BLOG
U.S. Court of Appeals Throws Out Part of EPA Boiler Rule
- #Clean Air Act (CAA)
- #Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
- #Health & Safety
- #Regulations
- #waste
U.S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit Throws Out Part of EPA Boiler Rule and Dismisses Other Challenges…
U.S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit Throws Out Part of EPA Boiler Rule and Dismisses Other Challenges
On 29 July, 2016 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its decision on the contentious case in which multiple industry and environmental advocacy petitioners challenged EPA’s Clean Air Act boiler rules. At issue in this case was whether EPA lawfully issued three rules: the Major Boilers Rule, the Area Boilers Rule, and the Commercial/Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators Rule (CISWI), which were promulgated under the Clean Air Act (CAA) 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401. Industry petitioners challenged the rules arguing that they were too stringent (especially in relation to emissions released during startup, shutdown, and malfunction situations which the industry petitioners challenged in the Major Boilers Rule, the Area Boilers Rule, and the CISWI rule) while environmental groups challenged the rules for being too weak.
The Court dismissed each of the industry petitioners’ challenges and accepted a number of the environmental groups’ challenges. Specifically, the Court found problems with four parts of the rules.
First, the Court is requiring that EPA include high-performing units in its maximum achievable control technology (MACT) floor calculation used for placing pollution limits on all major boiler subcategories. As a result, the existing standards covering major boiler subcategories are vacated and EPA is now tasked with reissuing the rule consistent with this decision.
Second, the Court found that EPA had a duty to promulgate standards for all solid waste combustion units within the CISWI rule. EPA is now tasked with developing these standards.
Third, the court found that EPA needs to adequately explain why it decided to exclude synthetic boilers from the Title V permitting requirement. Rather than vacating the existing rule, the Court is simply requiring that EPA publish its explanation for excluding synthetic boilers.
Fourth, the Court is requiring that EPA provide an improved explanation as to why it established technology standards for mercury and polyclic organic matter from some coal-fired boilers, but did not regulate other types of pollutants from the same boilers. In this case, the existing rules will remain in effect.
Sources :
United States Sugar Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 11-1108 (2016). Enjoyed reading this article? Here are just a few others that might interest you: EPA’s Proposed Fees for Electronic Hazardous Waste Manifest System (US) EPA Issues Endangerment Finding for Aircraft Emissions (US)Our EHS experts are at your disposal and will be happy to answer your questions.
We invite you to subscribe to our newsletter.