Showing posts with label Environmental Protection Agency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environmental Protection Agency. Show all posts
Thursday, June 6, 2013
EPA Report Released: 2013 Brownfields Federal Programs Guide
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
GAO Report Released: Hazardous Waste Cleanup: Observations on States' Role, Liabilities at DOD and Hardrock Mining Sites, and Litigation Issues
Why GAO Did This Study
According to EPA, the agency that manages the nation's principal hazardous waste cleanup program, one in four Americans lives within 3 miles of a hazardous waste site. Many such sites pose health and other risks, and their cleanup can be lengthy and expensive. EPA's Superfund program, established under [Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act ] CERCLA, provides a process to address contaminated sites. Under CERCLA, parties that contributed to the contamination of a site are generally liable for cleanup and related costs. These parties may include federal agencies, such as DOD, and companies. Based on the risk a site poses, EPA may place the site on the [National Priorities List] NPL, a list that includes some of the nation's most seriously contaminated sites. As of April 2013, the NPL included about 1,300 sites, and states and federal agencies may address additional contaminated sites outside of EPA's Superfund program. GAO's prior work has identified challenges cleaning up DOD's NPL sites and abandoned mining sites and has assessed litigation related to the Superfund program.
In this testimony, GAO summarizes its work from March 2008 to April 2013 on (1) the role of states in cleaning up hazardous waste sites, (2) DOD's management of its sites on the NPL, (3) federal liabilities from contaminated hardrock mining sites, and (4) litigation under CERCLA and other statutes.
GAO is not making new recommendations but has made numerous recommendations to DOD, EPA, and Interior to better address hazardous waste sites. As described in this statement, the responses to these recommendations have varied.
GAO Report Released: Natural Resources and Environment: Funding for 10 States' Programs Supported by Four Environmental Protection Agency Categorical Grants
Why GAO Did This Study
In the last 10 years, appropriations for EPA's categorical grants have generally decreased from a high of $1.17 billion in fiscal year 2004 to $1.09 billion in fiscal year 2012 (in current dollars). Members of Congress and state stakeholders have expressed concerns about the adequacy of EPA categorical grant funding in light of recent economic conditions and the effects on state budgets.
GAO reviewed four of these grants--the Water Pollutant Control, Nonpoint Source, Air Quality, and Underground Injection Control grants--that made up 60 percent of the total budget for categorical grants in fiscal year 2012. GAO also reviewed funding for state programs that use these grants in 10 states, including Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Vermont, and West Virginia.
Why GAO Did This Study
GAO is not making any recommendations. GAO provided a draft to the agency for comment. EPA provided technical comments by e-mail, which were incorporated into the report as appropriate. GAO also provided relevant sections of the report to agency officials in the 10 states reviewed. The state agencies provided technical comments, which were incorporated into the report as appropriate.
EPA Report Released: Semiannual Report of UST Performance Measures Mid Fiscal Year 2013 (October 1, 2012 - March 31, 2013)
EPA collects data from states and territories regarding [underground storage tank] UST performance measures. This data includes information such as the number of active and closed tanks, releases reported, cleanups initiated and completed, facilities in compliance with UST requirements, and inspections. The reports below provide data in table format for all states, territories, and Indian country for the reporting period indicated.Previous reports from October 1987 to the present are available here.
Friday, May 10, 2013
GAO Report Released: Superfund: EPA Should Take Steps to Improve Its Management of Alternatives to Placing Sites on the National Priorities List
Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report, titled Superfund: EPA Should Take Steps to Improve Its Management of Alternatives to Placing Sites on the National Priorities List GAO-13-252 (Apr. 9, 2013). The details of the 59-page report, available here, are discussed below:Why GAO Did This Study
Under the Superfund program, EPA may address the long-term cleanup of certain hazardous waste sites by placing them on the NPL and overseeing the cleanup. To be eligible for the [National Priorities List ] NPL, a site must be sufficiently contaminated, among other things. EPA regions have discretion to choose among several other approaches to address sites eligible for the NPL. For example, under the Superfund program, EPA regions may enter into agreements with PRPs using the [Superfund Alternative] SA approach. EPA may also defer the oversight of cleanup at eligible sites to approaches outside of the Superfund program. GAO was asked to review EPA's implementation of the SA approach and how it compares with the NPL approach. This report examines (1) how EPA addresses the cleanup of sites it has identified as eligible for the NPL, (2) how the processes for implementing the SA and NPL approaches compare, and (3) how SA agreement sites compare with similar NPL sites in completing the cleanup process. GAO reviewed applicable laws, regulations, and guidance; analyzed program data as of December 2012; interviewed EPA officials; and compared SA agreement sites with 74 NPL sites selected based on their similarity to SA agreement sites.
What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends, among other things, that EPA issue guidance to define and clarify documentation requirements for OCA deferrals and clarify its policies on SA agreement sites. EPA agreed with the report's recommendations.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
EPA Report Released: Emerging Technologies for Wastewater Treatment and In-Plant Wet Weather Management
[t]his technology guide informs municipal wastewater utility owners and operators, local governments, engineers, and planners about new wastewater treatment and in-plant wet weather management technologies. The document includes technical and cost information to assist users in considering using more efficient, sustainable, and cost-effective wastewater treatment and in-plant wet weather management technologies. The document updates a 2008 publication of the same name and provides information on four categories of technology development: research stage, emerging, innovative, and adaptive use.
USDA Report Released: Report on the National Stakeholders Conference on Honey Bee Health
[t]he U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today released a comprehensive scientific report on honey bee health. The report states that there are multiple factors playing a role in honey bee colony declines, including parasites and disease, genetics, poor nutrition and pesticide exposure.
"There is an important link between the health of American agriculture and the health of our honeybees for our country's long term agricultural productivity," said Agriculture Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan. "The forces impacting honeybee health are complex and USDA, our research partners, and key stakeholders will be engaged in addressing this challenge."
"The decline in honey bee health is a complex problem caused by a combination of stressors, and at EPA we are committed to continuing our work with USDA, researchers, beekeepers, growers and the public to address this challenge," said Acting EPA Administrator Bob Perciasepe. "The report we've released today is the product of unprecedented collaboration, and our work in concert must continue. As the report makes clear, we've made significant progress, but there is still much work to be done to protect the honey bee population."
In October 2012, a National Stakeholders Conference on Honey Bee Health, led by federal researchers and managers, along with Pennsylvania State University, was convened to synthesize the current state of knowledge regarding the primary factors that scientists believe have the greatest impact on managed bee health.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
GAO Report Released: Toxic Substances: EPA Has Increased Efforts to Assess and Control Chemicals but Could Strengthen Its Approach
Why GAO Did This Study
In 1976, Congress passed TSCA to provide EPA with the authority to obtain more information on chemicals and to regulate those chemicals that EPA determines pose unreasonable risks of injury to human health or the environment. GAO has reported that EPA has found much of TSCA difficult to implement--hampering the agency's ability to obtain certain chemical data or place limits on chemicals. Of the thousands of chemicals listed for commercial use in the United States, EPA has used its authority to limit or ban five chemicals since TSCA was enacted. In 2009, EPA announced TSCA reform principles to inform ongoing efforts in Congress to strengthen the act. At that time, EPA also initiated a new approach for managing toxic chemicals with the goal of ensuring the safety of chemicals using its existing authorities.
GAO was asked to evaluate EPA's efforts to strengthen its management of chemicals. This report determines the extent to which (1) EPA has made progress implementing its new approach and (2) EPA's new approach positions it to achieve its goal of ensuring the safety of chemicals. GAO examined agency documents and TSCA rulemaking and interviewed agency officials and stakeholders from industry and environmental organizations.
What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends, among other things, that EPA develop strategies that address challenges impeding its ability to ensure chemical safety and identify the resources needed to so. EPA neither agreed nor disagreed with GAO’s recommendations.
CRS Report Released: Mountaintop Mining: Background on Current Controversies
Summary
Mountaintop removal mining involves removing the top of a mountain in order to recover the coal seams contained there. This practice occurs in six Appalachian states (Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, and Ohio). It creates an immense quantity of excess spoil (dirt and rock that previously composed the mountaintop), which is typically placed in valley fills on the sides of the former mountains, burying streams that flow through the valleys. Mountaintop mining is regulated under several laws, including the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA).
Critics say that, as a result of valley fills from mountaintop mining, stream water quality and the aquatic and wildlife habitat that streams support are destroyed by tons of rocks and dirt. The mining industry argues that mountaintop mining is essential to conducting surface coal mining in the Appalachian region and that it would not be economically feasible there if operators were barred from using valleys for the disposal of mining overburden. Critics have used litigation to challenge the practice. In a number of cases, environmental groups have been successful at the federal district court level in challenging permits for mountaintop mining projects, only to be later overturned on appeal. Nonetheless, the criticisms also have prompted some regulatory changes.
In 2009, officials of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and the Department of the Interior signed a Memorandum of Understanding outlining a series of administrative actions under these laws to reduce the harmful environmental impacts of mountaintop mining and surface coal mining in Appalachia. The plan includes a series of near-term and longer-term actions that emphasize specific steps, improved coordination, and greater transparency of decisions to be implemented through regulatory proposals, guidance documents, and review of applications for permits to authorize surface coal mining operations in Appalachia. Viewed broadly, the Administration’s combined actions on mountaintop mining displease both industry and environmental advocates. The additional scrutiny of permits and more stringent requirements have angered the coal industry and many of its supporters. Controversy also was generated by EPA’s January 2011 veto of a CWA permit that had been issued by the Corps for a surface coal mining project in West Virginia. At the same time, while environmental groups support EPA’s steps to restrict the practice, many favor tougher requirements or even total rejection of mountaintop mining in Appalachia. Federal courts have recently rejected several of the Administration’s actions, including enhanced permit review procedures, and EPA guidance on factors used in evaluating water quality impacts of Appalachian surface mining permits. EPA’s veto of the West Virginia mine permit was overturned by a federal court, but that ruling was recently reversed on appeal.
This report provides background on regulatory requirements, controversies and legal challenges to mountaintop mining, and recent Administration actions. Congressional interest in these issues also is discussed, including legislation in the 111th Congress seeking to restrict the practice of mountaintop mining and other legislation intended to block the Obama Administration’s regulatory actions. Attention to EPA’s veto of the West Virginia mining permit and other federal agency actions has increased in Congress. Bills have been introduced in the 113th Congress to clarify or restrict EPA’s authority to veto CWA permits issued by the Corps (H.R. 524 and S. 830).
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
EPA Releases FY 2014 Budget Proposal
the Obama Administration proposed a Fiscal Year 2014 (FY 2014) budget of $8.153 billion for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This request is $296 million below the EPA’s budget for Fiscal Year 2012.
“EPA’s FY 2014 budget reflects our firm commitment to keeping American communities across our country healthy and clean, while also taking into consideration the difficult fiscal situation and the declining resources of state, local and tribal programs,” said EPA Acting Administrator Bob Perciasepe. “Our request takes a balanced approach to funding the agency, including increased investments in more efficient technologies as well as necessary program eliminations or reductions.”
EPA’s FY 2014 request will allow EPA to continue its progress in addressing climate change; protecting the nation’s air, waters, and lands; supporting sustainable water infrastructure; and assuring the safety of chemicals. EPA will continue to lay the groundwork to transform the way it does business, ensuring the best use of human and financial resources, while continuing to achieve the agency’s mission effectively and efficiently.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
ELI Seminar: Meet & Greet: Matthew Tejada, Incoming Director of EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice
| Meet & Greet: Matthew Tejada, Incoming Director of EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice |
|||||
| An ELI Research Seminar | |||||
|
|||||
EPA Releases U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program 2012 Annual Report
EPA is releasing its U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program 2012 Annual Report. The report highlights Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 accomplishments and the program's environmental, public health and economic benefits to the U.S. The border program provides access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation, often for the first time, to underserved communities along the U.S.-Mexico Border. In FY 2012, the program provided 5,185 border homes with safe drinking water and 31,092 homes with adequate wastewater services. Currently the program has 24 projects under construction and supports 26 communities in the planning and development of projects for future construction. EPA's investments boost the regional and national economy through increased productivity, avoided health care and economic losses, direct and indirect job creation, enhanced ecological values, and by attracting trade opportunities and additional private investments. More information: http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/wastewater/mexican/index.cfm
- U.S.-Mexico Border Infrastructure Program 2012 Annual Report (PDF)
- U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program 2011 Annual Report (PDF)
- U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Successes Mexicali (PDF)
Friday, March 29, 2013
GAO Report Released: Energy Efficiency: Better Coordination among Federal Programs Needed to Allocate Testing Resources
Why GAO Did This Study
The federal government has established three key programs to encourage energy efficiency in household appliances and consumer electronics sold in the United States: (1) federal minimum efficiency standards, led by DOE; (2) EnergyGuide, which requires product labeling and is led by the FTC; and (3) Energy Star, a voluntary labeling program led by EPA.
Pub. L. No. 111-139 requires GAO to annually identify programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives with duplicative goals and activities. In response to this mandate, the objectives for this report are to: (1) examine these three programs' approaches to improving the energy efficiency of household appliances and consumer electronics and the scope of products they cover, and (2) determine to what extent, if any, federal programs to foster energy efficiency for these products are fragmented, overlapping, or duplicative. GAO reviewed relevant legislation and program documents and spoke with staff at the agencies about each of the programs, and to stakeholders, including manufacturers.
What GAO Recommends
To limit the potential for duplication in the current Energy Star verification testing activities, GAO recommends that EPA take steps to better communicate to DOE the models selected for testing so DOE can avoid testing the same ones. DOE and EPA acknowledged the importance of coordination, but EPA disagreed with the draft recommendation, citing concerns it could be labor intensive to implement. GAO revised the recommendation to clarify EPA’s flexibility in implementing it.
Friday, March 22, 2013
EPA Memorandum of Understanding to Promote Healthy Watersheds Initiative Released
On February 22, 2013, EPA, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and the Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) jointly signed the Memorandum of Understanding between The Nature Conservancy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Association of Clean Water Administrators to Promote the Healthy Watersheds Initiative (MOU). This MOU formalizes a mutual collaboration between these groups as they strive to develop and implement healthy watersheds programs in states and with regional aquatic ecosystem programs. These programs include working with states and other partners to identify healthy watersheds state-wide and to implement healthy watershed protection plans, to integrate such protection into EPA programs and to increase awareness and understanding of the importance of protecting our remaining healthy watersheds. TNC, EPA, and ACWA will promote data gathering / data sharing and evaluation of conservation and environmental outcomes resulting from the implementation of state and regional healthy watershed programs.Memorandum of Understanding to Promote the Healthy Watersheds Initiative (PDF)
Thursday, March 21, 2013
CRS Report Released: The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Particulate Matter (PM): EPA’s 2006 Revisions and Associated Issues
Summary
On October 17, 2006, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published its final revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (particulates, or PM). Several states and industry, agriculture, business, and environmental and public health advocacy groups petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, challenging certain aspects of EPA’s revisions. A February 24, 2009, decision by the D.C. Circuit granted the petitions in part, denying other challenges, and remanded the standards to EPA for further consideration but did not specifically vacate the 2006 PM standards. EPA initiated its next round of the periodic review of the PM NAAQS, in part, in response to the court’s decision and on June 29, 2012, published a proposal to strengthen the standards. These actions, and the ongoing implementation of the 2006 PM NAAQS, have prompted renewed interest among Members of Congress.
Experiences and issues leading up to and following the promulgation of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS could provide relevant insights as EPA proceeds with its current review. Although a tightening of the standards, the particulates NAAQS established in 2006 were not as stringent as recommended by EPA staff or the independent scientific advisory committee mandated under the Clean Air Act (Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, or CASAC). The divergence from the CASAC’s recommendations proved controversial, as did several other elements of the 2006 particulates NAAQS, including the decision not to exclude rural sources from the coarse particle standard.
EPA found that the evidence continued to support associations between exposure to particulates in ambient air and numerous health problems. Based on several analytical approaches, EPA estimated that compliance with the revised NAAQS would prevent 1,200 to 13,000 premature deaths annually, as well as substantial numbers of hospital admissions and missed work days due to illness. EPA revised the PM NAAQS by strengthening the 1997 standard for “fine” particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter (PM2.5). Specifically, the agency lowered the allowable daily concentration averaged over 24-hour periods of PM2.5 in the air from 65 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 35 μg/m3. The annual PM2.5 standard, which is set in addition to the daily standard to address human health effects from chronic exposures to the pollutants, was unchanged from the 1997 standard. The decision not to tighten the annual standard was overturned by the D.C. Circuit and remanded to EPA for consideration.
The 2006 particulates NAAQS also retained the 24-hour standard and revoked the annual standard for slightly larger, but still inhalable, particles less than or equal to 10 micrometers (PM10). EPA abandoned its proposal to replace the particle size indicator of PM10 with a range of 10 to 2.5 micrometers (PM10-2.5). The D.C. Circuit’s February 24, 2009, decision upheld EPA’s decisions with regard to PM10 NAAQS.
EPA’s ongoing implementation of the 2006 NAAQS, including EPA’s November 13, 2009, final designation of those geographical areas not in compliance (typically defined by counties or portions of counties), has been an area of debate among some Members of Congress, states, and other stakeholders. Although EPA did not require new nonattainment designations for PM10, the tightening of the PM2.5 standard resulted in an increased number of areas in nonattainment compared to the designations for the 1997 PM NAAQS. EPA’s November 2009 final designations for the 2006 PM NAAQS included 120 counties and portions of counties in 18 states as nonattainment areas based on 2006 through 2008 air quality monitoring data.
Friday, March 8, 2013
Monday, February 25, 2013
CRS Report Released: Cars, Trucks, and Climate: EPA Regulation of Greenhouse Gases from Mobile Sources
Summary
On October 15, 2012, the Obama Administration took a major step toward reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from motor vehicles when it promulgated GHG emission standards for model year 2017-2025 light duty vehicles. Under the standards, GHG emissions from new cars and light trucks will be reduced about 50% by 2025 compared to 2010, and average fuel economy standards will rise to nearly 50 miles per gallon. EPA had previously set GHG emission standards for MY2012-2016 vehicles as well as for 2014-2018 model year medium- and heavy-duty trucks.These steps have been taken as the Congress (particularly the House) and the Administration have reached an impasse over climate issues. The Administration has made clear that its preference would be for Congress to address the climate issue through new legislation. Nevertheless, in the wake of a 2007 Supreme Court decision, it has moved forward on several fronts to define how the Clean Air Act will be used and to promulgate regulations.The key to using the CAA’s authority to control greenhouse gases was for the EPA Administrator to find that GHG emissions are air pollutants that endanger public health or welfare. EPA Administrator Jackson promulgated such an endangerment finding in December 2009. With the endangerment finding finalized, the agency has proceeded to regulate emissions from motor vehicles.In all, EPA has received 12 petitions asking that it make endangerment findings and proceed to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases. Ten of the 12 petitions addressed mobile sources: besides motor vehicles, the petitions cover aircraft, ships, nonroad vehicles and engines, locomotives, and fuels, all of which are covered by Title II of the CAA. This report discusses the full range of EPA’s authority under Title II and provides information regarding other mobile sources that might be regulated under this authority, in addition to describing the car and truck regulations.Regulation of GHGs from mobile sources has led the agency to establish controls for stationary sources, such as electric power plants, as well. Stationary source options, the authority for which comes from different parts of the CAA, are addressed in CRS Report R41212, EPA Regulation of Greenhouse Gases: Congressional Responses and Options.
GAO Report Released: Water Quality: EPA Faces Challenges in Addressing Damage Caused by Airborne Pollutants
Why GAO Did This Study
Atmospheric deposition, a process that transfers pollutants, including NOx, SO2, and mercury, from the air to the earth’s surface, can significantly impair the quality of the nation’s waters. EPA can potentially address atmospheric deposition through the CWA and the CAA, but concerns have been raised about its ability to do so. GAO was asked to examine EPA’s efforts to address atmospheric deposition of pollutants that impair waterbodies. This report examines (1) the extent to which atmospheric deposition of NOx, SO2, and mercury contributes to the impairment of the nation’s waters and identify the key sources of these pollutants; (2) the regulatory tools that EPA uses under the CWA to address the effects of atmospheric deposition, and the challenges, if any, that it faces in doing so; and (3) the regulatory tools that EPA uses under the CAA to address the effects of atmospheric deposition, and the challenges, if any, that it faces in doing so. To conduct this work, GAO reviewed EPA data, reports, and activities and interviewed agency officials and other experts.
What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that EPA determine whether EPA can obtain in a timely manner the data it needs to establish secondary NAAQS adequate to protect against the effects of acid rain and, if not, identify alternative strategies to do so. EPA agreed with GAO's recommendation.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
CRS Report Released: Alternative Fuel and Advanced Vehicle Technology Incentives: A Summary of Federal Programs
Summary
A wide array of federal incentives supports the development and deployment of alternatives to conventional fuels and engines in transportation. These incentives include tax deductions and credits for vehicle purchases and the installation of refueling systems, federal grants for conversion of older vehicles to newer technologies, mandates for the use of biofuels, and incentives for manufacturers to produce alternative fuel vehicles. The current array of incentives for alternative fuels and related technologies does not reflect a single, comprehensive strategy, but rather an aggregative approach to a range of discreet public policy issues, including goals of reducing petroleum consumption and import dependence, improving environmental quality, expanding domestic manufacturing, and promoting agriculture and rural development.Current federal programs are administered by five key agencies: Department of the Treasury, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The incentives and programs described in this report are organized by the responsible agency.
- Treasury (through the Internal Revenue Service, IRS) administers tax credits and deductions for alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicle purchases, expansion of alternative fuel refueling infrastructure, and incentives for the production and/or distribution of alternative fuels. Many of these incentives have expired in recent years although some were extended by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-240).
- DOE (mainly through the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EERE) administers research and development (R&D) programs for advanced fuels and transportation technology, grant programs to deploy alternative fuels and vehicles, and a loan program to promote domestic manufacturing of high efficiency vehicles.
- DOT (mainly through the Federal Highway Administration, FHWA, and Federal Transit Administration, FTA) administers grant programs to deploy “clean fuel” buses and other alternative fuel vehicles. DOT (through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA) also administers federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which include incentives for production of alternative fuel vehicles.
- EPA (mainly through the Office of Transportation and Air Quality, OTAQ) administers the Renewable Fuel Standard, which mandates the use of biofuels in transportation. EPA also administers grant programs to replace older diesel engines with newer technology.
- USDA (mainly through the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, RBS) administers grant, loan, and loan guarantee programs to expand agricultural production of biofuel feedstocks, conduct R&D on biofuels and bioenergy, and establish and expand facilities to produce biofuels, bioenergy, and bioproducts.
CRS Report Released: Air Quality: EPA’s 2013 Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
Summary
On January 15, 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule revising the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM). The revised air quality standards were completed pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA) and, in part, in response to a court order and consent agreement. Based on its review of scientific studies available since the agency’s previous review in 2006, EPA determined that evidence continued to show associations between particulates in ambient air and numerous significant health problems, including aggravated asthma, chronic bronchitis, non-fatal heart attacks, and premature death. Populations shown to be most at risk include children, older adults, and those with heart and lung disease, and those of lower socioeconomic status. EPA’s review of and revisions to the PM NAAQS has generated considerable debate and oversight in Congress.The January 2013 revisions change the existing (2006) annual health-based (“primary”) standard for “fine” particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter (or PM2.5), lowering the allowable average concentration of PM2.5 in the air from the current level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) to a limit of 12 μg/m3. The annual PM2.5 NAAQS is set so as to address human health effects from chronic exposures to the pollutants. The existing “24-hour primary standard” for PM2.5 that was reduced from 65 μg/m3 to 35 μg/m3 in 2006 was retained, as was the existing standard for larger, but still inhalable, “coarse” particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter, or PM10. “Secondary” standards that provide protection against “welfare” (non-health) effects, such as ecological effects and material deterioration, are identical to the primary standards and the same as in 2006. The proposed rule published June 29, 2012, solicited comments on two options for a 24-hour PM2.5 standard to improve visibility that were not adopted in the final rule. EPA revised the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) accompanying its June 2012 proposed rule in part in response to comments received regarding the agency’s cost and benefit estimates. In its December 2012 RIA, EPA estimated that the potential “quantifiable” health benefits (2010 $) associated with attaining the PM standard would range from $4.0 billion to $9.1 billion, and costs (2010 $) would range from $53.0 million to $353.0 million. Some stakeholders and some Members continue to express concerns that cost impacts would be more significant than those estimated by EPA for those areas out of compliance with the new standards.EPA’s revisions to the PM NAAQS do not directly regulate emissions from specific sources, or compel installation of any pollution control equipment or measures, but indirectly could affect operations at industrial facilities and other sources throughout the United States. Revising PM NAAQS starts a process that includes a determination of areas in each state that exceed the standard and must, therefore, reduce pollutant concentrations to achieve it. Following determinations of these “nonattainment” areas based on multiple years of monitoring data and other factors, state and local governments must develop (or revise) State Implementation Plans (SIPs) outlining measures to attain the standard. These often involve promulgation of new regulations by states, and the issuance of revised air permits. The process typically takes several years. Based on statutory scheduling requirements, nonattainment designations for revised PM NAAQS would not be determined until the end of 2014, and states would have until at least 2020 to achieve compliance with the January 2013 revised PM2.5 NAAQS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)