains that EPA is “finalizing an actual cost approach for calculating fees for manufacturer-requested risk evaluations. Although EPA proposed a static fee for manufacturer-requested risk evaluations based on general cost estimates for risk evaluation activities, upon further consideration and in light of public comments received, EPA will include a provision in the final rule to align this fee with the actual costs of the activity as a plain reading of TSCA would require.”
The rule explains that EPA will request a down payment of $1.25 million on an assessment industry requests of an existing chemical that is listed on the TSCA workplan, or a down payment of $2.5 million for a requested chemical not on that list. Companies will be charged a “final invoice to total either 50 percent or 100 percent of the actual costs in line with the percentage requirements in TSCA, or a refund to achieve these requirements, if warranted. ... EPA estimates the cost of a manufacturer-requested risk evaluation to be approximately $3.88 [million].”
Another change from the proposal is a revised definition of small business “to qualify more users for a reduced fee,” according to a Sept. 27 statement from the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy.
“Based in large part on the feedback received as a result of the notice and … SBA’s expertise and support, the Agency has adopted a size standard modeled on SBA’s approach to defining small businesses.”
While SBA appeared to welcome the change, some chemical firms appeared more muted. The American Chemistry Council (ACC), which represents major industry players, welcomed the rule's issuance but warned that it would closely scrutinize the agency's implementation of the rule.
The rule's finalization is “another important step in the implementation of the amended TSCA,” ACC said in a statement, adding that it “continues to support the expansion of EPA’s authority to collect fees to help defray the costs of administering the law.”
But the group charged that “EPA has a continuing obligation to ensure this rule meets congressional directives to collect reasonable fees and facilitate TSCA implementation. We hope that increased fees will help support more efficient and effective decision-making under TSCA.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/final-tsca-user-fees-rule-expands-small-firm-method-assessment-costs
-
Seeing Loophole, Groups Ask EPA To Require TSCA Asbestos Reporting
Sep 27, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Environmentalists are petitioning EPA to amend the agency's Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule under the revised toxics law to require businesses to report their uses of asbestos, an effort aimed at closing what the petitioners say is a loophole EPA created when it said the rule does not cover asbestos because it is “naturally occurring.”
The petition underscores long-running efforts by environmentalists and their allies to get EPA to ban asbestos uses though it also highlights the long road their efforts likely face as the agency has been reticent to regulate the substance and has even exempted industry from reporting its uses for regulatory purpose.
The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), American Public Health Association (APHA), Center for Environmental Health (CEH), Environmental Working Group (EWG), Environmental Health Strategies Center (EHSC) and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families (SCHF) filed the Sept. 25 petition with EPA, asking the agency to undertake a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 8(a) rule to amend CDR.
The petition responds to a July 2017 letter, attached to the petition, from Jeff Morris, director of EPA's toxics office, who told Occidental Petroleum Corp. in response to a threatened citizen suit that its asbestos imports “were not required to be reported under CDR” because the rule's “[naturally occurring chemical substance (NOCS)] exemption applied and the import was exempt from CDR reporting.”
Such a determination is significant because EPA uses data reported under the CDR to determine what chemicals on its TSCA inventory are actively in use, helping the agency prioritize them for assessment and possible regulation, while also providing a crude form of exposure data.
As such, the petition seeks a series of EPA actions, including adding asbestos to the CDR “thereby requiring reporting on importation and use of asbestos and asbestos-containing products,” and strengthening reporting mandates by lowering the reporting threshold, eliminating exemptions for impurities and 'articles' and requiring reporting by processors.
The petition also calls on EPA to “determine that reports submitted on asbestos are not subject to protection as confidential business information (CBI) because disclosure is necessary to protect against an unreasonable risk of injury to health under section 14(d)(3) of TSCA.”
The groups are utilizing the citizen's petition authority in TSCA section 21, where section 21b allows citizens to request that EPA take certain actions under TSCA sections 4, 5, 6 or 8 and requires EPA respond to the petitions within 90 days of receipt.
If EPA denies the request, or if EPA fails to act within 90 days, the petitioners can sue EPA in federal district court.
Such petitions were long rare, but two years ago, groups opposing drinking water fluoridation filed a section 21 petition asking EPA to ban the practice because of studies indicating it harms children's neurodevelopmental health.
EPA denied the petition but the suit they filed in response, has already provided landmark procedural rulings that went against EPA, encouraging similar petitions.
Judge Edward Chen has already ruled that environmentalists may petition under section 21 to regulate single uses of a substance and that any trial is held on a de novo basis, allowing environmentalists to introduce their own expert testimony on whether the substance merits regulation. Chen has scheduled a trial in the case for next summer in federal court in California.
'The Next Legal Step'
ADAO and the other petitioners may be preparing to follow suit. If EPA doesn't grant the petition, “we're going to take the next legal step,” ADAO President Linda Reinstein tells Inside EPA in a Sept. 27 interview.
And Bob Sussman, counsel to ADAO and SCHF, argues that their case is a strong one, should it come to that, especially given the ruling that section 21 petition trials are held on a de novo basis.
“The test under the statute for a [TSCA] section 21 petition asking for a section 8 rule is, 'does the chemical present an unreasonable risk of injury under the conditions of use,' not a difficult test to satisfy” in the case of asbestos, Sussman tells Inside EPA in a Sept. 27 interview. “EPA would have a very hard time defending against that.”
Sussman adds that “as best I understand, the [NOCS] exemption was in the CDR rule from day one. I don't know why; I don't think anybody focused on it until now.”
The groups organized a briefing for members of Congress and staff Sept. 27 to discuss their concerns about the harms of asbestos exposure, EPA's efforts to assess and regulate it, and the petition. Attendees at the briefing were receptive, and “feel this is a good change,” Reinstein said.
Among the speakers at the briefing was Patrick Morrison, with the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), who has been in the Carolinas with Hurricane Florence rescue work, Reinstein said. “We are facing more and more natural disasters that will put firefighters and rescuers at risk” of asbestos exposure, she said.
The IAFF recently criticized EPA's problem formulation document for how it plans to assess existing uses of asbestos for possible regulation, especially its decision to exclude firefighters and other first responders from the assessment as a susceptible population to asbestos exposures.
Such comments are part of a broader effort by EPA critics to force EPA to regulate asbestos under TSCA. The material is one of the first 10 existing 'chemicals' that EPA is assessing for possible regulation, as directed in the reformed statute. Should the agency determine that a substance, under its conditions of use, presents an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment, the agency is required to regulate it.
But petitioners and other groups have raised numerous concerns about the agency's efforts to assess asbestos' risks so far, which have included a problem formulation document excluding “legacy” uses no longer in practice, but do not address asbestos in place, such as the use of asbestos in the materials of buildings constructed before the 1980s, or uses that could be regulated under another statute, implemented by another agency program.
Limited Information
The petition also indicates that EPA efforts to assess and regulate asbestos uses is hampered because the agency has limited information about the amounts of asbestos imported and used in the country, adding that this information could be gained through the CDR, if it were applied to asbestos.
They are further urging EPA to implement a new asbestos CDR reporting rule immediately, to try to develop information that EPA could use in its ongoing asbestos assessment, and its risk management rules.
The petitioners note that EPA's problem formulation document for asbestos, released last June, “attempts to identify the asbestos uses that EPA will address in its risk evaluation but its description of these uses is limited, vague and incomplete and the Agency acknowledges that 'the import volume of products containing asbestos is not known.' Without adequate information on ongoing importation and use of asbestos and asbestos-containing products, the risk evaluation will fail to provide a meaningful picture of the threat that asbestos poses to public health and citizens will be in the dark about exposure to asbestos in their communities and places of employment.”
“It's pretty clear that EPA's understanding of asbestos imports and current uses is very limited. We have no confidence that they've identified all the existing uses. For those they have identified, they have no idea the amounts,” Sussman says. As an example, he points to brake linings that contain asbestos, which are known to be imported, “but... where are they going and who is being exposed?”
The petitioners explain that in addition to the requested rule changes, they are asking EPA to require asbestos importers and processors to provide the information immediately, rather than waiting till the next CDR deadline in 2020. “Petitioners further request that the amended CDR rule require immediate submission of reports on asbestos for the 2016 reporting cycle. This will maximize EPA’s ability to use the information reported to conduct the ongoing asbestos risk evaluation and the subsequent risk management rulemaking under TSCA section 6(a).”
Sussman and Reinstein argue that there is precedent for their petition, in a section 8 reporting rule on asbestos that the agency promulgated in 1982, before the agency sought to ban asbestos in 1985. But, Sussman says, “at some time that rule sunsetted. It's no longer in the [code of federal regulations].”
Sussman and Reinstein pointed to another precedent as well, the Asbestos Information Act that then-president Ronald Reagan signed into law in 1988. The law imposed “a one-time requirement for current and former manufacturers and processors to report asbestos-containing products to EPA,” the petition states.
“EPA collected extensive information under the law, which it released to the public on February 13, 1990. By not utilizing these mandatory information collection tools, EPA has been severely handicapped in its ability to identify and assess all pathways of asbestos exposure that may be endangering public health. As a result, its risk evaluation will be weak, incomplete and unprotective.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/seeing-loophole-groups-ask-epa-require-tsca-asbestos-reporting
-
EPA Finalises New TSCA Fees Structure
Sep 28, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has issued a final rule governing how it will collect fees from industry under the recently reformed TSCA law. And, despite industry protests, the final rule maintains a significant price hike on the cost of submitting a new substance application – from $2,500 to $16,000.
The rule – the fourth and final 'framework rule' to implement the 2016 amendments to TSCA – sets out a schedule for how the agency will recoup 25% of its chemical safety programme costs from industry fees each year. And its approach for annually collecting this $20.05m remains largely consistent with the its February proposal.
In addition to the price hike, the agency has largely rejected industry groups' requests to tie the fee for a risk evaluation to the wide variability of costs associated with conducting them for different substances. Instead, it has stuck with its original proposal to charge $1.35m for each agency-initiated assessment.
The EPA also has disagreed with NGO concerns that it has underestimated the overall cost of its programme. An upward adjustment in this respect would have had the effect of increasing the total fees to be recouped, in order to match the 25% collection mandate.
The law, however, requires that the fees be reassessed and adjusted as necessary every three years. The agency says it will work to track costs during fiscal years 2019-2021, and use that information to inform any needed changes.
EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler said release of the rule marks "another important milestone" for TSCA. "This rule will provide resources needed to support the valuable work EPA does to review chemicals for safety, manage risk as required, and make chemical information available as appropriate."
The new fees take effect from 1 October.Changes
Despite many aspects remaining unchanged, the final rule does, however, take on board some changes in response to issues raised in comments.
A process is now included for how the EPA will identify manufacturer subject to fees for a section 4 test rule or a section 6 risk evaluation. This includes publishing a preliminary list of companies – based on chemical data reporting (CDR) responses, among other sources – then taking public comment, self-identification, and/or certification that a company is no longer manufacturing a substance, before publishing a final list defining who is obligated to pay.
The EPA also has accommodated requests to provide more time for consortia building. Manufacturers now will have 60 days to notify the EPA of their intent to form a consortia, and 120 days to submit payment – a 30 day increase for both activities.
A further change is that the EPA has agreed to tie the actual costs of a risk evaluation to the fee it charges in the case of manufacturer-requested risk evaluations. In these cases – which the agency believes will "generally be less complex" than EPA-initiated ones – an upfront payment will be required, with a final payment due upon completion of the evaluation. The rule estimates the cost of these evaluations at roughly $3.9m.
The final rule also provides clarification on:the allocation of fees in complex, multi-payer scenarios;how overall programme costs were estimated; andthe circumstances under which refunds will be provided.Small business considerations
A closely watched provision was how the small businesses would be defined, as these entities are eligible for an 80% discount on certain fees.
The original proposal called for using an inflation adjustment of the existing standard of $50m in annual sales, to bring the small business cutoff to $91m. But in April, the agency floated an alternative approach, which would determine small businesses based on employee size.
The final rule confirms that the agency opted for the latter approach: small businesses will be determined using a standard modelled after one by the US Small Business Administration (SBA), which sets sizes on an industry-specific basis.
According to a new EPA fees website listing these cutoffs, certain TSCA-regulated industries may have as many as 1,500 and still come under the definition.
Major Clark, acting chief counsel at the SBA office of advocacy, said his office was pleased to revise the small business definition to "ensure that the maximum number of small businesses can benefit from a reduced fee amount".
The rule states that the expected reduction of revenue collection as a result of this shift is "minimal".
https://chemicalwatch.com/70622/epa-finalises-new-tsca-fees-structure
-
EPA Finalizes TSCA Fee Structure
Sep 27, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
EPA will collect approximately $20 million a year from manufacturers to offset around a quarter of its costs related to studying chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act, according to a final rule released today.
The statutory revisions passed in 2016 allowed EPA to charge the industry fees to cover up to a quarter of the program’s costs. EPA projected spending just over $80 million annually, and so set the fees to generate revenue of $20 million a year. The fees apply for 2019 through 2021; EPA must review and potentially revise the fee structure every three years.
EPA separately expects to generate $5.2 million from a different set of fees on chemicals for which manufacturers specifically request a risk evaluation. EPA projected that will happen around five times per year.
The rule includes a fee reduction of 80 percent for small businesses, which are defined based on employee size per each specific sector.
WHAT’S NEXT: EPA plans to hold three webinars in October and November to discuss how manufacturers can pay the fees.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
EPA Finalizes Fee Structure For Chemical Control Efforts
Sep 28, 2018 | Law 360
By Juan Carlos Rodriguez
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday finalized a new fee structure expected to raise $20 million for its Toxic Substances Control Act programs, the last of four framework rules the agency was required to promulgate to implement 2016 amendments to the law.
The fee structure rule is the last of four framework rules Congress told the EPA to create in order to implement the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Act, which updatedthe 1976 law that had been criticized as ineffective, inefficient and burdensome. Under the rule, the EPA will collect fees from chemical manufacturers that will go towards fulfilling several of the act’s goals.
“With today’s action EPA has once again met another important milestone under TSCA,” EPA acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a statement. “This rule will provide resources needed to support the valuable work EPA does to review chemicals for safety, manage risk as required, and make chemical information available as appropriate.”
Fees are intended to defray some of the costs of administering certain provisions of TSCA, including Section 4, which covers chemical testing requirements; Section 5, which covers new chemical reviews and regulation; and Section 6, which covers existing chemical reviews and regulatory actions. The fees would also offset the costs of collecting, processing, reviewing, protecting and providing access to information about chemical substances. The EPA said fees will begin to be assessed on Oct. 1., but noted that small businesses will be eligible to receive an 80 percent discount.
Dozens of commenters — identified only by number in EPA documents — weighed in on the rule after it was proposed in February, and the EPA published its responses to those comments Thursday.
Some parties suggested that the EPA exempt certain manufacturers from the fees, such as those that make small quantities, export-only businesses and those solely focused on research and development. But the EPA said it would be very difficult to make such blanket exceptions.
“Because manufacturing processes and downstream uses of the subject chemical are not necessarily static or consistent, EPA is not able to exclude manufacturers whose subject chemicals may at one point be used for an exempt purpose or otherwise be exempt from reporting to EPA,” the agency said in a response to public comments. “Although EPA may choose to exclude certain conditions of use from the scope of the risk evaluation, such decisions would be made on a case-by-case basis.”
A provision of the rule that set fee amounts for Section 4 test orders, test rules and enforceable consent agreements at 3.5 percent of the estimated testing activity cost attracted attention, with some supporting the fee amount and one criticizing it as far too low. The EPA said it factored in costs that will be borne by manufacturers in settling on the 3.5 percent figure, and stuck to it.
“In addition, as described in the proposed rule, EPA believes that the Section 4 fee amounts strike an appropriate balance of fee distribution amongst the activities in sections 4, 5 and 6,” the agency said.
It similarly rejected calls for even lower fees when companies collaborate to produce data, saying that although it supports collaboration that should not result in lower fees.
Another commenter asked EPA to clarify what would happen if no manufacturers are identified to pay. The agency said if no manufacturers could be assessed for fees related to Section 4 or 6 activity, the agency itself would be required to cover the costs.
“As a practical matter, EPA believes that such a scenario would be extremely rare, particularly in this first three-year fee cycle,” In the risk evaluation context, EPA’s prioritization process will likely tend to identify as high-priority actively manufactured chemicals with greater potential for exposures.”
Environmental groups have already challenged the first three rules rolled out to implement the changes Congress said it wants to see in the chemical program. One identifies high-priority chemicals for risk evaluations, another creates a framework for assessing the risk potential of high-priority chemicals, and the third documents which chemicals manufactured, imported or processed in the U.S. over the past 10 years are active in U.S. commerce.
Several green groups declined to comment on the final fee rule Thursday, saying they had not yet reviewed it.https://www.law360.com/environmental/articles/1087204
-
Despite Senators' Frustration, EPA Expects PFAS Actions To Take Years
Sep 27, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
EPA's top official leading efforts to address perfluorinated chemicals appeared to do little to ameliorate senators' concerns over the slow pace of agency action on the issue, telling lawmakers at a Sept. 26 hearing that if the agency decides to regulate the substances under various environmental laws, it would take years to complete.
Peter Grevatt, director of the Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water, told the Senate Homeland Security federal spending oversight and emergency management subcommittee that listing per- and polyflouroalkyl substances (PFAS) -- the broad class of non-stick chemicals that have been linked to a host of adverse effects -- as hazardous substances under Superfund or other laws, and developing an enforceable drinking water standard are the two most significant regulatory actions the agency is currently weighing.
Decisions on whether or how to proceed on both items will be addressed in EPA's national management plan, which he said “we hope to have completed” by the end of the year. That appears to be consistent with a similar commitment Grevatt made earlier this month when he told a House panel it was EPA's “goal” to have the plan done by the end of the year.
While the agency is grappling with whether or how to proceed, Grevatt said the agency is developing a supplement to a proposed significant new use rule (SNUR) under the revised toxic substances law to address risks posed by some PFAS.
The agency is currently considering several regulatory actions to address PFAS, including an enforceable drinking water standard, known as a maximum contaminant level (MCL), and listing chemicals as “hazardous substances” under the Superfund statute or other laws.
But during questioning at the hearing, titled “The Federal Role in the Toxic PFAS Chemical Crisis,” Grevatt said that it could take years to finalize any listing of PFAS as hazardous substances under any of several laws. Such an action would give states and the agency a tool to compel cleanups of the chemicals by potentially responsible parties, and would enable regulators to recover cleanup costs already expended.
The agency is currently looking at five statutory mechanisms to accomplish this, but, he said, “we're talking about years before we could have that completed, in all likelihood,” if the agency were to begin the process at the end of this year.
He also told the panel that if the agency does decide to develop a Safe Drinking Water Act enforceable standard for the two most common PFAS chemicals -- perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) -- that would also take some number of years to complete.
But some lawmakers signaled frustration with the pace of addressing PFAS contamination, which has drawn growing concerns from communities and states as the chemicals have increasingly been found in drinking water systems and in groundwater.
On the potential hazardous substance listing, Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL) responded that given the instability of the substances, he would encourage EPA to move forward with the effort “as quickly as possible.”
And Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) pressed Grevatt to explain why no drinking water standard for any PFAS has been developed even though it has been nearly ten years since the agency issued provisional health advisories for two of the chemicals.
The agency currently has lifetime health advisories for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water, but no enforceable standards.
'Meaningful Opportunity'
Grevatt responded that of the three criteria EPA uses to determine whether to set a SDWA standard, Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler is “very carefully” weighing two of them -- the frequency and level of PFAS contamination in the nation's drinking water systems, and whether there is a “meaningful opportunity” to lower the public health risks linked to the contaminant through a national regulation.
He reiterated previous remarks that in its national survey, EPA found just 1.3 percent of the nation's drinking water systems had PFAS levels above the agency's health advisories of 70 parts per trillion. One important consideration is whether a national standard is needed, or whether the issue can be addressed more locally, he said, while noting he was not trying to signal the direction EPA plans to take.
And in responding earlier to questions from Subcommittee Chairman Rand Paul (R-KY) about the source of PFAS contamination, Grevatt differentiated areas with higher levels of PFAS from other locations.
He said much higher levels are found at source areas such as near firefighting training areas at military bases and airports, and manufacturing facilities. “[T]here are particular areas around known sources where the concentrations could be quite elevated beyond the rest of the population in the country,” he said.
Meanwhile, Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) pushed back on a response from a Defense Department (DOD) official on the chemicals which remain unregulated.
She told DOD environment official Maureen Sullivan that people near military bases are very concerned about the harm stemming from PFAS, “and they want DOD to be stepping up how” it will deal with exposure to these. She added that waiting for a perfect situation where the Superfund law would apply “may not get people the help that they are looking for now."
Sullivan responded that that is why the department's first priority is to cut off drinking water exposure if found to be above EPA's health advisories.
But citizens and others have questioned EPA's health advisories, which is derived from risk levels less stringent than those proposed by the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR) in June in a draft toxicological profile. The risk levels are also weaker than those developed by leading states on the issue, such as New Jersey.
Grevatt nonetheless told Shaheen in questioning that the agency has no plans to update its health advisories for PFOA or PFOS, despite ATSDR's more stringent risk values. He contended that ATSDR's profile has a different purpose, with the minimum risk levels it produced used as a screening tool indicating a need for additional investigation, while EPA's health advisories tell states and others the level below which the water is safe to drink.
He also indicated the agency still expects to issue interim recommendations to address sites with groundwater contaminated with PFOA and PFOS this fall -- which DOD has been pressing for.
“We have been requesting that guidance for a number of years,” Sullivan said, adding that while the department can calculate unacceptable risk on a site-specific basis by relying on reference doses used by EPA to set the health advisories, that is not a national, consistent approach. “So it creates confusion . . .,” she said.
The groundwater recommendations are currently under interagency review by the White House Office of Management & Budget.
Grevatt also told the subcommittee that EPA is developing a supplementary proposal to a SNUR it proposed in 2015 under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The proposed rule requires manufacturers, including importers, of PFOA to notify EPA before starting new uses of the chemicals in any products.
Grevatt said that due to the TSCA reforms passed since then giving EPA new authorities, the agency will propose a supplement to the rule.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/despite-senators-frustration-epa-expects-pfas-actions-take-years
-
EPA Tackling Emissions from Chicago-Area Plant
Sep 27, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
EPA is working to address emissions of a hazardous chemical from a plant in a Chicago suburb, the agency's air chief, Bill Wehrum, said in a letter today to Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner (R).
In the short term, EPA will be "collecting, analyzing, and communicating" the results of stack tests and other information about ethylene oxide emissions from the Sterigenics International LLC fumigation facility in Willowbrook, Wehrum wrote in the letter, adding that air concentrations of the chemical "are not high enough to cause immediate harm to health" of people in and around the area.
The latest version of EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment recently identified Willowbrook as potentially at higher chronic risk from ethylene oxide. Long-term exposure to the chemical is linked to cancer and reproductive effects.
In the letter, Wehrum described the assessment as a screening tool to identify areas and pollution sources that may need more scrutiny. But the findings have triggered calls for the Sterigenics plant to be closed, at least temporarily, and led three Democratic members of Congress to call for more testing and an explanation for why EPA removed a document from its website that they said provided more "context" to a report by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (E&E Daily, Sept. 26). In nearly identical letters also sent today to Sen. Tammy Duckworth, Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin and Rep. Bill Foster, all Democrats from Illinois, Wehrum did not provide the requested explanation, but said EPA is "committed to continuing to provide information to the public throughout this process."
Early indications from test results appear to support the company's assertion that emissions have been significantly reduced, Wehrum added.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/09/27/stories/1060099969
-
New Texas Petrochemical Projects Add Millions of Tons of Greenhouse Gas Pollution, Report Finds
Sep 27, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Nick Powell
Texas, the United States’ leading emitter of greenhouse gases, has approved 43 petrochemical projects along the Gulf Coast since 2012 that will add millions tons of greenhouse gas pollution to the atmosphere, according to an environmental study released this week.
Released by the Environmental Integrity Project, a Washington, D.C.-based, nonpartisan environmental watchdog group, the report examined state records that detailed which plants in Texas and Louisiana applied for permits allowing an increase in greenhouse gas emissions from 2012 through 2018.
Overall, 74 permits have been issued since 2012 in the two states to add 134 million tons of pollution to the atmosphere. That amount of pollution over a six-year span is equivalent to 29 new coal-fired power plants running around the clock, the report said.
Eric Schaeffer, executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project, said the projects highlighted in the study are part of a petrochemical construction boom that dovetails with the expansion of liquid natural gas (LNG) terminals, refineries, ethylene crackers, and chemical and fertilizer plants unleashed by the cheaper method of fracking for natural gas and oil.
“The first thing that grabbed our eyes starting several years ago, is how big the greenhouse gases are,” Schaeffer said. “We’re used to thinking of gas instead of coal — ‘gas is better’ — if you look at it with a narrow lens, that’s true, but if you’re looking at these big LNG terminals, you’re talking about a greenhouse gas load that’s like having two very large coal plants.”
The worst polluting offender in Texas was the Corpus Christi Liquefaction LNG Terminal in San Patricio County, which emitted nearly 6 million tons of carbon dioxide from 2012 through 2016.
In Harris County, the biggest polluters include Flint Hills Resources Houston Chemical (2.1 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions), Chevron Phillips’ Cedar Bayou Plant (1.6 million tons), ExxonMobil’s Baytown Olefins Plant (1.4 million tons), and Equistar’s Channelview plant (1.4 million tons).
The ExxonMobil Baytown Olefins Plant is notable for being forced in 2017 to pay $20 million in fines for releasing 10 million pounds of pollutants into the air from the chemical complex.
A 2017 report released by the American Lung Association ranked Houston as the 12th-worst city for ozone pollution out of 228 metropolitan areas, the 16th-worst city for year-round particle pollution out of 186 metropolitan areas, and the 49th-worst for 24-hour particle pollution.
Bakeyah Nelson, executive director of Air Alliance Houston, noted that the increase in greenhouse gas pollution from these newer projects exacerbate Houston’s pollution problems.
“It’s just another example of having a lax regulatory environment when it comes to these issues. It’s another example of how health is not taken into consideration of the communities that are most impacted by these facilities. To me, it’s par for the course,” Nelson said.
The uptick in greenhouse gas emissions from these new plants places the permitting process under a microscope.
Beginning in 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency handed off greenhouse gas permitting to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Since 2011, the EPA requires permits for new construction projects that emit at least 100,000 tons of greenhouse gases and existing facilities that increase their emissions by at least 75,000 tons per year, even if they do not exceed thresholds for other pollutants.
Texas later sued the EPA in federal court to prevent the regulation of greenhouse gases, only to have a federal appeals court side with the agency in 2013. Coincidentally, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, the current nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, wrote a dissenting opinion in that ruling.
Schaeffer, a former director of enforcement at the EPA, said that the federal agency can do a better job in its oversight capacity, even with the state’s environmental quality commission handling the issuing of permits. He said most of the petrochemical companies ignore emission limits because of the EPA’s lax enforcement.
“There really aren’t any controls being written into these permits,” Schaeffer said. “At the operational level I don’t think it’s taken very seriously, and it should be. More can be done to keep these emissions down. That’s not going to solve all the problems, I realize, but it certainly can help.”
Nelson also noted TCEQ’s record of failing to penalize the state’s worst polluters. A 2017 Environmental Integrity Project and Environment Texas report found that Texas imposed penalties on less than 3 percent of illegal air pollution releases during industrial malfunctions and maintenance from 2011 through 2016, even though these incidents emitted more than 500 million pounds of pollutants.
“It just takes environmental organizations to sue (TCEQ) for these violations in order to get any type of enforcement or compliance,” Nelson said.
Schaeffer said he is also concerned that many of the newer petrochemical plants are situated in coastal areas prone to flooding and damage from major storms. Since 2016, state regulators in Louisiana and Texas have approved 31 new oil, gas, and petrochemical projects along the Gulf Coast that will add another 50 million tons of greenhouse gas pollution equal to 11 new coal-fired power plants.
The Houston Chronicle reported that the flow of toxic chemicals from Hurricane Harvey in 2017 led to 150 million gallons of raw sewage and industrial discharge spilling into communities and waterways. About 100 companies, including Valero Energy, ExxonMobil and Arkema, reported spilling chemicals.
“You can’t look backwards at the history over the last 50 or 100 years and rely on that to predict the future,” Schaeffer said. “That’s not where global warming is taking us. You need to plan with the idea that there’s gonna be heavy, heavy weather events and that’s going to put a lot of the infrastructure at risk if it’s not built right and sited correctly.”
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/New-Texas-petrochemical-projects-add-millions-of-13264492.php
-
BLM Advances First Oil Shale Project in Utah
Sep 27, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s Utah office on Wednesday authorized the American unit of an Estonia-based company to build infrastructure needed to open an oil shale production plant in Uintah County.
Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.
Story can be found here: http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/115934-blm-advances-first-oil-shale-project-in-utah
-
New Oil and Gas Leases in Colorado, Utah Basin Violate Law, Suit Says
Sep 27, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
The Trump administration’s leasing of more than 115,000 acres of land in Colorado and Utah for oil and gas development will worsen air quality in an area already heavily laden with harmful levels of ozone pollution, according to a lawsuit filed by environmental groups.
The suit, filed Sept. 27 in federal court in Denver, alleges the sale of 121 oil and gas leases by the Bureau of Land Management in June and December violated environmental laws and should therefore be vacated. The challenged leases are located in the Uinta Basin, which spans parts of northwest Colorado and northeast Utah.
Dozens of oil and gas companies bought the leases, including Anderson Oil Ltd. in Houston, Liberty Petroleum Corp., based in Great Neck, N.Y., and Ursa Operating Co. LLC in Denver, according to BLM documents.
The Uinta Basin suffers from unhealthy ozone levels due to emissions from oil and gas development, and the pollution threatens public health, the environment, and air quality in “treasured public lands,” including the nearby Dinosaur National Monument, the suit said.
The Utah side of the basin was recently designated as being in marginal nonattainment for the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2015 ozone standard, Diana Dascalu-Joffe, senior attorney with one of the groups, the Center for Biological Diversity, told Bloomberg Environment.
Largest SourceOil and gas operations are the largest source of human-caused pollution in the region, where air pollution levels are comparable to densely populated cities such as Los Angeles or Denver, the groups said in a statement. Elevated levels of ozone can cause asthma attacks, cardiovascular disease, and premature death.
The Interior Department didn’t immediately respond to Bloomberg Environment’s request for comment.
Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Western Energy Alliance, a Denver-based group that represents oil and gas companies, said the suit is an instance of “Keep-It-in-the-Ground environmental groups” taking a strategy of “challenging all leases everywhere.”
‘Hoping it Sticks’“They’re throwing everything at the wall and hoping something will stick,” she said. “Obtaining a lease does not affect air quality, so the premise of the suit is flawed. Any projects proposed on those lease must undergo environmental analysis in accordance with” the National Environmental Policy Act, which includes determining impacts to air quality, she said.
Before any well can be developed on those leases, an air permit must be obtained to ensure health standards are met, Sgamma added.
“The Uinta Basin is undergoing a full Clean Air Act process to address ozone levels at the marginal level,” she said. “That process for the marginal or even higher levels does not require that all leasing be stopped.”
The BLM did not meet its legal obligation under the National Environmental Policy Act to address potential harms to human health and local landscapes, Dascalu-Joffe said.
“They ignored their own models,” she said, some of which show air transport of ozone out of the oil-and-gas-heavy area of the Uinta Basin in Utah into Colorado and the national monument, she said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/new-oil-and-gas-leases-in-colorado-utah-basin-violate-law-suit-says-1
-
Green Groups Sue Zinke, BLM to Cancel Drilling Leases
Sep 27, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Scott Streater
A coalition of environmental groups today filed a federal lawsuit challenging three already-held Bureau of Land Management lease sales in Utah and Colorado, including some parcels less than 3 miles from Dinosaur National Monument.
The lawsuit, filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado in Denver, seeks to invalidate the 121 leases covering more than 117,000 acres because the coalition claims BLM did not properly analyze the risks of potential oil and gas drilling on public health and the surrounding environment before offering them.
The 45-page legal complaint — filed by the National Parks Conservation Association, Rocky Mountain Wild, the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians — says BLM's lack of evaluation violates the National Environmental Policy Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
The coalition, which is being represented by attorneys with Earthjustice, wants the court to issue an order vacating the leases sold during the three sales — two in Utah, one in Colorado.
"Prioritizing economic benefits over public health and the environment is wrong," Matt Sandler, a staff attorney for Rocky Mountain Wild, said in a statement. "This is especially so when the BLM has failed to comply with the laws that would have ensured the public knew the full impacts of these leasing decisions."
Representatives with the Interior Department did not respond to requests to comment on this story before publication. Interior usually does not publicly comment on matters pertaining to pending or ongoing litigation.
A Department of Justice spokesman said the department is reviewing the complaint.
The complaint, which focuses on three lease sales in and around the Uinta Basin that includes parts of Colorado and Utah, says oil and gas drilling in the region will exacerbate already high levels of ground-level ozone pollution.
"Despite the impacts of ozone pollution on public health and the environment, including Dinosaur National Monument, BLM has continued to lease thousands of acres for oil and gas development" in the region, the complaint says.
The complaint takes issue with the legal merits of the environmental analysis of the 121 parcels offered in the three lease sales.
The first lease sale, held Dec. 12, 2017, involved 64 parcels covering about 66,000 acres in northeast Utah, including some parcels "very close to" Dinosaur National Monument, the complaint says.
The National Park Service, among others, submitted comments to BLM "expressing concerns about negative impacts to air quality, visibility, and vegetation from leasing parcels close to Dinosaur National Monument," the complaint says.
The lease sale went forward, netting BLM $6 million, with 59 of the parcels covering 61,000 acres being leased (Energywire, Dec. 15, 2017).
The second, held June 7, resulted in 62 parcels covering 55,000 acres in northwest Colorado being leased.
For this lease sale, BLM relied on research several years earlier when the resource management plans for the regions were developed and issued a "determination of NEPA adequacy" that waived the need for additional research on the lease parcels, the complaint says. The act requires federal agencies to consider environmental impacts before making decisions.
In doing so, BLM "overlooked significant new information" when making its decision on the adequacy of the evaluation of the Colorado lease parcels, it says.
The third lease sale, held on June 12, also in the Uinta Basin region in northeast Utah, involved a handful of parcels that had been bid on during the December 2017 lease sale, but were eventually rejected because the "prospective buyer" failed to "make timely payments" to the bureau, according to the complaint.
Bids were received on all the parcels.
The complaint says BLM "failed to analyze the significant public health and the environment impacts caused by its decisions to issue 121 oil and gas leases covering 117,720.59 acres in northwest Colorado and northeast Utah."
David Nimkin, the National Parks Conservation Association's senior southwest regional director, said he's particularly concerned about the parcels leased near Dinosaur National Monument.
"NPCA is deeply concerned about the deteriorating air quality in this region due to oil and gas development that directly affects national parks like Dinosaur National Monument," Nimkin said in a statement.
He added that he's also concerned about "the health of park visitors, who come here to experience the striking views, dark night skies and exceptional biodiversity of this unique place."Appealing a gas project
WildEarth Guardians is also involved in an administrative appeal involving BLM's approval last month of a massive natural gas project in the heart of prime greater sage grouse habitat in southwest Wyoming.
Jonah Energy LLC's Normally Pressured Lance Natural Gas Development Project proposes using directional drilling techniques to drill up to 3,500 wells over a 10-year period on nearly 141,000 acres of mostly federal lands about 35 miles south of Pinedale, Wyo. The plan includes mitigation measures and restrictions designed to minimize impacts to sage grouse and their habitat (Greenwire, Aug. 29).
But WildEarth Guardians says in its notice of appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals, filed yesterday, that BLM should not have approved the project because it is in a region that violates federal standards for ground-level ozone pollution.
"The NPL Project will lead to massive amount of new industrial development in an area that has, shockingly, been designated under the federal Clean Air Act as nonattainment due to violations of National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ground-level ozone, the key ingredient of smog," the appeal says.
It asks the IBLA to issue an order forbidding the project from starting until the issues involving the record of decision (ROD) that authorized the project, and signed by BLM Wyoming State Director Mary Jo Rugwell, are resolved.
"A stay of Ms. Rugwell's ROD is justified and necessary in this case given the BLM's blatant disregard of applicable state and federal clean air requirements. Namely, the BLM flouted substantive requirements prohibiting federal actions in designated nonattainment areas that do not conform to Clean Air Act implementation plans" designed to reduce ozone and bring the region back into compliance.
The appeal says that Jonah Energy "has indicated it is 'weeks away' from drilling."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/09/27/stories/1060099961
-
More Offshore Oil, Gas Production Safety Rules Made Mandatory
Sep 27, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Oil and gas companies operating in federal offshore waters will have to meet additional requirements under a final rule released Sept. 27 updating production safety regulations.
The rule makes mandatory 12 standards that were developed by industry as voluntary best practices, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement said in a news release.
Among the provisions affected by the rule are requirements addressing the reporting of equipment failures as well as standards on equipment design, testing, and inspections, and fluid handling.
The Oil and Gas Production Safety Systems Rule also eliminates a few requirements developed by the Obama administration that were judged unnecessary or redundant by the Trump administration, changes that drew some criticism when the rule was in proposed form (RIN:1014-AA37).
Regulations for the production phase of offshore oil and gas work have been less controversial than those for the exploration phase. The 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster, which occurred in a late stage of exploration, led to a number of mandatory regulatory changes, some of which have been fiercely debated.
Third-Party Reviews ConsideredCritics expressed concern about proposed provisions that would reduce the use of independent third-party certifications. The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement addressed that and other objections.
The 2016 Production Safety Systems Rule issued by the Obama administration required a third party to certify that each device will function in the most extreme conditions to which it will be exposed. The bureau’s new rule requires device design testing and documentation of the process the operator used to ensure the equipment is designed to function as required.
The new rule also requires third-party certification of a device if it is moved to a different location.
The regulations continue to provide multiple layers of review for the design, installation, and testing of certain aspects of production equipment, the bureau said.
Attentive to Level of RiskSome critics urged the bureau to adopt more risk-based approaches to regulation, an idea that is meant to apportion time and resources to the riskier aspects of industry operations.
The bureau said it agrees that risk-based approaches are often appropriate but that no changes to the regulations were needed for that purpose.
“For example, BSEE is currently developing ways to deploy inspection resources to focus on operations with higher rates of safety events, equipment failure, or incidents of non-compliance,” the bureau said.
The new rule was scheduled for publication in the Sept. 28 Federal Register and will take effect 90 days later.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/more-offshore-oil-gas-production-safety-rules-made-mandatory
-
Trump Signs 'Moonshot' Storage Bill
Sep 28, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Christa Marshall
President Trump has signed legislation that mirrors a bill setting what backers call "moonshot" goals and spending for energy storage.
The language echoes provisions in the bipartisan "Better Energy Storage Technology (BEST) Act," H.R. 5610, from Reps. Steve Knight (R-Calif.) and Bill Foster (D-Ill.), and was included in minibus appropriations legislation the president signed last week.
The text calls for the Department of Energy to set research targets for storage and authorizes $46 million for three large storage demonstration projects. It directs DOE to produce a report "on the potential use of next generation, high capacity and high power batteries in our energy system."
The idea is modeled after programs such as DOE's SunShot Initiative, which set aggressive targets for reducing solar costs, some of which were achieved early.
Similarly, a federal push to develop hydraulic fracturing technology, including through DOE-supported research projects, helped foster growth in natural gas, according to lawmakers who backed the bill.
"Low cost grid-scale energy storage technologies are critical to improving grid resiliency, reliability, security, and the successful integration of a broad range of generation sources," the minibus language said.
In a statement after Trump signed the package, Knight said, "With industrial sized energy storage capabilities, the decision to invest in renewable energy sources becomes that much easier and more viable."
Foster said research on battery storage "is the next frontier in energy development."
The Bipartisan Policy Center, ClearPath Action and the National Audubon Society supported the "BEST Act." Reps. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), Ryan Costello (R-Pa.), Donald Payne Jr. (D-N.J.), Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) and Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) were co-sponsors (E&E Daily, April 26).
The final language is not as "precise" as the "BEST Act," according to a Capitol Hill aide. The original bill specified what cost and performance targets should be for storage, in terms of metrics like capital cost per kilowatt-hour.
Instead, the final text states that research should drive storage technology to levels "capable of performance-driven data in a utility environment."
The U.S. energy storage market has witnessed exponential growth in recent years. In the second quarter of the year, deployments tripled from the same period in 2017. By the end of 2020, installments are expected to more than quadruple from 2017 levels, according to GTM Research.
Yet some advocates are concerned growth could slow and that current levels of research won't develop new technologies fast enough to adequately back up renewables for long periods of time. Lithium-ion batteries, for example, currently can't store energy overnight or beyond a few hours.
Some have pushed for a more central hub on storage at DOE, where support currently is scattered across various offices. The Energy Storage Association and some lawmakers also have been pushing for storage to benefit from tax policy available to other technologies.
This month, Sens. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin asking for clarification on whether storage qualifies for the investment tax credit when linked with an ITC-eligible technology like solar.
Also this week, the World Bank announced it was committing $1 billion for a new program to more than triple installations of energy storage in developing countries.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/09/28/stories/1060100003
-
Rejecting State-Led Policy, MATS Review Will Target Cost Finding, RTR
Sep 27, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA's imminent proposal to reconsider the Obama-era mercury and air toxics standards (MATS) for power plants will target the “appropriate and necessary” finding that underpins the entire rule and also address a review of the rule's current adequacy, the agency's air chief says, rejecting some industry calls to replace MATS with a state-led policy.
William Wehrum, assistant administrator of EPA's Office of Air & Radiation, told reporters Sept. 26 “we have been working very hard on a proposed rule that includes both 'appropriate and necessary' and aspects of rule implementation.” The agency plans to submit the proposal for mandatory White House pre-publication review within days, he said on the sidelines of an EPA Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) in Arlington, VA.
Although Wehrum said, “We are still thinking about what the contours of the proposed rule should look like,” he added it “will address residual risk,” although he did not offer more specifics.
Wehrum has previously discussed the possibility of conducting a risk-and-technology-review (RTR) for the power plant sector, in order to provide more flexibility for industry to implement MATS, as sought by some industry groups. The Clean Air Act's RTR program requires that EPA review its air toxics rules for individual industrial sectors eight years after first issuing them. If the agency finds that “residual” risks to public health remain, or new, cost-effective control technology is available for a sector, or both, it can tighten regulations.
EPA issued MATS in 2011 and published it in the Federal Register in early 2012, which would put the RTR on schedule to take place in 2020. While some power sector groups have advocated using an RTR to give them more flexible methods to implement MATS' emissions limits, environmentalists warn that RTRs cannot be used a pretext to weaken air toxics rules.
It is still unclear how far toward a full RTR rule the pending proposal might go in attempting to weaken the utility air toxics rule, and Wehrum did not elaborate in his remarks at CAAAC.
However, it is clear that the proposal will target the appropriate and necessary finding that is the legal underpinning of the MATS rule. Should EPA rescind the finding, it would open the door for industry or states opposed to MATS to sue EPA seeking vacatur of the whole rule, sources say.
But Wehrum firmly rejected industry suggestions that EPA abandon regulation of power plants' air toxics emissions under the Clean Air Act's section 112 air toxics program and instead rely on section 111(d). Section 111(d) is a “catch all” provision that grants considerable deference to states on how they set limits for air pollution, requiring them to craft plans that reflect a “best system of emissions reduction” (BSER).
Wehrum noted that “we tried that once,” referring to his previous tenure as an air official at EPA under the George W. Bush administration, when the agency attempted to establish a trading program under section 111(d) in the Clean Air Mercury Rule, as an alternative to a section 112 rule. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected that effort because it found EPA failed to justify “de-listing” power plants as a source for air toxics regulation under section 112, a necessary legal hurdle to overcome in opting for the different regulatory regime.
'The Most Important Thing'
Speaking to the goal of the coming proposal, Wehrum said, “maybe the most important thing” is the Supreme Court remand of the MATS appropriate and necessary finding in 2015, in Michigan v. EPA.
In a 5-4 opinion authored by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, the court found that EPA wrongly excluded consideration of implementation costs from its finding, remanding the issue to the D.C. Circuit, which in turn remanded the question to EPA.
The Obama administration in 2016 then re-issued the finding, after conducting a cost review and determining that it is still appropriate and necessary to regulate power plant air toxics.
But “we don't necessarily agree with that,” Wehrum told reporters.
Utilities sued over the revised appropriate and necessary finding, but the case has been placed in abeyance while EPA determines how to proceed on reconsidering MATS.
Based on Wehrum's comments, it appears likely that, at least for the time-being, the Trump EPA will not attempt to scrap MATS in its entirety, although the agency may take comment on that option.
Addressing the CAAAC, Wehrum said it was “abundantly clear” from industry comments that many in the power sector do not want MATS scrapped, given the high levels of investment already made to comply with the rule, which is now fully implemented. Some say, “you should leave well enough alone,” Wehrum said.
However, environmentalists and public health advocates concerned about the possibility of EPA scrapping MATS note that there is still a financial incentive for some plants not to run controls even if they already paid to install them, which could counterbalance arguments in favor of leaving the rule in place to recover the costs of installing controls.
Any reconsideration of MATS' costs and benefits will likely turn on the issue of “co-benefits,” which are the benefits of reducing pollutants such as fine particulate matter (PM2.5) that are not air toxics targeted by section 112. Opponents of MATS argue that the Obama EPA justified the rule by wrongly counting the health benefits of reducing PM2.5. Without those benefits, it could be very difficult to justify the rule's compliance costs, which have run to around $18 billion so far, according to some estimates.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/rejecting-state-led-policy-mats-review-will-target-cost-finding-rtr
-
Energy Official Not Confident Utilities Prepared for Cyberattacks
Sep 27, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The head of the Energy Department’s cybersecurity office said she doesn’t feel confident that U.S. utilities are prepared enough to defend against cyberattacks from Russia and North Korea.
Karen Evans, the department’s head of the Cybersecurity Energy Security and Emergency Response Office, told House lawmakers “there are a lot of opportunities for utilities to improve” their cybersecurity preparedness.
The Energy Department cyber office was first formed in May, and Evans was sworn in a month ago.
The U.S. utility sector faces millions of attempted cyber intrusions a day. In March, the Department of Homeland Security revealed that Russians targeted hundreds of energy and non-energy companies’ networks in 2017. Separately, in April, five natural gas pipeline companies’ communication systems were hacked, but no pipelines were shut down.
Russian, North Korean Threats“Do you feel confident that our utilities are adequately prepared and protected from Russian and North Korean cyberattacks to prevent massive blackouts or credible enough threats of massive blackouts to make our nation vulnerable to cyber blackmail?” Rep. Jerry McNerny (D-Calif.) asked Evans during a Sept. 27 House Energy and Commerce hearing.
Evans responded that she didn’t.
“For me to have a certain confidence level in that, I want to make sure that I’m providing all the information that [utilities] need to have so that they can make sure they have the proper defenses in place,” Evans said.
“There are basic things that all of us have to do across multiple sectors that relates to hygiene,” she said.
Cyberhygiene refers to practices users take to ensure sensitive data is organized, safe, and secure from theft and outside attacks. Such practices involve educating the workforce against spearfishing, which are emails or electronic communications scams that are targeted toward a specific individual, organization, or business.
Risk From TechnologyEvans said as more technology is integrated into the utility sector, “the higher the risk it becomes.” She described cybersecurity preparedness in companies as a “risk management” approach.
“The executives of utilities need to understand what are the risks that they’re bringing into their enterprises as they go forward,” she said.
The Energy Department and the Department of Homeland Security are in discussions as part of the National Risk Management Center, she said. Launched in July, the center aims to protect critical infrastructure, including the electric grid.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/energy-official-not-confident-utilities-prepared-for-cyberattacks
-
DOE Cyber Official Lacks Confidence in Grid Defense
Sep 28, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Blake Sobczak
The Department of Energy's top cybersecurity official told lawmakers yesterday that she is not convinced U.S. utilities could fend off a crippling cyberattack on the power grid.
Karen Evans, assistant secretary for DOE's new Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security and Emergency Response, said "there are a lot of opportunities for the utilities to improve" their defenses in the face of increasingly bold hackers backed by foreign intelligence agencies.
Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.) asked Evans whether she believes the U.S. is ready for a coordinated cyber strike on its grid infrastructure at a House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy hearing yesterday.
"Do you feel confident that our utilities are adequately prepared and protected from Russian and North Korean cyberattacks to prevent massive blackouts — or credible enough threats of massive blackouts — to make our nation vulnerable to cyber blackmail?" he asked.
"So, since you asked me, 'Do I feel confident?' the answer would be no," Evans replied.
Later in the hearing, Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) pressed Evans to elaborate.
"For me to have a certain confidence level of that, I want to make sure that I'm providing all the information that they need to have so that they can make sure that they have the proper defenses in place," she said.
Evans offered lawmakers an outline of her office's efforts to thwart those cyberthreats, putting the electric power industry in a better position to withstand cyberattacks that she said have grown "much easier to launch."
Energy Secretary Rick Perry earlier this year announced plans to spin off Evans' cyber-focused office, CESER, from the agency's Office of Electricity.
The push to establish a stand-alone cybersecurity-focused office within DOE came amid reports that Russia-linked hackers had carried out an intricate, yearslong campaign to penetrate U.S. utility and nuclear power plant corporate networks, pivoting in at least one case to the control system of a power generator (Energywire, March 16).
Perry has repeatedly spoken out about the threat posed by hackers, though he said this week that "I don't think it's necessarily inevitable" that an attack will successfully shut down portions of the grid (Energywire, Sept. 27).
Evans reported yesterday that Perry's "highest priority and biggest concern" is a one-two punch from a natural disaster paired with "some type of disruption in the technology" underpinning the grid.
"Our nation's energy infrastructure has become a primary target for hostile cyber actors, both state-sponsored and private groups," she told lawmakers.Pieces coming together
Evans has advocated for a risk-based approach to grid threats, which would involve working closely with a new "National Risk Management Center" at the Department of Homeland Security.
Homeland security officials have designated DOE as the "sector specific" agency for dealing with threats to the energy sector, from the power grid to oil and gas pipelines.
As the electric grid draws more of its power from natural gas as a fuel source, Evans has said she will seek to key in on "interconnections" and dependencies that could leave U.S. critical infrastructure vulnerable to disruption (Energywire, Sept. 19).
Lawmakers and some federal officials have raised doubts about the level of pipeline security oversight, hinting that DOE could play a larger role.
"There are critical gaps, and we've learned over the past year that energy supplies through pipeline systems — to power our bulk electric system — may not fully be coordinated, within the electric sector, to prepare for or respond to cyber or other risks," noted Energy Subcommittee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.).
He added that "the pieces are, in fact, coming together for DOE to confront these risks."
In a leaked memo earlier this summer, DOE strategists raised the possibility of using emergency statutes to throw an economic lifeline to ailing coal and nuclear plants in the name of national security.
Natural-gas-fired power plants, based on DOE's memo, could fail if hackers or physical attackers hit vital pipelines, posing a risk to the grid.
Evans and Perry have both said they are awaiting word from the White House on any decision on coal, nuclear and gas security.
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking member of the full Energy and Commerce Committee, urged Evans not to intervene in energy markets on those grounds.
"The administration must not use cyberthreats to our nation's grid as an excuse to abuse emergency authorities in the name of justifying subsidies to favored industries or companies," he told Evans. "Too often, officials in this administration have touted the notion that the natural gas system is somehow unreliable or not able to fuel electricity production in as secure a manner as coal.
"All forms of electric generation and their fuels are vulnerable to disruption."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/09/28/stories/1060099999
-
NERC Sees Chance of Major Outage as 'Very Low'
Sep 28, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
It is "very, very unlikely" that a foreign entity would be able to attack the U.S. bulk power system resulting in a catastrophic outage, the nation's top grid overseer said yesterday.
That opinion by Jim Robb, president and CEO of the North American Electric Reliability Corp., jibes with that of Energy Secretary Rick Perry a day earlier.
"I also agree with him that the risk of a major outage as a result of one of these is very low, but not zero," Robb said, speaking with reporters at the six-month anniversary of his taking the helm of NERC.
"Given the havoc that would result, we need to always be vigilant and staying way ahead of the curve, and I think we are," Robb said.
Cyberattacks on the grid "go on all the time," Perry said at a roundtable with reporters. "The folk who would do harm become more sophisticated as the days go forward," he added. "To date, we have stayed up with that. I have pretty good confidence that we will continue to, so I don't think it's necessarily inevitable" that an attack will be successful in disabling a portion of the grid.
Robb agreed "absolutely" that the grid is being hacked every day.
"[But] our system is designed with so much security built in through the standards, through the isolation of operating systems, it would be very, very unlikely that a foreign entity or a malicious actor of any type would be able to create a catastrophic and cascading issue on the grid — not zero — but very unlikely," Robb said.
"And we're going to do everything we can to stay ahead of that and make sure that industry stays ahead of that," he added.
NERC manages the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC), one of whose main roles is thwarting cyberattacks.
Robb said an E-ISAC program allows for "passive monitoring of entry points onto participating utilities systems. We can look and see any abnormal traffic going on on an individual's systems, and that information can rapidly be shared with all participants within the program."
Robb also said that he has instructed his staff to guard against the politicization of issues that are ripe in the utility industry.
"Many of the issues that the industry is facing right now are becoming highly politicized, whether it's the longevity of coal and nuclear plants, the push to add more wind and solar to the grid, and other sorts of advanced technologies that are coming down the path," Robb said.
"Many of those have political overtones as well as technical ones," he said. "My goal is to make sure that our work remains technically unimpeachable so that it's there to inform people who are making important decisions around these issues but not get drawn into the political and ideological arguments around them."
He added, "Anytime you're putting out important work on issues that are important to other people, people will look into it to pull out what they like and what they don't like."
As far as any NERC involvement in the Trump administration's quest for possible financial support for failing coal and nuclear power plants, Robb said, "We don't have any role in that discussion.
"We really don't have any role in pricing and economic market issues, period. That's outside of our bailiwick," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/09/28/stories/1060100021
-
Senate Positive Train Control Hearing Wednesday
Sep 27, 2018 | American Shipper
By Kim Link-Wills
The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation will convene a hearing on the implementation of positive train control Wednesday.
Positive Train Control, or PTC, is a radio- or GPS-based system designed to prevent train-to-train collisions, derailments, incursions into work zones and the movement of a train through a switch left in the wrong position.
The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 initially required that certain freight, commuter and passenger rail lines in the United States install PTC by Dec. 31, 2015. Congress extended that deadline to Dec. 31 of this year.
Wednesday’s hearing will focus on the current status of implementation of PTC, anticipated compliance with the statute and the challenges with efforts to install and operationalize PTC systems.
Witnesses will be Ronald Batory, Federal Railroad Administration administrator; Susan Fleming, GovernmentAccountability Office director of physical infrastructure issues; Kevin Corbett, executive director of New Jersey Transit; and Scot Naparstek, Amtrak executive vice president and chief operating officer.
The hearing will begin at 10 a.m. Wednesday in Room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C.
Witness testimony, opening statements and a live video of the hearing will be available on www.commerce.senate.gov.The House Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials conducted its own PTC hearing Sept. 13.
Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Denham, R-Calif., said nine railroads were at risk of not meeting federal deadlines for implementation.“FRA currently considers any railroad that installed less than 90 percent of its PTC system hardware as of June 30, 2018, to be at risk, as installation of all PTC system hardware is only an initial phase of implementing a PTC system and only one of the six statutory criteria required to qualify for an alternative schedule,” Denham said.
https://www.americanshipper.com/Main/full/Senate_positive_train_control_hearing_Wednesday_72597.aspx?source=Little4
-
Sierra Club Asks for Delay in EPA Air Monitoring Rule Suit Argument
Sep 27, 2018 | Inside EPA
Sierra Club has filed an unopposed motion asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to delay until at least Nov. 26 oral argument scheduled for Nov. 7 in a suit over an EPA rule detailing state emissions monitoring mandates, citing conflicting commitments for the group's attorney that will argue the case.
The environmental group in a Sept. 26 motion made the request to delay the argument in Sierra Club v. EPA, et al. but the court at press time had not formally responded to it. However, the fact that the request is unopposed means the agency does not object to pushing back the argument date, and the court is expected to grant it.
In the suit, environmentalists are suing the agency over its March 2016 Obama-era rule revising states' emissions monitoring requirements. The group claims the rule robs the public of the opportunity for full notice-and-comment on states' monitoring programs by unlawfully excluding those plans from the scope of formal state implementation plans (SIPs) that detail states' measures to meet federal air quality standards.
Sierra Club says that EPA has unlawfully required only that SIPs contain reference to states' legal authorities to establish monitoring networks, rather than the detailed monitoring network programs themselves. SIPs are subject to formal public notice-and-comment, and must be approved by EPA.
The group cites as the reason for the requested delay a schedule conflict for attorney Tosh Sagar, who is also representing environmental groups in unrelated litigation in the 9th Circuit. Sagar is now scheduled to submit a brief Nov. 9 in Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families v. EPA, a case challenging the agency's rules for implementing the revised Toxic Substances Control Act.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/sierra-club-asks-delay-epa-air-monitoring-rule-suit-argument
-
Review Likely Won't Ease Ozone Standard — Wehrum
Sep 27, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
A newly launched review of the ground-level ozone standard likely won't lead to a loosening of the existing limit of 70 parts per billion, EPA air chief Bill Wehrum said yesterday, taking a stance that seemingly shuts down an option floated by the agency in a recent court filing.
"I'm not going to rule out the possibility that we would think about going higher, but my own view is that there's not much likelihood we do that," Wehrum told reporters late yesterday. He suggested that, while legally possible, such a move would run into implementation challenges stemming from "anti-backsliding" provisions built into the Clean Air Act.
EPA set the 70 ppb threshold in October 2015 after concluding that the previous 75 ppb standard was not tight enough to adequately protect public health.
The agency completed the initial national round of attainment designations in July. While some industry groups and Republican lawmakers three years ago predicted dire consequences stemming from the tighter standard, "I don't think it's creating the kind of intractable problems that people were worried about," Wehrum said earlier in the afternoon during a meeting of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (Greenwire, Sept. 27). The focus now, he added, is on whether the mechanism used to set the 2015 standard should be used in the future.
"That's a thought process we still have underway," Wehrum said. Already, however, EPA has launched a fast-track review of the ozone standard under new guidelines. That review is set to conclude by October 2020, or within the five-year timetable set by the Clean Air Act. "Certainly there, we may bring a little bit of a different perspective as to what data we think are most relevant and how those data should be applied in decisionmaking," Wehrum said.
But the agency is still locked in a two-front battle over the 2015 standard. Numerous Republican-leaning states and industry organizations contend the 70 ppb standard is so strict that some parts of the country won't be able to meet it because of background ozone levels outside of regulators' direct control; environmental and public health groups argue the scientific evidence warrants lowering the standard even further.
At the administration's request, the consolidated litigation had been on hold from April 2017 through early last month to give EPA a chance to ponder its position on the 2015 limit. In a filing signaling its decision, the agency told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that it would keep the 70 ppb standard for now.
Still open was the question of whether raising the standard "to accommodate background ozone" could be a permissible reading of the Clean Air Act, the filing said. Accordingly, EPA officials expect to revisit the questions both of when "background concentrations interfere with attainment" of the standard and how to deal with any such interference in whether to make changes, according to the filing.
Ozone, a lung irritant that is the main ingredient in smog, is produced by the reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in sunshine. Potential changes to the ground-level standard are thus of keen interest to coal-fired electricity producers, a major source of nitrogen oxides, and the oil and gas industry, a prime emitter of volatile organic compounds.
Despite the statutory requirement, EPA rarely, if ever, meets the five-year deadline for completing new reviews of the standards for ozone, particulate matter and four other criteria pollutants. There is no recent precedent for winding up a full review in barely two years, raising questions over exactly how EPA plans to get the job done.
"If you want to do it a different way, it's going to have to be explained a lot," said Ted Steichen, a committee member who is also a senior policy adviser to the American Petroleum Institute. In response, Wehrum said the agency is committed to completing the review on time and has a "very viable plan in place do that."
That approach may entail less interaction with the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, a panel of outside experts that plays a central role in deciding whether any changes to a standard are needed, he added. "We could be a little bit smarter about when and where to seek their advice," Wehrum said, "and still get the full benefit of their advice."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/09/27/stories/1060099963
-
Climate Caucus Chair Vows Midterms Will Not Weaken Group
Sep 28, 2018 | Inside EPA
Sierra Club has filed an unopposed motion asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to delay until at least Nov. 26 oral argument scheduled for Nov. 7 in a suit over an EPA rule detailing state emissions monitoring mandates, citing conflicting commitments for the group's attorney that will argue the case.
The environmental group in a Sept. 26 motion made the request to delay the argument in Sierra Club v. EPA, et al. but the court at press time had not formally responded to it. However, the fact that the request is unopposed means the agency does not object to pushing back the argument date, and the court is expected to grant it.
In the suit, environmentalists are suing the agency over its March 2016 Obama-era rule revising states' emissions monitoring requirements. The group claims the rule robs the public of the opportunity for full notice-and-comment on states' monitoring programs by unlawfully excluding those plans from the scope of formal state implementation plans (SIPs) that detail states' measures to meet federal air quality standards.
Sierra Club says that EPA has unlawfully required only that SIPs contain reference to states' legal authorities to establish monitoring networks, rather than the detailed monitoring network programs themselves. SIPs are subject to formal public notice-and-comment, and must be approved by EPA.
The group cites as the reason for the requested delay a schedule conflict for attorney Tosh Sagar, who is also representing environmental groups in unrelated litigation in the 9th Circuit. Sagar is now scheduled to submit a brief Nov. 9 in Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families v. EPA, a case challenging the agency's rules for implementing the revised Toxic Substances Control Act.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/climate-caucus-chair-vows-midterms-will-not-weaken-group
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested