EPA Region 6 has proposed to withdraw a 2015 finding that Texas’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) is substantially inadequate to comply with the Clean Air Act (CAA) because of state rules that provide an affirmative defense for excess air emissions that occur during upsets and unplanned maintenance, startup, and shutdown activities. 82 Fed. Reg. 17,986 (Apr. 29. 2019). Region 6 is now proposing to find that Texas’s affirmative defense provisions for so-called “startup, shutdown, and malfunction” or “SSM” events are “narrowly tailored and limited to ensure protection of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),” as required by EPA guidance. Accordingly, Region 6 is proposing to withdraw EPA’s 2015 “SSM” SIP call issued to Texas based on the finding of substantial inadequacy.
Continue Reading

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed to expand the applicability of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for stationary combustion turbines. EPA originally established the combustion turbine (CT) NESHAP in 2004. On April 12, EPA officially proposed the long overdue residual risk and technology review (RTR), which is required within eight years of the final standards.

While, based on its RTR analysis, EPA proposes to leave the current CT standards in place, the proposal would expand the reach of those standards to two additional subcategories of units by lifting a stay that has been in effect since the standards were originally finalized. Lifting that 15-year-old stay would impact lean pre-mix and diffusion flame natural-gas-fired CTs. The proposal would also eliminate the startup, shutdown, and malfunction exemption for all units subject to the rule. Although all existing lean pre-mix and diffusion-flame gas-fired units would become subject to the NESHAP, only units constructed or reconstructed after January 14, 2003 must comply with substantive emission and operating limitations.
Continue Reading

On February 7, 2019, EPA published its proposed revised Supplemental Cost Finding for the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) and risk and technology review. The proposal re-evaluates the cost of complying with the MATS rule for coal- and oil-fired power plants, and the associated benefits of regulating hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from these sources. Based on its revised analysis, EPA has determined that it is not “appropriate and necessary” to regulate HAP emissions from power plants under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.
Continue Reading

On January 23, 2019 and February 6, 2019, OSHA and EPA, respectively, published their annual civil monetary penalty adjustments in the Federal Register. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 2015 requires federal agencies to make annual inflation adjustments to federal statutory civil penalty amounts. The annual inflation adjustments are based on a cost-of-living multiplier determined by changes to the Consumer Price Index.
Continue Reading

EPA has reset the public hearing date on its proposed revisions to the New Source Performance Standards governing CO2 emissions from new, modified and reconstructed Electric Generating Units (EGUs).  The hearing, originally scheduled for January 8th and then postponed until January 30th, is now scheduled for February 14th in Washington, D.C.  Under the Clean Air

In the last month of 2018, EPA released two proposals that it claims will have no immediate effect—revised CO2 standards for new coal-fired power plants that EPA does not expect anyone to build, and a determination that it is not “appropriate and necessary” to have a mercury rule that it nevertheless plans to keep on the books.  The question many may be asking is why EPA would issue two highly controversial rules if they won’t have any practical effect?  The answer may lie in the precedent they will set.

Continue Reading

On December 28, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) released a pre-publication version of a proposal revisiting the cost analysis underlying the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (“MATS Rule”) for coal- and oil-fired electric generating units (EGUs) and conducting the residual risk and technology review required by the Clean Air Act (“Proposal”).  The Proposal would reverse a previous finding, issued by EPA under the Obama Administration, that regulation of hazardous air pollutant (“HAP”) emissions from EGUs under the MATS Rule was “appropriate and necessary” but would nonetheless leave the rule in effect.  The Proposal also concludes that more stringent HAP emission limits are not warranted by the required risk and technology reviews.

Continue Reading

This afternoon, EPA announced proposed revisions to performance standards governing CO2 emissions from new, reconstructed and modified coal-fired electric generating units. The proposal would drop carbon capture and storage (CCS) as the best system of emission reduction (BSER) for new units in favor of efficient supercritical steam design for large units and subcritical design

When must two different activities be grouped together to determine whether they trigger New Source Review permitting? That is the question EPA answered last month after many years of debate and uncertainty. Although the clarification remains only a policy statement (not a rule) and leaves significant discretions for states to apply in individual cases, the “final action” published on November 15th should finally provide some clarity to existing industrial facilities trying to decide whether to get an NSR permit for multiple activities that may, or may not, count as one “project.”

EPA’s efforts to clarify this issue began in 2006, when the Bush Administration attempted to craft regulatory language to codify what is typically referred to as EPA’s “project aggregation” policy. That proposal was tweaked and then finalized in 2009, just before the Obama Administration took office, albeit without adopting any of the proposed changes to the regulatory text. However, the Obama Administration granted a reconsideration of that action and issued an indefinite “stay”—procedural moves that are similar to those recently taken by the Trump Administration to reconsider a variety of environmental regulations. But whereas environmentalists have challenged the Trump Administration’s stays (often successfully), no one challenged the Obama Administrations stay of the “project aggregation” policy, so the issue has been under a stay for nearly a decade.
Continue Reading