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.

Troutman Sanders partner Chuck Sensiba and Associate Morgan Gerard authored the main feature article in the January 2019 issue of The Water Report, a monthly publication focused on federal and state water issues. In the article, Sensiba and Gerard discuss how a rule proposed by the Trump Administration would…

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.

On December 11, 2018, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the Department of the Army (“DOA”) (“Agencies”) released their much-anticipated Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“Proposed Rule”), which if adopted would scale back the jurisdictional reach of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) by narrowing the definition of “Waters of the United States” (“WOTUS”) to include only those waters that are oceans, rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, and wetlands, and their “naturally occurring surface water channels.”  The practical implications for project proponents of the Proposed Rule are that ephemeral streams and many ponds and ditches used in agricultural, industrial and construction activities would no longer be within the jurisdictional reach of the CWA, alleviating the requirement for and uncertainty surrounding permitting requirements and related mitigation measures.  The next step in the Proposed Rule’s process is publication in the Federal Register, after which the Agencies will accept public comments on the proposal until 60 days after Federal Register publication.

Today U.S. EPA finalized new hazardous waste regulations in its final Management Standards for Hazardous Waste Pharmaceuticals rule.  In brief, the rule creates a new Subpart P to 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 266, which is specific to hazardous waste pharmaceuticals.  The rule applies to all “healthcare facilities” (such as hospitals and retail pharmacies) and “reverse distributors.”   The rule requires that all healthcare facilities and reverse distributors manage hazardous waste pharmaceuticals in accordance with the new subpart P regulations.  We are carefully reviewing the final rule and implications to clients, as well as implications to state hazardous waste requirements.

The Trump administration is expected to announce a new proposed definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) which would reverse the expansions adopted under the Obama administration’s controversial WOTUS rule, significantly narrowing the number of waterways and wetlands that fall within the jurisdictional scope of the Clean Water Act (CWA).

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…

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.

EPA posted its final implementation rule for the 2015 ozone standard on its website November 8, 2018, the day after it was signed by Andrew Wheeler. The final rule, like the proposed rule published in November 2016, retains many of the provisions from the implementation rule for the 2008 ozone…

The U.S. Supreme Court kicked off its new term on Oct. 1 with oral arguments in Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The case centers around whether and when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) can designate land unoccupied by a threatened or endangered species as critical habitat for that species under the Endangered Species Act.