1. The Bleached Kraft Pulp and Paper Mill at Rumford, Maine - An Icon of the Conservation and Environmental Protection History of the United States and the World
The historical society in Maine, or whoever places historical markers, or the Maine Democratic Party, should place one such historical marker in front of the NewPage pulp and paper mill in the Western Maine town of Rumford [formerly Mead Paper]. [AJS photo, mid 1990s]:
The inscription on the historical marker should read something like this:
Pollution of the air and effluents discharged to the Androscoggin River from the Rumford pulp and paper mill, and the resulting damage such pollutants caused to health, environment and Rumford-area communities, were the inspiration that motivated Maine Democrat State Representative Edmund Muskie onto the Governorship and then to the U.S. Senate where he drafted and led enactment of the Federal Clean Air Act of 1970 and the Federal Clean Water Act Amendments of 1972 -- the flagship environmental laws of the United States and the signature accomplishments of the national environmental movement that Senator Edmund Muskie fostered and led.
Rumford residents would have had to contend with frequent, strong, odorous air contamination from the mill's emissions of total reduced sulfur compounds, including hydrogen sulfide [rotten egg/sewer-gas odor], dimethyl sulfide [odor of rotting cabbage], methyl mercaptan [irritating sulfur intense odor] from uncontrolled or poorly controlled pulping and bleaching process emissions.
It would take Senator Edmund Muskie 10 more years after he was first elected to the Senate before he gained his crowning achievement, the Clean Air Act of 1970, enacted into law and signed by President Nixon. Four years after that in 1974, EPA finalized some of the first emission regulations affecting industries like kraft pulp mills and petroleum refineries, including emission limitation rules for hydrogen sulfide emissions applicable to Muskie's hometown Rumford mill.
2. New Players Enter the War on the Clean Air Act -- Proposed Legislation in Congress Sought by Advocacy Groups Would Trigger a Nationwide Deregulation of Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions
Today Senator Muskie's influence on the Rumford mill lives on in the form of legally enforceable emission limitations on hydrogen sulfide & other pollutants that date back to EPA's 1974 regulations and which are contained in a Maine Department of Environmental Protection Clean Air Act Operating Permit for the Rumford paper mill facility. For example, permit condition II.N.3 on page 46 has this hydrogen sulfide emission limitation:
"0.033 lbs/ton BLS as H2S"
....which means the maximum permissible emission of hydrogen sulfide from the Smelt Tank C vent stack shall not exceed 0.033 pounds of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) for each ton of black liquor solids burned in the recovery boiler, measured as hydrogen sulfide.
Though it may seem obscure, the hydrogen sulfide (H2S) emission limitation in permit condition II.N.3 for the Rumford Mill would be dramatically affected by legislation promoted by well-organized advocacy lobbying groups in DC and around the United States.
The legislation advanced by these groups would precipitously eliminate federal enforceability for the hydrogen sulfide emission limitation in permit condition II.N.3 at the Rumford mill by amending the Clean Air Act. If Senator Muskie were alive today, he would condemn any such move as air pollution control & environmental protection malpractice and a breach of public trust air quality stewardship and legislative stewardship of the Clean Air Act.
A requirement that is no longer 'federally enforceable' [meaning the requirement is 'federally unenforceable'] means U.S. EPA & the Justice Department could not and would not issue violation notices or file civil or criminal litigation for excessive Smelt Tank C hydrogen sulfide emissions exceeding the present hydrogen sulfide limit in the permit condition.
When a requirement becomes 'federally unenforceable' this means that such a requirement may be removed from a federally required Clean Air Act Title V operating permit as a housekeeping measure with no notice to the public upon a request by an emission source.
A 'federally unenforceable' requirement for hydrogen sulfide can include any kind of emission limitation, work practice, monitoring, recordkeeping or reporting requirement for control of hydrogen sulfide process vent stack or fugitive operational emissions.
Despite the presence of the citizen suit provisions of the Clean Air Act, federal district courts will not allow citizen plaintiffs to gain access to federal court jurisdiction to enforce against violations of a requirement that becomes federally unenforceable.
The Rumford Mill isn't the only hydrogen sulfide deregulation target of this legislation in Congress..
This is where the majority of sewage generated in Southeastern Michigan ends up ....at the Detroit wastewater treatment plant....one of the largest publicly operated treatment works in the United States and a facility with environmental justice implications for the surrounding neighborhood.
A 2013 permit set limits of 0.38 lbs per hour for hydrogen sulfide emissions from each of 4 sludge dryers the facility plans. However, the bill advocated in Congress will nullify federal enforceability for these sludge dryer H2S emission limitations. Such a move prevents EPA or citizen attorney generals under the Clean Air Act from the community from ever enforcing any such requirements in federal court if the proposed legislation passes and the facility has excessive H2S emissions.
Here is a list of the largest vent stack dischargers of hydrogen sulfide emissions in the United States for 2013. That industries started reporting hydrogen sulfide in EPA's toxic release inventory (TRI) in 2012 is something for which you can thank President Obama who lifted a "temporary" stay on such reporting from the Clinton years.
The proposal in congress would remove federal enforceability for all of the hydrogen sulfide emission limitations contained in the North Carolina Title V operating permit for PCS Phosphate Co. Inc in Aurora, North Carolina-- one of the top five largest sources of hydrogen sulfide emissions in the entire United States with over 1.2 million pounds of H2S emissions for 2013.
Here is a google view of the Koch Brothers' Flint Hills Refinery at Corpus Christi, TX.
This Koch West Refinery is regulated by this Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Title V operating permit. [long & manual dowload PDF].
The Koch West Refinery permit contains over 80 permit conditions that are hydrogen sulfide emission limitations, including limits on the gas concentration of H2S in refinery fuel gases burned and ton per year and pound per hour emission limitations.
All of the hydrogen sulfide (H2S) emission limitations in the Koch West Refinery permit would be rendered federally unenforceable by the proposed legislation, along with similar H2S limitations in permits for petroleum refineries, petrochemical plants, sewage plants, iron and steel mills, coke ovens, oil/gas extraction & processing facilities, pulp and paper mills or other H2S emission sources throughout the entire United States.
In addition to eliminating federal enforceability for permit conditions, the legislation would also eliminate federal enforceability for industrial-sector-based hydrogen sulfide emission limitations contained in EPA's New Source Performance Standards, existing source guidelines and previously federally approved state hydrogen sulfide air quality standards and existing source H2S emission control rules. Also eliminated is all new source review permit requirements for H2S for new and modified facilities under the EPA Prevention of Significant Deterioration rules.
If Senator Muskie were alive today he would never, ever approve of legislation to strip federal enforceability over hydrogen sulfide emission limitations from the air pollution control and air quality legal requirements of our nation in the manner sought by the legislation's sponsors.
3. The Proposed BREATHE Act -- Worst Idea Ever Conceived by National Environmental Organizations to Amend the Clean Air Act in the Entire 44 Year History Since Senator Ed Muskie First Led the Passage of the Act in 1970
Who could be behind a bill that carries out a massive, precipitous deregulation of hydrogen sulfide emissions across the United States?
It isn't the Koch Brothers. It isn't Energy in Depth. It isn't the American Petroleum Institute. It isn't the American Chemistry Council. It isn't the Chamber of Commerce. It isn't the National Association of Manufacturers. It isn't Utility Air Group. It isn't ExxonMobil. It isn't Range Resources. It isn't TransCanada. It isn't Chesapeake Energy. It isn't the Federalist Society. It isn't the American Legislative Exchange Council. It isn't the Mackinac Center.
The legislation causing a nationwide hydrogen sulfide deregulation is not being promoted by industry groups at all.
The legislation for nationwide deregulation of hydrogen sulfide emissions is being promoted by Democrats and national, state and local environmental organizations, who are all committing a grevious act of malpractice, vandalism of the achievements of Senator Muskie and abdication of their traditional role on behalf of public trust air quality, public health and environmental protection leadership.
Last year Representative Jared Polis (D-CO02), together with Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-PA), introduced the so-called "Bringing Reductions to Energy's Airborne Toxic Health Effects Act" or the BREATHE Act. An earlier version of the BREATHE Act was also introduced in the prior 2 year session.
The supporters of the BREATHE Act presently include 60 progressive Democrats and 84 national, state and local environmental organizations and citizen groups.
Josh Fox promoted Polis' bill in 2011.
Democrats sponsoring the BREATHE Act range from Rep. Alan Grayson to Rep. Gary Peters, from Rep. Charles Rangel to Rep. Raul Grijalva, from Rep. Keith Ellison to Rep. John Sarbanes -- all with their names on a bill that triggers deregulation of hydrogen sulfide emissions in the United States. Clean Air Act stewards & insiders will note that the co-sponsors do NOT include Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) & John Dingell (D-MI).
Organizations supporting the BREATHE Act do NOT include the American Lung Association (ALA) [my former shop for 15 years]. In fact, a closely related group to ALA - the American Thoracic Society [medical & scientific society for pulmonary physicians and thoracic surgeons] recently defended the same Clean Air Act authority in an amicus brief before the Supreme Court that would be removed if the the BREATHE Act were enacted for hydrogen sulfide [See argument starting on p. 25]
4. Why & How Does Enacting the BREATHE Act Cause a Precipitous Nationwide Deregulation Across All Industrial Sectors of Previously Established Hydrogen Sulfide Permit Emission Limitations and Emission Control Rules?
The principle provision of HR 1154 - the BREATHE Act -- is Section 3. Section 3(1) causes EPA to issue a required final rule for the designation of hydrogen sulfide as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) within 180 days of enactment into law without the need by EPA to make any showings or demonstrations addressing existing law for either for the process of reviewing prospective HAP(s) or the determination of HAP listing under Section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act [42 USC Sec. 7412(b)].
On the day that EPA publishes that rule making hydrogen sulfide a hazardous air pollutant (HAP), such a HAP designation automatically triggers this existing provision of the Clean Air Act:
"(6) Prevention of significant deterioration"
"The provisions of part C of this subchapter (prevention of significant deterioration) shall not apply to pollutants listed under this section." [42 U.S.C. Sec 7412(b)(6) -
CAA Section 112(b)(6)]
Because H2S would be a "pollutant listed under this section" [meaning Section 112 of the Clean Air Act] in real time after EPA publishes its final rule under the BREATHE Act, this means the part about Part C and prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) no longer applying would thus directly affect hydrogen sulfide which is presently a PSD pollutant under the Clean Air Act and EPA regulations [See 40 CFR Sec 52.21(b)(23)(i)].
Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, after designation of H2S as a Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) all emission limitations imposed on emission sources for the control of H2S as a HAP must reflect National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) as PSD requirements no longer apply to regulated such emission sources.
However, all H2S permit emission limitations imposed previously on hydrogen sulfide emission sources in the prior history of the Act were under the permitting authority & aegis of CAA Part C/PSD and not as a result of the imposition of Section 112 NESHAPs standards. This means that such H2S PSD permit emission limitations can no longer be enforced with the advent of H2S HAP designation.
Because H2S HAP emission limitations must be established in permits according to the provisions of Section 112 by EPA final NESHAP rules, no such rules will exist after hydrogen sulfide is newly designated as a HAP. This means that there will be no emission limitations at all in effect for hydrogen sulfide as a hazardous air pollutant after such a designation is made until such time as EPA publishes hydrogen sulfide National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) at some future indeterminate time in the future. Once those standards are set, emission sources have 3 years before they would have to comply with any NESHAPs H2S emission limitations after final issuance of such EPA NESHAPs rules.
How long would it take EPA to issue final hydrogen sulfide NESHAPs standards for all affected industries? It would take multiple years.
Historically, the only other time that there has ever an attempt to designate a previously designated PSD pollutant as a Hazardous Air Pollutant was for the pollutant mercury. Prior to 1990, mercury was a PSD pollutant until the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted, making mercury a HAP. It then took 22 years for EPA to publish final NESHAP regulations addressing mercury from power plants.
In addition to former PSD H2S permit emission limitations that are rendered unenforceable, Section 3(1) of the BREATHE Act also means that all previous federally approved State Implementation Plan requirements and state H2S emission control rules that originate in PSD requirements are also rendered unenforceable.
Finally, within 365 days after enactment under the BREATHE Act, EPA must publish a list of industrial sectors under Section 112(c) that require development of H2S NESHAP standards. On the date that EPA does that, existing EPA hydrogen sulfide emission control New Source Performance Standards and existing source guideline also become unenforceable under the provisions of Section 111(d)(1) of the Act [42 USC Sec. 7411(d)(1)].
In a nutshell, the BREATHE Act promoted by Dems and enviros eliminates all emission control requirements for hydrogen sulfide and then leaves the public and the atmosphere with absolutely zero legally enforceable H2S emission limitations until some unknown and indeterminate future date for this dangerous pollutant.
While I reached this conclusion about the effect of Section 112(b)(6) of the Clean Air Act and its effects on hydrogen sulfide control after HAP designation on my own, I reached out to two nationally prominent senior status Clean Air Act environmental attorneys to vet my analysis of the effect of Section 112(b)(6) on hydrogen sulfide emissions.
One of the senior attorneys is Professor John Dernbach of the Widener University Law School, who is also a personal friend. Dernbach was the primary author of an influential amicus brief of the climate scientists (James Hansen, et al) to the U.S. Supreme Court in the Massachusetts v. EPA case which clearly established EPA's authority to regulated greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act for the first time.
The other prominent,senior-status Clean Air Act environmental attorney I consulted with was Leon Billings, who was Senator Muskie's chief lawyer on the Senate Public Works Committee staff and who actually wrote and negotiated much of the drafting of the Clean Air Act.
Both Dernbach and Billings agree with the finding that Section 7412(b)(6) of the Clean Air Act renders hydrogen sulfide emission limitations unenforceable upon designation of H2S as a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. This is the reason why the BREATHE Act is not a fit recommendation for Democrats to be making for public decisionmaking, governance and amendment of the Clean Air Act.
**************
To answer the question posed by the diary title, please accompany me below the fold.
Why are 60 progressive House Democrats trying to reverse 40 years of Clean Air Act progress?
1. Because all 60 progressive House Democrats have chosen to let themselves be led by Third Way co-chairman Rep. Jerod Polis on a major environmental public policy matter when Polis' legislation is actually an incompetently written attack on the Clean Air Act.
2. Because 60 progressive House Democrats have relied on unvetted, erroneous & unscientific advice from national environmental organizations addressing their proposal to enact the BREATHE Act.
3. Because the Sierra Club National Board of Directors and SC executive director Michael Brune are engaged in organizational malpractice and attempts to vandalize the Federal Clean Air Act by rendering the existing public health and environmental protections for hydrogen sulfide control as federally unenforceable without immediately replacing such protection for the public.
4. Because Sierra Club, Earthworks, Earthjustice and NRDC are advocating a plainly damaging proposal that abdicates their usual and traditional role in defending the Clean Air Act from attack.
5. Because groups like Sierra Club and Earthworks are interested in scaring people with false claims that the oil and gas industry and hydrogen sulfide are not regulated by the Clean Air Act....a scare campaign that has been going on since 2007 that has nothing at all to do with valid Clean Air Act stewardship and environmental enforcement/public health protection decisionmaking and governance.
6. Because Michael Brune and Sierra Club in particular as members of the Blue-Green Alliance are advocating changes to the Clean Air Act that would increase occupational health hazards from outdoor venting of hydrogen sulfide thus endangering members of the United Steelworkers Union who work at petroleum refineries, pulp mills and other industrial facilities whose hydrogen sulfide emissions would be deregulated if the BREATHE Act were to pass.
7. Because organizations like Sierra Club, Earthworks and NRDC either do not have a policy about scientific misconduct, or they do have such policies and are ignoring them when making public claims about hydrogen sulfide regulation under the Clean Air Act and the BREATHE Act. Or such organizations may have conflicting interests created by their acceptance of funding for grant projects to conduct scare campaigns against the oil/gas industry vs. their number 1 responsibility to protect and defend the environmental laws of the United States.
2:50 PM PT: Read this interesting piece from Senator Ed Muskie's lieutenant, Attorney Leon Billings, recount the environmental and political history of the Clean Air Act:
http://www.politico.com/...
Here is Michael Brune's statement supporting the BREATHE Act:
http://content.sierraclub.org/...
4:28 PM PT: Diarist admits to the following:
25 year Sierra Club member and current Michigan SC volunteer
40 year member of Natural Resource Defense Council
34 year Emeritus Member of the Air & Waste Management Association
15 years on staff at the American Lung Association of Michigan
6:01 PM PT: Environmental and public health organizations are public charities that solicit funds from the public.
The public should have a right to expect that all programmatic activity of environmental and public health organizations operate as reality-based, science-based, governing-stewardship-public-trust-oriented operations for protecting the public trust in the environment, the atmosphere and public health.