air pollution Archives - The National Law Forum

Curb Your Pollution: EPA Issues Final Rule to Reduce Toxic Air Pollution

EPA Issues Final Rule to Reduce Toxic Air Pollution from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and the Polymers and Resins Industries

On April 9, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its final rule that is touted to provide critical health protections to hundreds of thousands of people living near chemical plants. The final rule, signed March 28, 2024, will reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants, including the toxic chemicals chloroprene and ethylene oxide (EtO). The rule implements sections 111 and 112 of the Clean Air Act.

When fully implemented, the final rule will reduce more than 6,200 tons a year of over 100 air toxics – including EtO and chloroprene – from covered equipment and processes at plants in Texas and Louisiana, along with plants in other parts of the country including Delaware, New Jersey, and the Ohio River Valley.

As part of the final rule, the EPA is also issuing new emissions limits for dioxins and furans. This will reduce more than 23,000 tons of smog-forming volatile organic compounds (VOCs) each year.

EPA’s final rule will also require plants to conduct fenceline monitoring if any of the equipment or processes covered by the rule use, produce, store, or emit EtO, chloroprene, benzene, 1,3- butadiene, ethylene dichloride or vinyl chloride. Fenceline monitoring is used to measure levels of pollution in the air around the perimeter of a facility. The fenceline monitoring provisions of the rule require owners and operators to ensure that levels of these six pollutants remain below a specified “action level.” Fenceline monitoring provides owners and operators the flexibility to determine what measures to take to remain below the action level, while ensuring that they are effectively controlling toxic air pollution.

The final rule will significantly reduce emissions of air toxins, especially those that are potentially harmful for surrounding communities. According to the EPA, these emission reductions will yield significant reductions in lifetime cancer risk attributable to these air pollutants, in addition to other health benefits.

New Climate Guidance Issued to Federal Agencies Conducting Environmental Impact Analyses

Overview

On January 9, 2023, the Council for Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) published interim National Environmental Policy Act Guidance on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change (hereafter, “guidance” or “GHG Guidance”).1 CEQ intends for agencies to apply the guidance now even as CEQ seeks public comment on it.2 The guidance aims to establish best practices to ensure that Federal agencies conduct detailed analyses of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change when evaluating proposed major Federal actions in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and CEQ’s Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA.3 The guidance states that these analyses should (1) quantify a proposed action’s GHG emissions; (2) place GHG emissions in appropriate context and disclose relevant GHG emissions and relevant climate impacts; and (3) identify alternatives and mitigation measures to avoid or reduce GHG emissions.

The long-awaited GHG Guidance does not set a numerical threshold for significant impact under NEPA, but it emphasizes achievement of national and other climate objectives. The guidance also stresses monetization of climate-related impacts (social cost of carbon) and consideration of alternatives to fossil energy production and transport, mitigation of climate-related impacts, and resilience and adaptation to climate-related vulnerability. Also prominent in the guidance is consideration of disparate impacts to environmental justice communities.

GHG Guidance

Quantifying a Proposed Action’s GHG Emissions

The guidance explains that agencies should quantify the reasonably foreseeable direct and indirect GHG emissions of their proposed actions and reasonable alternatives (including the no-action alternative) to ensure that each agency adequately considers the incremental contribution of its action to climate change. CEQ recommends that agencies quantify gross emissions increases or reductions (including direct and indirect emissions) individually by each GHG, as well as aggregated in terms of total CO2 by factoring in each pollutant’s global warming potential (“GWP”). CEQ further recommends that agencies quantify the proposed action’s total net GHG emissions or reductions (both by pollutant and by total CO2 emissions) relative to baseline conditions. Finally, CEQ recommends that “[w]here feasible . . . [agencies] should present annual GHG emissions increases or reductions, as well as net GHG emissions over the projected lifetime of the action, consistent with existing best practices.”4 CEQ emphasizes that agencies should be guided by the rule of reason when quantifying emissions. The guidance does not set a “significance” threshold that would trigger the requirement to prepare an EIS.

Disclosing and Providing Context for a Proposed Action’s GHG Emissions and Climate Effects

In the eyes of CEQ, quantifying emissions and summarizing this information in a NEPA document is not sufficient. Agencies should also disclose and provide context for GHG emissions and climate effects to help decision makers and the public understand a proposed action’s potential GHG emissions and climate change effects. CEQ provides a list of best practices for disclosing and contextualizing quantified GHG emissions:5

Use the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (“SC-GHG”) to estimate the dollar value of impacts associated with each type of GHG emission;
Explain how the proposed action and alternatives would help meet or detract from achieving climate action goals and commitments, and discuss whether and to what extent the proposal’s reasonably foreseeable GHG emissions are consistent with GHG reduction goals;
Summarize and cite to available scientific literature to help explain the real-world effects associated with an increase in GHG emissions that contribute to climate change; and
Provide accessible comparisons or equivalents to help the public and decision makers understand GHG emissions in more familiar terms (i.e., household emissions per year, annual average emissions from a certain number of cars on the road, etc.).

CEQ explicitly states that monetizing the “social cost” of GHG emissions as recommended does not require the agency also to monetize the social benefits of the proposed action, nor does it have to compare estimated costs and benefits.6 The guidance also emphasizes the use of “substitution analysis” to discern the GHG-related changes associated with shifting energy sources if the proposed or alternative actions occurred.7

Identifying Reasonable Alternatives and Potential Mitigation Measures

The GHG Guidance directs agencies to use the NEPA process to identify and assess the reasonable alternatives to proposed actions that will avoid or minimize GHG emissions or climate change effects. CEQ recognizes that reasonable alternatives must be consistent with the purpose and need of the proposed action, and that agencies are not required to select the alternative with the lowest net GHG emissions or climate costs or the greatest net climate benefits.8 However, “in line with the urgency of the climate crisis,” agencies should identify the alternative with the lowest net GHG emissions or the greatest net climate benefits among the alternatives they assess and should “use the NEPA process to make informed decisions grounded in science that are transparent with respect to how Federal actions will help meet climate change goals and commitments, or alternately, detract from them.”9 When quantifying reasonably foreseeable emissions associated with the proposed action or alternatives, CEQ directs agencies to include reasonably foreseeable direct and indirect GHG emissions of their proposed actions. CEQ provides that processing, refining, transporting, and end-use of the fossil fuel being extracted, including combustion of the resource to produce energy, would constitute indirect emissions of fossil fuel extraction.10

CEQ encourages agencies to mitigate GHG emissions “to the greatest extent possible.”11 It instructs agencies to consider potential mitigation measures by determining whether impacts from a proposed action or alternatives can be avoided, considering whether adverse impacts can be minimized, and rectifying or requiring compensation for residual impacts where unavoidable. CEQ considers available mitigation that avoids, minimizes, or compensates for GHG emissions and climate change effects to include measures like renewable energy generation and energy storage, carbon capture and sequestration, and capturing GHG emissions such as methane.12

Examples

The guidance provides a number of examples as to how it would work in specific scenarios. For example, the guidance notes that “absent exceptional circumstances,” construction of renewable energy projects “should not warrant a detailed analysis of lifetime GHG emissions.”13 CEQ uses natural gas pipelines as an example of consideration of indirect effects, stating that they create the “economic conditions for additional natural gas production and consumption, including both domestically and internationally, which produce indirect (both upstream and downstream) GHG emissions that contribute to climate change.”14 When discussing the need to analyze the effects of climate change on a proposed action (and not just the impacts of the proposed action on climate change), CEQ gives as an example a project that may require water from a source with diminishing quantities available and advises the agency consider such issues to “inform decisions on siting, whether to proceed with and how to design potential actions and reasonable alternatives, and to eliminate or mitigate effects exacerbated by climate change.”15

Conclusion

Robust comments are likely to be filed to further inform CEQ’s effort on the GHG Guidance. Nevertheless, CEQ has directed agencies to apply the guidance to all new proposed actions and to consider applying it to proposed actions that are currently under NEPA review. Comments on the interim guidance are due March 10, 2023.

FOOTNOTES

1. CEQ, National Environmental Policy Act Guidance on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas, 88 Fed. Reg. 1,196 (Jan. 9, 2023), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-01-09/pdf/2023-00158.pdf (“GHG Guidance”).

2. Id.

3. Note that CEQ has announced its intention to further revise its existing NEPA regulations in 2023, after having issued an earlier round of regulatory amendments in 2022. See CEQ Fall 2022 Regulatory Agenda, National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations Revisions Phase 2, RIN No. 0331-AA07, https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202210&RIN=0331-AA07; CEQ, National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations Revisions, 87 Fed. Reg. 23,453 (Apr. 20, 2022), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-04-20/pdf/2022-08288.pdf.

4. GHG Guidance at 1,201.

5. Id. at 1,202-03.

6. Id. at 1,203, 1,211.

7. Id. at 1,205.

8. Id. at 1,204.

9. Id.

10. Id.

11. Id. at 1,206.

12. Id.

13. Id. at 1,202.

14. Id. at 1,204 n.86.

15. Id. at 1,208.

For more Environmental and Energy News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

PFAS Air Regulations Proposed By House

In the latest federal legislative move to try to force the EPA to take quicker action than contemplated by the agency’s PFAS Roadmap of 2021, a bill was recently introduced in the House that would require the EPA to set air emission limits for all PFAS under the Clean Air Act. PFAS air regulations are something that advocates concerned about PFAS pollution issues beyond just drinking water have advocated for in the past few years. There are barriers, though, to achieving the desired results even if the legislation passes. Nevertheless, the federal legislative activity underscores the need for all companies that are currently using PFAS in their manufacturing or industrial processes to understand the full scope of compliance needs when and if PFAS air regulations become a reality.

House Bill For PFAS Air Regulations

On March 17, 2022, a bipartisan group in the House introduced the “Prevent Release Of Toxics Emissions, Contamination, and Transfer Act of 2022” (also known as the PROTECT Act of 2022 or HR 7142). The aim of the bill is to require the EPA to list all PFAS as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) under the Clean Air Act. If passed, the designation as HAPs would require the EPA to develop regulatory limits for the emission of PFAS into the air.

The proposed steps, however, go well beyond the EPA’s own plan for potential PFAS air regulations as detailed in the EPA’s PFAS Strategic Roadmap 2021. In the PFAS Roadmap, the EPA indicates that it commits to performing ongoing investigation to:

Identify sources of PFAS air emissions;
Develop and finalize monitoring approaches for measuring stack emissions and ambient concentrations of PFAS;
Develop information on cost-effective mitigation technologies; and
Increase understanding of the fate and transport of PFAS air emissions to assess their potential for impacting human health via contaminated groundwater and other media pathways.

The EPA committed to using this information and data in order to, by the Fall of 2022, “evaluate mitigation options”, which could include listing “certain PFAS” as HAPs. However, the EPA also indicated that it might use other regulatory or non-regulatory tools to achieve results similar to formal PFAS air regulations under the Clean Air Act.

The bill, therefore, would considerably accelerate the EPA’s process for potential HAPs, which in turn could result in legal challenges to any rushed HAPs, as the EPA would not have had the opportunity to collect all necessary data and evaluate the soundness of the science behind any HAP designation.

Impact On Business

Any designation of PFAS as HAPs under the Clean Air Act will of course immediately impact companies that are utilizing PFAS and emitting PFAS into the air. While it remains to be seen whether the PROTECT Act will pass, if it were to pass and the EPA’s HAP designations were to survive any legal challenges, the impacts on businesses would be significant. Companies would need to undertake extensive testing of air emissions to determine their risk of Clean Air Act violations, which will be complicated due to limitations on current technology to do this type of testing. Companies may also need to pivot their production practices to reduce or limit PFAS air emissions, which would add unplanned costs to balance sheets. Finally, companies may wish to explore substitutes for PFAS rather than navigate Clean Air Act regulatory compliance, which is a significant undertaking that takes time and money.

It is also worth noting that a designation as a HAP for any PFAS would also trigger significant regulatory challenges to businesses that might have nothing to do with air emissions. Any substance listed as a HAP under the Clean Air Act is automatically designated as a “hazardous substance” under CERCLA (the Superfund law). Once a substance is classified as a “hazardous substance” under CERCLA, the EPA can force parties that it deems to be polluters to either cleanup the polluted site or reimburse the EPA for the full remediation of the contaminated site. Without a PFAS Superfund designation, the EPA can merely attribute blame to parties that it feels contributed to the pollution, but it has no authority to force the parties to remediate or pay costs. The designation also triggers considerable reporting requirements for companies. Currently, those reporting requirements with respect to PFAS do not exist, but they would apply to industries well beyond just PFAS manufacturers. Superfund site cleanup costs can be extensive, even as high as hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on the scope of pollution at issue and the amount of territory involved in the site.

Article By John Gardella of CMBG3 Law

For more environmental legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Politics Trumps Economics? Trump’s Revocation of California’s Waiver Under the Clean Air Act

Today President Trump announced on Twitter that the U.S. was revoking California’s waiver under the Clean Air Act (CAA) which allowed it to impose stricter tailpipe emission standards than the federal ones. California’s Governor Newsom and Attorney General Becerra immediately announced that the state would file suit to challenge the revocation.

While the revocation has been characterized as an immediate rollback, the federal corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards[1] established under the previous administration, which are consistent with California’s, remain in place. Last year the Trump administration proposed to rollback those standards, freezing the efficiency and emission rules in 2021 and canceling further increases in stringency set through 2028. The final rule has not yet been issued. It is rumored that it will not be, as the administrative record supporting it has many problems and most acknowledge that it faces significant legal hurdles.

A little historical context is helpful. California began regulating tailpipe emissions in the 1960’s under then-Governor Reagan to combat air pollution. When the CAA was signed by President Nixon in 1970 it included a provision, Section 209, that allows California to establish stricter standards by obtaining a waiver of the normal federal preemption rules from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Once granted, other states then can adopt California’s standards. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia have adopted California’s current standards.

For 30 years, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, Section 209 waivers to combat air pollution were routinely granted. In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), ruling that greenhouse gases (GHGs) are pollutants under the CAA. In December 2007, the Bush administration denied California’s request for a waiver to impose tailpipe emission standards aimed at reducing GHGs. California promptly sued in January 2008, joined by 11 other states. That case was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court when President Obama took office. In 2009, the parties settled the case before the Court issued its decision, and in 2010 the U.S. and California reached an agreement that aligned the state and federal standards. Those standards were subsequently expanded and a new waiver was granted in January 2013. It is that waiver that is now being revoked.

While litigation is inherently uncertain, it appears that California has a good case for challenging the revocation. Not only is the revocation unprecedented, there is no provision in the CAA providing for it. Section 209 only establishes the criteria for granting a waiver; it’s silent as to revocation. In 2013, the U.S. determined that the criteria for the waiver had been met, and both the states and the industry have acted in reliance on that determination for more than 6 years. The U.S. has also asserted that the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) preempts California’s standards. However, in Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled that EPCA does not displace EPA’s authority to regulate GHGs, and courts subsequently have extended that rationale to hold that EPCA does not preempt states’ regulation of GHGs under the waiver.

Just as it was in the late aughts, the automobile industry has been put in an extremely difficult position by this dispute. California has the 5^th largest economy in the world, and when one adds in the 13 other states that have adopted its standards – states like New York and Pennsylvania – that equates to a large segment of the auto market. Having to produce vehicles to meet two different sets of emission standards would be extremely costly. The industry desperately needs regulatory certainty. Reflecting this, in June, 17 automakers sent a letter to President Trump calling for one national standard that included California, and in July, four automakers reached an agreement of sorts with California on emission standards.

Instead of the regulatory certainty that is needed for the economy to operate efficiently, it appears that this dispute will move into a phase of protracted litigation and years of regulatory uncertainty. The dispute may be good politics for those that want to motivate their base on each side, both Republicans in Washington D.C. and Democrats in Sacramento, but it is pretty clearly bad economics.

[1] CAFE is, essentially, the average fuel efficiency of an automaker’s fleet of vehicles.

ARTICLE BY Nicholas van Aelstyn of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP.

For more on the Clean Air Act, see the National Law Review Environmental, Energy & Resources law page.

Ohio v. Sierra Club: The Integrity of the Clean Air Act

EPA Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States announced it will not grant Certiorari in Ohio v. Sierra Club, et al. In this case, the Sixth Circuit found an area must adopt required pollution-control measures before the EPA can designate it as having satisfied the law’s health-based pollution standards.

In 1997, the EPA created the National Ambient Air Quality Standards of fine particulate matter in the air. When the EPA created these standards, regions were designated as having met, or not met the air quality standards. In order to meet the standards, states were required to adopt “reasonable measures and technologies” to reduce the pollution in the problematic areas. In 2011, the EPA deemed Ohio to have met the appropriate standards because the air quality had improved. Ohio, however, had never created a pollution regulatory plan as the Clean Air Act required. In response, the Sierra Club filed suit alleging the EPA acted illegally by designated the areas as having met air quality standards.

Creating a pollution regulatory plan is crucial, according to Sanjay Narayan, the managing attorney for the Sierra Club on the case. Before 1990, the Clean Air Act had no requirement that states produce an implementation plan. According to Narayan, the expectation was “we [the EPA] don’t care how you get there, we aren’t going to tell you how to get there, we’re just going to check in at the deadline and expect you to have made it. And what happened was that the vast majority of the states did not meet the deadline.”

Narayan describes the implementation plan as “a show your math” requirement. This has been very useful in helping states create lasting change in their air quality–by creating a regulatory framework that shows how they can reduce air pollution, the states are more likely to meet their deadline. Narayan points out “It’s also useful for other areas to know what worked and what successful areas did. Here’s what turned out to be cost effective, that kind of record is tremendously useful as we move forward on what was meant to be a nation-wide campaign for healthy air for the public.”

In Ohio v. Sierra Club, there are a few details to consider. Pollution decreased, and that’s the goal. However, it might not be that simple. In the years preceding Ohio’s drop in air pollution, the economy crashed. Narayan draws comparisons to the Beijing Olympics, saying, “When people aren’t running their [industrial] plants for economic reasons, the air cleans up a little bit. But it turns around quickly once you turn the plants back on.” However, Ohio did meet the standard, and according to Narayan, to comply with the Clean Air Act they’d simply need to go back and show their work. He says, “They did meet the standard, and they say they have all the controls they need in place. There is a procedural step that Ohio hasn’t taken, and it shouldn’t be hard for Ohio to take it.”

The Sixth Circuit decision that currently stands requires Ohio to take those regulatory steps. In the current case, the Sixth Circuit agreed that the entire portion of the Clean Air Act must be followed, and that it wasn’t enough for Ohio to have simply met the standards. Ohio has appealed to the Supreme Court.

Narayan says, “It’s about the integrity of the clean air act.” These requirements are crucial in ensuring the air gets cleaned up in a timely manner. Narayan says, Decades of experience has shown us that without these requirements, states miss deadlines, air pollution lasts for much longer than it should and the public really suffers. The pollution sends kids to the hospital with asthma, it creates respiratory disease in the elderly-delay is a disaster for public health.”

Article By Eilene Spear & Nicole Cudiamat Minnis of The National Law Review / The National Law Forum LLC

Which Way is the Wind Blowing? U.S. Supreme Court Upholds EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

On April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision upholding EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (also known as the Transport Rule). The Transport Rule restricts air emissions from upwind states that in EPA’s judgment contribute significantly to nonattainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards(NAAQS) in downwind states. According to EPA’s regulatory impact analysis, the Rule is expected to have significant cost implications for electric generating utilities, and much of the costs could occur in Midwestern and Southern states that were identified in the Transport Rule as contributing to nonattainment of the NAAQS for states along the East Coast.

The Transport Rule was promulgated pursuant to what is often called the “Good Neighbor” provision of the Clean Air Act. In the Rule, EPA established a two-step approach for restricting emissions in upwind states. First, EPA used air modeling to determine which upwind states contributed more than one percent to the NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 in downwind states. Second, EPA determined the level of emission reductions that could be achieved in downwind states based on cost estimates for reducing emissions. For example, EPA concluded that significant emission reductions could be obtained for a cost of $500 per ton of NOx reduced, but that at greater than $500 per ton the emission reductions were minimal. The Agency then translated those cost estimates into the amount of emissions that upwind states would be required to eliminate. Lastly, EPA developed a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) detailing how states were to comply with the emission budgets assigned under the Transport Rule.

As we previously reported in August 2012, the Transport Rule had been struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Aug. 21, 2012. The Court of Appeals struck down the rule primarily for two reasons. First, the court found the cost estimates that EPA used as a basis to justify emission reductions would in some cases result in requirements for upwind states to reduce their emissions more than necessary to eliminate “significant” contributions to nonattainment in downwind states. The court held that EPA could only require reductions proportionate to a specific upwind state’s contribution to a downwind state’s nonattainment status. Second, the court held that states should have been given an opportunity to develop their own implementation plans before EPA required states to follow the FIP in the Transport Rule.

In reversing the Court of Appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the Clean Air Act does not require EPA to mandate only proportionate reductions in emissions from upwind states. The court argued that the “proportionality approach could scarcely be satisfied in practice” because there are multiple upwind states that each affect multiple downwind states. The Court concluded that the proportionality approach would mean that “each upwind State will be required to reduce emissions by the amount necessary to eliminate that State’s largest downwind contribution,” but that would result in cumulative emission reductions and “costly overregulation.” The court also concluded that it was appropriate for EPA to use cost as a means of allocating emissions, instead of the proportionality approach favored by the D.C. Circuit.

Regarding the FIP approach, the court held that after EPA issues a NAAQS, each state is required to propose a State Implementation Plan (SIP), including requirements to satisfy the Good Neighbor provision of the Clean Air Act. Therefore, the Court held it was appropriate for EPA to establish a FIP because the statutory deadline to propose SIPs that complied with the Good Neighbor provision had passed. The court rejected the D.C. Circuit’s conclusion that it was premature to establish a FIP before EPA had made a determination regarding each upwind state’s contribution to downwind states’ nonattainment.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, authored a dissent in the case agreeing with the D.C. Circuit that costs are not contemplated as a basis for reducing emissions under the Good Neighbor provision. Further, the dissent addressed the majority opinion’s assertion that the proportionality approach would result in “costly overregulation.” The dissent stated, “over-control is no more likely to occur when the required reductions are apportioned among upwind States on the basis of amounts of pollutants contributed than when they are apportioned on the basis of cost.” The dissent went on to note, “the solution to over-control under a proportional-reduction system is not difficult to discern. In calculating good-neighbor responsibilities, EPA . . . would set upwind States’ obligations at levels that, after taking into account those reductions, suffice to produce attainment in all downwind States. Doubtless, there are multiple ways for the Agency to accomplish that task in accordance with the statute’s amounts-based, proportional focus.”

At this juncture, it is unclear whether EPA will need to promulgate additional rules to implement the Transport Rule as many of the Transport Rules’ deadlines have already expired. Additionally, it is unclear whether other legal challenges to the Transport Rule, including challenges to whether the Rule satisfies regional haze emission requirements, will delay final implementation of the Rule. Those challenges have been stayed since the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the rule in 2012 but appear to be able to proceed now that the vacatur has been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. There are also questions as to whether the Transport Rule, which was designed to help meet the 1997 ozone NAAQs of 80 ppb, will need to be reworked by EPA to meet the stricter 2008 ozone NAAQs of 75 ppb. It is also possible that estimates of emission cuts expected from the original the Transport Rule will change given the move by several power plants to convert from coal to natural gas in recent years.

A copy of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision is available here.

Article By:

Michael H. Elam

Hae Park-Suk

Of:

Barnes & Thornburg LLP

U.S. Announces Innovative Clean Air Agreement For Industrial Flares With Marathon Petroleum Company

Recently The National Law Review published an article by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding a New Clean Air Agreement:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Justice today announced an innovative environmental agreement with Ohio-based Marathon Petroleum Company that already has significantly reduced air pollution from all six of the company’s petroleum refineries. In a first for the refining industry, Marathon has agreed to state-of-the-art controls on combustion devices known as flares and to a cap on the volume of waste gas it will send to its flares. When fully implemented, the agreement is expected to reduce harmful air pollution by approximately 5,400 tons per year and result in future cost savings for the company.

“Today’s agreement will result in cleaner air for communities across the South and Midwest,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “By working with EPA, Marathon helped advance new approaches that reduce air pollution and improve efficiency at its refineries and provide the U.S. with new knowledge to bring similar improvements in air quality to other communities across the nation.”

“This agreement is a great victory for the environment and will result in cleaner and healthier air for the benefit of communities across the country in Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio and Texas,” said Ignacia S. Moreno, assistant attorney general for the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice. “By spurring corporate ingenuity, this settlement will dramatically reduce emissions from all 22 flares at Marathon’s six refineries.”

The settlement is part of EPA’s national effort to reduce air pollution from refinery, petrochemical and chemical flares. A flare is a mechanical device, ordinarily elevated high off the ground, used to combust waste gases. The more waste gas a company sends to a flare, the more pollution occurs. The less efficient a flare is in burning waste gas, the more pollution occurs. EPA wants companies to flare less, and when they do flare, to fully combust the harmful chemicals found in the waste gas.

A consent decree filed today in the U.S. District Court in Detroit resolves Marathon’s alleged violations of the Clean Air Act. As part of the effort to reach this agreement, Marathon, under the direction and oversight of EPA, spent more than $2.4 million to develop and conduct pioneering combustion efficiency testing of flares and to advance the understanding of the relationship between flare operating parameters and flare combustion efficiency.

In addition, beginning in 2009, Marathon installed equipment, such as flow monitors and gas chromatographs, to improve the combustion efficiency of its flares. To date, Marathon has spent approximately $45 million on this equipment and projects, and plans to spend an additional $6.5 million. Marathon also will spend an as yet undetermined sum to comply with the flaring caps required in the consent decree.

At the same time, Marathon indicates that the equipment it already has installed is saving it approximately $5 million per year through reduced steam usage and product recovery. Marathon also projects additional savings through the operation of the equipment to be installed in the future.

From 2008 to the end of 2011, the controls Marathon installed eliminated approximately 4720 tons per year of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and 110 tons per year of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from the air. An additional 530 tons per year of VOCs and 30 tons per year of HAPs are projected to be eliminated in the future.

Under the agreement, Marathon will also implement a project at its Detroit refinery to remove another 15 tons per year of VOCs and another one ton per year of benzene from the air. At an estimated cost of $2.2 million, Marathon will install controls on numerous sludge handling tanks and equipment.

Marathon’s six refineries are located in: Robinson, Ill.; Catlettsburg, Ky.; Garyville, La.; Detroit; Canton, Ohio; and Texas City, Texas. Together, the refineries have a capacity of more than 1.15 million barrels per day.

Marathon, headquartered in Findlay, Ohio, will pay a civil penalty of $460,000 to the United States.

The consent decree is subject to a 30-day public comment period and final court approval.

More about the settlement: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/marathonrefining.html

More about EPA’s civil enforcement of the Clean Air Act: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/caa/index.html

More about EPA’s refinery initiative: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/oil/

Tag: air pollution

Curb Your Pollution: EPA Issues Final Rule to Reduce Toxic Air Pollution

Like this: