Clients will have to adapt to the certainty of increased regulation at the international, federal, state and local levels to meet the aggressive carbon-reduction goals set by governmental authorities. John Doerr in his recent book “Speed & Scale, An Action Plan for Solving our Climate Crisis Now” summarizes the actions he submits that politicians, industries and investors must undertake to reach net-zero by 2050. He begins his blueprint for action with an admonition from his 15-year-old daughter voiced at a dinner he hosted in 2006 after a screening of An Inconvenient Truth: “Dad, your generation created this problem. You better fix it.”
Environmental Statutes & Regulations
Following up on President Biden’s 2020 Climate Change Executive Order 14008 issued in his first week in office, EPA Administrator Michael Regan issued a policy statement on May 26, 2021 that directed all EPA offices to update their 2014 Climate Implementation Plans to:
First came the whistleblowers’ letter from Colorado state agency staff to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The EPA’s OIG referred the matter to EPA’s Region 8 office for review. Then came the Troutman Report requisitioned by the Colorado Attorney General.
Companies that store hazardous waste liquids with organics or other volatile and light vapors should ensure that the tanks, containers, and equipment used at those facilities satisfy the RCRA Organic Air Emission Standards in Subparts AA, BB, and CC under 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265. Over the past month, EPA has announced at least five separate penalty enforcement actions for air emission violations under the Subpart BB and Subpart CC standards. EPA promulgated the RCRA hazardous waste air emission standards to reduce the release of air emissions and organic vapors into the atmosphere from hazardous waste tanks, containers, equipment, and process vents, to prevent ozone precursors and other air toxics.
Manufacturers, suppliers, retailers, and other entities in supply chains for consumer products sold in California might soon need to provide warnings regarding certain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in their products. California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) recently announced its intent to further regulate and study certain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly known as Proposition 65. Proposition 65 prohibits companies from knowingly exposing California consumers to chemicals “known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity” (i.e., “listed chemicals”) in consumer products without first providing a “clear and reasonable warning.” (Although not the focus of this article, Proposition 65 also addresses occupational and environmental exposure to listed chemicals.)
EPA on February 22, 2021, announced new steps to address PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) in drinking water. These actions will collect new data on the presence of PFAS in drinking water and could lead EPA to establish maximum contaminant levels, commonly known as MCLs, for these substances under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
On December 16, 2020, a cold storage warehouse and ice manufacturing facility in East Providence, Rhode Island, entered into a guilty plea with the Justice Department for a “knowing” criminal violation of Clean Air Act section 112(r)(7), 42 USC 7412(r)(7), in connection with EPA’s Chemical Accident Prevention Program and requirement to submit a risk management plan (RMP) under 40 CFR Part 68. The facility used a refrigeration system to manufacture and store ice and other frozen products, with 19,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia in the refrigeration process.
Chevron, Auer, and Now Voight Deference?
On November 20, 2020, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals jumped headlong into the Chevron, and Auer deference realm. The issue: can a Clean Air Act permittee rely on a state agency’s prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) determination? And should a Court “defer” to the state agency’s determination to assist in the interpretation of an “ambiguous” environmental program requirement? Voight v. Coyote Creek Mining Company (No. 18-2705, 8th Circuit Court of Appeals).
Chemical plant owners and operators need to carefully review a recent federal appellate court decision that could substantially expand process safety management (PSM) considerations and related chemical safety and accidental release regulatory requirements under EPA’s Risk Management Plan (RMP) program.
If your business sells or distributes products or devices by claiming that the products work against or kill COVID-19, beware that such claims are subject to regulatory oversight by a variety of governmental agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Trade Commission, and the Food & Drug Administration. Unsuspecting companies in the sale and distribution of these products, such as disinfectants, sanitizers, or cleaners, must ensure their labels and marketing claims satisfy regulatory requirements.