Senior Counsel Coty Hopinks-Baul has published an article in Coal Age titled “CWA’s Permit Shield Spans SMRCA”.
In the article, Coty details a recent decision in the case of Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards v. Red River Coal Co. Inc., where the Fourth Circuit upheld a district court’s dismissal of a citizen suit to enforce
Recently, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) proposed to amend the Proposition 65 regulations related to short form warnings. Proposition 65, also known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, requires businesses to provide “clear and reasonable” warnings before knowingly and intentionally exposing Californians to listed chemicals. These warnings are required to appear on a wide range of products, including foods.
Coty Hopinks-Baul recently published “Implementation of Navigable Waters Protection Rule” in Rock Products Magazine, discussing the new rule and how the agencies charged with implementing it will encounter new policy considerations and may struggle with consistency in decision-making.
A ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana may bring new coal leases on Federal lands to a standstill, pending review by the Department of the Interior under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) are synthetic chemicals used in a number of industrial processes and in the manufacturing of certain consumer goods because of their fire resistance and because they repel oil, stains, grease, and water. There are approximately 3,500 different compounds under the umbrella of PFAS. Some of these were used in firefighting foam, which in some places, including near airports, were spread over the ground to prevent forest fires. The most well-known versions, and considered to be of greatest concern, are long chain PFAS, perfluoroctanoic acid (“PFOA”) and perfluoroctane sulfonate (“PFOS”).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is accepting comment through March 11, 2019, on its proposed “National Compliance Initiatives” for fiscal years (FY) 2020-2023.
Ali Nelson, Senior Counsel, was featured in Rock Products October edition discussing the litigation surrounding the regulatory definition of ‘Waters of the United States’ and the recent court decisions leading to the application of different definitions in different states.
On August 21, 2018, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a prepublication copy of its proposed Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule. If adopted, the rule would (1) establish emission guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions from existing electric utility generating units (EGUs); (2) revise the regulations governing how states implement the emission guidelines; and (3) revise the New Source Review (NSR) program to allow modification to existing EGUs without triggering permitting requirements.
The Clean Power Plan regulations adopted by the Obama administration would have limited GHG emissions by directing states to reduce emissions by applying a combination of three “building blocks” as the best system of emission reduction (BSER), which consisted of:
1) Improving heat rate at affected coal-fired steam generating units;
2) Substituting increased generation from lower-emitting natural gas combined cycle units for decreased generation from higher-emitting affected steam generating units; and
3) Substituting increased generation from new zero-emitting renewable energy generating capacity for decreased generation from affected fossil fuel-fired generating units.
On January 25, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) withdrew its 1995 “once in always in” guidance. Under that guidance, facilities classified as “major sources” of hazardous air pollutants (“HAP”) as of the “first compliance date” of a maximum achievable control technology (“MACT”) standard under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act are required to comply permanently with the MACT standard. Now, EPA’s current policy is that a major source that limits its potential to emit (“PTE”) to below major source thresholds can become an area source and will no longer be subject to the major source MACT.
The Clean Air Act defines “major source” as “any stationary source or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the potential to emit considering controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons per year or more of any hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of hazardous air pollutants.” This definition expressly allows PTE to be calculated “considering controls,” and does not address the timing for when a source will be classified as a major source. As a result, EPA found that its “once in always in” policy “created an artificial time limit” contrary to the plain language of the Clean Air Act and must be withdrawn.