Workshop T Ohio: Major Air Permitting, Regulatory & Compliance - - PDF document

Workshop T

Ohio: Major Air Permitting, Regulatory & Compliance Developments

Tuesday, March 21, 2017 3:30 p.m. to 4:45 p.m.

Biographical Information

Maxine D. Dewbury, Environmental Regulatory & Regional HSE Manager The Procter & Gamble Company 8256 Union Centre Boulevard, West Chester Ohio, 45069 Phone: 513-634-9557 dewbury.md@pg.com

Maxine Dewbury is U.S. Environmental Regulatory and Regional HSE Manager for The Procter & Gamble Company. Maxine has been responsible for U.S. Federal Environmental Regulatory influence, focused on Clean Air Act issues for the past 17 years. In addition to working with trade associations and U.S. EPA on regulations, Maxine is responsible for helping P&G sites and regional resources

• btain air permits and meet HSE regulatory requirements. Prior to this assignment, Maxine has held a

variety of positions in her 37 year career with P&G. These include Risk Manager at P&G’s Oxnard, California site; Plant Quality Manager at the Flint River, Georgia Pulp Mill; Environmental Manager for the Cellulose & Specialties Division; and several process and project engineering assignments. Maxine graduated in 1979 from Louisiana Tech University with a B.S. in Chemical Engineering.

Robert F. Hodanbosi, Chief, Division of Air Pollution Control Ohio EPA, Lazarus Government Center, 50 West Town Street, Columbus, OH 43215 614.644.2270 Fax: 614.644.3681 bob.hodanbosi@epa.state.oh.us

Bob Hodanbosi became chief of the Division of Air Pollution Control (DAPC), Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) in September 1992. His current duties include being responsible for the air pollution control program for the state of Ohio and development of the programs needed to comply with the Clean Air Act Amendments. In 2004, Bob was selected to represent state permitting authorities

• n the Title V Permit Performance Task Force that was formed by the U.S. EPA's Clean Air Act

Advisory Committee. Bob has also had the opportunity to testify at U.S. House and Senate committees

• n Clean Air Act implications for facilities in Ohio. From May 1987 to September 1992, his position was

assistant chief of DAPC and manager of the Air Quality Modeling and Planning Section, DAPC, Ohio

• EPA. From April 1978 to May 1987, as manager of the Air Quality Modeling and Planning Section, his

main duties included: development of the technical support for air pollution control regulations for criteria air pollutants; atmospheric dispersion modeling; air quality designations under Section 107 of the Clean Air Act and, development of new source review procedures. Since the 1980's, Bob has represented Ohio EPA on the Ohio Coal Development Office, Technical Advisory Committee. From January 1977 to April 1978, his position was supervisor of the Environmental Assessment Unit, DAPC, Ohio EPA. The main responsibilities of this position involved the supervising of all air quality evaluation and atmospheric dispersion modeling activities for DAPC. From June 1973 to December 1976, he held a position in the Northeast District Office/Engineering Services Section, DAPC, Ohio EPA. The main function of this position involved the engineering review of air pollution permit applications. Bob is a member of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers and Air & Waste Management Association, and is registered as a Professional Engineer in the state of Ohio. Bob has lectured extensively on topics relating to the requirements under the Clean Air Act and the controls needed to meet air quality

• standards. Bob received his Master's of Science degree in Chemical Engineering at the Cleveland

State University in 1977, and a Bachelor in Chemical Engineering at the Cleveland State University in

• 1973. In addition, he completed post-graduate courses in fluid mechanics and turbulence at the Ohio

State University.

Biographical Information

William H. Haak, Haak Law, LLC 216.772.3532 Cleveland, Ohio whh@haaklawllc.com William H. Haak is the Founder of Haak Law LLC (www.haaklawllc.com) – an environmental, health & safety legal and consulting firm based in Cleveland, Ohio. He has more than 15 years of experience in

• ccupational safety law and worker safety, and over 20 years of experience in environmental law

(including extensive experience in air pollution control law and multi-media environmental compliance).

• Mr. Haak practices nationally in the United States and consults globally on all matters related to the

EHS field (plus security and crisis management).

• Mr. Haak graduated from The University of Akron (Business Finance) and Case Western Reserve

University School of Law (J.D. with an emphasis on litigation and trial practice). Following law school, he worked as an Assistant Attorney General in the State of Ohio Attorney General’s Environmental Enforcement Section. As counsel to Ohio EPA, Mr. Haak’s practice was focused primarily on civil and administrative air pollution control cases. During his time with the Attorney General’s Office, Mr. Haak resolved civil environmental enforcement actions resulting in civil penalties totaling approximately $4 million. Prior to forming Haak Law LLC, Mr. Haak was Senior EH&S Counsel for General Electric. He supported GE’s Appliances and Lighting Businesses, and was engaged in complex air permitting issues for other GE businesses nationwide. Mr. Haak has also been Associate General Counsel – EH&S for Hexion Specialty Chemicals in Columbus, Ohio, and Senior Regulatory Law Counsel for Owens Corning in Toledo, Ohio. He served overseas in the former Soviet Union (Ukraine) as an Environmental Enforcement Specialist with the American Bar Association’s Central & East European Law Initiative ("ABA/CEELI"). Haak is a frequent lecturer to attorneys, engineers, and environmental professionals on topics concerning federal and state air pollution law. In addition, he has taught as an adjunct faculty member at the University of Central Florida in Orlando and Columbus State in Columbus, Ohio. Since 2005, Haak has taught classes focusing on Air Pollution Law and Occupational Safety and Health Law at The University of Toledo College of Law as an Adjunct Professor.

Session T: Ohio – Major Air Permitting, Regulatory and Compliance Developments March 21, 2017

Bob Hodanbosi, Chief, OEPA Dept of Air Pollution Control William H. Haak, Haak Law, LLC Maxine Dewbury, Regulatory Manager, Procter & Gamble

26nd Annual Sustainability and Environmental, Health & Safety Symposium

Major Air Permitting, Regulatory and Compliance Developments

Topics:

• Startup/Shutdown/Malfunction Developments
• Ozone NAAQS Updated
• Interstate Transport
• EPA’s New Refrigerant Rule
• Regulatory Reform
• Legal & Regulatory Developments
• Operating in an Uncertain Regulatory Climate

Sustainability and Environmental Health & Safety

Ohio EPA, Division of Air Pollution Control March 21, 2017 Robert Hodanbosi

Topics

• Startup, Shutdown & Malfunction SIP Call
• Ozone Update
• Interstate Transport

Startup, Shutdown & Malfunction SIP Call

Startup, Shutdown & Malfunction SIP Call

• U. S. EPA settled a lawsuit with the Sierra Club that addresses

rules associated with startup, shutdown and malfunctions in 36 states

• U.S. EPA proposed a “SIP Call” in 36 states (including Ohio)

that require that states modify their rules because these rules contain language “inconsistent with the Clean Air Act”

• These states rules were previously approved by U.S. EPA – but

are now objectionable

• State rule allow “Director’s discretion”
• U.S. EPA claims citizens suits are prevented

Startup, Shutdown & Malfunction SIP Call

• U. S. EPA went further in Ohio…..
• Even though not part of the lawsuit, U.S. EPA identified

the Scheduled Maintenance Rule as also one of the

• bjectionable rules
• U.S. EPA did not ask questions on how Ohio rules
• perate
• U.S. EPA did not consult with Ohio EPA prior to lawsuit

settlement

• U.S. EPA made incorrect errors and assumptions

Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction SIP Call – State Rule Revision Process

• Several draft of rules sent to stakeholders
• Wide range of comments
• Received comments on “Early Stakeholder Outreach”

solicitation.

• Issued “Interested Party” packages
• Received detailed comments

Startup, Shutdown & Malfunction SIP Call

• Objectionable Rule 1: OAC 3745‐15‐06(C) – Malfunction of equipment

– The Director retains the responsibility to evaluate any report submitted pursuant to this rule. The Director shall take appropriate action upon a determination that the reporting requirements of this rule have not been satisfied, that the equipment was not properly operated and maintained prior to breakdown, that shutdown of the source or operation during the period of maintenance or breakdown was or has become practicable, that the shutdown or breakdown was or has become avoidable, or was induced or prolonged in bad faith, or that the emissions endanger or tend to endanger the health or safety of the public.

Startup, Shutdown & Malfunction SIP Call

• Objectionable Rule 1: OAC 3745‐15‐06(C) – Malfunction
• f equipment
• Ohio EPA Response:
• Adding definition of “malfunction”
• Adding “work practice” standards
• Director still can review submittal/malfunction report

Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction SIP Call

• Objectionable Rule 2: OAC rules 3745‐17‐07(A)(3)(c) and

3745‐17‐07(B)(11)(f) – Visible Emission Rules – The malfunction of any air contaminant source or the malfunction/shutdown of air pollution control equipment associated with any air contaminant source, if the owner or operator of said air contaminant source

• r air pollution control equipment complies with the

requirements of rule 3745‐15‐06 of the Administrative Code and none of the conditions listed in paragraph (C)

• f rule 3745‐15‐06 of the Administrative Code exists.

Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction SIP Call

• Objectionable Rule No. 2:: OAC rules 3745‐17‐07(A)(3)(c)

and 3745‐17‐07(B)(11)(f) – Visible Emission Rules

– Ohio EPA Response: – Slight change in rule; exemption will not apply if violation

• f ambient air quality standard

– Sources must still meet conditions in OAC 3745‐15‐ 06(C)

Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction SIP Call

• Objectionable Rule 3: OAC 3745‐15‐06(A)(3): Scheduled

maintenance

• Ohio EPA issues Director’s Letter that allows the

shutdown of air pollution control equipment under certain conditions; – “In cases where a complete source shutdown may result in damage to the air pollution sources or is

• therwise impossible or impractical, the owner or
• perator may request authorization to continue
• perating the sources during the scheduled

maintenance of air pollution control equipment.”

Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction SIP Call

• Objectionable Rule 3: OAC 3745‐15‐06(A)(3):

Scheduled maintenance:

• Ohio EPA Response:

– Complete change of rule – Will turn into work practice/notification before and after – No longer Director’s approval – Effective after approval by U.S. EPA

Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction SIP Call

• Objectionable Rule 4: ‐ OAC 3745‐14‐11(D) – NOx from

Cement Plants – The requirements of this rule shall not apply to the following periods of operation:

• (1) Start‐up and shutdown periods and periods of

malfunction, not to exceed thirty‐six consecutive hours; and

• (2) Regularly scheduled maintenance activities
• Ohio EPA Response:
• Modify to delete language – sources can use other rules

Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction SIP Call

• Ohio EPA provided detailed response to U.S.

EPA on the proposal

• Requested that the Ohio Attorney General

appeal SIP Call

• Working with 19 other states on appeal

before D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

OZONE

• Old, Old, Old 1-hour standard – 0.125 ppm not to be exceeded

more than four times in a three year period – (1979)

– Attainment - everywhere for many years

• Old, Old 8-hour standard - 0.08 ppm – average of the fourth

highest concentration measured over a three year period – (1997)

– Attainment – originally 11 nonattainment areas, all have been redesignated between 2007-2010

Evolution of the Ozone Air Quality Standard and Attainment Status

• Old 8- hour Standard – 0.075 ppm average of fourth highest

concentration measured over a three year period – (2008)

– Three marginal nonattainment areas: Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus. – Submitted clean data requests and USEPA made “determinations of attainment” in May-June 2016. – Redesignation requests submitted in Apr-Jul 2016 and USEPA has proposed approval of all. Should be redesignated “soon”.

• New 8- hour Standard – 0.070 ppm average of fourth highest

concentration measured over a three year period – (2015)

– Adopted October 1, 2015. – 32 States and D.C. get extended monitoring season.

• Effective January 1, 2017.
• Ohio – Added March. New season will be March-October.

Evolution of the Ozone Air Quality Standard and Attainment Status

• October 1, 2015 – U.S. adopts new standards.
• October 1, 2016 – States submit recommendations for

nonattainment areas.

– Submitted September 30, 2016

• Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN: Butler, Clermont, Hamilton, Warren (not

Clinton)

• Columbus, OH: Delaware, Fairfield, Franklin, Licking (not Knox,

Madison)

• Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH: Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain,

Medina, Portage, Summit (not Ashtabula)

• October 1, 2017 – U.S. EPA finalizes nonattainment

areas.

– Effective date “usually” 60 days later… ~ December 1, 2017

2015 Ozone Standard

Implementation Timeline

• October 1, 2018 – Infrastructure SIPs due.
• ~ December 1, 2019 and 2020 – Attainment demonstrations

due for marginal and moderate nonattainment areas.

– 2 years from effective date of designations. – Based on proposed (November 17, 2016) classifications and ambient air quality data, all Ohio areas should be marginal nonattainment.

• ~ December 1, 2020 and 2023 – Attainment date for marginal

and moderate nonattainment areas.

– 3 and 6 years from effective date of designations.

2015 Ozone Standard

Implementation Timeline

2015 Ozone Standard

2011-2013 Data (ppb) 2012-2014 Data (ppb) 2013-2015 Data (ppb) 2014-2016 Preliminary Data (ppb) City Cleveland 80 78 73 75 Columbus 80 75 71 71 Cincinnati 81 75 71* 72

*monitor in Northern Kentucky measures 71 ppb

Ozone Exceedances by Year (through October 6, 2015)

Year 0.125 ppm 1-Hour 0.084 ppm 8-Hour 0.075 ppm 8-Hour 0.070 ppm 8-Hour 2002 22 801 1436 2003 22 204 458 2004 None 25 178 2005 5 192 688 1193 2006 None 39 236 505 2007 None 110 541 1037 2008 None 32 171 419 2009 None 4 31 138 2010 None 20 162 387 2011 None 38 215 434 2012 None 96 329 701 2013 None 2 14 65 2014 None None 11 69 2015 None 1 16 91 2016 None None 42 168

Interstate Transport

• U.S. EPA has issued various rules to address

interstate transport

• NOX SIP Call
• Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)
• Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)

Interstate Transport

• These rules focus on utilities – NOx SIP Call

included large industrial boilers

• Rules have required substantial reductions in

NOx and SO2 emissions

• Latest version of CSAPR was finalized

September 1, 2016

• Utilities must comply summer of 2017

Interstate Transport

• These rules have been litigated in various

forums

• Overall, U.S. EPA rules have been upheld
• U.S. EPA has set the threshold of significant to

1% ‐ very stringent standard of 0.75 ppb ozone impact defines “significant” for 2008 ozone standard

• Will move down to 0.070 ppb ozone with 2015

standard

Interstate Transport ‐ OTR

• The NE states filed a petition for Midwest and

southern states be included in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) in December 2013

• States petitioned to be included: Illinois, Indiana,

Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia and the portion of Virginia not in the OTR

• Being part of OTR would be very costly. Vehicle

Inspection Maintenance in all Ohio urban areas alone would cost tons of millions of dollars per year

Interstate Transport ‐ OTR

• If included, the NE states would have a

majority of voting members and could dictate control strategies for Midwestern states.

• The petition from NE states was based on old

data going back to 2005

• U.S. EPA proposed to disapprove petition –

comment period runs through April 13, 2017

Interstate Transport ‐ OTR

• Ohio EPA agrees with the U.S. EPA proposal to

disapprove petition to be placed into OTR

• U.S. EPA bases proposed disapproval on actions

taken by U.S. EPA to reduce transport/emissions

• U.S. EPA fails to address core issue in proposal
• NE States petition is technically flawed and out of

date (based on 2005 data).

• Questions?

Major Air Permitting, Regulatory and Compliance Developments

Topics

• EPA’s New Refrigerant Rule
• Regulatory Reform Developments

Maxine Dewbury, Procter & Gamble March 21, 2017

EPA’s New Refrigerant Rule

• Title VI of the CAA – Stratospheric Ozone

Protection

• Repurposes and Expands Section 608 of the

CAA – the National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program (40 CFR Part 82 Subpart F)

– The original intent was to eliminate Class I and Class II ODSs and encourage use of alternatives – The new rule expands requirements from ODS to include their non-exempt substitutes (HFCs). – The new purpose is to reduce emissions of substances with global warming potential by expanding leak prevention and repair requirements

EPA’s New Refrigerant Rule

Existing Requirements:

• 1990 CAA – Title VI – Stratospheric Ozone

Protection

• EPA Regulations at 40 CFR Part 82

– Phases out Class I and Class II ODS (CFCs & HCFCs) – Encourages uses of substitutes - HFCs – Prohibits venting of Class I and II ODS and their substitutes – Minimizes releases of Class I and II ODS through

• Requirements on service providers (e.g. certification)
• Requirements for owners of refrigeration equipment

EPA’s New Refrigerant Rule

Existing Requirements Subpart F – Recycling & Emission Reduction

• Prohibits venting of any ODS
• For Equipment Containing > 50 lb Class I/II ODS

– Requires repair of comfort cooling leaking > 15%

• Requires repair. Does not require leak repair verification.

– Requires repair of industrial equipment leaking >35%

• Requires repair with initial and follow-up leak repair verification

– Requires owners to keep records of work done by certified refrigerant technicians or service providers.

• EPA has found substantial compliance opportunities

EPA’s New Refrigerant Rule

Final Rule Published Nov 18 2016 (Proposed Nov 9, 2015) Objective - reduce GHG emissions from leaking appliances

• Expand scope of refrigerant requirements to

include non-exempt substitutes for Class I and Class II ODS.

• Refrigerant evacuation requirements would

applying to all non-exempt “refrigerants”.

• Lowers Leak Rate Repair Thresholds
• Greatly increases recordkeeping requirements

EPA’s New Refrigerant Rule

Proposed Revisions Final Rule Applies to ODS substitutes Applies to ODS substitutes IPR leak threshold reduced to 20% IPR leak threshold reduced to 30% CR leak threshold reduced to 20% CR leak threshold reduced to 20% CC leak threshold reduced to 10% CC leak threshold reduced to 10% If threshold triggered, all leaks must be repaired Requires repairs of leaks to reduce below leak repair threshold Requires annual leak inspections for CC, CR and IPR units over 50 lbs. Requires quarterly inspections for CR and IPR units >500 lbs. Requires quarterly or annual leak checks by Certified Technicians only if leak repair threshold triggered Requires initial and follow-up verification tests for all appliances

(IPR, CR, CC, Class I, II ODS & substitutes)

Requires initial and follow-up verification tests for all appliances (IPR,

CR, CC, Class I, II ODS & substitutes)

Require retirement of appliances which leak >75% of charge in two 12 month periods. Requires reporting to EPA if any appliance leaks 125% or more of its full charge in one calendar year.

Exempt Refrigerant Substitutes

EPA’s New Refrigerant Rule - Records

Service Record Requirements - 82.157 (l) (2):

• Identity and location of appliance*
• Date of maintenance, service, repair or disposal*
• Part(s) of appliance being serviced/repaired*
• Type of maintenance/service performed each part*
• The amount and type of refrigerant added or

removed from appliance*

• The full charge of the appliance
• The leak rate and method used to determine rate

EPA’s New Refrigerant Rule - Records

Initial & Follow-up Verification Records - 82.157 (l) (5):

• Location of appliance*
• Date of initial or follow-up verification test*
• Location(s) of all repaired leaks that were tested*
• The type(s) of verification test(s) used*
• The results of those tests*

*Technicians conducting initial or follow-up verification tests must, upon conclusion of that service, provide the

• wner or operator with documentation meeting these

requirements

EPA’s New Refrigerant Rule - Records

Leak Inspection Records - 82.157 (l) (3):

• Date of inspection*
• Method used to conduct the leak inspection*
• A list of the location of each identified leak*
• A certification that all visible and accessible parts
• f the appliance were inspected*

*Technicians conducting leak inspections must, upon conclusion of that service, provide the owner or

• perator with documentation that meets these

requirements

EPA’s New Refrigerant Rule - Records

Records for Disposal of Small Appliances (<5 lb) (82.155)

• The final processor – i.e., persons who take the final step in

disposal of a small appliance must either:

– Recover remaining refrigerant or – Verify using a signed statement or a contract that all refrigerant not previously leaked has been recovered.

• If using a signed statement, it must include: The name and address of the

person who recovered the refrigerant and the date the refrigerant was recovered.

• If using a signed contract between the supplier and the final processor, it must

either state that the supplier will recover any remaining refrigerant from the appliance prior to delivery or verify that the refrigerant has been properly recovered prior to receipt by the supplier.

– The final processor must notify suppliers of appliances that refrigerant must be properly recovered before delivery of the items to the facility. The form of the notification may be signs letters to suppliers or other means. – Recordkeeping: Persons taking the final step in disposal process must keep a copy of all the signed statements or contracts for at least 3 years.

EPA’s New Refrigerant Rule - Records

New Recordkeeping Requirements for 5 to 50 lb appliance disposal - 82.156 (a) (3)

• Requires technicians evacuating refrigerant for

disposal of 5 to 50 lb appliances to maintain records for 3 years on:

• Quantity and type of refrigerant recovered including:

– The company name, – Location of equipment, – Date of recovery, – Amount and type of refrigerant recovered for each appliance

• The total quantity of refrigerant, by type, recovered from all

disposed appliances in each calendar month.

• Quantity of refrigerant, by type, transferred for reclamation or

destruction, the name of person the refrigerant was transferred to and the date of transfer

EPA’s New Refrigerant Rule - Timeline

• 1 1 2017

– Rule in effect for ODS refrigerants – Minor Changes include:

• Sales restrictions to certified technicians
• Safe appliance disposal requirements
• Evacuation requirement revisions
• Recordkeeping requirements for above
• 1 1 2018

– Changes apply to non-exempt Refrigerant Substitutes – New recordkeeping requirements for appliance disposal (5 to 50 lb units)

• 1 1 2019 – New Leak Repair Requirements

EPA’s New Refrigerant Rule

Summary & Outlook

• EPA has finalized changes to expand ODS

Requirements to ODS substitutes

• Rule effective 1 1 17

– Legal Challenges to the rules have been filed

• Issue - Authority to expand CAA Rqts to ODS substitutes
• Impact on Industrial Facilities:

– Work to establish processes to meet new requirements – Lots of Detailed Recordkeeping! – Start working with your Service Providers Now!

Trump’s Memos & Executive Orders

• 1 20 2017 - Regulatory Freeze Memo

– Temporary stay of recently issued rules not yet in effect to allow review before implementation.

• 1 24 2017 Memo - Streamlining Permitting and

Reducing Regulatory Burdens for Domestic Mfg.

– 3 7 2017 FR notice seeking information on the impact

• f Federal Permitting and on regs that adversely

impact manufacturers. Comments due 3 31 17. – Some thoughts on opportunities:

• Federal Permitting – NSR reform, PSD modelling

– Are there ways to keep environmental protections but simplify and speed up permitting?

• SSM interpretation changes, policies and the SSM SIP call

Trump’s Memos & Executive Orders

• 1 30 2017 EO Reducing Regulation and Controlling

Regulatory Costs

– For each new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations should be identified for elimination – 2 2 2017 Interim Guidance Issued by OIRA

• 2 24 17 EO Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda

– Puts Regulatory Reform Task Force structures in place to evaluate existing regulations and make recommendations to identify regs that:

• Eliminate jobs or inhibit job creation
• Are outdated, unnecessary or ineffective
• Impose costs that exceed benefits
• Interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential- actions/executive-orders

Trump’s Memos & Executive Orders

What does this all mean?

Ohio: Major Air Permitting

Legal Developments and Updates

Session T

March 21, 2017

William H. Haak

Haak Law LLC

HAAK LAW LLC

Environmental, Health & Safety Legal and Consulting Services William H. Haak Tel: 216.772.3532 whh@haaklawllc.com

Introduction

• A haze of legal and regulatory uncertainty…
• “Recent” case law and regulatory developments
• Boiler MACT decision (July 2016)
• Clean Power Plan stay
• Update and status of RMP regulatory amendments
• Operating in an uncertain regulatory climate
• Opportunities
• Increased risks
• Cautions and caveats

HAAK LAW LLC

Environmental, Health & Safety Legal and Consulting Services William H. Haak Tel: 216.772.3532 whh@haaklawllc.com

Regulatory Uncertainty…

HAAK LAW LLC

Environmental, Health & Safety Legal and Consulting Services William H. Haak Tel: 216.772.3532 whh@haaklawllc.com

*Important Note to FBI: This is a fake tweet (and CNN probably put me up to it).

*

Boiler MACT Update

• Challenged by industry and environmental groups
• Main challenge related to “floor” setting process
• Alleged USEPA improperly excluded best boilers
• 18 subcategories impacted
• DC Circuit Court of Appeals vacated impacted rules
• USEPA petitioned for remand in lieu of vacatur
• Vacatur more harmful and impactful to USEPA
• Potential for environmental harm in the interim
• Court saw rule defects as curable
• Current status?

HAAK LAW LLC

Environmental, Health & Safety Legal and Consulting Services William H. Haak Tel: 216.772.3532 whh@haaklawllc.com

Clean Power Plan Stay

• CPP introduced in 2015 to cut power plant CO2
• Supreme Court stayed the CPP in February 2016
• Currently in U.S. District Court (District of Columbia)
• Executive Order to withdraw DOJ defense expected
• Unclear what Administration and USEPA will do
• Replace?
• Do nothing?

HAAK LAW LLC

Environmental, Health & Safety Legal and Consulting Services William H. Haak Tel: 216.772.3532 whh@haaklawllc.com

USEPA’s 2016/2017 RMP Revisions

West Fertilizer Plant Explosion – April 17, 2013

HAAK LAW LLC

Environmental, Health & Safety Legal and Consulting Services William H. Haak Tel: 216.772.3532 whh@haaklawllc.com

Revisions to the RMP Rule

• Process began shortly after West Fertilizer
• Rules went final on January 13, 2017
• To be effective March 14th (frozen until March 21st)
• Senate Joint Resolution 28 to “disapprove” March 2nd
• Now?
• Key changes
• Increased coordination between facilities and LEPCs
• Increased information sharing
• Improved investigation and root cause language
• Third-party audit requirements

HAAK LAW LLC

Environmental, Health & Safety Legal and Consulting Services William H. Haak Tel: 216.772.3532 whh@haaklawllc.com

An Uncertain Regulatory Climate

• Changes
• New USEPA Administrator
• Possible budget reduction and program cuts
• Ongoing review of planned and recent regulations
• 2 for 1 regulatory reduction mandate
• Possible Congressional action impacting USEPA
• HR 861 terminating USEPA
• HR 637 “stopping EPA overreach”
• Senate JR 21 repealing CSAPR

HAAK LAW LLC

Environmental, Health & Safety Legal and Consulting Services William H. Haak Tel: 216.772.3532 whh@haaklawllc.com

Opportunities, Risks and Caveats

• Opportunities
• Potential for decreased enforcement (discretion)
• Fewer new regulations
• Rollback of existing regulations
• Risks
• Shifting enforcement paradigm (see next slide)
• Increase in NGO driven litigation
• Caveats
• When will the tide turn back?
• Careful what you unwind (and costs of going back)

HAAK LAW LLC

Environmental, Health & Safety Legal and Consulting Services William H. Haak Tel: 216.772.3532 whh@haaklawllc.com

Reduced USEPA Activity Won’t Leave a Vacuum

“Active” USEPA (Left) v. “Passive” USEPA (Right)

HAAK LAW LLC

Environmental, Health & Safety Legal and Consulting Services William H. Haak Tel: 216.772.3532 whh@haaklawllc.com

USEPA States Citizens (NGOs)

# of Enforcement Cases (By Source)

Questions?

HAAK LAW LLC

Environmental, Health & Safety Legal and Consulting Services William H. Haak Tel: 216.772.3532 whh@haaklawllc.com