We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
On Wednesday,
I discussed the
DC Circuit's decision affirming EPA's revised NAAQS for
NOx. Today, the
DC Circuit upheld EPA's revised SO2 standard.
The tenor of today's decision, written by David Sentelle,
another Reagan appointee (the NOx decision was written
by Douglas Ginsburg), is fairly similar to that in the
NOx decision. Here's the short version of the
opinion:
EPA must establish NAAQS that protect public health with
"an adequate margin of safety." For that reason, it
is appropriate for EPA to establish standards
below levels at which studies have
shown harm to occur. EPA may not cherry-pick data, but as long
as it provides a reasoned explanation for why it has relied on some
studies and not others, the courts will not consider EPA to be
cherry-picking and will defer to EPA's
expertise. Consultation with the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee is important and promulgation of a standard consistent
with CASAC recommendations is probably necessary and sufficient to
insulate the rule from adverse judicial review.
I think I could write this opinion in my sleep at this point and
I'm not sure much more than the paragraph above is
necessary. I suspect that Judges Sentelle and Ginsburg feel
the same way.
At a practical level, the most important part of the opinion did
not relate to the standard; it was the court's decision to
dismiss as premature challenges to EPA's stated intention to
measure compliance with the standard through a "hybrid
analytic approach" that includes modeling as well as air
monitoring. I know that the Sierra Club and other
environmental groups are already asserting to state agencies that,
based on modeling, coal-fired power plants are causing exceedances
of the new NAAQS, so this is an important issue.
The Court found that, because EPA's statement was only in
the preamble to the rule and did not impose "definite
requirements upon states or regulated industries", it was not
final action subject to review. Stay tuned on this
issue. Once EPA finalizes a rule – or guidance
functioning as a rule – there will be renewed judicial
challenges.
To view Foley Hoag's Law and the Environment Blog
please click
here
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has published a proposed rule entitled Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction.
Last week, the European Parliament rejected a proposal to reduce the quantity of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions allowances in order to fix a supply-demand imbalance in the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS).
It may be time for our federal courts to rethink their reluctance to accept major environmental claims that the courts of other countries are simply not yet able to handle.
After being taken to task by states and its own Inspector General for lack of final guidance on Vapor Intrusion, EPA has just released draft guidance documents for hazardous substances and petroleum products for comment.
California's cap-and-trade program mandates that certain covered entities acquire allowances for each metric ton of greenhouse gas (GHG) they emit during specified compliance periods.
Last Friday, EPA announced release of its draft proposal to revise the effluent guidelines and standards for the steam electric power generating industry, last revised in 1982.
On April 19, 2013, EPA released the proposed "Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category" (Steam Electric ELG). The proposed Steam Electric ELG would revise the existing technology-based effluent limitations guidelines [40 CFR 423] for most steam electric power plants and their discharges to U.S. waters or POTWs.
In a decision that should not have come as a surprise to anyone, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday, in "Conservation Northwest v. Sherman", that the Bureau of Land Management and other agencies implementing the Northwest Forest Plan could not amend the NFP.
