Category Archives: Air Pollution

Potential New Air Toxic Rules for EtO, Formaldehyde?

On June 17, 2021, the USEPA agreed to reconsider the August 2020 NESHAP: Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing (the “MON Rule”). The MON rule is the first USEPA rule to use the 2016 toxicity values from IRIS. Responding to five petitions, the USEPA granted reconsideration that more stringent standards are required for the MON sector, particularly for ethylene oxide (EtO), given more data that EtO may result in a greater carcinogenic risk than previously thought.

EtO is a flammable, colorless gas used to sterilize medical equipment and common in the chemical industry in manufacturing many common products. The revised 2016 IRIS risk assessment for EtO characterized the chemical as a more potent carcinogen for humans by inhalation than previously understood. However, critics claim that the USEPA used improper statistical modeling that resulted in an overestimation of the risk of EtO exposure. Texas, home to many chemical industries, performed an in-depth review of the 2016 assessment and claimed scientific deficiencies and that EtO is a less potent carcinogen than the USEPA estimated in its 2016 report.

The USEPA declared that it would use 2016 IRIS risk values for future rulemaking, including for the December 2019 proposed MON Rule and an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making: NESHAP: Ethylene Oxide Commercial Sterilization and Fumigation Operations. The MON Rule was finalized in August 2020 with the USEPA not addressing comments regarding the validity of the 2016 IRIS values. The USEPA will now do a more formal review of the generation of the 2016 IRIS risk values and modify the MON Rule accordingly, if necessary.

Besides the effects on EtO emission regulations, the USEPA’s actions on EtO may suggest how the agency will proceed on other outstanding chemical and toxics issues, such as formaldehyde, a naturally occurring chemical found in a variety of products, such as construction materials, insulation, glues, paints, and in plywood and particleboard used in consumer products like cabinets, flooring, and furniture. Formaldehyde is also used as a preservative in medical laboratories and mortuaries.

Like with EtO, the USEPA issued an IRIS risk assessment for formaldehyde in 2010. It underwent much scientific criticism. 11 years later, the USEPA has still not addressed the formaldehyde IRIS criticisms and confirmed or updated its level of toxicity.

2016 amendments to TSCA require the USEPA to conduct risk evaluations for certain high-priority chemicals to determine whether each presents an unreasonable risk to health or the environment, under the conditions of common use. The USEPA must exclude cost considerations and base decisions on the weight of scientific evidence.

Last year, the Trump Administration issued final TSCA risk evaluations for the first 10 high-priority chemicals. In February 2021, the Biden Administration announced that it will revisit the final TSCA risk evaluations for these 10 chemicals.

CCES has the technical experts to help you assess the quantity and toxicity of air emissions from your various processes and facility. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

Many Factors Make Electric Heat Pumps a Good Alternative for Heating and Cooling

Heating and cooling expenses are often the highest energy costs most businesses have to pay for each year. So in these times of looking for ways to both reduce expenses and welcome back employees into the office and customers in your space comfortably and safely, one strategy to consider is investing in electric heat pumps for both your heating and cooling needs. Heat pumps are a cost-effective, energy efficient, and reliable way to reduce your building’s energy bills and also assure your employees and customers are comfortable. It will improve your carbon footprint and existing air quality, too.

When properly installed, heat pumps are efficient in delivering heat to a space. Why? Because a heat pump moves heat rather than converts it from a fuel like combustion heating systems do. Heat pumps have been around for a long time but have gotten a boost in recent years due to improvements for working better in sub-freezing weather.

Here are some basic facts about heat pumps.

How they work. Yes. Although they are called “heat pumps”, they provide both space heating and cooling. Heat pumps are called that because they draw heat from the environment and move it indoors when it’s cold outside or can move heat from rooms outdoors when cooling is needed in your building.

Different types. There are two types of heat pumps – air source or ground source (geothermal), depending on how heat is transferred. Depending on your facility and property features, a qualified contractor will recommend which type is best for you.

In terms of how they are placed in the building, there are ducted and ductless systems. Ductless systems go in an exterior wall and need just a relatively small hole to connect the outdoor condenser and indoor heads. They are good for individual spaces. If a building already has duct work, a heat pump can use the existing duct system.

They’re better for the environment. Unlike conventional heating systems (furnaces or boilers), heat pumps use electricity. Thus, there is no combustion of fossil fuels onsite and, thus, no carbon monoxide emissions to worry about. There is also less need for natural gas lines or storage/delivery of oil. In most parts of the country, depending on how electricity is produced, switching from gas or oil combustion to electric heat pumps results in lower greenhouse gas emissions.

They’re built to last. Heat pumps last longer than conventional furnaces and cooling units and require less maintenance, meaning you’ll spend less money on O&M and can devote your maintenance staff to other matters. Combustion by its nature is a complex, high temperature process that strains a system and will damage components over time.

Others will pay for them. In most parts of the country (and in New York), utilities and governments encourage heat pumps to lessen the costs of upgrading gas distribution lines and to reduce oil truck traffic. Many utilities and agencies have direct incentive programs to pay part of the cost of installing heat pumps in most qualified buildings. Learn about these programs and take advantage. Remember, these incentive funds come from funds in your electric or tax bills, so you are getting your money back.

CCES has the technical experts to assess your heating and cooling system and determine whether heat pumps could be feasible to reduce your energy expenses and, at the same time, provide reliable heating and cooling in the building. We can estimate the costs and savings for your specific space and set up or determine other ways to reduce energy costs. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

A Silent Source of Emissions We Pay For

Many of us are concerned about Climate Change and do whatever is reasonable to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. We buy more energy efficient lights and equipment. Perhaps we drive a little less (and walk more). We consider candidates who care about Climate Change.

However, there are many ways that we contribute to greenhouse gas emissions that we do not realize. Like all Americans, we buy things. Whether it is grocery shopping, some paint to spruce up the house, some toys for our granddaughter’s visit, and a few plants for the yard, each of these items probably got from the places they were made or grown to warehouses and to the stores by being transported by a heavy-duty truck. This is even more true today, as we buy from companies that deliver goods directly to your home.

According to Businessinsider.com, 70% of freight is carried by trucks in the US. Trucks dominate because they are fast, safe, and take goods right to where they need to go. But trucks are not fuel-efficient and thus, are heavy GHG emitters. According to the Energy Information Agency (EIA.gov), the average fuel efficiency of a heavy-duty truck is 6.6 miles per gallon of fuel, which is 27% worse than trucks achieved in 1950 (9.0 mpg)! Trucks, of course, burn a lot of diesel fuel; a truck may use as much fuel as about 50 new passenger cars.

According to The Truckers Report, fuel is the greatest cost for the truck owner, nearly 4 times higher, per mile travelled, than driver’s salary.

Thus, the Obama administration passed guidelines to raise minimum fuel standards for trucks to as high as 30 mpg for light trucks by the late 2020’s. The Trump administration rolled back those standards, with business support, as too expensive to consumers. But one can state that the lack of mileage standards are themselves very expensive for the American consumer. One estimate states that the average US household pays $1,100 per year to fuel heavy trucks and this does not include the indirect environmental costs (both Climate Change and direct toxic emissions from diesel fuel combustion).

The Biden administration is considering re-establishing mileage standards for passenger cars and an array of trucks.

Therefore, consumers and businesses would benefit from new truck efficiency standards, with freight costs dropping markedly. The Obama standards would have caused a reduction of 270 million tons of GHG emissions annually in the US, cut emissions of air toxics from fuel production and combustion, and reduced oil consumption by 1.4 million barrels a day, more than we currently export from Saudi Arabia.

Americans should examine silent operations that we pay for that contribute significantly to Climate Change and try to implement ways to reduce them (buy fewer products, only those most important) and lobby for fair rules to reduce their numbers and impact.

CCES has the technical experts to identify and estimate the emissions of greenhouse gas and toxic emissions from different applications, analyze the implications on cost and your business, and develop smart ways to reduce it. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

USEPA Moves To Phase Out HFCs

On May 3, 2021, the USEPA released a notice of proposed rulemaking to institute a major phasedown in production and consumption of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), used in refrigeration and air conditioning systems. The USEPA estimates the phasedown will yield total climate-related economic benefits of $283.9 billion through 2050.

HFCs were encouraged to replace chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) which are listed as ozone-depleting substances, and ultimately banned globally for that purpose. However, research determined that HFCs are powerful greenhouse gases (GHGs), with global warming potentials (GWPs) thousands of times greater than CO2. While HFCs are not as ubiquitous as CO2, their potency represents a major global climate change risk.

The USEPA’s proposed rule’s goal is to achieve an 85% overall reduction in HFC production and consumption in 15 years. The USEPA would administer an allowance allocation and trading program, assigning GWP values to individual HFCs and allocating production (producers), consumption (importers), and application-specific allowances. Six HFC use types would qualify for application-specific allowances:

• propellants in metered-dose inhalers,
• defense sprays, such as bear spray,
• structural composite preformed polyurethane foam for marine use and trailer use,
• etching of semiconductor material or wafers and the cleaning of chemical vapor deposition chambers within the semiconductor manufacturing sector,
• mission-critical military end uses, and
• on-board aerospace fire suppression.

The USEPA has not yet listed the specific number of allowances in each application-specific use, but proposed overall numbers of allowances, including for production and consumption (million metric tons, CO2 equivalents; percents are of baseline), as follows:

• 2022-2023: 90% (296.1 consumption, 337.5 production)
• 2024-2028: 60% (179.4 consumption, 225.0 production)
• 2029-2033: 30% (89.7 consumption, 112.5 production)
• 2034-2035: 20% (59.8 consumption, 75 production)
• 2036: 15% (44.9 consumption, 56.3 production)

The USEPA intends to revisit its allowance allocation procedures before 2024.

What is a plant manager to do to replace HFCs? For refrigerant systems, one can use “natural” refrigerants, such as propane, isobutane, ammonia, and CO2. CO2? Yes, it is a GHG, but its GWP is 1, much lower than HFCs, whose GWPs are in the thousands, so thus, beneficial. For air conditioning, viable alternatives include installing heat pumps, which transfer heat to or from a large reservoir (ground or air), or systems that use less refrigerant, such as those with variable refrigerant flow systems. Some of these use the same refrigerants as above and many can function well using water to transfer heat.

It may take several months to go through publication and public comment before it becomes the law, but expect this to be promulgated and, if you use HFCs, expect to deal with allowances and, therefore, restrictions and higher costs. Plan now to change your refrigeration or cooling systems to those that do not use HFCs.

CCES has the technical experts to help you manage your operations to minimize your environmental impacts. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or karell@CCESworld.com.

Environmental Enforcement Expected To Rise – What To Do

As predicted by many, the shift in administrations from Pres. Trump to Pres. Biden has led to many quick changes, including an increase in enforcement of environmental regulations. One of the first speeches of the new USEPA Administrator Michael Regan reaffirmed the agency’s “commitment to working collaboratively and cooperatively with the states to protect public health and the environment.” Therefore, facilities should expect to see increased federal and state enforcement of environmental laws. New York Attorney General Letitia James recently stated that the change in administration is allowing her office to shift its focus from litigation against the federal government to other priorities, such as greater environmental enforcement. James also said that the expected greater collaboration and coordination with the USEPA would allow more successful enforcement initiatives.

Increased enforcement at the federal level is expected in the new administration, too. The Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division is expected to be supportive of prosecutors going forward with environmental cases. Enforcement tools constrained by Trump administration policies are in the process of being changed.

In addition, the Biden Administration has signaled that it will aggressively address the issue of environmental justice, excess emissions, waste, or impacts potentially harming poorer or minority neighborhoods.

Therefore, to prepare for this new uptick in environmental enforcement, companies potentially impacted should:

• Review current environmental regulations to determine which currently are applicable and, if so, whether the facility is in compliance, has slipped to potentially be out of compliance, or whether the monitoring systems to definitively determine continual compliance status are no longer working or reliable

• Review existing environmental management systems to make sure they are functioning properly and set and actually achieving compliance

• Undergo one or several rigorous compliance audits by outside qualified experts to determine your compliance status or what should be done to better assess it

• If non-compliance is discovered, develop and execute a plan to promptly correct the violation and potentially voluntary self-disclosure to reduce the chance of criminal prosecution.

• Since it may have been a long time since the last inspection, develop procedures in case federal or state environmental officials perform a surprise inspection of your facility. What would your staff do? What procedures should they follow?

CCES has the experts to perform the technical assessments to determine your air pollution emission rates and estimate where it stands vis-à-vis applicable federal, state, and local air quality regulations. Your company should retain a qualified, experienced attorney to counsel on legal issues. CCES has the technical experts to work with legal staff and determine compliance and help return your facility to compliance. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

Air Pollution Recorded as Cause of Death in UK

The World Health Organization has estimated that 7 million people per year suffer a premature death due to some physical malady related to air pollution, such as stroke, heart disease, lung cancer and chronic respiratory diseases. Yet many are unmoved because the number is so large and does not have faces and names associated with it.

In December, a coroner in London ruled that a specific person’s death was directly linked to air pollution and had that written in the death certificate. A 9-year-old girl who suffered a fatal asthma attack became the first person in Great Britain to officially have air pollution listed as a cause of death.

This landmark ruling puts a face and a name on the problem of toxic air pollution which leads to the large global death toll. It is hoped that such associations will lead the public to demand more regulation and resources be put into reduction of air toxic emissions and to be able to monitor progress based on different strategies.

The girl, Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, lived near a major road in London and died in February 2013. She suffered numerous asthmatic seizures and had been taken to the hospital nearly 30 times in less than 3 years. Her mother, unaware of the link between air pollution and asthma, said that if she had known, the family would have moved.

In the ruling, London’s assistant coroner said that air pollution from heavy traffic near her home had significantly exacerbated Ella’s asthma, adding that monitors indicated she had been exposed to levels of NOx and particulates greater than WHO guidelines.

Numerous public health studies demonstrate that polluted air, whether caused by cars and trucks, power plants, or industrial sources, affects billions of people across the world. Studies of recent severe wildfires in California show health effects of air pollution exposure: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/26/climate/california-smoke-children-health.html. Other studies show potential development delays of children.

Legal and health experts hailed Wednesday’s ruling as a landmark because it directly linked air pollution to a specific death for the first time ever. London Mayor Sadiq Khan has made air pollution reduction a major goal. In October, his office stated that the number of Londoners living in areas exceeding the legal limit for NOx had fallen over 94% from 2016 to 2019. He stated that Ella’s death engendered a lot of knowledge and support to reduce urban air toxic emissions.

In addition, this could open a new door to lawsuits by pollution victims or their families.

CCES can help your company assess your toxic air pollution rates and – from a technical point of view – whether you comply with local, applicable air pollution rules. CCES experts can recommend cost-effective strategies to reduce emissions to potentially comply and reduce impacts on your workers and the neighboring community. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

Energy & Environmental Analysis of 2020 Election

As this is written, we think the election of 2020 is over. Joe Biden will be the new President as of January 20, 2021, although Donald Trump has not acknowledged the voting results. Let’s hope this is bluster and normal transfer of power will occur. Here are some potential changes in energy and environment rules in a Biden Administration.

The Biden Administration will likely move to reverse regulatory actions of the Trump Administration. For example, Biden said that on his first day on the job he will apply for reinstatement in the Paris Climate Accords. The Democratic Party said it would propose a $2 trillion plan to improve transportation and achieve a carbon-free power grid by 2035 and net-zero emissions by 2050. However, given the uncertain makeup of the Senate and not knowing if all Democrats, such as Sen. Manchin of WV, could support this it is unclear whether the plan can pass. While difficult in our partisan atmosphere, bipartisan compromises may be necessary. Many environmental and climate policy changes may be implemented by administrative policy and enforcement, rather than by legislation. Potentially favorable to Biden is the fact that at many of states have adopted a Renewable Portfolio Standard and many companies have GHG emission pledges.

The Biden Administration is likely to reverse deregulatory policies of the Trump Administration, such as revoking executive orders, such as those encouraging energy exploration in environmentally-sensitive areas. The Biden Administration may also place those in charge of the US EPA to promote stronger regulations and enforcement.
The incoming Biden Administration is anticipated to depart from the Trump Administration’s approach to enforcement and permitting and increase attention on environmental justice issues.

The Biden Administration is likely to reverse Trump executive order and issue new ones reestablishing a goal for the federal government to reduce GHG emissions and limiting oil and gas leasing on federal lands. President-elect Biden recently pledged to use the federal government procurement system to give preference to technologies that would move the nation towards 100% clean energy and zero-emissions vehicles to jump-start those industries and to re-establish DOE energy efficiency standards.

President-elect Biden has spoken about his desire to push the government to invest in major infrastructure upgrades, including those that support clean energy power. Biden will likely empower FERC to develop strategies to achieve net-zero emissions, including incentives to grow clean energy and improve energy efficiency of buildings.

A Biden US EPA is expected to address and potentially repeal Trump’s Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule, which withdrew its prior Clean Air Act waiver for California GHG programs and rolled back stringent GHG standards for future autos.

Finally, the Biden Administration is expected to attempt to re-enact the “Once In, Always In” policy of applicability of sources in the air toxics program , NESHAPS, and undo earlier rollbacks under the Endangered Species Act.

Please note that this article is not a legal evaluation of US energy and environmental laws and where they are heading. For specific advice, please engage an appropriate legal professional. CCES has the technical expertise to keep up with and help you comply with complex environmental and energy rules, whether they be federal, state, or local ones. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

The Importance of Staying Careful

We engineers understand the concept of deviation from the norm. While a process and all its steps have been worked out, it is second nature for engineers, workers, businesspeople, etc. to gradually introduce shortcuts, “improvements”, “innovations” to the procedures. Next thing you know, the process has changed with or without the approval of those tasked with maintaining it.

I observed this once a couple of decades ago. I was performing an air emissions inventory for a major chemical manufacturer. I was given the recipes of some of the compounds they were manufacturing. I analyzed the equipment, chemicals, processes, etc. to estimate which emissions at which steps from which equipment at which rate. Things were going well and I was developing the emissions profile for a certain 100+- step process. I went into the production area with my recipe to confirm what was going on. When I discussed the steps with some of the workers, they quickly pointed out that many of the steps of the recipe had been changed. It was no longer current. They were changed for various reasons (they wanted a step to proceed faster, they wanted to save water or other chemical usage, etc.), but were changed without telling management. The yields of the compounds were still good and nobody in Management suspected a thing. I informed Management who investigated and saw that major changes had been made. They turned out not to cause any significant change in quality or yield, but certainly upset a lot of people that changes were made out of convenience without informing supervisors. Deviation is a normal process but should not be a habit.

So when performing any function, new project, etc. be careful to stick to the plan. There is method to what might appear to be madness. If you object or believe an alternative way would benefit the company, tell your managers and clearly communicate your hopes and concerns. Don’t just make changes on your own, even if they appear to be “innocent” ones or merely tiny deviations from the steps.

Why do I point this out? Our lives have changed because of COVID-19. It is now pretty established what we must do to protect ourselves and our communities: in public, wear a mask that covers the nose and mouth; social distance, where possible; and wash hands and disinfect surfaces often with soap- or alcohol-based cleaning products. But again, with anything that is done repetitively over time, there is the temptation to make a few changes, import some short cuts, let one’s guard down, say it is all right to not wear my mask this one time. This is not good. Unlike a minor change that may have no effect on the process, a minor change that introduces the coronavirus into your body can be deadly – not just to you, but to others, as well.

And don’t forget, the coronavirus does not have a brain. It cannot be cowered or shamed by a politician. It does not say “You’re careless, but you are nice, so I won’t enter your body.” It doesn’t give mulligans. While we can analyze a chemical or other process and evaluate the effects of changes, one deviation in practice can be fatal for the coronavirus.

Be careful and safe everybody and don’t let down your guard!

CCES has the experts to help you plan to address health & safety issues and energy and environmental issues of all types for your company, building, and space. Contact us today at karell@CCESworld.com or at 914-584-6720.

Courts, White House Move To Weaken Clean Air Act To Re-Open The Economy

A federal district court decision (Clean Air Council vs. US Steel Corporation, May 14, 2020) held that emissions from a Clean Air Act Title V-permitted facility that exceeded its permit were nonetheless “federally permitted releases” exempt from reporting under CERCLA. This decision ran contrary to longstanding EPA guidance and administrative law decisions, which held that only compliant emissions could take advantage of the “federally permitted release” exemption. For decades, EPA interpreted federally permitted releases to include only those that comply with the Clean Air Act, including its permit. 1992 and 1994 court decisions confirmed this policy. For example, accidental, toxic air releases could not be exempted and must be reported.
In this case, US Steel was sued for not reporting accidental releases of benzene from a process combusting coke which was not treated properly to reduce benzene emissions. The court concluded that federally permitted releases included even non-compliant air emissions, relying on the definitions found in the Clean Air Act.

Might this decision lead to many non-compliant situations being unreported? Many interpreters think not as a decision in one district court may not influence other courts. Therefore, companies should not rely on this as an “open door” to pollute illegally and not have to report it. There may still be risk for a company omitting to report non-compliant emissions under CERCLA despite the decision.

In early June, the federal government moved to both temporarily speed up the progress of construction projects and to weaken federal authority to issue stringent air and climate change rules. President Trump signed an executive order using “emergency authority” to allow agencies to waive required environmental reviews of infrastructure projects to be built during the current economic crisis. The EPA also proposed a new rule that changes the way the agency interprets cost-benefit analyses to enact Clean Air Act regulations, weakening the arguments for air pollution controls. This computational change would allow the EPA to justify weakening clean air and climate change regulations with economic arguments.

Typically, when performing an analysis of a potential new Air rule, the EPA evaluates cost of compliance for the industry against economic savings based on favorable health outcomes (reduced cancers, asthma attacks, etc. causing fewer premature deaths and hospitalizations). The EPA looks not only at the reduction of the pollutant in question, but also effects of reductions of other pollutants lowered at same time. The proposed change will eliminate the inclusion of additional economic benefits from reductions of other pollutants. This philosophy may spread to Clean Water and chemical rules.

Including co-benefits from reductions of other pollutants has been a driver of the exact standards in Clean Air Act regulations for decades. This rule has the potential to alter the math in such a way to potentially downplay the economic benefit to public health. Excluding them will show proposed stringent rules are more costly than they may actually be. Proponents say this will speed up the approval of more modest rules.

The White House says these actions are needed to help the nation climb out of the economic slowdown caused by the COVID-19 pandemic by speeding up critical infrastructure projects. The longer-term future of these actions depend on the outcome of this November’s election. If Joe Biden becomes President, he can undo the Executive Order with the stroke of a pen. If the proposed rule is not passed before the election or transition, it can be simply discarded. If it does become law before Mr. Biden takes office, Congress can undo it, although it may take time.
Please note that this is not a legal interpretation of the court decision, the Executive Order, or the proposed EPA rule. For a more detailed explanation, please engage a qualified legal professional.

CCES has the technical experts to provide technical assistance for you on compliance with Clean Air Act and State air quality rules. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.

White House Issues Executive Orders to Bypass Env. Rules to Aid Economic Recovery

In May and June, President Trump issued several Executive Orders (one: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/eo-accelerating-nations-economic-recovery-covid-19-emergency-expediting-infrastructure-investments-activities/) to address the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on certain infrastructure, transportation, and civil works projects. The Orders are intended to expedite infrastructure projects by requiring agencies to take “all reasonable measures to speed infrastructure investments”, including exercising the emergency statutory provisions of various federal environmental regulations in order to bypass their procedural requirements. These apply to projects undertaken and managed by federal agencies, such as the Dept of Transportation, Dept of the Interior, Dept of Energy, Defense Dept, and Army Corps of Engineers.

Citing the state of emergency as a result of the pandemic, the Executive Orders also direct federal agencies to invoke specific emergency authorities found in federal environmental rules, such as NEPA, ESA, CWA, CAA, and others to shorten or eliminate environmental regulatory procedures to hasten projects to better expedite an economic recovery.

For example, the Order encourages agencies to utilize the emergency regulations and procedures under NEPA by allowing agencies to consult with the White House-based Council on Environmental Quality to develop “alternative arrangements” in emergency circumstances. These include statutory exemptions and categorical exclusions.

The Order calls on agencies to review and exercise all opportunities and guidance documents that may provide waivers, exemptions, or other streamlining with regard to agency actions on infrastructure, energy, environmental, or natural resources matters.

Agencies are also directed to:
• identify rules that may slow economic recovery and take legal actions to rescind, modify, or waive them;
• grant extensions of time in enforceable agreements that may harm recovery;
• use, if possible, any emergency authorities available to support economic growth.

Given it is likely that these Orders will be challenged in court, businesses should not believe that environmental rules will go away for them. The Orders may not offer a permanent waiver of legal requirements under federal environmental rules for a project. Therefore, the principals of any project may be subject to future challenges should it skirt established environmental standards.

CCES has the experts to provide technical assistance on compliance with federal and state environmental rules for any proposed project (Please consult legal counsel for determination of legal compliance). Our experts have decades of experience helping diverse processes comply with such air pollution rules. Contact us today at 914-584-6720 or at karell@CCESworld.com.