Tag: Air Quality

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.

©2022 CMBG3 Law, LLC. All rights reserved.

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 5th 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.

Copyright © 2019, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

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

EPA Proposes to Clarify Areas Excluded from Clean Air Act’s Definition of “Ambient Air”

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed a revised policy to clarify what constitutes “ambient air” under the Clean Air Act, which will directly affect what areas stationary sources of air emissions must model to determine the effect of their facilities on air quality. The revised policy will most notably affect sources that have to model air quality around their facilities to demonstrate compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), as well as sources applying for air construction permits under the EPA’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program.

Under current EPA regulations, ambient air is broadly defined as the portion of the atmosphere (external to buildings), that the general public has access. Areas where access is not available are not “ambient.” Sources are often required under the NAAQS and the EPA’s PSD program to model facility impacts on ambient air. Thus, excluding areas from “ambient air” eliminates the need to model emissions impacts on those areas.

Through various guidance documents and letters, the EPA’s historic policy has been to only exclude those areas from the definition of ambient air that are (1) owned or under the control of the source and (2) not accessible by the public due to some physical barrier (like a fence). This policy was rooted in the EPA’s interpretation of the definition of ambient air under 40 CFR §50.1(e), rather than explicit regulatory language.

The EPA now believes that its prior characterization that “physical barriers” must exist to exclude an area as ambient air is unnecessarily limiting. Under the EPA’s revised draft policy, a source may use various “measures,” not limited to mere “physical barriers,” to preclude public access. As a result, non-ambient air can include areas subject to video surveillance, signage, security patrols, or other measures provided that the measures “provide reasonable assurance that the general public will not have access.”

What does the EPA’s revised policy mean for stationary sources if implemented as proposed?

  1. Sources will have additional flexibility to determine what areas must be modeled for air quality analyses;
  2. The EPA’s proposed interpretation is a change in policy rather than a change in regulation, meaning that sources should still consider how their respective state or local permitting authorities interpret the meaning of ambient air;
  3. The draft policy appears to address only measures that a source can implement to preclude public access (e.g. install signs or physically patrol the area), as opposed to other physical conditions beyond fences that might already exist to preclude public access, such as roadways – this may be addressed in the final version of the EPA’s policy.

The EPA is accepting comments on its “Draft Revised Policy on Exclusions from ‘Ambient Air’” through December 21, 2018.

 

© 2018 Schiff Hardin LLP
This post was written by David M. Loring of Schiff Hardin LLP.

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

EPAYesterday, 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
Copyright ©2016 National Law Forum, LLC