Tag: Environmental Protection Agency

EPA Updates Safer Chemical Ingredients List, Adding 22 Chemicals and Changing the Status of One Chemical

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on August 11, 2022, that it updated the Safer Chemical Ingredients List (SCIL), “a living list of chemicals by functional-use class that EPA’s Safer Choice program has evaluated and determined meet the Safer Choice Standard.” EPA added 22 chemicals to the SCIL. EPA states that to expand the number of chemicals and functional-use categories on the SCIL, it encourages manufacturers to submit their safer chemicals for review and listing on the SCIL. In support of the Biden Administration’s goals, the addition of chemicals to the SCIL “incentivizes further innovation in safer chemistry, which can promote environmental justice, bolster resilience to the impacts of climate change, and improve water quality.” According to EPA, chemicals on the SCIL “are among the safest for their functional use.”

EPA also changed the status for one chemical on the SCIL and will remove the chemical from the list in one year “because of a growing understanding of the potential health and environmental effects.” According to EPA, the chemical was originally listed on the SCIL based on data from a closely related substance that EPA marked with a grey square earlier this year. EPA’s process for removing a chemical from the SCIL is first to mark the chemical with a grey square on the SCIL web page to provide notice to chemical and product manufacturers that the chemical may no longer be acceptable for use in Safer Choice-certified products. A grey square notation on the SCIL means that the chemical may not be allowed for use in products that are candidates for the Safer Choice label, and any current Safer Choice-certified products that contain this chemical must be reformulated unless relevant health and safety data are provided to justify continuing to list the chemical on the SCIL. EPA states that the data required are determined on a case-by-case basis. In general, data useful for making such a determination provide evidence of low concern for human health and environmental impacts. Unless information provided to EPA adequately justifies continued listing, EPA then removes the chemical from the SCIL 12 months after the grey square designation.

According to EPA, after this update is made, there will be 1,055 chemicals listed on the SCIL. EPA is committed to updating the SCIL with safer chemicals on a regular basis. EPA states that the SCIL is a resource that can help many different stakeholders:

  • Product manufacturers use the SCIL to help make high-functioning products that contain safer ingredients;
  • Chemical manufacturers use the SCIL to promote the safer chemicals they manufacture;
  • Retailers use the SCIL to help shape their sustainability programs; and
  • Environmental and health advocates use the SCIL to support their work with industry to encourage the use of the safest possible chemistry.

EPA’s Safer Choice program certifies products containing ingredients that have met the program’s rigorous human health and environmental safety criteria. The Safer Choice program allows companies to use its label on products that meet the Safer Choice Standard. The EPA website contains a complete list of Safer Choice-certified products.

Article By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

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

©2022 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

PFAS Health Advisories Under Legal Attack…Again

On June 15, 2022, the EPA issued Health Advisories (HAs) for five specific PFAS, including PFOA and PFOS. On July 29, 2022, the American Chemistry Council filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia challenging the validity of the EPA’s PFOA and PFOS HAs. The group alleges that the EPA did not follow proper procedure in setting the HAs and that the EPA’s determinations were scientifically flawed. The petition follows closely on the heels of a similar challenge to the EPA’s HA for GenX PFAS. Industries that will be impacted by upcoming EPA PFAS regulations will closely follow the petition as it makes its way through court, as it may provide predictive indicators of arguments that will unfold as the EPA’s PFAS regulations increase.

PFAS Health Advisories

In October 2021, the EPA released its PFAS Roadmap, which stated explicit goals and deadlines for over twenty action items specific to PFAS. As part of the Roadmap, the EPA pledged to re-assess the existing Health Advisories (HAs) for PFOA and PFOS, as well as establish HAs for PFBS and GenX chemicals. In June 2022, the EPA fulfilled its promise on all fronts when it set HAs for PFOA (interim), PFOS (interim), PFBS (final) and GenX (final). While not enforceable levels for PFAS in drinking water, the EPA’s PFAS Health Advisories are nevertheless incredibly significant for a variety of reasons, including influence on future federal and state drinking water limits, as well as potential impacts on future PFAS litigation.

The levels set by the EPA’s PFAS Health Advisories were as follows:

PFOA

.004 ppt

PFOS

.02 ppt

GenX

10 ppt

PFBS

2,000 ppt

Legal Challenge To PFAS Health Advisories

On July 13, 2022, The Chemours Company filed a petition challenging the validity of the EPA’s GenX HA. On July 29, 2022, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) followed suit and petitioned to have the EPA’s HAs for PFOA and PFOS vacated. In the petition, the ACC argues that the EPA circumvented procedural requirements in the Safe Drinking Water Act by setting interim HAs for PFOA and PFOS and that the EPA is improperly attempting to create enforcement standards for drinking water that are unattainable. While the HAs themselves are not enforceable, the ACC argues that the HAs are relied upon by states when they set their own drinking water standards and signal an EPA intent to set unachievably low levels of enforceable PFAS standards at the federal level. The ACC points to recent findings by the Science Advisory Board (SAB) that criticized the EPA’s reliance on the same studies and scientific articles upon which the HAs were based.

Conclusion

Now more than ever, the EPA is clearly on a path to regulate PFAS contamination in the country’s water, land and air. The EPA has also for the first time publicly stated when they expect such regulations to be enacted. These regulations will require states to act, as well (and some states may still enact stronger regulations than the EPA). Both the federal and the state level regulations will impact businesses and industries of many kinds, even if their contribution to drinking water contamination issues may seem on the surface to be de minimus. In states that already have PFAS drinking water standards enacted, businesses and property owners have already seen local environmental agencies scrutinize possible sources of PFAS pollution much more closely than ever before, which has resulted in unexpected costs. Beyond drinking water, though, the EPA PFAS Roadmap shows the EPA’s desire to take regulatory action well beyond just drinking water, and companies absolutely must begin preparing now for regulatory actions that will have significant financial impacts down the road.

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.

EPA Will Propose to Ban Ongoing Uses of Asbestos

The U.S. Environmental Protection (EPA) announced on April 5, 2022, that it will propose to prohibit ongoing uses of chrysotile asbestos, the only known form of asbestos currently imported into the United States. EPA notes that the proposed rule will be “the first-ever risk management rule issued under the new process for evaluating and addressing the safety of existing chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that was enacted in 2016.” EPA will propose to prohibit manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce, and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos for all ongoing uses of chrysotile asbestos. EPA will also propose targeted disposal and recordkeeping requirements in line with industry standards, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements, and the Asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). EPA has posted a pre-publication version of the proposed rule. Publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register will begin a 60-day comment period.

Background

As reported in our January 4, 2021, memorandum, EPA released on December 30, 2020, the final risk evaluation for asbestos, part 1: chrysotile asbestos (Asbestos RE Part 1). Of the six use categories evaluated (chlor-alkali diaphragms, sheet gaskets, other gaskets, oilfield brake blocks, aftermarket automotive brakes/linings, and other vehicle friction products), EPA found that there is unreasonable risk to workers, occupational non-users (ONU), consumers, and/or bystanders within each of the six chrysotile asbestos use categories. EPA found no unreasonable risk to the environment. According to the final risk evaluation, chrysotile is the prevailing form of asbestos currently mined worldwide, and “so it is assumed that a majority of commercially available products fabricated overseas that contain asbestos are made with chrysotile. Any asbestos being imported into the U.S. in articles is believed to be chrysotile.” The other five forms of asbestos are now subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR), as reported in our April 18, 2019, memorandum, “EPA Announces Final SNUR for Asbestos Will ‘Close Loophole and Protect Consumers.’”

Proposed Rule

EPA will propose a rule under TSCA Section 6(a) to prohibit manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce, and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos in bulk or as part of chrysotile asbestos diaphragms used in the chlor-alkali industry and chrysotile asbestos-containing sheet gaskets used in chemical production. EPA will propose that these prohibitions take effect two years after the effective date of the final rule.

EPA will also propose pursuant to TSCA Section 6(a) to prohibit manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce, and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos-containing brake blocks used in the oil industry, aftermarket automotive chrysotile asbestos-containing brakes/linings, other chrysotile asbestos-containing vehicle friction products (not including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Super Guppy Turbine aircraft use), and other chrysotile asbestos-containing gaskets. EPA will propose that these prohibitions take effect 180 days after the effective date of the final rule.

EPA will further propose pursuant to TSCA Section 6(a) to prohibit manufacture (including import), processing, and distribution in commerce of: aftermarket automotive chrysotile asbestos-containing brakes/linings for consumer use, and commercial use of other chrysotile asbestos-containing gaskets for consumer use. EPA will propose that these prohibitions take effect 180 days after the effective date of the final rule.

EPA will also propose disposal and recordkeeping requirements under which regulated parties would document compliance with certain proposed prohibitions. EPA states that it does not intend the proposed prohibitions on processing or distribution in commerce to prohibit any processing or distribution in commerce incidental to disposal of the chrysotile asbestos waste in accordance with the proposed requirements.

According to EPA, because a determination has been made that chrysotile asbestos presents an unreasonable risk to health within the United States or to the environment of the United States, pursuant to TSCA Section 12(a)(2), the proposed rule would apply to chrysotile asbestos even if being manufactured, processed, or distributed in commerce solely for export from the United States.

Commentary

Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) commends EPA on this historical achievement. Unsurprisingly, there are aspects of this precedent-setting proposed rule that invite discussion and warrant comment from affected parties. Key among these issues is a potential significant legal vulnerability in the underlying risk evaluation (i.e., Asbestos RE Part 1) for the proposed rule, an issue that may overshadow this historic achievement in a manner reminiscent of EPA’s failed ban of asbestos in 1991 (Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA, 947 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir., 1991)).

EPA proposed that the prohibition on specific conditions of use (e.g., chrysotile asbestos diaphragms used in the chlor-alkali industry) would take effect two years after the effective date of the final rule. EPA stated that it “believes an aggressive transition away from chrysotile asbestos will spur adoption of superior technology [e.g., membrane cells with increased concentrations of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)].” The clear need to consider EPA’s intended action on asbestos in the context of its ongoing actions on PFAS is of course not lost on the Agency. EPA acknowledged that “the transition away from asbestos-containing diaphragms could result in greater usage and release of PFAS.”

B&C notes that innovative new technologies, such as alternative membrane cells, may be available in the future, but those technologies must be proven to be economically and technically viable. Once proven effective, the underlying chemical substances must be reviewed as new chemicals if so classified under TSCA. The development, review, and approval are all on indeterminate timelines, so it is speculative when novel, non-PFAS-based technologies will be commercially available and, of course, whether that time will be prior to the effective date of EPA’s proposed ban on asbestos.

EPA requested comment on specific aspects of the proposed rule that B&C encourages potentially impacted parties to consider. For example, EPA discussed its authority under TSCA Section 6(g) to grant a time-limited exemption for a specific condition of use, such as the chlor-alkali industry, where EPA finds “that compliance with the proposed requirement would significantly disrupt the national economy, national security, or critical infrastructure.”

EPA also requested comment on a primary alternative regulatory option that EPA discussed for the chlor-alkali diaphragm and sheet gasket categories that would allow a prohibition to take effect five years after the effective date of the final rule. As part of this option, EPA would include establishment of a risk-based performance standard known as an existing chemical exposure limit (ECEL). EPA developed an eight-hour time-weighted average (8-hr TWA) ECEL of 0.005 fibers/cubic centimeter (f/cc) for inhalation exposures to chrysotile asbestos as an eight-hr TWA ECEL-action level of 0.0025 f/cc, with associated requirements for initial and periodic monitoring and respirator usage/type if exceedances are found.

As part of the monitoring requirements, EPA stated that it would “require use of appropriate sampling and analytical methods to determine asbestos exposure, including: … Compliance with the Good Laboratory Practice Standards at 40 CFR Part 792,” despite the fact that EPA acknowledges that other standards, such as Industrial Hygiene Laboratory Accreditation Program (IHLAP), are more appropriate for industrial hygiene monitoring. EPA’s TSCA Section 5(e) order template states the following under Section III.D:

Compliance with TSCA GLPS, however, is not required under this New Chemical Exposure Limit Section where the analytical method is verified by a laboratory accredited by either: the American Industrial Hygiene Association (“AIHA”) Industrial Hygiene Laboratory Accreditation Program (“IHLAP”) or another comparable program approved in advance in writing by EPA.

EPA devoted one paragraph in the proposed rule to “TSCA section 26(h) considerations.” EPA stated, in part, that its unreasonable risk determination “was based on a risk evaluation, which was subject to peer review and public comment, was developed in a manner consistent with the best available science and based on the weight of the scientific evidence as required by TSCA sections 26(h) [and 26(i)] and 40 CFR 702.43 and 702.45.”

B&C notes that EPA stated in the Asbestos RE Part 1 the following:

TSCA § 26(h) and (i) require EPA, when conducting Risk Evaluations, to use scientific information, technical procedures, measures, methods, protocols, methodologies and models consistent with the best available science and base its decisions on the weight of the scientific evidence. To meet these TSCA § 26 science standards, EPA used the TSCA systematic review process described in the [2018] Application of Systematic Review in TSCA Risk Evaluations document [citation omitted] [2018 SR Document].

Prior to completing Asbestos RE Part 1, EPA requested the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) to review the 2018 SR Document. In February 2021, NASEM released its consensus study report on EPA’s 2018 SR Document and concluded that it did not meet the criteria of “comprehensive, workable, objective, and transparent” and that “The OPPT approach to systematic review does not adequately meet the state-of-practice.”

NASEM recommended that “With regard to hazard assessment for human and ecological receptors, OPPT should step back from the approach that it has taken and consider components of the OHAT, IRIS, and Navigation Guide methods that could be incorporated directly and specifically into hazard assessment.”

In response to the NASEM review, EPA revised its systematic review method. On December 20, 2021, EPA released the “Draft Systematic Review Protocol Supporting TSCA Risk Evaluations for Chemical Substances” (2021 Draft Protocol) for public comment. EPA acknowledged in the 2021 Draft Protocol that:

Previously [in the 2018 SR Document], EPA did not have a complete clear and documented TSCA systematic review (SR) Protocol. EPA is addressing this lack of a priori protocol by releasing [the 2021 Draft Protocol].

EPA further stated that the:

[2021 Draft Protocol] is significantly different [from the 2018 SR Document] in that it includes descrition [sic] of the Evidence Integration process…, which was not previously included in the [2018 SR Document].

B&C recognizes that the scientific methods used to inform systematic review are not static and that updates will be required as the science evolves. In this instance, however, many of the documents cited as supporting information for updating the 2021 Draft Protocol (e.g., Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT), 2015) were available prior to EPA issuing the 2018 SR Document. Rather than utilizing these documents at the time, EPA developed the 2018 SR Document de novo. In other words, EPA chose to develop its own methodology in 2018 rather than incorporating and adapting existing methodologies that represented the best available science at the time.

These issues raise interesting procedural questions and issues around whether EPA demonstrated that Asbestos RE Part 1 was based on the best available science and weight of scientific evidence, as required under TSCA Sections 26(h) and 26(i) and the implementing regulation under 40 C.F.R. Part 702.

B&C encourages stakeholders to review EPA’s proposed risk management rule on chrysotile asbestos, even for entities that do not manufacture, process, distribute, or use this substance. We urge this review because of the precedential nature of EPA’s decisions. B&C also encourages interested parties to provide public comments on the proposed rule, given that risk management decisions in the proposed rule will likely serve as a basis from which EPA regulates other chemical substances EPA is evaluating under TSCA Section 6.

Article By: the Government Regulation practice at Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

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

©2022 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

EPA OIG Report States Further Efforts Needed to Uphold Scientific Integrity Policy at EPA

On May 20, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) released a report entitled Further Efforts Needed to Uphold Scientific Integrity Policy at EPA.  OIG conducted an Agency-wide survey to determine whether EPA’s Scientific Integrity Policy is being implemented as intended to ensure scientific integrity throughout EPA.  OIG received 4,320 responses (a 23.5 percent response rate), showing that 3,987 respondents were aware of or had some familiarity with the Scientific Integrity Policy.  According to OIG, among those respondents with a basis to judge, the majority (56 percent; 1,025 of 1,842) were satisfied with the overall implementation of the Policy.  OIG states that the survey also revealed some concerns with specific aspects of scientific integrity at EPA, including dissatisfaction with EPA’s culture of scientific integrity (59 percent; 1,425 of 2,402) and the release of scientific information to the public (57 percent; 1,049 of 1,842).  OIG recommends that EPA’s deputy administrator lead an effort to examine the causes associated with the scientific integrity concerns identified in the survey and communicate the results to EPA employees, including planned actions to address the causes.  OIG also made 11 recommendations to the EPA science advisor, including developing procedures for addressing and resolving allegations of scientific integrity violations, communicating the outcomes of reports of scientific integrity violations, and improving the release of scientific information to the public.  OIG states that EPA agreed with its recommendations and provided acceptable corrective actions.  According to OIG, EPA has completed two recommendations, and the others are resolved with corrective actions pending.

©2020 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

EPA Registers New Uses for Existing Products to Help Reduce the Spread of Candida auris

On February 12, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the availability of 11 products that have been approved for use to disinfect surfaces against the emerging multidrug-resistant fungus Candida auris (C. auris).  C. auris can cause severe infections and spreads easily among hospitalized patients and nursing home residents.  The 11 products are approved for use against C. auris to disinfect surfaces in hospitals, nursing homes, and other healthcare facilities, to help reduce patient infections.  There were no antimicrobial pesticide products registered specifically for use against C. auris prior these new use registrations.

EPA worked in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other federal partners to ensure that the products would be effective against C. auris.  Previously, on October 16, 2019, EPA had granted public health exemptions under the provisions of section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as amended, to the CDC, for uses of antimicrobial products, on hard, nonporous surfaces in healthcare settings for disinfection from C. auris.

The 11 products that are now registered for use against C. auris are:

  •  Avert Sporicidal Disinfectant Cleaner (EPA Reg. No. 70627-72);
  •  Blondie (EPA Reg. No. 67619-24);
  •  Dagwood (EPA Reg. No. 67619-25);
  •  Micro-Kill Bleach Germicidal Bleach Wipes (EPA Reg. No. 37549-1);
  •  Oxivir 1 (EPA Reg. No. 70627-74);
  •  Oxivir 1 Wipes (EPA Reg. No. 70627-77);
  •  Oxivir Wipes (EPA Reg. No. 70627-60);
  •  Oxycide™ Daily Disinfectant Cleaner (EPA Reg. No. 1677-237);
  •  Virasept (EPA Reg. No. 1677-226);
  • Wonder Woman Formula B Germicidal Wipes (EPA Reg. No. 9480-12); and
  •  Wonder Woman Formula B Spray (EPA Reg. No. 9480-10).

Because there are few products with C. auris claims at this time, CDC and EPA have identified additional products that are effective against C. auris. Although these products do not yet have formal EPA-registered claims for C. auris, testing at CDC has confirmed they are effective against C. auris.  The label on the product will not include instructions for C. auris.  CDC guidance states to “follow the instructions provided for C. albicans, if included, or else follow those for fungicidal activity.” These products include:

  •  Oxivir TB Spray (EPA Reg. No. 70627-56); and
  •  PDI Super Sani-Cloth (EPA Reg. No. 9480-4).

The CDC Guidance further states that, if none of the above-listed products are available, or any of the EPA-registered products that are newly approved for the specific claims against C. auris, CDC recommends use of an EPA-registered hospital-grade disinfectant effective against Clostridioides difficile spores, because CDC believes these products have been used effectively against C. auris (List K).

Additional information on C. auris is available on EPA’s website and CDC’s website.

©2020 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

For more on EPA disinfectant registrations, see the National Law Review Environmental, Energy & Resources section.

Trump Executive Order Seeks to Limit Scope of Clean Water Act

clean water act, EPA, environmental protection agencyThe executive order asks agencies to repeal or revise an Obama-era rule defining the scope of the Clean Water Act and recommends adoption of a narrower standard articulated by the late Justice Scalia.

On February 28, US President Donald Trump issued an executive order asking the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) to repeal or revise a 2015 rule interpreting the term “waters of the United States,” which determines the jurisdictional reach of the Clean Water Act. The order further recommends that the agencies consider crafting a new definition based on the “continuous surface connection” test adopted by a plurality of the US Supreme Court in Rapanos v. United States, which would result in a significant contraction in the Clean Water Act’s scope from the Obama EPA’s 2015 rule.[1] The 2015 rule was met with extensive criticism by some stakeholders and gave rise to a flurry of litigation. A new rule issued in response to President Trump’s executive order is likely to do the same—resulting in continued uncertainty as to the proper scope of the Clean Water Act and possibly requiring further review by the Supreme Court to resolve the question.

Background

The scope of jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act has long been controversial. It is also an important issue for stakeholders such as farmers, developers, and energy companies that own or use properties that may contain a “water of the United States.” The scope of the act affects the application of a number of regulatory programs, including the section 402 point source discharge permit program, the section 404 dredge and fill permit program, and the section 311 oil spill prevention program.

The Clean Water Act applies to “navigable waters,” which are defined in the statute as “waters of the United States, including territorial seas.” EPA and the Army Corps, the agencies charged with administrating the Clean Water Act, have sought multiple times to define “waters of the United States” through rulemakings and regulatory guidance, and those regulatory efforts have been subject to numerous legal challenges. The US Supreme Court has weighed in on the issue three times, most recently in Rapanos v. United States.[2] Rapanos resulted in a fractured decision in which no interpretation received support from a majority of the court—Justice Antonin Scalia and three other justices articulated a test based on a “continuous surface connection,” while Justice Anthony Kennedy’s concurrence relied on whether there was a “significant nexus” to another water of the United States.[3] Because Justice Kennedy’s analysis provided the narrowest grounds for reversal, the “significant nexus” test has been understood by many as the controlling test post-Rapanos for what constitutes a water of the United States.

In May 2015, EPA and the Army Corps issued a new rule seeking to better define the Clean Water Act’s scope.[4] The agencies maintained that the final rule only clarified and limited the reach of the act, but many stakeholder groups concluded that the 2015 rule significantly expanded the existing interpretation of waters of the United States. Of particular concern to stakeholders were categorical inclusions of “tributaries” and waters “adjacent” to other waters of the United States, as well as the rule’s broad definition of what constitutes a “significant nexus.” Numerous lawsuits challenging the rule were filed, which are currently consolidated in the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The Executive Order

On February 28, 2017, President Trump issued an executive order asking EPA and the Army Corps to review the 2015 rule and propose a new rule “rescinding or revising” it. The order also asks the agencies to consider defining waters of the United States “in a manner consistent with the opinion of Justice Antonin Scalia in Rapanos v. United States.” The order further directs the US attorney general to take appropriate measures regarding the ongoing litigation over the 2015 rule.

EPA and the Army Corps released a prepublication Federal Register notice the same day noting their intention to “review and rescind or revise” the 2015 rule pursuant to President Trump’s executive order. The agencies also acknowledged that they would consider adopting Justice Scalia’s test from Rapanos.

Implications

It likely will take years for the exact contours of the new regulation to be fleshed out by EPA and the Army Corps and for any ensuing litigation to be resolved. The process likely will start with the withdrawal of the Obama-era rule and the issuance of a new rule, including an explanation as to how the new rule fulfills the legislative intent of the Clean Water Act. The new rule will be subject to a public comment period.

If the agencies’ new rule is indeed based on Justice Scalia’s “continuous surface connection” test from Rapanos, it likely would entail a significant contraction in the scope of the Clean Water Act from existing practices and the Obama EPA’s 2015 rule. For example, a wetland next to a navigable river presumably would be covered by the act only if surface water from the wetland flowed into that river on a year-round basis, regardless of any subsurface flows. Under the 2015 rule, the same wetland could be covered under the act as a water “adjacent” to another water of the United States in the absence of a continuous surface connection. Many tributaries and ephemeral waters also likely no longer would be subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act if the “continuous surface connection” test is adopted. Such changes likely would be hailed by stakeholders that would have been prohibited from engaging in certain activities or obtaining permits under the 2015 rule, but criticized by environmental groups seeking to broadly protect aquatic resources.

Given the stakes and the contentious atmosphere regarding the scope of the Clean Water Act, any new rule is likely to be challenged in court. One issue that may be raised by challengers is whether a rule based on Justice Scalia’s “continuous surface connection” test is consistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act as interpreted by Supreme Court decisions, including Rapanos. Opponents of the rule could contend that a “continuous surface connection” standard is inconsistent with the Rapanos court’s view of the limits of the Clean Water Act because five justices rejected Scalia’s test as too restrictive, and most lower courts have treated Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test as the operative standard. Proponents of a new rule could counter that such a construction is nonetheless a permissible interpretation of the Clean Water Act (as evidenced by the plurality’s opinion in Rapanos) that is entitled to judicial deference.[5]  

Environmental groups or others opposed to a new rule could also challenge the merits of the rule under the Administrative Procedure Act. Such a challenge could rely in part on the new rule’s departure from the 2015 rule, in which the Obama administration cited extensive scientific findings in support of its interpretation. While agencies can change their position, they must provide a “more detailed justification” if they rely on factual findings contradicting previous ones,[6] potentially heightening the agencies’ burden to provide support for a new rule.

In the interim, jurisdictional determinations under the Clean Water Act are likely to remain in a state of limbo. The 2015 rule has been stayed by the Sixth Circuit, technically leaving the rules and guidance pre-dating 2015 as the operative regulatory regime until the time that the stay is lifted or a new rule is promulgated. In light of the new administration’s expressed intent to limit the scope of the Clean Water Act, EPA and the Army Corps will be unlikely to assert jurisdiction over waters on the borderline of Clean Water Act jurisdiction until this legal limbo is resolved. The currently pending legal challenges also may be held in abeyance or remanded until the promulgation of a new rule, particularly given the executive order’s instruction to the US attorney general to take appropriate actions in pending litigation.

Ultimately, it likely will be years before the scope of the Clean Water Act is sorted out. And it may require a fourth trip to the Supreme Court for the justices to yet again wrestle with what are “waters of the United States.”

Additional Information

Additional information on the controversy that has surrounded efforts to define “waters of the United States” and the regulatory programs affected by the jurisdictional reach of the Clean Water Act can be found in the Clean Water Handbook, Fourth Edition, authored by Duke McCall and available from Bernan Press.

ARTICLE BY Duke K. McCall III, Ella Foley Gannon & Douglas A. Hastings of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Copyright © 2017 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved.

[1] 547 U.S. 715 (2006).

[2] Id.

[3] See id. at 717-18.  

[4] 80 Fed. Reg. 37,054. 

[5] See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).

[6] See FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009).  

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

EPA Expands the Definition of Solid Waste Rule

SchiffHardin-logo_4c_LLP_www

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is cracking down on alleged sham recycling with the issuance of a final “Definition of Solid Waste” Rule. The rule aims to reestablish hazardous waste restrictions eased by the Bush administration in 2008. Rulemaking on the Definition of Solid Waste, Pre-Publication version (Dec. 9, 2014) (to be codified at 40 CFR Parts 260 and 261) (the Rule). The 2008 rule exempted hazardous secondary materials that would be reclaimed from the definition of solid waste. Doing so, according to EPA, effectively de-regulated 1.5 million tons of materials, such as arsenic, benzene, trichloroethylene, lead and mercury. Environmental groups and EPA claim that the deregulation resulted in third-party recyclers over-accumulating materials, increasing the risk of accidents and environmental releases. Consequently, the Rule redefines certain materials as hazardous waste and implements stricter controls on facilities and processes.

The new Rule has the potential to affect numerous industries because it changes what may be recycled, and how, without being subject to hazardous waste requirements. EPA has grouped the regulatory changes into six major categories, outlined below.

1. Exclusion for hazardous secondary materials that are legitimately reclaimed under the control of the generator. The Rule retains the exclusion from solid waste for companies who recycle the waste they generate.

2. Verified Recycler Exclusion. The Rule will also replace the transfer-based exclusion with an exclusion for verified recyclers reclaiming hazardous materials. A more restrictive framework for generators will result, as the responsibility shifts to the generator to ensure that it is sending hazardous secondary materials only to a recycler or intermediate facility that has obtained the proper RCRA permit or solid waste variance. The solid waste variance procedure replaces a “reasonable efforts” environmental audit process in the 2008 Rule and requires EPA or state involvement before recycling operations begin.

3. Remanufacturing Exclusion. The Rule excludes from the definition of hazardous waste certain higher-value hazardous spent solvents that are remanufactured into commercial-grade products. This new exclusion, according to EPA, will encourage sustainable materials management and reduce the environmental effects of raw materials use. Facilities may submit a rulemaking petition to request the addition of other higher-value hazardous secondary materials to the remanufacturing exclusion.

4. Prohibition of Sham Recycling and Revisions to the Definition of Legitimacy. The Rule tightens the standards required to show “legitimate recycling,” now mandating the following:

  1. The hazardous secondary material must provide a useful contribution to the recycling process or product;

  2. The recycling process must produce a valuable product or intermediate;

  3. The hazardous secondary material must be managed as a valuable commodity; and

  4. The recycled product must be comparable to a legitimate product or intermediate.

The Rule confirmed the exclusion from solid waste for commodity-grade recycled products, such as scrap metal, and in-process recycling.

5. Revisions to Solid Waste Variances and Non-Waste Determinations. Companies may seek a variance to conduct recycling or reclamation, or they may apply for a non-waste determination on a particular waste stream or product.

6. Deferral on Revisions to Pre-2008 Recycling Exclusions. The new Rule declines to supersede pre-2008 recycling exclusions and exemptions. Thus, any existing facilities operating under a pre-2008 solid waste exclusion determination are not subject to a re-determination unless the state chooses to revisit the regulatory determination. However, all facilities will have to comply with the recordkeeping requirements for speculative accumulation and legitimate recycling.

Although the Rule will become effective six months after publication, most states (those that are authorized to enforce RCRA) must individually adopt the Rule before it becomes effective in those States. Such states will have until July 1, 2016 to adopt the new federal rules, though a one-year extension may be available if a statutory amendment is needed. Compliance will likely require a significant investment in proactive planning and new protocols.

ARTICLE BY

Erin E. Guffey
OF
Schiff Hardin LLP

House Passes Bill to Prevent EPA Overreach

Varnum LLP

The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed legislation prohibiting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from developing, finalizing, adopting, implementing, applying, administering, or enforcing the EPA rule defining what constitutes “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act.

This Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014, H.R. 5078, comes as a response to a move by the EPA in April of this year that proposed changes to how the EPA will define “waters of the United States.” The EPA’s update uses scientific terms from hydrogeology to define which waters are covered under the Clean Water Act.

Farmers, however, have criticized the EPA update as 80 pages of technical and legal jargon. After Congressional hearings, the House passed The Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014. This bill will go to the Senate next for consideration.

ARTICLE BY

Aaron M. Phelps
Sherry X. Lin
OF
Varnum LLP