MATS

July 28, 2025

Alert for industry to changes in regulations it must comply with.

 

Recently, Donald Trump issued four executive orders extending Clean Air Act – NESHAP compliance deadlines for a number of specific facilities that provide medical equipment sterilization, burn coal to make electricity, manufacture certain synthetic chemicals, or mine taconite. The big headline is the EPA announcing plans to rescind the ‘endangerment finding’ that allows climate regulation. However, at the same time coal combustion residuals rules are being changed. This Regulatory Alert contains language from the four executive orders, which includes a list of the specific facilities that have been granted extensions to comply. In each order, the President finds that the technology required is not available and that it is in the interest of national security to provide the extensions.

Normally there is a notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedures Act to extend deadlines. If the courts allow the President to continue invoking national security we may see more such executive orders modifying regulations. Follow SCS Engineers on social media to read our SCS Technical Bulletins, which summarize regulatory proposals and changes for public and private entities.

As the regulatory landscape continues to evolve, proactive planning is critical to preserving flexibility, value, and mitigating risk. We encourage businesses to consult with environmental engineers and consultants and their legal counsel to navigate these changes for continued sustainable success.

 

NESHAP – EtO Rule

On April 5, 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency published a final rule, pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7412, titled National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:  Ethylene Oxide Emissions Standards for Sterilization Facilities Residual Risk and Technology Review, 89 FR 24090 (EtO Rule).  The EtO Rule imposes new emissions-control requirements on commercial sterilization facilities.

Certain stationary sources subject to the EtO Rule, as identified in Annex I of this proclamation, are exempt from compliance with the EtO Rule for a period of 2 years beyond the EtO Rule’s relevant compliance dates (Exemption).  This Exemption applies to all compliance deadlines established under the EtO Rule applicable to the stationary sources listed in Annex I, with each such deadline extended by 2 years from the date originally required for such deadline.  The effect of this Exemption is that, during each such 2-year period, these stationary sources will remain subject to the emissions and compliance obligations in effect prior to the issuance of the EtO Rule.  In support of this Exemption, I (Trump) hereby make the following determinations:

The technology to implement the EtO Rule is not available.  Such technology does not exist in a commercially viable form sufficient to allow implementation of and compliance with the EtO Rule by the compliance dates set forth in the EtO Rule. It is in the national security interests of the United States to issue this Exemption for the reasons stated in paragraphs 1 and 3 of this proclamation. Link

ANNEX I

International Sterilization Laboratory
Affected Facility/Source: Groveland Facility, Florida

Becton Dickinson and Company

Affected Facility/Source:

      1. BD Covington, Georgia
      2. BD Madison, Georgia
      3. BD Medical, Utah
      4. BD Medical Pharmaceutical Systems, Nebraska
      5. Edwards Lifesciences Technology Sàrl, Puerto Rico

KPR US, LLC d/b/a Kendall Patient Recovery
Affected Facility/Source: Augusta Facility, Georgia

MedXL, LLC

Affected Facility/Source: Ardmore Facility, Oklahoma

Aligned Medical Solutions

Affected Facility/Source:

      1. 1602 4th Ave. Facility, Billings, Montana
      2. 1400 Montana Ave. Facility, Billings, Montana

Professional Contract Sterilization, Inc.

Affected Facility/Source: Taunton Facility, Massachusetts

Sterigenics U.S., LLC

Affected Facility/Source:

      1. Atlanta Facility, Georgia
      2. Charlotte Facility, North Carolina
      3. Grand Prairie Facility, Texas
      4. 4900 S Gifford Ave. Facility, Los Angeles, California
      5. 4801-63 E 50th St. Facility, Los Angeles, California
      6. Ontario Facility, California
      7. Queensbury Facility, New York
      8. Salt Lake City Facility, Utah
      9. Santa Teresa Facility, New Mexico

Cosmed Group, Inc.

Affected Facility/Source:

      1. Erie Facility, Pennsylvania
      2. Franklin Facility, New Jersey
      3. Linden Facility, New Jersey

Arthrex

Affected Facility/Source: Ave Maria Facilities (2), Florida

Cook Incorporated

Affected Facility/Source: Ellettsville North Facility, Indiana

ALCON Research Ltd.

Affected Facility/Source: ALCON Advance Optic Device Center, North Facility, West Virginia

  1. Braun U.S. Device Manufacturing LLC

Affected Facility/Source: Allentown Manufacturing Facility, Pennsylvania

DeRoyal Industries, Inc.

Affected Facility/Source:

      1. 1135 Highway 33 South, New Tazewell, Tennessee
      2. 1211 Highway 33 South, New Tazewell, Tennessee

Sterilization Services of Georgia, Inc.

Affected Facility/Source: Atlanta Facility, Georgia

Sterilization Services of Virginia, Inc.

Affected Facility/Source: Richmond Facility, Virginia

Trinity Sterile, Inc.

Affected Facility/Source: Trinity Sterile, Inc., Maryland

LivaNova USA, Inc.

Affected Facility/Source: LivaNova Arvada Facility, Colorado

Covidien LP

Affected Facility/Source: Covidien North Haven Facility, Connecticut

Medtronic Xomed LLC

Affected Facility/Source: Jacksonville Facility, Florida

Medtronic Puerto Rico Operations Company, Inc.

Affected Facility/Source:

      1. Villalba Facility, Puerto Rico
      2. Juncos Facility, Puerto Rico

Advanced Product Solutions

Affected Facility/Source: Columbia Facility, Alabama

Affected Facility/Source: Salinas, Puerto Rico

Steri-Tech, Inc.

 

NESHAP – MATS Rule

On May 7, 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency published a final rule, pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7412, titled National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:  Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units Review of the Residual Risk and Technology Review, 89 FR 38508 (Rule), which amended the preexisting Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule to make it more stringent.  The Rule’s effective date was July 8, 2024.  Id.  Its compliance date is July 8, 2027, 3 years after its effective date.  See 89 FR 38519.

Certain stationary sources subject to the Rule, as identified in Annex I of this proclamation, are exempt from compliance with the Rule for a period of 2 years beyond the Rule’s compliance date — i.e., for the period beginning July 8, 2027, and concluding July 8, 2029 (Exemption). The effect of this Exemption is that, during this 2-year period, these stationary sources are subject to the compliance obligations that they are currently subject to under the MATS as the MATS existed prior to the Rule.  In support of this Exemption, I (Trump) hereby make the following determinations:

a.  The technology to implement the Rule is not available.  Such technology does not exist in a commercially viable form sufficient to allow implementation of and compliance with the Rule by its compliance date of July 8, 2027.

b.  It is in the national security interests of the United States to issue this Exemption for the reasons stated in paragraphs 1 and 3 of this proclamation. Link

ANNEX I

Affected Facility/Source: Cardinal Unit 1, Unit 2, and Unit 3, Ohio

Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association

Affected Facility/Source: Craig Generating Station Unit 2 and Unit 3, Colorado

City Water, Light and Power

Affected Facility/Source: Dallman Unit 4, Illinois

Cardinal Operating Company

 

NESHAP – HON Rule

On May 16, 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency published a final rule titled New Source Performance Standards for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Group I & II Polymers and Resins Industry, 89 FR 42932 (HON Rule). The HON Rule imposes new emissions-control requirements on certain chemical manufacturing facilities, some of which were promulgated pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7412.

Certain stationary sources subject to the HON Rule, as identified in Annex I of this proclamation, are exempt from compliance with those aspects of the HON Rule that were promulgated under section 112 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7412 for a period of 2 years beyond the HON Rule’s relevant compliance dates (Exemption). This Exemption applies to all compliance deadlines established under the HON Rule applicable to the stationary sources listed in Annex I, with each such deadline extended by 2 years from the date originally required for such deadline. The effect of this Exemption is that, during each such 2-year period, these stationary sources will be subject to the emissions and compliance obligations that they are currently subject to under the applicable standard as that standard existed prior to the HON Rule. In support of this Exemption, I (Trump) hereby make the following determinations:

a.  The technology to implement the HON Rule is not available. Such technology does not exist in a commercially viable form sufficient to allow implementation of and compliance with the HON Rule by the compliance dates in the HON Rule.

b.  It is in the national security interests of the United States to issue this Exemption for the reasons stated in paragraphs 1 and 3 of this proclamation. Link

ANNEX I

  1. Shell Chemical LP
    i. Affected Facility/Source: Geismar Plant, Louisiana
  2. SABIC Innovative Plastics Mt. Vernon, LLC
    i. Affected Facility/Source: Manufacturing Plant, Indiana
  3. Bakelite Synthetics
    i. Affected Facility/Source:
    a. Riegelwood, North Carolina;
    b. Conway, North Carolina;
    c. Crossett, Arkansas;
    d. Louisville, Kentucky;
    e. Lufkin, Texas;
    f. Taylorsville, Mississippi
  4. The Dow Chemical Company
    i. Affected Facility/Source: Glycol II Plant, Louisiana
  5. Trinseo LLC
    i. Affected Facility/Source:
    a. Trinseo Facility, Georgia
    b. Trinseo Facility, Michigan
  6. Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A.
    i. Affected Facility/Source:
    a. Formosa Plastics Corporation, Louisiana
    b. Formosa Plastics Corporation, Texas
  7. Union Carbide Corporation/The Dow Chemical Company
    i. Affected Facility/Source:
    a. Seadrift Operations, Texas
    b. Hahnville, St. Charles Parish Facility, Louisiana
  8. Westlake Vinyl’s LLC/Westlake Corporation
    i. Affected Facility/Source:
    a. Petrochemical Complex, Louisiana
    b. Styrene Monomer Production Facility, Louisiana
    c. Styrene Marine Terminal, Louisiana
    d. Lake Charles South Facility, Louisiana
    e. Lake Charles North Facility, Louisiana
  9. BASF TotalEnergies Petrochemicals LLC
    i. Affected Facility/Source: Port Arthur Facility, Texas
  10. BASF Corporation
    i. Affected Facility/Source:
    a. Geismar Facility, Louisiana;
    b. North Geismar Facility, Louisiana;
    c. Freeport Facility, Texas
  11. Rubicon LLC
    i. Affected Facility/Source: Geismar Facility, Louisiana
  12. CITGO Petroleum Corporation
    i. Affected Facility/Source:
    a. Lake Charles Refinery, Louisiana
    b. Corpus Christi Refinery, Texas
    c. Lemont Refinery, Illinois
  13. INEOS Americas LLC
    i. Affected Facility/Source: Bayport EO Plant, Texas
  14. Celanese Corporation
    i. Affected Facility/Source:
    a. Narrows Facility, Virginia
    b. Clear Lake Facility, Texas
    c. Bishop Facility, Texas
    d. Bay City Facility, Texas
  15. Huntsman Petrochemical LLC
    i. Affected Facility/Source:
    a. Huntsman Pensacola, Florida
    b. Huntsman Conroe, Texas
  16. TotalEnergies Petrochemicals & Refining USA, Inc.
    i. Affected Facility/Source:
    a. TotalEnergies Petrochemicals & Refining USA, Inc., Alabama
    b. Cos-Mar StyreneMonomer Plant, Alabama
    c. TotalEnergies Polystrene Plant, Louisiana
    d. Port Arthur Refinery, Texas
  17. Indorama Ventures Xylenes and PTA
    i. Affected Facility/Source: Decatur Facility, Alabama
  18. Denka Performance Elastomer LLC
    i. Affected Facility/Source: LaPlace Neoprene Production Facility, Louisiana
  19. Sasol Chemicals (USA) LLC
    i. Affected Facility/Source: Lake Charles Chemical Complex, Louisiana
  20. Philips 66 Company
    i. Affected Facility/Source:
    a. Sweeny Refinery, Texas
    b. WRB Refining LP Calvert Refinery, Illinois
    c. WRB Refining LP Borger Refinery, Texas
  21. Indorama Ventures Oxides, LLC
    i. Affected Facility/Source: Port Neches Facility, Texas
  22. Eastman Chemical Company
    i. Affected Facility/Source: Longview Facility, Texas
  23. DuPont Specialty Products USA, LLC
    i. Affected Facility/Source: Pontchartrain Site, Louisiana
  24. Stepan Company
    i. Affected Facility/Source: Millsdale Facility, Illinois
  25. Ascend Performance Materials Operations LLC
    i. Affected Facility/Source:
    a. Ascend Decatur, Alabama;
    b. Ascend Alvin, Texas;
    c. Ascend Pensacola, Florida

 

NESHAP – Taconite Rule

On March 6, 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency published a final rule, pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7412, titled National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Taconite Iron Ore Processing, 89 FR 16408 (Taconite Rule).  The Taconite Rule imposes new emissions-control requirements on taconite iron ore processing facilities.

Certain stationary sources subject to the Taconite Rule, as identified in Annex I of this proclamation, are exempt from compliance with the Taconite Rule for a period of 2 years beyond the Taconite Rule’s relevant compliance dates (Exemption).The technology to implement the Taconite Rule is not currently available, and it is necessary to issue this Exemption now because long design, permitting, and construction lead times mean that regulated entities will not be able to meet the relevant compliance deadlines absent compliance relief. This Exemption applies to all compliance deadlines established under the Taconite Rule, with each such deadline extended by 2 years from the date originally required for such deadline. The effect of this Exemption is that, during each such 2-year period, these stationary sources are subject to the emissions and compliance obligations that they are currently subject to under the applicable standard as that standard existed prior to the Taconite Rule. In support of this Exemption, I (Trump) hereby make the following determinations:

a.  The technology to implement the Taconite Rule is not available.  Such technology does not exist in a commercially viable form sufficient to allow implementation of and compliance with the Taconite Rule by the compliance dates in the Taconite Rule.

b.  It is in the national security interests of the United States to issue this Exemption for the reasons stated in paragraphs 1 and 3 of this proclamation. Link

ANNEX I

  1.  United States Steel Corporation
    i.    Affected Facility/Source:
    i.    Keetac Plant, Keewatin, Minnesota
    ii.   Minntac Plant, Mountain Iron, Minnesota2.    Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.
    i.    Affected Facility/Source:
    i.    United Taconite, Minnesota
    ii.   Northshore Mining, Minnesota
    iii.  Hibbing Taconite, Minnesota
    iv.   Minorca Mine, Minnesota
    v.    Tilden Mine, Michigan
    vi.   Empire Mine, Michigan

 

 

Posted by Diane Samuels at 6:00 am

May 6, 2020

CERLCA Jurisdiction and PRP Definition

A recent Meyers | Nave publication discusses the Supreme Court’s April 20, 2020 decision in Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian. The firm suggests the decision adds another layer of complexity to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act – CERCLA, liability issue. The decision opens the door for state courts to hear claims that challenge EPA-defined approved clean-ups and has the potential to expand the “potentially responsible party” – PRP class for current “owners” of a “facility.”

The Court’s decision introduces new considerations into CERCLA liability analysis and settlement strategy. The Court’s holding will have many immediate ramifications, including the following:

  • It may be argued that the decision broadens the definition of PRP. CERCLA’s already-expansive definition of PRPs now includes landowners whose soil is contaminated by another PRP’s facility because a release has “come to be located” on their land.
  • The decision has the potential to unravel comprehensive and time-consuming CERCLA requirements in a federally-approved clean-up scheme. For example, if EPA waives the requirement to adopt state applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (“ARARs”) at a federal CERCLA site, it seems entirely plausible that some litigants could use a nuisance or similar lawsuit to seek to impose ARARs that EPA specifically considered and waived.
  • The decision might have created an additional layer of CERCLA requirements that apply to PRPs that desire to bring state law claims in state court. Though they were found to be PRPs, the plaintiff landowners were allowed to present their own plan to restore their own private property as long as they obtained EPA approval, but it is unclear what process the landowners would use.
  • The decision might reduce the incentive to enter into CERCLA settlements with EPA if parties are not shielded from contribution claims − which now could arise by exposing settling parties to potential litigation at the state level. While the Court noted that CERCLA: (1) encourages covenants not to sue which cap liability to the Government and (2) protects settling parties from contribution claims by other PRPs, the decision seems to contradict both of those positions and undermines finality of settlements.

 

Clean Water Act Developments

In April, the courts and federal agencies announced major developments significantly affecting regulation under the Clean Water Act – CWA and how the CWA may be applied in the future.

  • First, a U.S. District Court in Montana issued a sweeping decision under Section 404 of the CWA that purports to invalidate and enjoin the use of Nationwide Permit 12 (NWP 12), the widely-used general CWA § 404 permit for construction of pipelines and other utility lines across regulated water bodies, for all projects anywhere in the country.
  • Second, the Trump Administration published its long-anticipated “Navigable Waters Protection Rule” in the Federal Register, defining what constitutes Waters of the United States (WOTUS) that are regulated under the CWA, which is narrower in scope than both the 2015 rule promulgated by the Obama Administration and the pre-2015 rule now in effect.
  • Third, the Supreme Court issued a decision in County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, et al. (No. 18-260) in which the majority held that a CWA discharge permit is required where “the addition of the pollutants through groundwater is the functional equivalent of direct discharge from [a] point source into navigable waters [i.e., WOTUS].”

Each of these developments could have far-reaching implications for regulations under the CWA. Assuming the 2020 Rule withstands legal challenges, it is seen as favorable for industry and other regulated entities, while the two judicial decisions are perceived as problematic for such entities. Davis Graham & Stubbs describes each development in more detail in the firm’s recently published article.

 

MATS Supplemental Cost Finding and Clean Air Act RTR 

On April 16, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized the 2016 Supplemental Cost Finding for the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards – MATS, for coal- and oil-fired power plants, consistent with a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision. The agency also completed the Clean Air Act-required residual risk and technology review – RTR, for MATS. According to the EPA power plants are already complying with the standards that limit emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), and this final action leaves those emission limits in place and unchanged.

However, with this final action, EPA is not removing coal- and oil-fired power plants from the list of affected source categories for regulation under section 112 of the Clean Air Act, consistent with existing case law. Those power plants remain subject to and must comply with the mercury emissions standards of the MATS rule, which remains fully in effect notwithstanding the revised cost-benefit analysis.

In addition, EPA has completed the required RTR for MATS and determined no changes to the rule are needed to further reduce residual risk. The RTR satisfies the statutory requirements set out by Congress in the Clean Air Act. More information is available on EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards website.

 

Proposal to Retain NAAQS for Particulate Matter

On April 14, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – EPA announced its proposal to retain, without changes, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards – NAAQS for particulate matter (PM) including both fine particles (PM2.5) and coarse particles (PM10).

According to the EPA because of Clean Air Act programs and efforts by state, local and tribal governments, as well as technological improvements, average PM2.5 concentrations in the U.S. fell by 39 percent between 2000 and 2018 while average PM10 concentrations fell by 31 percent during the same period.

EPA states it is following the principles established to streamline the NAAQS review process and to fulfill the statutory responsibility to complete the NAAQS review within a 5-year timeframe. More information about the rule can be found at EPA’s: National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Particulate Matter (PM) Pollution website.

EPA will accept public comment for 60 days after the proposed standards are published in the Federal Register. EPA plans to issue the final standards by the end of 2020.

 

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks Inventory Announcement

The Environmental Protection Agency’s annual report, “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2018,” provides a comprehensive look at U.S. emissions and removals by source, economic sector, and greenhouse gas – GHG. The gases covered by this inventory include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride. The inventory also calculates carbon dioxide emissions that are removed from the atmosphere by “sinks,” e.g., through the uptake of carbon and storage in forests, vegetation, and soils.

On April 13, 2020, the EPA’s comprehensive annual report on nationwide GHG emissions released to the public. It shows that since 2005, national GHG emissions have fallen by 10%, and power sector emissions have fallen by 27%.

“While there was a small rise in emissions due to weather and increased energy demand from the prior year in this report, based on preliminary data, we expect next year’s report to show that the long-term downward trend will continue,” said EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler.

According to the announcement, annual trends are responsive to weather variability and economic conditions. Year-over-year, national GHG emissions were 3% higher in 2018 than the prior year, due to multiple factors, including increased energy consumption from greater heating and cooling needs due to a colder winter and hotter summer in 2018 compared to 2017.

According to environmental and research groups, driving the drop’s long-term downward trend is chiefly due to a shift away from coal power generation. The 2019 drop was driven by a nearly 10 percent fall in emissions from the power sector, the biggest decline in decades [Rhodium Climate Service]. Utilities are closing coal plants in favor of cheaper natural gas and renewable energy.

Emissions from industry rose slightly last year, and are now greater than those from coal-fired power plants, most driven by a strong economy. Emissions from buildings were up, and emissions from other sectors of the economy collectively grew by more. The shift to lower-carbon energy is largely restricted to the electricity sector, and in order to meet international and state goals, state policies continue to target other sectors that collectively make up a majority of U.S. emissions.

More information is available at EPA’s website Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks.

 

For more information about potential impacts to waste, energy, or manufacturing please contact your nearest SCS Engineer’s office or your Project Manager. 

 

 

 

 

Posted by Diane Samuels at 6:00 am
SCS Address

Corporate Headquarters

3900 Kilroy Airport Way Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90806

Telephone

1 (800) 767-4727
1 (562) 427-0805 | FAX
Contact Us

Required Posting
Send us a message
×