On September 6, 2022, Íæż½ã½ã submitted a letter raising concern about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) intent to prohibit and restrict certain areas from disposal sites for the Pebble Mine under the Clean Water Act (CWA) section 404(c)---commonly referred to as EPA’s veto authority. The permit in question is currently undergoing an administrative appeal following the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ denial. EPA’s preemptive veto of the permit would set a harmful precedent for future projects working through the permitting and/or appeals process and have a chilling effect on infrastructure development.
On September 6, 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed the designation of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund as it is more commonly known). This action, if finalized as proposed, would trigger reporting requirements and ultimately the cleanup of contaminated sites. Íæż½ã½ã is concerned about the designation as a contractor may have unknowingly interacted with the chemicals on jobsites that had not previously been considered contaminated—and CERCLA does not include an “innocent contractor†provision. Íæż½ã½ã requested a 60-day extension on the comment period, which currently will close on November 7, 2022.
The Senate voted in line with Íæż½ã½ã to overturn the Biden administration’s onerous NEPA rule to restore certainty for the construction industry and the environmental permitting process.
On August 8, Íæż½ã½ã submitted comments in response to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed revision to the rule implementing the Clean Water Act (CWA) section 401 certification process, which provides for state review of federal CWA licenses or permits. The proposal rule if finalized would replace the 2020 rule that is currently in effect and would expand the scope of state and tribal reviews.
Seeking to find ways to help America build, key congressional leaders bring in Íæż½ã½ã to talk about its Climate Change Task Force report, the challenges of the federal environmental permitting process and more.
On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a climate change related case that invoked the “major questions doctrine†to determine that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had overstepped its authority under the Clean Air Act Section 111 to force an energy generational shift away from coal (West Virginia v. EPA). In the aftermath of this ruling, policy experts have been discussing whether this prohibits EPA from taking regulatory action to address climate change and whether the major questions doctrine will be called into play more frequently. Another recent example of the Court applying the doctrine is when it halted enforcement of the COVID-19 vaccination and testing emergency temporary standard.
Follow-up on Íæż½ã½ã Member Survey on Sustainability Practices
In a June 21 letter, Íæż½ã½ã of America raised supply chain concerns stemming from a proposed rulemaking to impose Federal Implementation Plan requirements on twenty-six states as part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “good neighbor†plan related to the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). EPA’s proposal would add emissions budgets and limits on certain energy and, for the first time, industrial sources—including certain kilns, boilers, furnaces, and mills. Although not directly impacted, Íæż½ã½ã members could experience disruptions in availability or cost increases for energy or materials key to construction such as cement, iron and steel, glass, chemicals, and paper products.
Íæż½ã½ã weighs in on SEC proposal to require privately held construction contractors to track and report emissions on construction projects for public companies.
Environmentalists are pushing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to undertake a rulemaking to classify discarded polyvinyl chloride (PVC or vinyl) as hazardous waste under federal law and to revise the solid waste management guidelines on disposal of PVC. Íæż½ã½ã filed comments on June 3 on a proposed consent decree that would settle the lawsuit filed by the Center for Biological Diversity in D.C. federal court, saying EPA unreasonably delayed responding to CBD’s 2014 petition that asked the agency to regulate PVC under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Under the proposed “sue and settle†agreement, EPA promised to decide within nine months whether to move forward with listing PVC as hazardous waste, which could have significant implications for the construction industry.