Troutman Sanders attorneys Randy Brogdon and Rich Pepper  authored an article published in Law360 titled “Workplace Safety’s Little-Known Hammer: The Clean Air Act” which examines the workplace safety requirements of the Clean Air Act and the potential consequences of exclusively relying on similar, but not identical, requirements under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. They

Yesterday, Susan Bodine, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), issued final guidance for EPA regions regarding interactions between the Agency and the states in civil enforcement and compliance assurance matters.  Under the new guidance, EPA will generally defer to a state as having primary jurisdiction over inspections and enforcement, but it also sets out a number of important exceptions where EPA may take direct action.  The final guidance replaces previous interim guidance issued in January 2018.

The guidance is split into three parts and expands upon the interim guidance by providing additional procedures and outlining various principles and approaches for coordination between EPA regions and states.  The changes are the result of input from EPA regional offices, states, and a workgroup on compliance assurance that EPA and the Environmental Council of States convened in September of 2017.
Continue Reading

On June 25, 2019, EPA released a pre-publication draft of a proposed rule allowing sources subject to Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act to voluntarily limit their emissions and avoid MACT.  The proposed rule, which formalizes and expands on a January 2018 guidance document issued by former EPA Assistant Administrator Bill Wehrum, would allow “major sources” of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) otherwise subject to MACT standards to take an enforceable limit on HAPs and thus reclassify as “area sources.”  The rulemaking, branded by the Agency as “Major MACT to Area” (MM2A), would eliminate the Agency’s longstanding “once-in-always-in” policy, under which a facility that qualified as a major source of HAPs as of the “first substantive compliance date” of the applicable MACT standard was permanently subject to that standard, even if the source was later able to reduce its emissions below major source applicability thresholds. 
Continue Reading

EPA fulfilled one of President Trump’s campaign promises this week with the publication of the final Affordable Clean Energy rule—ACE—to replace the Clean Power Plan.  Like the Clean Power Plan, ACE is an “emission guideline” issued under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act to regulate the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the electric utility sector.  However, while the Clean Power Plan could only be achieved by shifting electricity generation away from energy resources that emit CO2, ACE only regulates sources of CO2 emissions directly by requiring efficiency improvements at coal-fired power plants.

The notice published on Monday actually contains three separate actions: (1) the repeal of the Clean Power Plan, (2) the adoption of ACE, and (3) revisions to the general regulations governing all “emission guidelines” adopted under Section 111(d).  EPA asserts that each of these components constitutes a separate rulemaking action, but at least the first two are grounded in the same fundamental idea—that Section 111(d) only authorizes EPA to select as a “best system of emission reduction” something that can be “applied” to an individual regulated “stationary source” of emissions. 
Continue Reading

On June 28, EPA proposed to partially approve Georgia’s coal combustion residuals (CCR) state permit program.  If finalized, Georgia’s program will become the second to receive EPA’s approval and will operate in place of the federal CCR requirements.

In its proposal, EPA determined that—with the exception of four provisions—Georgia’s program meets the standard for EPA approval.  EPA proposed to partially approve Georgia’s program since it does not incorporate certain endangered species provisions and because it includes now-vacated provisions that exclude inactive surface impoundments at inactive facilities from regulation, allow unlined surface impoundments to continue receiving CCR unless they leak, and classify clay-lined surface impoundments as lined.  Georgia’s CCR rule has not been revised to reflect the vacatur of these provisions because EPA has not yet finalized those changes at the federal level.  EPA plans to issue proposals to address these topics in 2019.  Once finalized, Georgia EPD can amend its regulations to align with EPA’s changes and then apply for approval of those amendments at a later date.
Continue Reading

On June 26, 2019, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking requesting comment on a proposed Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for perchlorate under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Perchlorate is both a man-made and naturally-occurring chemical, most commonly found in industrial operations associated with the use or manufacture of rocket fuel, missiles and fireworks. Perchlorate inhibits the uptake of iodide to the thyroid and has been detected in certain public water supply systems, primarily in the western United States. In its Notice, EPA proposes an MCL of 56 µg/L, but at the same time requests public comment on whether the MCL should be set at a higher or lower standard, or whether the agency should re-evaluate its decision to regulate perchlorate based on updated data. This rule, if finalized, could affect thousands of public water systems that would be required to comply with the new standard, as well as state and tribal agencies responsible for drinking water regulatory development and enforcement.
Continue Reading

The US EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) has recently published its final National Compliance Initiatives (NCIs) for FY 2020-2023, setting out its new enforcement and compliance areas of focus.  Formerly known as the National Enforcement Initiatives (NEIs), the newly-renamed NCIs reflect OECA’s shift toward compliance assurance.  EPA believes the name change helps better convey the goal of the NCIs, which is to reduce the average time from violation identification to correction. In doing so, the Agency seeks to use a collaborative approach, working with other federal, state, and local actors to help resolve violations and provide compliance resources.  In its notice, EPA endorses the use of a “full range of compliance tools,” including informal actions, state-led guidance, and the use of federal civil or criminal enforcement where necessary.
Continue Reading

On April 15, 2019, EPA issued its long-awaited Interpretative Statement addressing the Clean Water Act’s applicability to releases of pollutants from point sources into groundwater that subsequently migrate to jurisdictional surface waters. The question this interpretation addresses stems from the 2018 federal circuit split previously discussed here. On February 19, 2019, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in one of the cases that contributed to the split, County of Maui v. Hawai’i Wildlife Fund. The United States filed its amicus brief in that case, urging the highest court to review County of Maui, but not a similar ruling from the Fourth Circuit. As the question was being reviewed by the federal courts, EPA requested public comment on this issue and received over 50,000 comments. EPA is addressing some of these comments in the Interpretative Statement.
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

The comment period has now begun on EPA’s proposal for replacing the Clean Power Plan, named the “Affordable Clean Energy”—or “ACE”—rule.  The rule was published in the Federal Register on August 31. And there is plenty to keep commenters busy over the next 60 days, given that EPA expressly identified 75 distinct requests for comment,