Michigan v EPA March 2015 Oral Arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States
http://www.c-span.org/video/?325015-1/michigan-v-epa-oral-argument-audio
The SCOTUS ruled 5 -4 the EPA failed to consider costs and remanded to lower court.
Power plant regulation was found appropriate because the plants' emissions pose risks to public heath and the environment and because controls capable of reducing these emissions are available.
Regulation was found necessary because the these risks to public health and the environment have not been eliminated by existing Clean Air Act requirements. The D C Circuit court had upheld the EPA's refusal to consider costs in this decision (of whether regulation is appropriate and necessary). "Statutory context supports" that EPA was required "to conduct three studies, including one that reflects concern about cost", and EPA agreed "that the term appropriate and necessary must be interpreted in light of all three studies." The SCOTUS found "EPA must consider cost -- including cost of compliance -- before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary. It will be up to the Agency (EPA) to decide how to account for cost." http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-46_10n2.pdf
: "No regulation is ‘appropriate’ if it does significantly more harm than good." -- Justice Scalia {editorial note, this should be applied to neighborhoods around "Clean Fuel" projects, where Clean Fuel Creates Dirty Neighborhood}
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2015/06/29-michigan-v-epa-administrative-deference-Wallach
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/02/the-lesson-we-should-take-from-michigan-v-epa/
""EPA expressed disappointment at the ruling but noted that the regulation “was issued more than three years ago [and] investments have been made and most plants are already well on their way to compliance.”
The Sierra Club agreed that the ruling couldn’t reverse decisions energy companies have already made to comply.
“Practically speaking, today’s decision won’t revive the fortunes of Big Coal or slow down our nation’s transition to clean energy,” said Mary Anne Hitt, director of Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign. “Most utilities have long since made decisions about how to meet the standard. Only a few dozen coal plants are still operating today with no pollution controls for mercury and air toxics and no clear plans to install them.”""
Thursday, July 2, 2015
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Thanks Sierra Club !!
36 States Ordered to Remove SSM and Affirmative Defense
Provisions from Their Rules
Alert 6/12/2015
On June 12, EPA published its final regulatory action under the Clean Air Act
(CAA) requiring 36 states to remove provisions from their State Implementation
Plans (SIPs) allowing exemptions from emission limitations during startup,
shutdown and malfunction (SSM) events. This action also requires 17 states to
remove affirmative defenses from the SSM provisions of their SIPs. Affected
states must submit their SIP revisions to EPA for approval by Nov. 22, 2016. .....
As previously reported, EPA first proposed this action (SIP
Call) in 2013 as a result of the Sierra Club’s June 30, 2011, petition following
the environmental organization’s successful challenge to EPA’s General
Provisions regarding SSM exemptions for National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs): Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019
(D.C. Cir. 2008). ...
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-06-12/pdf/2015-12905.pdf
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-06-12/pdf/2015-12905.pdf
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
EPA will not be able to approve Louisiana SIP as proposed for 1-hour SO2 standard
EPA has “identified a number of instances in which the State’s plan does not follow the EPA’s April 23, 2014, Guidance for 1-hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions and deviates from the modeling protocol approach previously agreed upon between EPA Region 6 and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. Unfortunately, we do not believe we will be able to approve the SIP as proposed. The enclosure to this letter details specific issues and recommendations we have concerning the proposed attainment demonstration SIP.”
“We appreciate your work on the proposed attainment demonstration SIP and are committed to working with you to address the issues we have identified to ensure the plan is protective of public health in St. Bernard Parish.”
EPA's comments on Louisiana's State SIP for St Bernard Parish Sulfur Dioxide:
http://edms.deq.louisiana.gov/app/doc/view.aspx?doc=9784329&ob=yes&child=yes
http://edms.deq.louisiana.gov/app/doc/view.aspx?doc=9784329&ob=yes&child=yes
If the State is unable to submit a plan that EPA approves, within 18- and 24- month milestones from non-approval, EPA must develop a FIP (Federal Implementation Plan) and apply sanctions to St Bernard Parish. Sanctions could include, limited highway funded projects and grants, and, increased emission offsets for new or modified major industry in St Bernard Parish
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf
On April 1 2015 Louisiana submitted its State SIP for St Bernard Parish Sulfur Dioxide:
http://edms.deq.louisiana.gov/app/doc/view.aspx?doc=9704523&ob=yes&child=yes
We need a State SIP with appropriate modeling and permit limits that ensures a violation cannot occur. It is not enough just to now have a promise for reduced production rates, a higher stack, and a monitor without violations. We need federally enforceable limits to protect the air we are forced to breathe.
Basically, it seems EPA is concerned with what was excluded from the modeling used for the SIP and what was excluded from emissions data for Rain CII calcining plant. Based on EPA's comments, LDEQ did not include:
On April 1 2015 Louisiana submitted its State SIP for St Bernard Parish Sulfur Dioxide:
http://edms.deq.louisiana.gov/app/doc/view.aspx?doc=9704523&ob=yes&child=yes
We need a State SIP with appropriate modeling and permit limits that ensures a violation cannot occur. It is not enough just to now have a promise for reduced production rates, a higher stack, and a monitor without violations. We need federally enforceable limits to protect the air we are forced to breathe.
Basically, it seems EPA is concerned with what was excluded from the modeling used for the SIP and what was excluded from emissions data for Rain CII calcining plant. Based on EPA's comments, LDEQ did not include:
- all four of Rain CII’s permitted operating scenarios. “LDEQ forwarded a document that summarized Rain CII modeling of these four scenarios but it does not appear to follow the parameters previously agreed upon” The modeling only addresses ONE of the FOUR permitted operating scenarios at Rain.
- It does not include “Enforceable limits” to address all operating conditions at Rain CII…. It does not clearly state pounds per hour for each stack and does not ensure the limits are to be complied with on a short term rate, such as a 3-hour average.
- It does not include All major sources within 20 km; “LDEQ should follow the previously agreed upon procedures in the modeling protocol version from late January 2015”
- LDEQ also did not include minor sources within close proximity to the violating monitor, but EPA previously agreed to this. There is no further information on what these minor sources are or how small business maybe effected in the future.
- The background monitor value was not calculated correctly. “LDEQ’s use of an annual average value for 1-Hour SO2 is not acceptable." “This is a modeling demonstration to show compliance with a one hour standard. As a result, the modeling demonstration needs to show that under worst case conditions (i.e. the most difficult hours of the year) the NAAQS will be protected. As a result, it is not appropriate to use average background conditions as proposed in the SIP.”
- Excluded modeling receptors inside Chalmette Refinery, considering Rain’s close proximity to ExxonMobil's Chalmette Refinery, “there should be a separate run for each of the scenarios in the attainment demonstration that evaluates a set of receptors within the Chalmette Refinery”, but that excludes emissions from the Chalmette refinery.
- Apparently, LDEQ has permitted several EGU turbine facilities in the area that have the capability to burn fuel oil with no hours per year restriction. The largest source is Entergy's Michoud facility in New Orleans East (although New Orleans was not included in the non-attainment designation). The Michoud facility has a permit allowable of over 39,000 tons per year SO2, but no restrictions on hours per year when the power plant switches from natural gas to fuel oil. The SIP must either include restrictions in an Administrative Order or a permit…… otherwise, this could affect the ability of the area [St Bernard] to achieve and maintain attainment..
- The modeling protocol is undated and has significant differences from the protocol that EPA approved January 2015.
Friday, June 12, 2015
Chinese sheetrock, Chinese flooring, and now Chinese Methanol
The
Louisiana DEQ issued a permit to a Chinese company for a Methanol plant in
St James Parish.
Ask no questions, tell no lies
The permit application claims lower emissions than what
would require a review for more stringent pollution controls, but fails to include
the emissions calculations in the permit record. Even EPA cannot obtain a copy
and LDEQ maintains it is not necessary. Thankfully, two environmental groups
filed a Petition to EPA to object to the permit.
Louisiana DEQ issued the permit anyway because the emissions data “ were certified as true by a responsible company official and a professional engineer. “ by the Associated Press June 01, 2015 St James methanol plant challenged by 2 environmental groups http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2015/06/st_james_methanol_plant_oppose.html
Environmental Injustice
The Chinese
company had filed for expedited permits "to construct and operate a plant
on a sprawling 1,100 acres — situated between a high school, two churches and
an assisted living facility for senior citizens." “We
never had a town hall meeting pretending to get our opinion prior to them doing
it,” said Lawrence “Palo” Ambrose, a 74-year-old black Vietnam War veteran who
works at a nearby church. “They didn’t make us part of the discussion.” China’s Louisiana Purchase: Who’s building a methanol plant on the
bayou? Al Jazeera investigates ties between Louisiana and the Chinese
government in a proposed $1.85 billion methanol plant January 26, 2015 5:00AM
ET by Massoud Havoun http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/1/26/chinas-louisiana-jindal-methanol-plant-environment-racism.html
The parish has since then voted to tax themselves to move the community
high school and seem to think that’s enough responsibility for driving people
out of their homes. “School
officials are planning to move St. James High School from the heavily
industrialized location on the west bank of the parish to a 54-acre tract of
land near La. 20 and La. 3127. A parish master plan has indicated more
corporations will move to the already industrialized area and drive homeowners
to other residential areas. “ By Kate
Stevens January 21,2015 St. James School Board seeks to place bond proposal
before voters. http://theadvocate.com/news/11325507-123/st-james-school-board-seeks
“But Black
residents in the southern Louisiana region where the plant is to be built, St.
James Parish, didn’t even find out about the project until after local and
state officials and Chinese diplomats decided to move forward with it last
July—helped substantially by a $9.5 million incentive package from Gov. Bobby Jindal’s
administration.” Typically, LDEQ air
permit application copies are available at the public library and online if you
know about it and know the project
number assigned. A notice is published in a local paper, but the average citizen
is unaware local officials have already made agreements. China Is Building a $1.85B Methanol Plant in
‘Cancer Alley’ Louisiana But No One Bothered To Inform Its Predominantly Black
Community -- January 29, 2015 Posted by
Nick Chiles http://atlantablackstar.com/2015/01/29/china-is-building-a-1-85b-methanol-plant-in-cancer-alley-louisiana-but-no-one-bothered-to-inform-its-predominantly-black-community/
EPA ozone regulations
EPA and Ozone regulations.
Senate subcommittee hearing December 2014.
The Clean Air Act requires
EPA to review NAAQS standards (national ambient air quality standards) for ozone and for 5 other pollutants every 5
years to ensure they protect public health.
The current 75 parts per billion ozone
standard has been too high since the day it was finalized by the Bush
Administration back in 2008. That decision by the Bush Administration was so
out of line that the scientific advisory committee actually pushed back after
the fact, wrote a very unusual letter to Administrator Johnston telling him that
he had made a mistake and that the number could not be justified. Given the
priorities of that administration the scientific advice was not reckoned with
so that’s where the standard was set, and since then since then we have had
false comfort that the air we breathe everyday is safe. The revised standard is
a significant improvement; it is based on extensive scientific research, including
over a thousand studies published since the 2008 standard.
Industry claims that an ozone standard that protects health
will devastate businesses and the economy. When you look at history over and
over again those claims have been shown to be exaggerated and usually the contrary
is true. In terms of cost and benefits, the benefits of this rule in health and
other areas are three time the costs. EPA analysis show that Health benefits
translate into economic benefits, excluding California (which already complies),
would be 4 billion to 23 billion higher than the costs in 2025.
Thursday, June 11, 2015
lessons not learned
It’s hurricane season, and not all lessons learned are lessons implemented. so how prepared are the refineries for rainfall totals and storm surges? how often are they supposed to inspect the berms, levees, and dikes? how long had this been going on? apparently they don't inspect enough
At approximately 4:30pm on May 7, 2015, Valero received a call from a resident of a nearby trailer park reporting standing water along the rear fence line of his back yard. After clearing significant vegetation, a small breach was discovered in the east dike wall surrounding the [Valero Energy Meraux] refinery’s fire water pond. This pond consists primarily of Mississippi River water pumped into a lined impoundment. The damage to the dike appears to be the result of burrowing nutria.
Tuesday, June 9, 2015
why wouldn't Louisiana support the clean power plan
Around the 21 minute mark:
“If your congressmen or governor or senator or stakeholder does not agree that this program is going to reduce green house gases the way you want, there is still reason to consider this program seriously, because you will get huge reductions in smog forming emissions, in fine particulates which are killing people, and in other air pollutants which are causing a lot of significant health problems throughout the country. “ --- Bob Becker, executive director NACAA, observations on the EPA Clean Power Plan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
