On July 30, 2024, The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit temporarily halted litigation over the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) updated Risk Management Program (RMP) rule and granted a four-month abeyance. The final RMP rule was published on March 22, 2024.
The order granting the abeyance allows EPA time
On June 13, 2024, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) opened a 15 day public comment period (expiring June 28) for interested parties to comment on the State’s proposed changes to regulations that require additional information in future warnings on consumer products that contain chemicals linked to cancer or birth defects.
As
Action
On May 28, 2024, the U.S. Departments of Treasury, Agriculture, Energy, and White House representatives published a joint Policy Statement on voluntary carbon markets (VCMs). The Policy Statement sets out seven principles to guide engagement with VCMs, and the principles are designed to ensure that VCMs are effective, fair, and equitable, and instill market
The Washington Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) adopted CR-103, creating a new Part B to chapter 296-67 WAC, on December 27, 2023. Specifically applicable to petroleum refineries, Part B includes and updates existing PSM requirements as well as introduces several new requirements, some of which are expected to be onerous for refiners to
The Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) issued a proposed rule updating process safety management (PSM) standards for petroleum refineries. Washington’s current PSM rule is identical to the federal standard issued by OSHA in 1992 – over 30 years ago. More recently, in late 2017, California revised their regulations on PSM for petroleum
On May 25, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 9-0 decision ending a nearly 16-year battle over the Clean Water Act’s (CWA) applicability to certain wetlands. In a five-justice majority opinion, the Court found that the CWA applies only to wetlands that are “as a practical matter indistinguishable” from “relatively permanent, standing or continuously
Introduction
President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the Act) into law on August 16, 2022. The Act represents an expansive investment in the energy industry, with many provisions targeting clean energy and climate change issues through funding and tax credits. However, several notable provisions from an environmental permitting and compliance standpoint are buried amongst the financial and tax provisions. These environmental provisions relate to permitting and compliance that the regulated industry, especially energy companies, should watch closely.
Funding for Permitting and Programmatic Development
The Act provided significant funding to regulatory authorities for a number of permitting-related activities.
For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) received $20 million to assist with permitting and project review. The funds are meant to result in more efficient, accurate, and timely reviews for planning, permitting and approval processes through hiring and training personnel and obtaining new technical and scientific services and equipment.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) received $40 million for its permitting and project review efforts. The funds will be utilized to develop efficient, accurate, and timely reviews for permitting and approval processes through hiring and training of personnel, development of U.S. EPA programmatic documents, procurement of technical or scientific services for reviews, development of environmental data and new information systems, purchase of new equipment, developing new guidance documents, and more.
The Act provided over $62.5 million to the Council on Environmental Quality to develop programmatic documents, tools, guidance, and improvement engagement. These funds will also support collection of data regarding environmental justice issues, climate change data, development of mapping/screening tools, and tracking and evaluation of cumulative impacts.
Several other federal agencies received millions in funding for review and planning of electricity generation infrastructure, like the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Department of Energy, and the Department of the Interior. Funding will be used to facilitate timely and efficient reviews, as well as generate environmental programmatic documents, environmental data, and increase stakeholder and community involvement.
In sum, regulators involved in environmental and energy permitting received a substantial boost in funding targeting the permitting process, including supporting the development and build out of programmatic documents and capabilities. The funding could improve the timing of the permitting processes for these agencies, but it could also lead to additional administrative burdens in the form of new application and compliance materials and increased regulatory scrutiny where a regulator has more time and money to invest in the regulatory process.Continue Reading Environmental aspects of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022
As anticipated, on Friday the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposed Risk Management Program (RMP) Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention rule pursuant to the Clean Air Act. The proposed rule would reinstate certain provisions newly introduced to the RMP rule (originally promulgated in 1991) late in the Obama administration and subsequently removed by the Trump administration in 2019. The EPA has additionally added significant new requirements not originally in the 2017 draft RMP rule, including provisions aimed to further current policies on environmental justice and climate change. The proposed RMP rule also appears to draw influence from recommendations made by the Chemical Safety Board (CSB) as well as state updates to process safety regulations in the past decade, most notably the California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP) and the California Refinery Process Safety Management (PSM) Standard.
These changes, including the addition of requirements regarding employee participation, public availability of information, inherent safety, third party auditing, facility siting and natural hazards consideration, as well as emergency response planning, will result in covered RMP facilities having to significantly revisit and revise their RMP programs and plans. Certain requirements also appear to be directly aimed at limiting stationary sources’ ability to privately manage their internal risk management decisions. For example, covered facilities would now be required to document any revisions between draft and final compliance audits and provide justifications for rejected RMP program recommendations.
According to EPA Administrator Michael Regan, “protecting public health is central to EPA’s mission, particularly as we adapt to the challenges of climate change, and the proposal announced today advances this effort, especially for those in vulnerable communities. This rule will better protect communities from chemical accidents, and advance environmental justice for communities that have been disproportionately impacted by these facilities.” EPA estimates the rule will cost approximately $77 million a year.
Comments on the proposed rule are due to EPA within 60 days of its publication in the Federal Register and may be submitted online, via mail, or hand-delivery.Continue Reading EPA Proposes Expansive Changes to EPA RMP Rule
The European Commission is currently seeking public comment as part of its review of the Restriction of Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (Directive 2011/65/EU) (the RoHS Directive).
The aim of the RoHS Directive is to reduce the risk to human and environmental health by restricting the use of certain hazardous substances in
During 2021, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) collected discharge data for PFAS as part of its Multi-Industry PFAS Study. The purpose behind the study was to identify facilities producing or using PFAS, look at their wastewater characteristics, estimate PFAS in their discharges, and identify control practices and treatment options. As part of the study, EPA collected data from various EPA data sets and obtained information from other federal agencies (the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the Food and Drug Administration), states and EPA regions, as well as information from industrial users. After EPA collected its data, it categorically broke down the results of its study into the following groups:
The information collected by EPA during its study will be used to further identify companies and facilities that manufacture, import, or process PFAS.Continue Reading EPA PFAS testing targeted industry and will now look to public water systems