Last week, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a request for comment asking for “input on regulations that may be appropriate for repeal, replacement, or modification.” EPA’s request is part of a federal government initiative under Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” which established a federal policy “to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens” on the American people. The Executive Order directs federal agencies to establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force that will evaluate existing regulations and make recommendations on repeal, replacement and modification.

Pursuant to the Executive Order, the Task Force will identify regulations that:

  1. Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
  2. are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
  3. impose costs that exceed benefits;
  4. create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
  5. are inconsistent with the requirements of section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriates Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note), or the guidance issued pursuant to that provision in particular those regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently transparent to meet the standard of reproducibility; or
  6. derive from or implement Executive Orders or other Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially modified.

EPA’s request comes on the heels of the Department of Commerce’s request for comments from manufacturers asking what regulations the government could repeal to benefit domestic manufacturing. Commerce received approximately 170 responsive comments, nearly half of which targeted various environmental regulations for amendment or repeal.

EPA offices are conducting various outreach programs designed to engage the public. These include public teleconferences, public meetings and contact with key stakeholders. Outreach efforts will begin on April 24 with a public meeting via teleconference held by the Office of Air and Radiation. Other divisions of EPA, such as the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Office of Water, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, and Office of Land and Emergency Management will hold scheduled outreach sessions through May 9.  Comments are due to EPA by May 15.

In the United States, the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requires all “major sources” of air pollution, such as power plants, refineries and other large industrial facilities, to obtain permits detailing the conditions under which those sources are allowed to operate. Such “Title V” operating permits, as they are commonly known, are typically issued by state environmental agencies but are subject to pre-issuance review by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In fact, EPA is required to object to any proposed permit that it determines is inadequate, and the CAA also contains a public participation backstop to EPA’s oversight: where EPA fails to object to a permit, any member of the public that believes the permit is inadequate can petition EPA to make an objection.

In recent years, environmental organizations have increasingly used the petition process to challenge proposed permits, especially with respect to alleged inadequacies concerning greenhouse gas emissions. By statute, EPA is supposed to respond to such petitions within 60 days. But EPA routinely misses that deadline and now faces a sizeable backlog of pending petitions.

In late August, EPA published a proposed rule, which, if finalized, would create a series of new requirements for the submission and handling of Title V petitions. Most notably, the proposed rule would:

  • Create a new, mandatory, procedure for submitting Title V petitions to EPA;
  • Require each petition to follow a standardized format and contain certain minimum content; and
  • Impose a new requirement on state permitting agencies—a requirement that those agencies prepare written responses to all “significant comments” received from the public during the permit drafting stage.

EPA’s announcement of the proposed rule also includes a summary of EPA’s general approach to handling Title V petitions. The announcement includes, for example, a short summary of prior EPA applications of the CAA’s Title V provisions, as well as a list of “recommended practices” for state permitting agencies to follow when preparing proposed permits.

EPA is soliciting comments on its proposed rule. Comments must be received on or before October 24, 2016.

Late in the day on Tuesday, February 9, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed, for at least a year and possibly longer, the implementation of the Clean Power Plan (CPP), the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) widely-publicized regulations governing greenhouse gas emissions from existing coal-, oil- and gas-fired power plants.  The stay means that the CPP’s requirements and deadlines are on hold, at least until resolution of the pending legal challenges to the CPP.  But what are the broader implications of the Court’s decision?

First, the stay decision bodes poorly for the ultimate fate of the CPP, even though the Supreme Court did not opine as to the CPP’s legality.  The stay decision signals, at a minimum, that a majority of the Supreme Court is sympathetic to the challengers’ claims that the CPP is unlawful.  Indeed, it signals more than that—a distrust of EPA’s assertions about the minimal burdens imposed by the CPP.  That said, the CPP may yet survive judicial review and, even if it does not survive, EPA may be able to promulgate a replacement regulation that achieves similar results, although such a replacement would surely take several years to develop.

Second, environmentally, the stay is unlikely to have any immediate effect on emissions levels, primarily because the CPP itself does not require any immediate emissions reductions.  But that does not mean the stay has no environmental consequences.  The stay fosters uncertainty about the fate of the CPP, and one potential consequence of that uncertainty is that EPA will feel compelled to devote additional resources to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from other sources, especially the oil and gas sector.

The Obama administration has limited time to pursue such alternatives, but the next administration, if it shares President Obama’s commitment to addressing climate change, may focus much more intensively on addressing the carbon content of fuels, to make up for the delays and uncertainties created by the CPP stay decision.

The stay also raises questions about the fate of the recently secured Paris agreement, since some parties to that agreement may now be wondering whether the US is capable of meeting its commitment to reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.  If other countries doubt the reliability of the US commitment, they may be less bold about seeking emissions reductions themselves.  Indeed, it is precisely such doubts that may drive EPA to pursue more oil and gas regulations.

Finally, lurking in the Supreme Court’s action may be a deeper signal about the fate of the Chevron doctrine, a topic that should be of interest to all entities subject to regulation in the United States, not just to those subject to the Clean Air Act.  A recurring theme in the legal challenges to the CPP is that the CPP raises questions of such extreme economic and political significance that EPA is not entitled to deference as to how those questions should be resolved.  It is not clear what role that theme played in the Supreme Court’s stay decision—because the Court’s order does not explain the Court’s reasoning—but it is striking that the Court took the rare and generally unexpected step of staying the implementation of an agency regulation even before any lower court had ruled on the legality of that regulation.  If nothing else, the stay decision confirms that the Clean Air Act remains a central, if not the central, battleground in questions over the level of deference that courts owe to administrative agencies.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed a new air pollution rule in September that illustrates how EPA is implementing its next generation compliance ideas.  The rule governs hazardous air emissions from petroleum refineries, but features several “next gen” tools that are relevant to other types of facilities, especially chemical plants and oil and gas storage facilities.

Next Gen Tools Found in the New Refinery Rule

EPA’s next generation compliance initiative seeks to modernize the agency’s regulations and enforcement efforts.  The initiative encourages the use of new technologies for detecting air emissions, aims to incentivize compliance and emissions reductions, rather than relying primarily on the threat of enforcement, and also encourages greater public disclosure of environmental data.  Many of these ideas are on display in the new refinery rule.

First, the rule requires “fenceline monitoring” of benzene concentrations and corrective action if benzene levels are detected above a baseline level.  This is the first time EPA has required fenceline monitoring and related corrective action measures on such a large scale.

Second, the rule requires electronic reporting of the fenceline monitoring data.  That is important not simply because it will enhance EPA’s ability to bring timely enforcement actions, but also because it is a prelude to public disclosure of the monitoring data.  EPA has explained that it intends to develop a publically accessible database of the fenceline monitoring results.

Third, the rule illustrates EPA’s evolving approach toward so-called “upset” or “malfunction” events.  Historically, many EPA air regulations excused compliance during periods of equipment malfunction.  EPA has begun rolling back those malfunction exceptions and, in the new refinery rule, the agency adopts an approach to malfunction events that it will likely seek to apply to other industrial facilities going forward, especially those that use flares and pressure relief devices (PRDs).  The new rule aims to minimize the use of flares and PRDs, in part because of recent studies suggesting that flares and PRDs can themselves be large sources of air pollution.  The rule limits the number of flaring and PRD events that are permitted, requires refinery operators to develop flare management plans (to reduce flare use) and requires certain corrective actions to be taken after each flaring or PRD event.

Fenceline Monitoring Issues

The rule’s fenceline monitoring and corrective action requirements deserve special attention.  Those features of the rule are intended to improve the control of so-called “fugitive” emissions, emissions that, generally speaking, leak out of industrial equipment rather than being expelled out an exhaust stack where they can be more easily subjected to pollution control devices.  Many other types of facilities experience fugitive emissions, including chemical plants, distilleries, oil and gas storage terminals, and wastewater treatment plants.  Thus, the new refinery rule provides a glimpse of a possible regulatory future for many other industrial activities.

A critical issue in this context is how the fenceline monitoring data will be used.  Do high levels of a hazardous air pollutant, standing alone, establish a violation, or is something more required?  In the new refinery rule, mere detection of high benzene levels does not itself constitute a violation, but a violation may occur if the refinery owner or operator fails to take prompt action to reduce the high levels after detecting them.

Conclusion

The new refinery rule appears to be EPA’s most extensive illustration of the agency’s next generation compliance ideas to date.  Companies that own or operate industrial facilities should pay special attention to how the rule is implemented in the coming years, since the rule’s implementation will likely provide important insights into how well EPA’s next generation ideas function in practice.

The U.S. Supreme Court held this morning that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acted unreasonably when it determined in 2000, and again in 2012, that it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.  The central flaw in EPA’s reasoning, the Court held, is that the agency failed to consider the cost of regulation when making the threshold determination that regulation was “appropriate.”  Under Section 112 of the federal Clean Air Act, EPA must conclude that it is “appropriate” to regulate power plant mercury emissions before it can actually regulate those emissions.

The immediate effect of today’s decision is that the ongoing challenge to EPA’s mercury regulations will be remanded to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which previously upheld those regulations.  The D.C. Circuit will then face a choice:  Should it vacate the regulations, or should it leave them in place while giving EPA additional time to attempt to justify the agency’s threshold conclusion that the regulations are “appropriate.”

In the past, the D.C. Circuit has sometimes vacated environmental regulations that it found to suffer from threshold flaws, but it has also occasionally left those regulations in place pending agency revisions.  For example, several years ago the D.C. Circuit found that EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) was fatally flawed but it nevertheless declined to vacate CAIR.  Instead, it left CAIR in place pending promulgation of a replacement rule.  It remains to be seen whether the D.C. Circuit will take such an approach here.

If the mercury regulations are vacated, today’s decision may have the ironic effect of helping EPA defend its forthcoming greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations for existing power plants.  One of the principal legal objections to the forthcoming GHG regulations is that EPA allegedly lacks authority to issue them because power plants are regulated for mercury emissions.  Thus, if the mercury regulations go away, one of the principal objections to the GHG regulations will be eliminated.

Nevertheless, today’s decision has to be considered a loss for EPA.  The power plant mercury regulations took over two decades to promulgate and were anticipated to have significant environmental benefits, primarily in the form of reductions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide emissions.  Today’s decision creates some uncertainty about the future of those regulations.  Equally important, today’s decision is another reminder that a majority of the Supreme Court remains deeply skeptical of EPA’s claims about the agency’s statutory authority.

If there is a silver lining for EPA in today’s decision, it is that the Supreme Court did not go so far as to dictate exactly how EPA is to consider costs.  Instead, the Court concluded:  “It will be up to the Agency to decide (as always, within the limits of reasonable interpretation) how to account for cost.”

“A long time ago in a [May 19, 1980 Federal Register] far, far away [or so it seems],” the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared its authority to regulate all hazardous secondary material, whether discarded or reused, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and that it would exercise its authority to promote properly conducted waste reclamation.  Ever since then, a kind of Empire/Rebellion struggle has played out over the scope and extent of broad-based recycling exclusions to the RCRA’s solid waste definition.

Over the years, recycling exclusions generally focused on particular industries.  However, EPA’s last final rule, issued in the October 30, 2008 Federal Register during the Bush administration, contained several much broader exclusions.  Those exclusions covered a waste generator’s onsite recycling, offsite recycling in the United States, and transfers of hazardous secondary materials for recycling conducted outside the United States.

The 2008 rule prompted litigation from both industry and the Sierra Club.  The Sierra Club also filed an administrative petition seeking EPA repeal of the final rule.  On September 7, 2010, EPA reached a settlement agreement with the Sierra Club under which EPA agreed to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking and a final rule that addressed the Sierra Club’s concerns.  EPA’s final rule announced on December 10 is the latest chapter in the ongoing saga.

The new final rule rolls back many of the Bush-era provisions that minimized agency filings and involvement.  It contains revisions to the onsite generator recycling exclusion, replaces the exclusion for offsite recycling in the United States, eliminates the exclusion covering recycling outside the United States, and introduces a new exclusion for recycling of certain solvents.  It also contains some new requirements applicable to all recycling activities, and to new variances and non-waste determinations for recycled materials.

EPA’s new final rule is intended to provide greater safeguards against sloppy and sham recycling.  These provisions address accumulation of hazardous secondary materials when there is no near-term prospect for recycling, and require an up-front demonstration that the recycling process will generate a valuable product suitable for reuse.  They also require offsite recycling by a facility with a Part B permit or interim status under the RCRA regulations, or by facility that has obtained a variance after meeting the same types of requirements imposed upon permitted and interim status facilities.

Offsite recyclers and waste generators engaged in onsite recycling must adopt new procedures that include notification and periodic updates of recycling activity, demonstration that the recycling is legitimate, documentation of when accumulation has commenced for the material being recycled, and compliance with recordkeeping requirements and with emergency response and preparedness procedures like those imposed on hazardous waste generators.  In addition, the new rule provides a definition of “contained” that is intended to ensure proper storage of hazardous secondary materials.

Beside adding safeguards to two of the three exclusions instituted in 2008 and eliminating the third one, the new rule introduces an exclusion to cover the recycling of 18 commercial grade solvents.  Under that exclusion, such solvents must be used in one of four industrial sectors that do not include waste management, and the remanufactured solvents must be employed for specified uses that do not include cleaning or degreasing.

The solvent exclusion is subject to notification and recordkeeping requirements similar to those contained in the previously described recycling exclusions.  In addition, there must be compliance with the tank and container standards covering Part B permitted facilities and with air emission control requirements imposed under the federal Clean Air Act or, where not applicable, to the air emission standards covering Part B permitted facilities.

In its 2011 proposal, EPA sought to impose the new notification and containment requirements on facilities covered by a pre-2008 exclusion or exemption.  In the preamble to its new rule, EPA has deferred adoption of those requirements have been deferred in order to more fully consider the comments and concerns that were raised.  One pre-2008 exclusion that received particular attention is scrap metal recycling, since scrap metal being recycled may be left on the ground rather than in a receptacle.

The new provisions and a few other items of interest are summarized here.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to announce between now and December 31, 2014 its plan for pursuing methane reductions from the oil and gas sector – including whether it will propose new emission reduction regulations.  Additionally, the agency recently modified its greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting rules for oil and gas systems and also proposed expanding those rules so that they would cover many additional oil- and gas-related sources.  This blog post briefly summarizes these recent developments.

Where is EPA Headed with Respect to New Emission Reduction Requirements?

In his March 2014 Methane Reduction Strategy, President Obama directed EPA to study opportunities for reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector and to make a determination by this fall as to how best to pursue further reductions.  EPA has yet to announce its “determination” but it is widely anticipated that EPA will not propose new methane capture or leak detection and repair (LDAR) regulations; instead, EPA is generally expected to continue promoting voluntary emission reduction efforts.  But the agency remains under pressure from environmental organizations to actually require emission reduction measures, such as new mandatory LDAR requirements.  For example a recent report by a coalition of environmental organizations asserts that new LDAR regulations focused on methane, coupled with other mandatory methane reduction measures, could “reduce the sector’s methane pollution in half in just a few years.”

New GHG Reporting Requirements Take Effect January 1, 2015, and EPA has also Proposed a Significant Expansion of the Reporting Rules

Although EPA may not propose new methane emission reduction regulations, it is clearly interested in improving the range and quality of methane emission data that it receives – and that it makes available to the public.  Thus, on November 13, 2014, EPA signed a final rule (published in the Federal Register on November 25, 2014) modifying the existing GHG reporting requirements for the oil and gas sector to clarify the exact equipment covered by the regulations and the precise methods that can be used to calculate emissions from that equipment.  The modifications take effect on January 1, 2015 and apply to emissions occurring in 2015.

EPA also just signed a proposed rule that would expand the oil and gas sector GHG reporting requirements to several additional categories of equipment and activities.  The proposed rule has not yet been published in the Federal Register, but it would expand the reporting requirements to include, among other sources, gathering and boosting facilities, completions of fractured oil wells (currently, the rules cover fractured gas wells) and natural gas transmission pipeline blowdowns.  The proposed rule also discusses emission calculation methodologies and the confidentiality of data reported to EPA.  Indeed, the proposed rule lists several categories of emission and equipment-related data and proposes to designate much of that information as not confidential.  That feature of the proposal reflects the agency’s ongoing emphasis on “next generation compliance,” one element of which is greater public availability of environmental data.  Comments will be due 60 days after the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposed rule on September 5, 2014 that would prevent states from including affirmative defenses in their Clean Air Act state implementation plans (SIPs) for emissions exceedances that occur during startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) periods.  The proposal would also require several states to revise their existing SIPs so as to conform with EPA’s new approach to affirmative defenses.

EPA’s proposal modifies an earlier February 2013 proposal and arises from a Sierra Club petition asking EPA to revise roughly 40 different SIPs.  Under the new proposal, EPA would largely grant Sierra Club’s petition rather than granting it only as to certain types of affirmative defenses, as EPA had previously proposed.   A list of the states affected by the proposed rule can be found on EPA’s rulemaking website.  If the rule is finalized as proposed, those states will have 18 months from the date of the final rule to submit revised SIPs.

EPA has long allowed the use of affirmative defenses in SIPs, with at least one court holding that it has the authority to do so.  But in April of this year, the D.C. Circuit held that the plain language of the Clean Air Act prohibits EPA from including affirmative defenses in its own non-SIP regulations under Clean Air Act Section 112.  EPA’s September 5 proposal extends the logic of that decision to the SIP context.  But regulated parties should also be aware that the new proposal provides a good illustration of EPA’s “Next Generation Compliance” initiative in action.  The proposal is consistent with the agency’s stated desire to simplify its regulations by reducing the number of exceptions contained in those regulations.

Regulated parties may fear that under EPA’s new proposal they will be unduly penalized for emissions exceedances caused by events beyond their control.  They can take some comfort in understanding that even without affirmative defenses, the Clean Air Act’s penalty provisions do allow the agency and the courts some discretion in setting penalty amounts.  Thus, going forward, facility owners that experience an emission exceedance because of events beyond their control can still argue, on a case-by-case fact-specific basis, that it would be inappropriate to impose any penalties.

Comments on EPA’s proposal are due by November 6, 2014, and, under the terms of a settlement agreement with Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians, EPA is required to issue a final rule by May 22, 2015.

The U.S. Supreme Court today partly upheld and partly rejected the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s federal Clean Air Act permitting regulations governing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from stationary sources.  The decision is mostly a victory for EPA, and its narrow scope means that it will almost certainly not disrupt, let alone invalidate, EPA’s ongoing Section 111(d) rulemaking to set GHG emission limits for existing power plants.  At the same time, the decision does not necessarily mean that EPA’s 111(d) proposal is free from legal challenge.  That is because the decision does not address 111(d).

Today’s decision concerns the Clean Air Act’s two stationary source permitting programs – the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program and the Title V program.  In 2010, EPA announced that it was including GHG emissions within the scope of both programs.  Various states and industry groups challenged that announcement, and today, the Supreme Court partly agreed and partly disagreed with the challengers.

First, five justices (Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Alito and Thomas) held that a source’s GHG emissions, standing alone, cannot trigger the obligation to undergo PSD and Title V permitting.  That part of the decision is a loss for EPA.  But the second part of the decision is a victory for the agency.  Seven justices (Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Beyer, Sotomayor and Kagan) held that EPA can require sources that are subject to PSD “anyway,” because they emit other types of pollutants in significantly large quantities, to control their GHG emissions.  In sum, GHG emissions cannot trigger the obligation to undergo PSD permitting, but EPA can use the PSD permitting process to impose source-specific GHG emission limits on facilities that trigger the process for other reasons.

The decision does not address EPA’s authority to impose substantive limits on GHG emissions using other statutory provisions such as Clean Air Act Section 111(d).  Readers interested in the ongoing debate over EPA’s Section 111(d) authority may wish to log into a complimentary webinar that McDermott is offering on Thursday, June 26.  The webinar will discuss EPA’s recent 111(d) proposal for existing power plants and will cover various topics that affected parties may want to address during the public comment period on that proposal.  Click here to register.

Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the Federal Register its June 2, 2014, proposal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired power plants.  The act of publication triggers the start of the 120-day public comment period, meaning that interested parties must submit comments to the agency by no later than October 16, 2014.

On Thursday, June 26, McDermott will be hosting a complimentary webinar on critical issues to address during the comment period.  Click here to register.