Law Center Search Results

The NAM challenged an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) final rule on hazardous air pollutants, which would impose burdensome regulatory requirements on boilers, incinerators and process heaters. Because the rule requires the “maximum degree of reduction” in emissions of hazardous air pollutants achievable, taking into consideration the cost of achieving such reductions, the rule also requires “maximum achievable control technology” (MACT) for such equipment. This rule is burdensome, will impose additional costs and require additional resources for industrial sectors subject to the rule. The NAM argued that 1) the startup work practices were incorporated into the new rules without giving key stakeholders adequate opportunity to comment; 2) important safety considerations for the regulated community were overlooked in the definitions; 3) the rule failed to take account of the importance of encouraging efficient and cost effective use of resources; 4) the fuel requirements in the rule do not incorporate national goals of safeguarding fuel diversity; and 5) the EPA does not have legal authority to impose the energy assessment requirement. This case was consolidated with U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, a similar challenge to EPA’s boiler MACT regulations, and in 2016, that court rejected all industry arguments, finding that the EPA's approach was reasonable.

The NAM challenged the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA), Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard used to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants generated by boilers. The challenge came after EPA issued the final MCAT rule; however, the EPA did not have enough data to properly calculate an emissions standard based on the statutory requirement. This decision will impose enormous costs on key industrial sectors. The NAM argued that the EPA exceeded its authority in imposing an energy assessment requirement on portions of the facility that are not part of the defined source category (boilers and process heaters); 2) the emissions limitations are unlawful because they have not been achieved in practice; 3) the standards are not achievable because they were set without accounting for malfunctions; 4) EPA improperly established a numeric emission limitation for organic pollutants rather than a work practice as it has done in a comparable rule; and 5) EPA failed to justify its reversal of previously established health-based limits for hydrogen chloride. In 2016, the court rejected all industry arguments, finding that the EPA's approach was reasonable.