Click here to download file. (pdf)

22 Groups urge EPA to end foot dragging and comply with court order requiring enforcement of New Source Review (NSR) Rules. 14 Months after Court throws out weak EPA Rules, Agency yet to fix enforcement provisions; Double Standard? Agency took just 7 Months to push for new industry-backed rollback of emission monitoring after other court action.

WASHINGTON, D.C.///August 30, 2006///Fourteen months after a federal appeals court rejected U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s reliance on voluntary "self-policing" to enforce new Clean Air Act rules, the EPA still has not restored the monitoring requirements needed to start enforcing the law.  A joint letter from the Environmental Integrity Project and 21 other concerned organizations sent to EPA on August 30, 2006, asks when the Agency intends to comply with the court's order.
 
Also signed by US PIRG, Sierra Club, Clean Air Task Force, Clean Air Water, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the National Parks Conservation Association and other groups, the letter to the EPA notes:  "EPA New Source Review regulations published three and a half years ago allow a major source of air pollution to determine for itself that there is 'no reasonable possibility' that a planned physical modification would increase emissions, then destroy evidence that EPA or state agencies might use to challenge that determination.   On June 24 of 2005, the DC Circuit remanded this provision in response to a petition from states and environmental groups.  The court found that that EPA had abdicated its responsibility to enforce the law: "The problem is that EPA has failed to explain how, absent recordkeeping, it will be able to determine whether sources have accurately concluded that they have no 'reasonable possibility' of significantly increased emissions."   (See pages 53-54 of ruling.)

The letter to the EPA continues:  "The court's decision means that the record-keeping required for New Source Review must, at a minimum, allow the Agency to determine whether a facility significantly increased emissions, through a physical modification or change in operation that is not exempt from NSR, without having to rely on a facility's own guesswork as to whether the law applies.  We are writing to inquire whether the EPA intends to comply with the Court's order, and when it plans to do so."

Commenting on the letter, EIP Director Eric Schaeffer, a former EPA official, said:  "EPA has a blatant double-standard when responding to court rulings regarding environmental enforcement. On the one hand, we've had no action from the EPA now for 14 months on a court ruling that effectively requires it to actually enforce its new standards for New Source Review, and not just rely on self-policing.  The same D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found last October that EPA had violated the Administrative Procedures Act when it unilaterally rolled back emissions monitoring rules required under Title V of the Clean Air Act without any public notice or comment.  In that case, the Agency took just seven months to recycle the industry-backed proposal, which was reintroduced in May of 2006.'

Schaeffer added: 'When it comes to illegal air pollution and industry violators, the Administration's philosophy appears to be: "Hear no evil, see no evil."

The joint letter to the EPA was signed by:  Environmental Integrity Project, Washington, D.C.; Neighbors for Neighbors, TX.; Greenpeace, Washington, D.C., U.S. PIRG, Washington, D.C.; Sierra Club, San Francisco, CA.; Greater Houston Association for Smog Prevention, Houston, TX.; Air Aware, Evansville, IN.; Montana Environmental Information Center, MT.; Community Energy Solutions, Cedar Rapids, IA.; Mothers for Clean Air, Houston, TX.; Clean Air Task Force, Boston, MA; Clean Wisconsin, Madison, WI.; Clean Air Watch, Washington, D.C.; Rocky Mt. Clean Air Action, Denver, CO.; Protect All Children's Environment, Marion, N.C.; Northwest Environmental Defense Center; Texas Public Citizen, Austin, TX.; Our Children's Earth San Francisco, CA.; American Lung Association of Metropolitan Chicago, Chicago, IL.; Wasatch Clean Air Coalition, Salt Lake City, UT.; Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, D.C.; and National Parks Conservation, Association, Washington, D.C.

The letter from the 22 groups may be seen online at http://www.environmentalintegrity.org.  New York v. EPA, 367 U.S. App. D.C. 3; 413 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. June 24, 2005) is available online at http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200506/02-1387a.pdf.  EIP v. EPA, 368 U.S. App. D.C. 116; 425 F.3d 992 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 7, 2005), may be found at http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200510/04-1083a.pdf.
 
ABOUT EIP

The Environmental Integrity Project (http://www.environmentalintegrity.org) is a non-profit non-partisan organization dedicated to stronger enforcement of existing federal and state anti-pollution laws, and to the prevention of political interference with those laws. EIP's research and reports shed light on how enforcement and rulemaking affect public health. EIP also works closely with communities seeking enforcement of environmental laws.

CONTACT:  Ailis Aaron Wolf, (703) 276-3265 or aaaron@hastingsgroup.com.