Source: http://www.acoel.org/?page=45
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 06:25:36+00:00

Document:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last week announced new permit requirements for pesticide discharges and also issued a stronger standard for sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions. These new regulations come on top of other efforts by the EPA to control and limit pollutants and the notice earlier this year that EPA will enforce stricter standards for ground-level ozone.
Importantly, the proposed permit does not include earthbound applications to control pests on agricultural crops or forest floors. However, the agency could decide to regulate these activities through future rule-making.
The EPA estimates that the new regulations would affect approximately 35,000 pesticide applicators nationally. The agency is currently soliciting public comment on the permit and plans to finalize it by December of this year. The new permit requirements will take effect in April of 2011.
EPA has issued a new health standard for sulfur dioxide emissions. The new rule changes the current 24-hour and annual standards to an hourly health standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb). The existing SO2 standards were established in 1971 and included a 24-hour standard of 140 ppb and an annual average standard of 30 ppb.
Additionally, EPA is also changing the monitoring requirements for SO2, requiring that monitors be placed where SO2 emissions impact population at certain levels. The new monitors must be operational by January 1, 2013.
Natural Resource Defense Council, Inc. v. County of Dickson, Tennessee, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32423 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 1, 2010).
A district court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss an environmental group’s claims under the citizen suit provisions of RCRA to abate an alleged imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and the environment posed by trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene disposed at a landfill. The state agency had issued an order addressing this issue, and so Defendants, among other defenses, asserted that the group’s claims should be dismissed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 6972(b)(2)(B)(iv) which bars citizen suits where a court order or administrative order has been issued. According to the Court, "Administrator" is defined as the "Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency," and thus the Court was not persuaded by Defendants' argument that Tennessee had stepped into the shoes of the EPA administrator for purposes of enforcing the federally-mandated hazardous waste program based on a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the state and EPA. According to the Court, the MOU referenced Subchapter III, while the provision governing "imminent hazards" is located in Subchapter IV. Therefore, the MOU did not authorize the state to step into the shoes of the EPA administrator for purposes of bringing an action or issuing an order regarding an imminent hazard. That authority is retained by the EPA administrator. The Court also found that despite Defendants’ assertions otherwise, the group had standing to sue, its claims were not moot, and the doctrines of abstention and primary jurisdiction did not warrant dismissal of the case.
Despite earlier expectations, it appears increasingly unlikely that the House and Senate will consider passage of legislation this year on the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (“CFATS”) program. Under that program the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) adopted regulations at Title 6 Part 27 which list about 300 chemicals of interest, each with a screening threshold quantity. Facilities with a chemical of concern above the screening threshold quantity are required to complete a screening questionnaire for review by DHS.
If the DHS determines that the facility presents a high level of security risk, it notifies the facility which must then prepare a security vulnerability analysis and file the analysis with DHS. This analysis must address each vulnerability that is identified, and it must satisfy security performance standards set forth in the regulations, most of which are phrased in very general terms. DHS may inspect such high risk facilities to assess their compliance with regulatory requirements, and it may issue orders assessing civil penalties which it can enforce through an adjudicatory hearing process.
The statutory provisions governing CFATS are due to expire on October 4, 2010, and Congress was expected to consider substantive revisions to the program and extend it for several years before its expiration in October. Two bills, H.R. 2868 and S. 2996, were expected to receive serious attention in crafting that legislation.
 The program was established under the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007, § 550, Pub. L. 109-295, and was extended by the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2010, § 550, Pub. L. 111-83.
H.R. 2868 passed the House in November 2009 and is entitled the “Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009”. It would extend the program’s current requirements to facilities that treat drinking water or wastewater, with the requirements administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and state authorities rather than DHS. The House bill would also require high risk facilities to assess inherently safer technology (“IST”) alternatives (referred to in the bill as “methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack”). In addition, the bill would provide for citizen petitions seeking DHS investigation of a chemical facility allegedly in violation of CFATS requirements.
The Obama Administration has advocated modifications to CFATS that are similar to the provisions of H.R. 2868, and Senator Lautenberg who chairs the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee has stated his intention of introducing a chemical security bill which is expected to be at least as stringent as the H.R. 2868. However, he has yet to introduce such a bill.
S. 2996 has received the support of several industry sectors and is entitled “Continuing Chemical Facility Antiterrorism Security Act of 2010”. It would extend CFATS for another five years, leaving the current provisions essentially intact except for the addition of voluntary chemical security training and exercise programs.
It now appears that the House and Senate will extend statutory authorization of the CFATS program for another year, with supplemental funding provided in the Homeland Security budget bill now under consideration. Of course, the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico could engender renewed interest in the earlier adoption of an IST provision which has been the subject of the greatest discussion. Indeed, one Green Peace blog points to failure of the shut off valve on the oil rig where the Gulf of Mexico oil spill occurred as demonstrating the need for immediate adoption of such a provision. However, absent a major catastrophe on land or connected to a terrorist plot involving a chemical facility or refinery here in the United States, legislative action on proposed changes to the CFATS program is not expected to occur until after the fall elections.
On May 12, 2010, EPA, with the support of six other federal agencies, issued a Strategy For Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The strategy document is a major milestone in an enormous multi-stakeholder exercise involving issues of science, law, policy and politics launched a year ago by President Obama. Executive Order 13508, 74 Fed. Reg. 23099, entitled “Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration,” recognized the unique ecological, economic, recreational and cultural value of the Bay, and the failure of federal and state efforts over the previous 25 years to reverse its serious degradation. The Order directed the seven federal agencies to work together to develop a strategic plan to restore the Bay to a healthy condition by 2025, in consultation with the six states whose lands are included in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and the District of Columbia, plus stakeholder groups, NGOs and concerned citizens among the 17 million people who live in the watershed. While the most relevant law in this effort is the Clean Water Act, other federal, state and local laws are also in play. This article briefly describes the problems faced by the Bay and then discusses the strategy for its restoration.
Over a century of pollution from heavy industrial, commercial, agricultural and other uses has resulted in serious degradation. The principal pollutants are nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment, which have prevented attainment of water quality standards for dissolved oxygen, clarity/underwater grasses and chlorophyll-a (a measure of algae levels). In the summer large “dead zones” spread out across the Bay where fish cannot live because the oxygen is depleted by decaying algae which bloom as a result of excess nutrient discharges.
For the past 25 years, despite a series of cleanup agreements among federal agencies and the Chesapeake Bay states, with leadership from EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program established under Section 117 of the Clean Water Act, efforts to stem the pollution have been unsuccessful. Regulation has been weak and enforcement has been lax. Currently 89 of the 92 tidal segments of the Bay fail to meet one or more water quality standards.
On May 12, 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order 13508 in response to widespread calls from many of the Bay states and citizens groups for federal leadership. The Order required the seven federal agencies with responsibility for the Chesapeake, including EPA and the Departments of Agriculture, Interior, Commerce (including NOAA), Defense, Transportation and Homeland Security, to develop reports on environmental conditions throughout the watershed, identify tools and resources to protect and restore water quality, wildlife habitat and adjacent lands, and develop a schedule for restoration and protection of these resources by 2025, including measurable 2-year milestones.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is committed to restoration of the Bay and appointed as her Senior Advisor on the Chesapeake Bay and Anacostia River Charles (“Chuck”) Fox. Fox, a Bay sailor who previously served as EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Water under President Clinton as well as Secretary of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, has been a key player in the implementation of the Executive Order.
The Strategy document issued on May 12 lays out a series of measurable objectives designed to achieve, among other things, sustainable and healthy populations of blue crabs, oysters, fish and other wildlife; restoration of degraded wetlands and creation of new wetlands and forest buffers along the Bay and its tributaries; protection of forests, farms and land that is naturally or historically important; expanded public access, recognizing that people will work to protect the things they enjoy; and an enhanced public awareness of the importance of a healthy Bay and watershed to the enjoyment and economic well-being of its citizens.
At the heart of the Strategy is restoration of water quality, based on the establishment of a total maximum daily load (TMDL)—actually a large number of TMDLs—under Section 303 of the CWA which will cover all 92 segments of the Bay and its tidal tributaries. Based on decades of data gathering and modeling, the final TMDL will be the largest in history. It will include “waste load allocations” for point sources and “load allocations” for non-point sources addressing the three pollutants of major concern: nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment. EPA seeks to finalize it by year end.
The TMDL allocations will be applied to point sources through NPDES permits, and to non-point sources through various state regulatory programs, all of which will be collectively embodied in Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) which each Bay state and the District of Columbia are already developing. The WIPs will be evolving documents, updated as experience is gained with their initial application. If states fail to adopt timely WIPs, or the WIPs are not adequate to achieve reasonable progress at two-year milestone intervals, EPA will write the WIP itself, and provide backup enforcement wherever state enforcement is lax.
Compliance challenges may be especially great for non-point sources. For example, EPA currently estimates that approximately 42% of nitrogen, 46% of phosphorus and 72% of sediment discharged to the Bay come from agricultural activities, most of which involve non-point sources such as farms. States currently require nutrient management plans and best management practices for most farms, but the enforcement tools are weak. Legislation is pending before the Senate and House to strengthen the Chesapeake Bay provision of the Clean Water Act, Section 117, but as of this writing the fate of that legislation is uncertain. Funding is available to assist farmers develop and implement improved practices through the U.S. Department of Agriculture and state agencies. Technical resources are available from those agencies and various NGOs and university programs. Given traditional suspicion of government programs, however, substantial community outreach and stakeholder involvement will be required to achieve the goals of the strategy.
EPA is also launching several related regulatory initiatives. These include more effective regulation of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) to reduce runoff from animal manure and process waste, expanded regulation of municipal separate storm sewer systems, supporting state and local regulation of septic systems, and developing nutrient trading programs and the use of offsets for new and expanded discharges. More rigorous regulation is being considered for stormwater runoff from impermeable surfaces and construction sites from which large quantities of sediment are washed into rivers and streams. To address air emissions of nitrogen which result in atmospheric deposition on the Bay, the Strategy proposes more stringent regulation of power plants and other sources of nitrogen to the air.
This brief summary does not address many elements of this massive Strategy. For more information, see the EPA Executive Order web site and EPA’s web site for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. EPA and the Bay states are conducting public meetings and outreach efforts throughout the watershed.
The Chesapeake Bay Restoration Strategy will, among many other things, provide numerous opportunities for lawyers to provide counseling to those who will be subject to federal and state permitting and regulatory requirements driven by the TMDL and the related WIPs. The restoration effort provides many opportunities to find novel approaches outside the courtroom for resolving the problems and conflicts which will inevitably result during the course of implementation. Finally, much of this activity will provide models for addressing similar problems elsewhere around the country.
The U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of California has denied reconsideration of its pre-BNSF order finding defendants jointly and severally liable under CERCLA. U. S. v. Iron Mountain Mines. Defendants had argued that the Supreme Court in the BNSF case mandated the district courts to consider grounds for reasonable apportionment. They had earlier argued for apportionment before BNSF and then cited the Supreme Court’s decision as an intervening change of law that entitles it to reconsideration.
The court disagreed, finding that BNSF did not change the law, rather it simply reaffirmed existing law and applied it to a specific set of facts. It seems strange that the Supreme Court would grant cert in a case where the law is settled just to apply the facts. In fact, the working presumption in CERCLA litigation had been that joint and several liability is the rule and apportionment is rare, even though CERCLA doesn’t say that. Most practitioners saw BNSF as a game changer, reopening the possibility of a hard look given to reasonable bases for apportionment in mediated allocations and in court. But the District Court followed the lead of the Justice Department, which has consistently said BNSF marks no departure from standard CERCLA jurisprudence.
It sure would be great if the Supreme Court would provide some clarity in its environmental decisions. Few would think Rapanos helped much with our understanding of the Clean Water Act, and now we need to muddle through a certain lack of precision in representing clients in Superfund matters. While BNSF opens the window, it remains to be seen whether the opening is just a crack or will really let some fresh air in.
In oil spill cases, one of the potentially largest claims the government can bring is for natural resource damages. In order to do so, however, the government has to establish a "baseline" of pre-spill conditions. This is much more difficult to do in some of the ports and commercial areas along the Gulf Coast that are already impacted by hydrocarbons, as opposed to the relatively pristine waters of Alaska's Prince William Sound.
In the first appeal, the Ninth Circuit remanded the punitive damage award to the district court to be reconsidered in light of intervening decisions by the United States Supreme Court addressing the constitutionality of punitive damage awards. In BMW v. Gore and Cooper Industries v. Leatherman Tools, the Supreme Court articulated factors a court must consider when reviewing a punitive damage award: the reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct; the ration of the award to the harm inflicted on the plaintiff; and the difference between the award and civil and criminal penalties in comparable cases. The district court conducted an extensive analysis of those factors, and concluded the actual harm to plaintiffs was more than $500 million and a ratio of punitive damages to harm was 10 to 1, supporting the original $5 billion award. Nonetheless, the court reduced the punitive damages to $4 billion, to conform to what it viewed as the Ninth Circuit’s mandate. Exxon appealed.
The parties then appealed to the United States Supreme Court. In 2008, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and limited the punitive damage claim to a 1:1 ratio, or roughly $507 million. However, the high court declined to decide whether Exxon was required to pay interest on the amount of the award, and sent the issue back to the Ninth Circuit. Two months later, the appeals court held that Exxon was required to pay the interest, dating back to 1996, roughly doubling the amount of the final award. The average award to the 33,000 claimants came to about $15,000 -- roughly 20% of the amount that was awarded by the jury in 1994.
On May 4, 2010, EPA released its proposed rule to regulate disposal and management of coal combustion residuals (“CCRs”) from coal-fired power plants. The 563 page proposal presents for public comment two alternative approaches. In one approach, EPA would regulate CCRs as a new category of “special wastes” under Subtitle C of RCRA when they are destined for disposal in landfills or surface impoundments. Under the alternative approach, EPA would use Subtitle D of RCRA to set performance standards for disposal of CCRs in landfills and impoundments that would be enforced principally by States. Under both proposals, beneficially used CCRs would be exempt from hazardous waste regulation under RCRA. Neither proposal would have EPA regulate placement of CCRs in mines or non-minefill uses of CCRs at coal mine sites.
CCRs are residual materials that remain after combustion of coal to generate electric power. This material is also sometimes referred to as coal ash, coal combustion waste, or coal combustion byproducts. Large volumes of CCRs are generated by power plants in the United States. Some CCRs are beneficially used in other products or processes, some are returned to mines as reclamation material or for non-minefill uses and the rest is disposed at landfills.
How are CCRs Regulated Now?
In August 1993 and May 2000, EPA considered whether to regulate CCRs as a hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA, and determined not to do so. Instead, it applied the Bevill Amendment exception (for mining activities) to CCRs and left open the possibility that States may regulate disposal of CCRs. The Office of Surface Mining in the United States Department of the Interior (“OSM”) has authority to regulate placement of CCRs in mines as part of coal mine reclamation.
Why is EPA Revisiting its Previous Determinations Not To Regulate CCRs Under RCRA, Subtitle C?
In December 2008, in Kingston, Tennessee, a retaining wall of a TVA surface impoundment used for disposal of CCRs breached, and CCRs saturated with water from the impoundment were released. The release prompted renewed scrutiny of CCR disposal practices and, in large part, prompted EPA’s decision to revisit previous determinations not to regulate CCRs. EPA’s re-evaluation of CCR disposal since the Kingston release has prompted substantial debate resulting in the delayed announcement of EPA’s May 4, 2010 proposal.
In light of strongly held opposing views about regulation of CCRs and the EPA’s desire to avoid further delay in issuing a proposed rule, EPA’s proposal is in the somewhat unusual format of two alternative options. After a 90 day public comment, EPA will decide upon an approach to regulation.
Under the more stringent of the two options, EPA would reverse its previous Bevill Amendment determination, address CCRs as a “special wastes” under RCRA Subtitle C, and regulate the disposal of CCRs in landfills or surface impoundments. “Special wastes” would be a new waste category that would be subject to some, but not all, of Subtitle C requirements applicable to hazardous waste. The Subtitle C option would regulate CCRs from the point of generation to final disposal and would include regulation of siting, liners, run-on and run-off controls, ground water monitoring, fugitive dust controls, financial assurance, corrective action and closure. The Subtitle C approach is favored by environmental groups but opposed by electric power generators because it would significantly increase CCR disposal costs.
The less stringent alternative regulatory option proposed by EPA would leave the Agency’s previous Bevill determination in place so that CCRs would not be regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA. However, CCRs disposed of in surface impoundment or landfills would be subject to RCRA Subtitle D. This option would not require permits from EPA, and requirements would be enforced primarily by States rather than EPA.
Certain uses and disposals of CCRs are not covered by EPA’s proposed rule making. First, EPA is not proposing to change the existing regulatory exemption from hazardous waste regulations for beneficially used CCRs. Examples of beneficial uses of CCRs may be road construction, agriculture, and building products. EPA is seeking comment on potential refinements for certain beneficial uses. Second, EPA is not proposing to address placement of CCRs in coal mines or non-minefill uses of CCRs at coal mines. Instead, OSM, in consultation with EPA, will consider recommendations of the National Research Council and take the lead in developing national standards for placement of CCRs at coal mines. Third, EPA has not proposed to revise its previous Bevill determination for CCRs generated by non-utilities.
A 90 day public comment period will begin when the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register. Comments can be submitted to EPA, identified by docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640.
Groundwater Cleanups - What If Drinking Water Standards Cannot Be Met?
EPA began the CERCLA program in 1980 with the view that all sites could be remediated to stringent cleanup standards, including drinking water standards for contaminated groundwater. The primary remedy selected for groundwater contamination was extraction and treatment. Consent Orders typically required groundwater remediation to be conducted for 30 years, if necessary, to achieve drinking water standards.
New technologies are being used to remediate groundwater and there has been much progress. However, there are still sites where it is clear that drinking water standards will not be met in 30 years and where the cost of continued treatment produces only limited reduction of contaminant levels. CERCLA is 30 years old and there are many case histories to use in the evolution of policies developed when the program began.
EPA provides relief for contaminated groundwater that exceeds drinking water standards through technical impracticability waivers, alternative concentration limits and monitored natural attenuation. However, these mechanisms have not provided the relief that many expected at sites where the facts show that standards will not be met.
EPA and states have changed their original position with respect to cleanup of soil to stringent limits in all locations. Environmental agencies now look at issues of risk and actual exposure to contaminated soil rather than theoretical exposure. Some states have developed new policies with respect to groundwater remediation which include more thorough considerations of risk and actual exposure.
There is growing concern over the availability of water, even in areas of the United States which have not experienced water supply problems in the past. Thus, there are strong reasons for remediating contaminated groundwater to drinking water standards. However, there are a number of sites where long term remediation will not achieve drinking water standards.
Is there a need for new policies and procedures for sites where contamination levels can be reduced but drinking water standards will not be achieved? What elements are appropriate for a new policy? Should there be a procedure for environmental agencies to restrict the use of groundwater where there is no risk to actual drinking water supplies? Should EPA provide guidance to encourage the use of technical impracticability for these sites? Should the agency consider a policy to control the plume of contamination rather than requiring drinking water standards to be met throughout the contaminated groundwater?
With the anticipated Panama Canal expansion (expected to be completed by 2014), the Port of Savannah, Georgia is preparing for the new super-sized container vessels coming its way. Part of that preparation includes a proposed harbor deepening project (“Savannah Project”). The Savannah Project carries with it a price tag of $588,000,000 with a sizable portion of this amount earmarked for mitigation.
The primary component of the Savannah Project is deepening the existing entrance channel from forty-two feet up to forty-eight feet. The concern with any large-scale project like this, however, is the impact it will have on the surrounding environment and how that impact can be appropriately managed and mitigated. Adding to the mix is the tremendous economic impact the Savannah Harbor has on the entire State of Georgia. Georgia's deepwater ports support over 286,000 jobs and contribute 14.9 billion dollars in income to the State of Georgia.
Mitigation is both a hot topic in environmental law, and in many cases, a moving target. The Savannah Project provides a unique case study for both the process of approving a large-scale project like the Savannah Project and the creative and innovative ways mitigation can be discussed and hopefully achieved.
With respect to the Project, the concomitant mitigation plan includes mitigation for cultural resources, natural resources mitigation, an impact avoidance plan, and in an unusual move, a monitoring and adaptive management plan. Primary concerns include the potential loss of freshwater marsh due to intrusion and an increase in salinity levels; potentially decreased dissolved oxygen levels in the Savannah River; potential harm to the Striped Bass and Shortnose Sturgeon population; and cadmium levels in dredged sediment. As an example, without mitigation of any kind, deepening the channel to 48 feet would impact approximately 1,212 acres of freshwater wetlands. With mitigation, the impact could be limited to 337 acres.
Proposed mitigation measures include altering the flow of fresh and saltwater through a variety of cuts and contouring, construction of a fish bypass structure, closing of selected channels connecting the Savannah River and its tributaries and opening cuts between various adjacent waterways. To specifically address concerns about dissolved oxygen, proposed mitigation efforts call for oxygen injection in several places in the Savannah River through a “bubbler” system made up of injection cones. Each cone would inject up to 15,000 pounds of oxygen into the river per day.
Further mitigation efforts call for the purchase and/or preservation of freshwater wetlands in the upper harbor basin to offset the impact of the Savannah Project on existing freshwater estuaries and the creation of a new 80.5 acres of saltwater marsh to reclaim marshland which will be lost. Further, in a somewhat unusual move, the adaptive management plan would monitor the success of mitigation not only during the construction phase of the Savannah Project, but for up to five years after it is completed.
The Savannah Project is not without opposition. Beginning with a lawsuit filed in March 2000 to forestall decision-making on the Savannah Project (which was eventually dismissed), critics remain concerned that the Savannah Project will not be appropriately mitigated and are not convinced that mitigation success can be measured in a meaningful way. How the Savannah Project will shape and develop after the draft EIS is issued in the next few months is yet to be seen. However, all involved will continue to search for mitigation.
A full overview of the Savannah Project and its proposed mitigation efforts can be found here.
EPA recently completed a six year review of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) “to identify those NPDWRs for which current health effects assessments, changes in technology, and/or other factors provide a health or technical basis to support a regulatory revision that will support or strengthen public health protection.” This six-year review is mandated by the Safe Drinking Water Act. The first six year review was completed in 2003. The sixty-plus page March 29, 2010 Federal Register issuance of the notice and request for comments can be found here.
EPA reviewed the 85 NPDWRs, included in the Federal Register Statement a detailed explanation for 71, and is proposing that four of them be considered for revision. Not surprisingly, the proposed revisions are to decrease the maximum contaminant level (MCL) closer to the maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG). As a reminder, the MCLG is “set at the level at which no known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons occur and which allows an adequate margin of safety.” The MCL, a term with which many are more familiar, is the highest allowed level of a contaminant in water delivered to one using a public water system, and is supposed to be as close to the MCLG as possible. MCLs, however, are not used by regulators just to judge official public drinking water systems, but also groundwater. If you are involved at a site where cleanup standards have been set, or are in the process of being set, for these four NPDWRs, be prepared for some re-negotiation. And, it will not be long after any such changes are made that many states will follow.
The primary reason an MCL is higher than an MCLG is technology—our testing methods and analytical abilities cannot detect as low as the MCLG, many of which are zero—aka the practical quantitation limit (PQL). Thus, one of the pieces of EPA’s six year review was whether technology had advanced, with sufficient confidence, to allow a reduction in the MCL closer to the MCLG.
Stay tuned—technology’s exponential increase in our ability to detect smaller and smaller concentrations of contaminants in the environment may very well exponentially increase treatment costs and higher costs at cleanup sites. Whether health risks decrease sufficiently from driving down MCLs is yet to be determined, but the writing appears on the wall for now.

References: v. 
 § 6972
 § 550
 § 550
 v. 
 v. 
 v.