Tell EPA: Adopt strong carbon rule for coal & gas power plants

Included is the Sierra Club's update on happenings at the State Capital and the Arizona Corporation Commission. Please, find the call to action (below) urging the EPA to adopt the strongest possible carbon rule for coal and gas power plants.

The Arizona Legislature was not in session this week and won't be back until July 31st, but there was a lot of activity nearby, some of it good -- vetoes by the Governor -- and some of it bad -- a reversal by the Arizona Corporation Commission on two issues.

Starting with the good news, the Governor vetoed several harmful bills, including HB2618, a bill that would have impeded solar development, and SB1246, a measure that would have required referring a harmful transportation proposal in Maricopa County, limiting transit.

Please send a quick thank you to the Governor for these vetoes. You can send her a note here.

Meanwhile, down the road at the Arizona Corporation Commission, the Commission approved a harmful settlement with Arizona Public Service (APS) and reversed a decision to deny a certificate of environmental compatibility to massive power plant expansion at Coolidge. Read more about those decisions here.

In other news, the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a  carbon rule for coal and gas power plants. This is an important opportunity to move us closer to our carbon emissions reduction goals and get us closer to being on track relative to stabilizing the climate. Please use the link below to take action on the carbon rule today. Tell EPA to adopt the strongest possible rule.

https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/submit-your-comment-on-the-epas-proposed-cut-climate-pollution-plan/?source=az-sc

Speak out @ EPA Public Hearing - Greenhouse Gas Standards and Guidelines for Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants

This week, the Sierra Club shared two very important calls to actions requesting public comments on: the APS rate case at the ACC that I posted yesterday and the EPA Public Hearing - Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Standards and Guidelines for Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants (see below.)
We understand that these calls to action require more time and thought than a simple petition or survey. So the Sierra Club included everything you need in an action kit for the APS Rate Case.

And at 5:30 p.m. tonight (May 31st) there is an online information session on What the EPA’s Cut Climate Pollution Plan Means for AZ & How to Testify. <use this to register.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is holding a virtual public hearing on June 13, 14 and 15, 2023, to provide the public the opportunity to present comments and information regarding the Agency’s proposed Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Standards and Guidelines for Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants. Note: the first two days have filled up so they will continue the public hearing on June 15, 2023. EPA will announce further details and updates at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/greenhouse-gas-standards-and-guidelines-fossil-fuel-fired-power

In this action, EPA is proposing Clean Air Act emission limits and guidelines for carbon dioxide from fossil fuel-fired power plants based on cost-effective and available control technologies. The proposals would set limits for new gas-fired combustion turbines, existing coal, oil and gas-fired steam generating units, and certain existing gas-fired combustion turbines.

Remaining Date and Time

Thursday, June 15, 8 AM - 1 PM Arizona time

Location

Online Virtual Platform

If you have any questions about the hearing or need help registering, please email: EGU-GHG-Public-Hearing@rti.org 

Registration

The last day to pre-register is June 6, 2023. Please submit a separate registration form for each person attending or speaking. You will receive an email from EGU-GHG-Public-Hearing@rti.org with your unique connection information. 

Note: EPA will use your registration information solely for this event. If you register to speak, we will post your name and affiliation as part of the hearing agenda. No other information you provide, such as contact or personal information, will be included on the hearing agenda or shared with any third party.

EPA will take written comments on the proposal until July 24, 2023.

EPA considers all comments equally, whether submitted in writing to the docket or given orally at a public hearing. Each speaker will have 4 minutes to speak. If time allows, the EPA will provide an opportunity for public hearing attendees, who did not preregister, to provide oral testimony.

EPA will announce further details and updates at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/greenhouse-gas-standards-and-guidelines-fossil-fuel-fired-power

This meeting will be held through a virtual platform. A link to the meeting and any additional instructions will be sent to your email address after registration closes. There is also an option to call into the meeting; that information will be provided after registration closes.

Additional Information/Questions

To read the proposal and fact sheets, please visit https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/greenhouse-gas-standards-and-guidelines-fossil-fuel-fired-power

If you have any questions about the hearing or need help registering, please email our hearing coordinators at: EGU-GHG-Public-Hearing@rti.org, or contact the SPPD Public Hearing Team by email: SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov; or by telephone: 888-372-8699.

Solutions for Pollution - Sign up to Speak or Provide Written Comments on Soot Rule!

 

The current standards for deadly and dangerous soot pollution (also known as particulate matter pollution or PM 2.5) set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are outdated and insufficient to protect our health and environment. EPA just came out with its new proposed standards and they are not nearly strong enough to adequately protect public health. 

Stronger soot pollution standards will save lives. EPA must set the strongest science-based soot standards to protect our health, advance environmental justice, and ensure clean air for all. By tightening public health protections from soot, EPA could save nearly 20,000 lives a year.

EPA will be holding virtual comment sessions on Tuesday, February 21 and Wednesday, February 22, 2023 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. MST


Please sign up to speak at one of the public comment sessions here.

You can learn more about the health impacts of soot and the proposed soot rule by viewing this video.

Please submit a written comment here.

-Sierra Club, Grand Canyon chapter 

Urge President Biden and his EPA administrator Michael Regan to move faster on climate pollution from power plants

Climate pollution from the power sector is driving disasters that upend our lives. Toxic air and water pollution from these same facilities is sickening our families, especially in low-income, Black, Indigenous, and Brown communities. Meanwhile, far too many critical EPA standards have been delayed or stalled, and we have less than two years until the end of President Biden's first term.

President Biden promised to get the U.S. to 100% clean power by the year 2035. But so far, he isn’t using his most powerful tool to get there.

Urge President Biden and his EPA administrator, Michael Regan to use their authority under sections 111B and 111D of the Clean Air Act to take on climate pollution from power plants.

As soon as possible, EPA must:

• Propose carbon standards for new gas-fired power plants
• Propose carbon standards for existing coal- and gas-fired power plants
• Propose the risk and technology review for the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards
• Propose a stronger National Smog Standard
• Make progress on and announce a timeline for strengthening the Regional Haze Rule
• Make progress on and announce a timeline for closing loopholes in the Coal *Ash Rule, including loopholes for legacy landfills
• Announce a final rule for closing Title V startup, shutdown, and malfunction loopholes
• Utilize all tools and resources to stringently enforce the current National Ambient Air Quality Standards for sulfur dioxide

Charles Harper, Evergreen’s power sector policy lead, explains in this Youtube video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBedMbWSOBo&t=2s

Petition here:
https://www.evergreenaction.com/actions/epa-further-faster-v2?akid=13245.178836.TTBv9b&rd=1&source=ema_2023-01-25_111b_111d_video_petiion_&t=3&utm_source=ema_2023-01-25_111b_111d_video_petiion_

The Sierra Club shared:

The current standards for deadly and dangerous soot pollution (also known as particulate matter pollution or PM 2.5) set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are outdated and insufficient to protect our health and environment. EPA just came out with its new proposed standards and they are not nearly strong enough to adequately protect public health. Once they are published, please look for opportunities to comment and to testify. 

Stronger soot pollution standards will save lives. EPA must set the strongest science-based soot standards to protect our health, advance environmental justice, and ensure clean air for all. By tightening public health protections from soot, EPA could save nearly 20,000 lives a year.

Sierra Club video: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg7FhxryfSk

Tell EPA to tighten national limit on dangerous smog pollution

Smog -- pollution caused by emissions from everything from coal plants to cars -- is choking too many of our communities. Even worse, when you look at the communities most impacted by bad air quality, almost all of them tend to be Black, Indigenous, or Latinx neighborhoods -- a remnant of decades of redlining and environmental racism which continues today.

In March of 2018 we fought TEP's proposal to install 10 gas-fired RICE engines at the Sundt power plant in Tucson's South-side. One of the problems the community faced in responding to how TEP's permit complied with PDEQ's code was the absence of cardon dioxide standards. That's right! The code doesn't include carbon dioxide standards because Scott Pruitt put a hold on the Clean Power Plan.

The Trump administration's new proposal for smog pollution is to literally do nothing -- another botched response during a time that demands radical change. Send in an official public comment now and be sure to tell your story about how air quality affects you and your community:

We're in the middle of a major pandemic that attacks our lungs, and the Trump EPA is proposing a 'do-nothing' smog pollution plan that will make it harder for Americans to breathe clean, safe air.

Smog pollution from power plants, factories, cars and other sources irritates the lungs, exacerbates conditions like asthma, and is linked to a wide array of serious diseases and even premature deaths. Children and seniors with respiratory illnesses are especially harmed by smog pollution, as are the people that live primarily in Black, Indigenous, and Latinx communities.

To keep us safe from harmful smog pollution, the EPA is supposed to regularly update the national standard based on the best available medical and scientific evidence. But instead of following the strong evidence that the current standard is inadequate to protect Americans from smog, the Trump EPA wants to keep the existing weak standard in place.

Please, tell the EPA to tighten the national limit on dangerous smog pollution -- down to 60 parts per billion -- to protect Americans from smog.

We must raise our voices and demand the EPA stop putting Americans' health at risk, including those living in our most polluted communities. The best way to do this is by sharing your own personal story.

Do you or a loved one have asthma or a respiratory disease that is particularly dangerous by smog pollution? Please tell the EPA your story and why it's important for the administration to strengthen the smog standard today.

EPA is taking comments from the public on its 'do-nothing' smog pollution plan through October 1. The agency is also hosting virtual hearings on August 31 and September 1. Share your story here.

The medical and scientific evidence is clear, and the status quo is insufficient. EPA must strengthen the outdated smog pollution standard now.

- Jonathan Levenshus
Beyond Coal Campaign, Sierra Club

Sign up to testify for EPA's virtual hearings here!  Mon, Aug 31, 2020 8:00 AM (Eastern) - Tues, Sep 1, 2020 6:30 PM (Eastern)

Want to receive a text alert every time the air is unsafe in your area? Sign up here or text BADAIR to 69866.

More Information:

The American Lung Association "State of the Air" report.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality: Air Quality Hourly Forecast | Tucson

http://azdeq.gov/tucson/forecast

Formaldehyde is top air pollutant in South Tucson, according to EPA’s outdated data - Jan. 2020

Tucson's air pollution violates federal ozone standards for the first time - July 6, 2020

Stop Rollbacks On Pesticide Protections

The Trump admin recently proposed rule changes that will put farmworkers and rural families near farms at risk of exposure to toxic pesticides. Speak up to help stop them before the January 30 comment deadline!

WHY THIS MATTERS Agricultural work is one of the most dangerous jobs in America. Farmworkers face unbearable heat, backbreaking labor, and pesticide exposure. Agriculture Worker Protection Standard was put into place to protect farmworkers from occupational hazards, such as pesticide exposure.

Now, the Trump administration wants this common-sense precaution to stop at the farm's property line. But pesticides are notorious for drifting onto neighboring properties, which places the health of farmers, farmworkers, and neighbors at risk.

These rules were put into place to protect people from the spraying of toxic chemicals. These changes are a betrayal to farmworkers and their families.

It's absurd to expect pesticides to respect property boundaries. This action places corporate interests ahead of the wellbeing of people who live or work near farms, by exposing them to dangerous, cancer-causing chemicals.

Demand the Environmental Protection Agency act to protect people and the planet, not corporate profits. Please, include a personal statement so it isn't seen as a form letter.

TO: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs

Cancel the proposed changes to the Application Exclusion Zone

https://addup.sierraclub.org/campaigns/stop-rollbacks-on-pesticide-protections/petition

Tell the EPA: Ban cancer-causing glyphosate

The petition to the EPA reads: "Protect the health of children and ecosystems, not Monsanto profits. Ban glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup." Add your name:

Pressure on the EPA is growing as local governments and other countries are starting to ban glyphosate. We have an opportunity to increase that pressure now as the EPA is taking public comments on its outrageous decision that glyphosate is safe. Glyphosate is linked to devastating incidences of cancer, plummeting monarch butterfly populations and catastrophic bee colony collapse. But despite all the evidence, the EPA is still refusing to ban glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto's toxic Roundup weed killer. Public comments are due on July 5. If you sign the petition, we will count your signature in our comment to the EPA. Tell the EPA: Ban glyphosate. Click here to sign the petition. In May, the agribusiness giant Monsanto was ordered to pay $2 billion to a couple who both have cancer linked to glyphosate.1 That was the third time in the past year that courts ordered Monsanto to pay cancer survivors in connection to the toxic chemical.2 Lawsuits from more than 13,000 others are pending.3 But individual lawsuits are not the solution to the harm that glyphosate causes – the EPA should ban glyphosate now. After the International Agency for Research on Cancer found glyphosate is likely to cause cancer, several cities and counties banned the toxic chemical, including the city of Miami and Los Angeles County.4 But the EPA, the agency responsible for protecting us from environmental harm, is still ignoring the evidence. Humans are not the only ones threatened by glyphosate. The chemical is largely responsible for the decline of monarch butterflies and other important pollinators. Since glyphosate entered the market, monarch butterflies have declined by more than 90%.5 Glyphosate destroys milkweed, which is the only plant migrating monarchs can use to lay their eggs. Bees are at risk, too. Recent studies have shown that glyphosate damages their gut bacteria, which weakens their immune system and makes them more susceptible to other problems.6 No company's profits are more important than our children's health and the health of our fragile ecosystems. Tell the EPA to uphold its mission and ban glyphosate. Tell the EPA: Ban glyphosate. Click the link below to sign the petition: https://act.credoaction.com/sign/ban-glyphosate?t=9&akid=32922%2E3130208%2EEfaIJF - Brandy Doyle, CREDO Action Add your name: References: Paul Elias, "Jury: Monsanto to pay $2 billion in weed killer cancer case," AP News, May 13, 2019. Ibid. Ibid. Baum, Hedlund, Aristei and Goldman, Where is Glyphosate Banned?" updated June 2019. Douglas Main, "Monarch Butterflies Have Declined 90%; Conservationists Seek Extra Protection," Newsweek, Aug. 27, 2014. Science News, "Common weed killer linked to bee deaths," ScienceDaily, Sept. 24, 2018.

Tell the EPA: Save the Clean Water Rule

The petition to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler reads: "The EPA's proposal to drastically weaken Clean Water Act protections is unacceptable. Abandon this proposed rollback and return to the 2015 Clean Water Rule, which helped protect drinking water sources for 117 million Americans." Add your name: Wheeler wants to get rid of a rule that helps protect the drinking water for 117 million Americans.1 Under his leadership, the EPA published a proposal to replace the Obama-era Clean Water Rule with the aptly named Dirty Water Rule, a far weaker alternative.Republicans in Washington may not care much about the environment, but you would think that anyone would want to protect their own drinking water. But apparently for Andrew Wheeler, Trump's EPA chief, helping polluters profit is a higher priority. But the proposed rule isn't law yet. The EPA is taking comments on the Dirty Water Rule until April 15. Sign the petition now and CREDO will file a comment on your behalf. Tell the EPA: Abandon the Dirty Water Rule and protect our waterways and streams. Click here to sign the petition. From the Great Lakes to Puget Sound to rivers across the South, America's waterways are at risk. Our rivers, lakes and bays depend on the streams that feed them and wetlands that filter out pollutants. But the Trump EPA rule change would remove Clean Water Act protections for thousands of streams and wetlands.2 And it could get even worse: One part of the rule could rip protections from nearly 60% of our nation's streams.3 The EPA's reckless rule change is not supported by scientific evidence. It is being promoted and rushed through the rulemaking process with little public input. But polluters have been pushing this for years, and they are thrilled. We need to stand up for clean water and make sure that the EPA hears loud and clear that getting rid of the Clean Water Rule is unacceptable. Tell the EPA: Abandon the Dirty Water Rule and protect our waterways and streams. Click the link below to sign the petition: https://act.credoaction.com/sign/dirty-water-rule?t=9&akid=32211%2E3130208%2ELEih_V, - Brandy Doyle, CREDO Action Add your name: References: Environmental Protection Agency, "Geographic Information Systems Analysis of the Surface Drinking Water Provided by Intermittent, Ephemeral and Headwater Streams in the U.S." July 2009. Nathan Rott, "Trump EPA Proposes Major Rollback Of Federal Water Protections," NPR, Dec. 11, 2018.

TAKE ACTION! Tell the EPA to drop its rollback of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards

The Trump administration is trying to slash the lifesaving protections that keep neuro-poisons like mercury and arsenic out of our air, water, and food chain.

Under the leadership of former coal lobbyist Andrew Wheeler, the Environmental Protection Agency is making a mockery of its mission to protect public health by moving forward with efforts to gut the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS). These critical protections are already in place and prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths and 130,000 asthma attacks — annually.

What the Trump administration is doing is reckless and unacceptable. We need you to speak up — alongside business groups, faith and environmental justice leaders, moms, and medical organizations — and call on the administration to halt its plans and keep MATS in place.

Coal-fired power plants are the worst of the worst industrial polluters. Until the MATS rule came on line, coal plants accounted for half of the total man-made emissions of mercury in America and more than half of all arsenic, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen fluoride, and selenium emissions.

- Earth Justice

Click here to send the following message: 

(Consider adding a personal comment for more impact.) 

It is very troubling to me that the Environmental Protection Agency wants to undermine the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATs). The EPA’s mission is to protect human health and the environment, but this action aims to rollback a rule that prevents up to 11,000 premature deaths, 130,000 asthma attacks, and 5,700 hospital visits annually.

The industry has already complied with the regulation. EPA’s new proposal invites litigation by bad actors – power companies that want to turn off or tear out their controls – to have the MATs rule thrown out. The worst power plants would be allowed to emit more mercury, arsenic, and other toxic pollution. We aren't willing to sacrifice our health so that the coal-fired power industry can rake in higher profits.

Everyone, no matter their zip code, has the right to clean air and healthy environments. Please stop the rollback of the US EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS).

Tell Senators to oppose Wheeler for the EPA

This week, President Trump officially nominated Andrew Wheeler to be the Administrator or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Senate Republicans are trying to rush a hearing on his nomination next week even though the federal government, including the EPA, is still shutdown.

As Acting Administrator, Wheeler has already done the bidding of corporate polluters, proposing new rules that allow cars, trucks, power plants, and industrial facilities to emit more pollution and. We can't let Wheeler's nomination coast through, especially when the government is shutdown, and Superfund sites go uncleaned, and our air and water is at risk.

Tell your senators to oppose Andrew Wheeler's nomination to Administrator of the EPA!

What has Wheeler done as Acting Administrator? He gutted the coal ash rule, clean car standards, methane standards, and is putting forward a Dirty Power Plan that the EPA's own analysis says will cause an additional 1,400 deaths each year due to more pollution. 

He is also pushing plans to ruin the lifesaving Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, opening the door to more toxic mercury and particulate matter pollution from coal plants and jeopardizing the health of women and children. Wheeler';s proposal ignores the massive reductions in toxic pollution brought by these standards and the up to 11,000 lives saved and approximately 130,000 asthma attacks avoided per year as a result of this protection.

Furthermore, Wheeler is pushing to redefine which U.S. waterways are covered by the Clean Water Act, putting drinking water for one in three Americans at risk.

Andrew Wheeler is clearly unfit to oversee the agency that was created to protect our air, water, and climate. We must oppose his nomination.

Wheeler shows the same signs of ethical misconduct as Scott Pruitt, disregarding ethics and conflict of interest concerns while meeting with big polluters and pushing their dirty policies at the expense of our health and environment. As if that weren't enough, Wheeler, like his ousted predecessor, Pruitt, has seen his share of scandal. Wheeler has shared and liked racist posts on social media and engaged with right-wing trolls and conspiracy theorists. 

Senate Republicans confirming Andrew Wheeler to lead the EPA is just like putting the Hamburglar in charge of McDonald's, because he will do nothing to protect the health of the public and everything to enrich corporate polluters.

We can't let a coal lobbyist doing the bidding of corporate polluters lead the EPA.Tell your senators to oppose his nomination!

https://act.sierraclub.org/actions/National?actionId=AR0132715&id=7010Z000001qlwKQAQ&data=c6354268c665c3877411dba30438f5e859a716ec550e121d5d9af5f70f027eae0d96cbf4fe24cae443218f87a7686f9b&utm_medium=email&utm_source=sierraclub&utm_campaign=resist

- Melinda Pierce, Sierra Club

Public Comments Needed: Keep Clean Car Emissions Standards

TAKE ACTION! By 2030, the pollution equivalent of this rollback will be like firing up 30 coal power plants.

Emissions from transportation make up the largest share of air pollution in the United States. The pollution pumped out of cars’ tailpipes, from ozone to particulate matter, is linked to asthma, bronchitis, and 30,000 premature deaths each year. But now the future of the nation’s tailpipe pollution protections is under attack. The Trump administration is charging ahead with a plan that would unleash tailpipe pollution across the country, and we need your help to keep those protections in place. Last month, Trump’s EPA chief proposed scrapping one of the country’s biggest public health victories in recent years — the clean car emissions standards — and proclaimed that states like California shouldn’t have the legal authority to set their own, safer limits on tailpipe pollution. Earthjustice is part of a coalition already challenging preliminary portions of the rollbacks in court, but we need your help to stop the EPA’s new proposal. The first step in any federal rulemaking process is a public comment period, and you only have until October 23 to raise your voice. Tell the EPA that we won’t stand for its reckless rollbacks. The rollback is the latest in a long list of gifts from the Trump administration to the oil industry given at the cost of Americans’ health. By 2030, the pollution equivalent of this rollback will be like firing up 30 coal power plants. In 2025, we’ll all pay $17 billion more at the gas pump if we lose this fight. We remember the thick smog that used to choke our cities, and we refuse to return to those times. We shouldn’t have to worry about whether our air is safe to breathe. Our families deserve clean car standards that protect our health and save money at the gas pump. Everyone who breathes should be worried about the tailpipe pollution Trump’s administration wants to unleash. Our health is too valuable to cede to polluter interests and we’ve fought too hard for our clean air to lose the progress we’ve made. Today, your support is more critical than ever.

Paul Cort, Staff Attorney, Earth Justice

Click here to send the following message

(Consider personalizing it for more impact.)

Dear Forest Service,

I strongly oppose the proposal to roll back clean car standards and infringe on the longstanding authority of states to protect their citizens from air pollution. Undermining these achievable, successful, and commonsense standards will allow automakers to manufacture dirtier cars that pollute the air and harm our health. History has shown that we can simultaneously reduce tailpipe emissions of air pollutants and make our cars more fuel-efficient, safer and cheaper. Much of that leadership has come from the states. Rolling back federal vehicle standards while taking away states’ authority to protect their residents is inconsistent with federal environmental and energy conservation goals. Americans deserve clean air. We shouldn’t be rolling back the standards and safeguards that protect them.

Tell the EPA: Keep, Don’t Drop, the Current Clean Car Standards

Earlier this month, the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled a plan to roll back emissions standards for new cars. The rule change would freeze the average fuel efficiency standards at about 37 miles per gallon starting in 2021. This change would not only cost Americans more at the gas pump, but would also create billions more in costs by accelerating climate change and slowing clean car innovation.

This week, take action about this rule change by submitting a public comment to the EPA. It’s always best to make your comment as personal as possible, but if you need some help, here’s a sample comment to inspire you:

I am strongly opposed to this rule change, which will cause an increase in pollution from vehicles and cost Americans like me at the gas pump. The existing average fuel efficiency standards for the model years 2022 through 2026 were achievable and sensible. Rolling back these rules would be a step in the wrong direction, and would not result in better safety or health outcomes. The EPA's own staff dispute your methodology and your conclusions, as they are not supportable by evidence.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Proposed Rule: The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks

Make your comment here.

- The Years Project 

Submit a Public Comment opposing EPA's Do-Nothing Rule

In February, 2016 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) settled a lawsuit by committing to develop a program to prevent and clean up chemical spills into our nation’s water bodies.

Now EPA has unveiled the details of this hazardous spill prevention program: No program!

This is an issue of environmental injustice, demonstrated by the presence of aboveground storage tanks in communities around the country, often in poor and low income areas.

This is a drinking water issue. We often don’t know where these storage tanks are. If a leak or spill gets into a drinking water source, public health can be at risk, tap water can be disrupted, or we might not even know about it.

This is a Clean Water Act issue. Congress required a rulemaking process in the original Clean Water Act and it has never happened. EPA's argument that existing programs take care of this problem is simply unfounded.

EPA is accepting comments on this idea until August 24. Tell EPA that our drinking water sources, rivers, lakes, and streams need protection from leaking storage tanks and other chemical spills that threaten our health, our water, and wildlife.

- Lynn Thorp, Clean Water Action

EPA is taking comments on their proposal NOT to set up a program to prevent leaks and spills of hazardous substances into water.

Click here to send the following message:

Subject: Re: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0024

Prevent Chemical Spills Into Water and Protect Drinking Water Sources  

I urge EPA to reconsider its decision not to develop safeguards to prevent spills of hazardous substances into rivers, lakes, streams, and other water bodies. The Clean Water Act directs EPA to set up this program. Existing laws and regulations do not ensure that drinking water sources and all of our water are protected. 

Facilities handling hazardous substances should develop comprehensive plans to prevent discharges into water. 

---

More information:

Protecting Drinking Water From Hazardous Spills

Tell the EPA Why a Strong Chemical Disaster Rule is Vital: A Public Comment Guide

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is attempting to reverse critical improvements to the EPA’s chemical facility safety standards known as the Risk Management Program (RMP), or the “Chemical Disaster Rule.” The proposed changes attempt to eliminate the vast majority of the improvements made to the RMP, putting millions of people—particularly vulnerable populations of low-income communities and communities of color—at risk. The EPA is accepting public comments on these dangerous new changes. Written comments must be submitted to the regulatory docket by August 23.

How to submit a comment:

Go to the public comment page on Regulations.gov for the proposed policy (docket EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725-0890) and click on the “Comment Now!” button. Make sure all documents contain your name and contact information. Be sure to submit your comment by August 23, 2018 at 11:59 p.m. ET and check your email for a receipt confirmation. While a submission can be typed directly into the website, uploading a separate document may be easier for you edit, save, and submit.

Tips for writing a comment:

Remember that the most effective comments are thorough, unique, and specific. The public comment process allows scientists and the public to help agencies understand the full range of consequences of a proposed rule. Arguments made during this process are often used as evidence for any future court challenge.

Write concisely but provide the relevant details.

• Describe any personal impact of the proposed rule:
• If you are a scientist, technical expert, community member that lives near or works in a facility, first responder, or member of another impacted group, indicate this in the comment.
• Use the online map in this report of chemical facility incidents to highlight any of the ~2,300 incidents from 2004-2013 and the most recent EPA incident data from 2014-1016 which identifies 458 incidents since EPA started working on the Rule.
• It is not sufficient to simply disagree with the agency’s policy judgments; this is a qualitative exercise, not a poll. Explain why you disagree.

What to Address

The Obama Administration issued an Executive Order (EO) tasking key federal agencies with reviewing and improving their existing chemical safety programs. Before the rule was finalized, the EPA engaged in extensive outreach with all stakeholders including the chemical industries and the public. The Trump Administration put on hold the implementation of the new RMP regulations, and in the new proposal, it revokes important improvements to the program.

Address the benefits to public and worker health and safety provided by the 2017 RMP rule that the proposed rule eliminates. And address the potential negative impacts, the flaws in EPA’s justifications for its proposed changes of the proposed rule, overlooked impacts, and intended or unintended consequences. If you are a scientist or technical expert who has them available, attach key studies and research so they are on the record. The following are critical areas to address, and guidance on how to respond to these points.

The new rule:

• Eliminates a requirement that the most dangerous facilities undertake a safer technology alternatives assessment.
• Address the importance of industries seeking out solutions that pose less risk and danger to their employees and surrounding communities.
• Removes a requirement that an “incident analysis” include determining the “root cause” of accidents and near-misses; that the team investigating an incident include at least one person knowledgeable in the process; and the requirement to include incident investigation reports in hazard reviews.
• Highlight how root cause analyses, knowledgeable investigative teams, and documentation of investigations are critical to accountability.
• No longer requires qualified, independent, third-party audits to be conducted when a facility has an incident to ensure the cause of the incident is addressed.
• Speak to the importance of independent, third-party audits.
• Strikes a provision that requires facilities to provide the public with information critical to understanding the potential risks from these facilities, including how to communities protect themselves and what potential health risks they might face from an incident.

Address how access to sources like emergency plans and contact information for coordinating officials in local government is helpful to personal and family plans should a chemical disaster occur.
Deletes the requirement that facilities provide emergency planners and first responders with essential information needed for responding to a chemical release allowing companies to claim “confidential business information,” and either provide limited or no information.

First responders and emergency personnel need information and better coordination between emergency responders and facilities with the potential for catastrophic damages.

Additional References

1. The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) recommendations on documenting and implementing the use of IST analysis and incident investigations.
2. A 2016 report finds that people of color make up nearly one-half of the total population living within a one-mile “fenceline zone” near these dangerous facilities and are almost twice as likely as whites to live in these areas.
3. A 2014 report shows that almost 135 million people live within “vulnerability zones” (the area potentially impacted by a worst case chemical release) of more than 3,400 of the highest-risk RMP facilities.
4. Children are particularly vulnerable to the potential health impacts from exposure to toxic chemicals.
5. The 2017 Arkema chemical facility disaster underscores the potential impact from the delay in imposing the 2017 RMP rule requirements.
6. Comments submitted by several national security experts in support of the Chemical Disaster Rule.
7. Report on the incidents since the delay of the Obama era rule.
8. The background of the rule as well as the summary of proposed changes to understand the context of the agency’s current proposal.

-  CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND DEMOCRACY

More information: 

New Report: One Year In, EPA Chemical Rule Delay Allows Chemical Disasters to Continue

Tell the EPA: Withdraw the "Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science" proposal that restricts the use of the best available science

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a rule that would restrict the agency's ability to rely on the best available science to ensure that we have clean air and clean water. This is nothing more than an attempt to undermine the EPA's mission to protect public health and the environment. Our air, water, and health all rely on the EPA using the best available science in decision making.

Please, send a public comment to the EPA.

Submit your comment by August 16 at 11:59 p.m.

Feel free to use the sample letter below as a starting place for your public comment.  It's best to share your personal story about how restrictions on science would harm your health and the environment. The more people who file comments, the less the EPA can ignore the weight of the evidence.

Sample Letter:

To: Andrew Wheeler, acting administrator, Environmental Protection Agency

I am writing to express my objection to and concern about the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) "Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science" proposal (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259). I believe that science plays a pivotal role in ensuring our health and safety, preserving our environment, and informing evidence-based policy. This new proposal would undermine the EPA's mission of preserving public health and the environment.

For the EPA to utilize the best available science to shape public health and environmental safeguards, the agency needs to have the ability to use the best research and information. While this proposed rule promises "transparency," it reduces confidentiality and privacy protections by requiring the raw data from these studies to be made public. Consequently, the best available scientific studies in numerous public health fields, where patient privacy prohibits sharing the raw data, would be sidelined. This arbitrary rejection of data from research on air quality, public health, drinking water, hazardous waste, and so many other fields would inhibit the EPA's ability to implement science-based protections.

When policies play a role in our health, safety, and environment, the EPA needs to use the best available evidence and research when finalizing safeguards. This ill-advised proposal would significantly limit the EPA's ability to make the informed policy decisions that the agency is required to under landmark public health and environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act.

I urge you to reconsider this proposed rule and withdraw it immediately.

---

Go to the public comment page to submit your individual comment now.

Be sure to submit your comment by August 16 at 11:59 p.m., and check your email for a receipt confirmation.

The Union of Concerned Scientists put together a few resources to assist you in writing your comment:
• Check out our helpful guide for writing a public comment.
• Watch our Public Comments 101 webinar on making effective public comments to the EPA.

More information on the proposal:

Scott Pruitt’s Crusade Against “Secret Science” Could Be Disastrous for Public Health - The New Yorker

Response to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science” proposed rule

COMMENTS CLOSE on EPA’s insane proposal to allow reintroduction of asbestos into American products

UPDATE: Comments closed on August 10th. Sorry I didn't hear about this until today.

EPA’s insane proposal to allow reintroduction of asbestos into American products...

This Proposed Rule document was issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

For related information, Open Docket Folder

Proposed rule summary:

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA is proposing a significant new use rule (SNUR) for asbestos as defined under the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act. The proposed significant new use of asbestos (including as part of an article) is manufacturing (including importing) or processing for certain uses identified by EPA as no longer ongoing. The Agency has found no information indicating that the following uses are ongoing, and therefore, the following uses are subject to this proposed SNUR: Adhesives, sealants, and roof and non-roof coatings; arc chutes; beater-add gaskets; extruded sealant tape and other tape; filler for acetylene cylinders; high-grade electrical paper; millboard; missile liner; pipeline wrap; reinforced plastics; roofing felt; separators in fuel cells and batteries; vinyl-asbestos floor tile; and any other building material (other than cement). Persons subject to the SNUR would be required to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing any manufacturing (including importing) or processing of asbestos (including as part of an article) for a significant new use. The required notification initiates EPA's evaluation of the conditions of use associated with the intended use within the applicable review period. Manufacturing (including importing) and processing (including as part of an article) for the significant new use may not commence until EPA has conducted a review of the notice, made an appropriate determination on the notice, and taken such actions as are required in association with that determination.

Sample comment:
I am writing to vehemently oppose allowing any amount of asbestos to be introduced back into American products. There is abundant scientific evidence over decades of study showing that no amount of asbestos exposure is safe, causing lung damage and lethal cancers such as mesothelioma. There is a reason why strict regulations still exist for its detection, containment, and removal. Thus, allowing any use of asbestos amounts to deliberate harm to the American people. There can be no rationale justifying its use.

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0159-0001

More information:

ADAO Issues Statement in Opposition of the EPA’s Decision to Dangerously Narrow the Scope of Asbestos Risk Evaluation

SNOPES: Is the EPA Allowing for the Approval of New Asbestos-Containing Products?

EPA hurt our ability to stop gas-fired engines. Tell the EPA don't restrict the use of science.

I finally received a response from the Pima Department of Environmental Quality regarding the public comments (including my own) submitted on TEP's permit to install the 10 RICE gas-fired engines in Tucson.  I want to thank the members of Sustainable Tucson (especially Duane Ediger for taking the lead), the Sierra Club, and other community members who took the time to go on record regarding this important issue. While our letters didn't result in PDEQ rejecting TEP's permit, we did slow down the process. (It took five months for them to review the comments and approve it.) And they did revise a number of permit conditions including:  annual monitoring and reporting to provide reasonable assurance of compliance with the carbon monoxide emission limits for the RICE, and a condition that they would decommission the old generators before the new engines are installed. 

Summary of their decision.

It's not over until it's over!  Within 30 days after service of this notice announcing the final permit decision, any person who filed comments on the proposed permit for the TEP Irvington Generating Station or participated in any of the public hearings for the TEP Irvington Generating Station may petition EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) to review any condition of the final permit.

One of the problems the community faced in responding to how TEP's permit complied with PDEQ's code was the absence of cardon dioxide standards.  That's right! The code doesn't include carbon dioxide standards because Scott Pruitt put a hold on the Clean Power Plan. 

I believe that the EPA's refusal to accept the latest science regarding carbon dioxide greatly hampered our efforts to fight the RICE gas-fired engines!  See how important it is that the EPA rely on the best available science when making decisions!  

It's about to get worse, unless we speak out! 

Now the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a rule that would restrict the agency's ability to rely on the best available science to ensure that we have clean air and clean water. This is nothing more than an attempt to undermine the EPA's mission to protect public health and the environment. Our air, water, and health all rely on the EPA using the best available science in decision making.

Please, send an individual letter to the EPA. (Find the link below the sample letter.)

To: Andrew Wheeler, acting administrator, Environmental Protection Agency

I am writing to express my objection to and concern about the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) "Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science" proposal (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259). I believe that science plays a pivotal role in ensuring our health and safety, preserving our environment, and informing evidence-based policy. This new proposal would undermine the EPA's mission of preserving public health and the environment.

For the EPA to utilize the best available science to shape public health and environmental safeguards, the agency needs to have the ability to use the best research and information. While this proposed rule promises "transparency," it reduces confidentiality and privacy protections by requiring the raw data from these studies to be made public. Consequently, the best available scientific studies in numerous public health fields, where patient privacy prohibits sharing the raw data, would be sidelined. This arbitrary rejection of data from research on air quality, public health, drinking water, hazardous waste, and so many other fields would inhibit the EPA's ability to implement science-based protections.

When policies play a role in our health, safety, and environment, the EPA needs to use the best available evidence and research when finalizing safeguards. This ill-advised proposal would significantly limit the EPA's ability to make the informed policy decisions that the agency is required to under landmark public health and environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act.

I urge you to reconsider this proposed rule and withdraw it immediately.

You are encouraged to file an individual comment to the EPA and share your story about how restrictions on science would harm your health and the environment. The more people who file comments, the less the EPA can ignore the weight of the evidence.

Go to the public comment page to submit your individual comment.

Be sure to submit your comment by August 16 at 11:59 p.m., and check your email for a receipt confirmation.

The Union of Concerned Scientists put together a few resources to assist you in writing your comment:
• Check out our helpful guide for writing a public comment.
• Watch our Public Comments 101 webinar on making effective public comments to the EPA.

More on the RICE Generators:

Friday, 10 August 2018, Arizona Daily Star article: Go-ahead for TEP generators dismays environmentalists