Tag: pollution

Oil Pollution Act: Tips for Spill Response, Compliance, and Enforcement

Oil spills commonly occur when least expected and, even in smaller quantities can significantly disrupt business operations and create risks for enforcement and/or litigation. It’s important that companies are prepared and know the environmental requirements for when the least expected happens, including understanding what actually is “oil” (hint: it’s broader than you might think!), who to notify, legal authorities at play, and best practices to ensure compliance and minimize exposure to regulators and/or private parties.

What is “Oil” Anyway?

Section 311 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) make up the federal statutory framework for oil spills. However, many companies may not realize that both petroleum-based and non-petroleum-based substances are regulated as “oil” under the CWA and OPA. As a result, many companies may not realize that they are subject to these laws and, therefore, fail to adequately prepare for compliance and/or response both pre- and post-spill.

Specifically, Section 311(a)(1) of the CWA defines oil as “oil of any kind or in any form, including, but not limited to, petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil.” 40 CFR § 112.2 further defines oil as “oil of any kind or in any form, including, but not limited to: fats, oils, or greases of animal, fish, or marine mammal origin; vegetable oils, including oils from seeds, nuts, fruits, or kernels; and, other oils and greases, including petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, synthetic oils, mineral oils, oil refuse, or oil mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil.” This definition is notably broader than what many may consider “oil” (i.e., crude oil and refined petroleum products) and encompasses animal fats, vegetable oils, and non-petroleum oils.

When to Notify?

The CWA and OPA require companies to notify the National Response Center (NRC) of oil spills as soon as they are discovered (i.e., within 15 minutes). This applies to all discharges that reach navigable waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) or adjoining shorelines and (1) cause a sheen; (2) violate applicable water quality standards; or (3) cause a sludge or emulsion beneath the surface of the water or upon adjoining shorelines. In practice, this typically results from a sheen, which 40 C.F.R. § 110.1 defines as an “iridescent appearance on the surface of water.” The Oil Pollution Prevention regulations (discussed further below) also identify discharges from regulated facilities that require reporting, though there are exceptions—for example, when the discharge is in compliance with a permit under Section 402 of the CWA.

Under state and local laws, notification may be much more stringent. For example, California requires immediate reporting of “any significant release or threatened release” of a hazardous material, which includes oil. This can be subjective and requires a fact- and legal-specific evaluation of whether the release qualifies as “threatened” and/or “significant.” In Georgia, immediate notification is required either when the oil creates a “significant sheen on top of state waters” or when the amount discharged is unknown—further creating different criteria for when reporting is required. Regardless of what triggers notification, it is important that companies understand that different agencies—federal, state, and local—may each have different reporting requirements, and accurate and timely reporting is absolutely crucial. Often, failure to timely report is the first violation sought by agencies and can result in increased penalties and additional scrutiny.

What Authorities Are at Play?

At the federal level, two agencies primarily exercise authority over oil spills—the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Coast Guard (CG). Depending on the location of the spill, the EPA or CG may lead federal oversight with the EPA overseeing inland spills and CG overseeing offshore spills. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and Federal Railroad Administration may also exercise authority for pipeline or railroad releases, respectively.

As mentioned above, Section 311 of the CWA and OPA—enacted in 1990 in response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill—make up the federal statutory framework for oil spills. In practice, these authorities are best categorized into two areas: (1) oil spill response; and (2) oil spill prevention and preparedness. It is important for companies to understand the expectations for both (discussed in more detail below), and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (often referred to as the National Contingency Plan or NCP), which outlines the federal government’s cleanup strategy for responding to oil spills, including other cleanups under CERCLA. The goal of the NCP is to ensure that resources are available and responses are consistent. Thus, when the federal government oversees a cleanup, the federal On-Scene Coordinator will expect that all response efforts, including those conducted by the responsible party, are consistent with the NCP.

At the state level, most utilize their respective water laws to address oil spills, though some states, like Louisiana, have laws comparable to OPA. At the local level, municipalities have notification and emergency response authorities that will be applicable. In the end, it’s very important that companies understand that several layers of government may have some form of oversight depending on the size, impact, and location of an oil spill.

OPA v. CWA

While the CWA and OPA are complimentary, including OPA amending the CWA, companies should understand the goals and implications of both. Generally, the CWA focuses on oil spill enforcement for cleanups and penalties, and the OPA broadens national and regional capability for preventing, responding to, and paying for oil spills.

For the CWA, Section 311(b)(3) expressly prohibits the discharge of oil (or hazardous substances) into or upon WOTUS and adjoining shorelines in quantities that may be harmful.1 For oil, this generally means discharges to WOTUS that cause sheening or violate applicable water quality standards. Sections 311(c) and (e) of the CWA provide extensive authority to the federal government to respond to these discharges, including threatened discharges, by issuing orders—either unilaterally or by consent—to owners, operators, or persons in charge of the facility from which the discharge occurs.

Sections 311(b)(6) and (7) of the CWA further empower the federal government to pursue significant penalties—both administrative and civil—for spills that reach WOTUS and/or when responsible parties fail to comply with an order. If gross negligence or willful misconduct is involved, you can expect even greater penalties—commonly more than three-fold—not to mention possible criminal liability. Internally, the EPA utilizes the Civil Penalty Policy for Sections 311(b)(3) and (j) of the CWA and factors outlined in Section 311(b)(8) of the CWA, including the seriousness of the violation, economic benefit to the responsible party, history of prior violations, and efforts to minimize or mitigate the discharge, to evaluate enforcement and penalty calculations.

Akin to the CWA, Section 2702(a) of OPA also makes responsible parties liable for removal costs and natural resource damages resulting from any discharge of oil, including a substantial threat of discharge, to WOTUS and adjoining shorelines. Notably, this includes not only costs incurred by the federal government, but also costs or damages to private parties, including damages for the loss of personal property, loss of revenues/profits due to injury, and cost of additional services during or after a spill. OPA further aims to strengthen national and regional response strategies, amend the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, require facilities to develop prevention and response plans, and establish a fund for damages and cleanup costs—each discussed below.

While it is typically always the priority of the federal government to have responsible parties pay for and conduct their own spill cleanups, when a responsible party is unknown, unable, or refuses to pay, funds from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) can be utilized to pay for the response. The OSLTF is managed by the CG’s National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) and the NPFC thereby manages any oversight or cleanup costs incurred by the federal government. Thus, if an oil spill occurs at your facility and the federal government incurs costs responding or overseeing, the NPFC will be the entity that seeks recovery of those costs—even if the EPA later pursues penalties for the same discharge pursuant to Sections 311(b)(6) and (7) of the CWA. In addition, when a non-liable party performs a cleanup or incurs damages as a result of an oil spill, that party may file a claim for reimbursement directly against the responsible party and/or seek reimbursement from the NPFC.

Lastly, regarding liability, both the CWA and OPA are strict liability and provide limited liability defenses for acts of God, acts of war, or acts/omissions of third parties—comparable to CERCLA. Even so, it’s important to note that Section 309(g)(6) of the CWA states that the federal government may not seek enforcement, including penalties, if the state “has commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action” under a comparable state law. This includes issuing a final order or directing a responsible party to pay a penalty. As mentioned above, states typically pursue oil spill violations via their respective water laws, which may be considered comparable. State penalties may often be substantially less than those sought by the federal government—thus, early engagement with the state can be advantageous depending on the circumstances.

Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations

Section 311(j) of the CWA and OPA, as outlined in 40 C.F.R. Part 112, require facilities that store oil in significant quantities to prepare Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans to prevent accidental releases from reaching WOTUS or adjoining shorelines. Facilities with a greater risk of release and impact to WOTUS may also be required to develop a Facility Response Plan (FRP) to prepare for “worst-case spills.” At the outset, companies should confirm whether these regulations are applicable to their operations and facilities.

SPCC plans are required for facilities that are: (1) non-transportation-related (i.e., they store, process, or consume oil rather than simply move it from one facility to another); and (2) collectively store more than 1,320 gallons of oil above ground or 42,000 gallons below ground that could reasonably be expected to discharge oil to a WOTUS or adjoining shorelines. This can include oil drilling and production facilities, oil refineries, industrial, commercial, and agricultural facilities storing/using oil, facilities that transfer oil via pipelines or tank trucks (including airports), and facilities that sell or distribute oil, like marinas. Practically, these regulations require facilities to have a written plan certified by a professional engineer (apart from qualified facilities), maintain adequate secondary containment for oil storage, maintain updated lists of the federal, state, and local agencies that must be contacted in case of a spill, and follow regular inspection requirements, among other requirements.

In addition to SPCC, FRP plans are required for facilities that could reasonably expect to cause “substantial harm” to the environment by discharging oil into or upon WOTUS. They either have: (1) total oil storage capacity greater than or equal to 42,000 gallons and transfer oil over water to/from vessels; or (2) total oil storage capacity greater than or equal to 1 million gallons and either do not have sufficient secondary containment, are located at a distance such that a discharge could cause “injury” to habitat or shut down a drinking water intake, or within the past five years, have had a reportable discharge greater than or equal to 10,000 gallons. If so, given that FRP is self-identifiable, the facility must prepare and submit its FRP plan to its applicable EPA regional office. Among other things, these plans include evaluating , medium, and worst-case discharge scenarios, descriptions and records of self-inspections, drills, and response training, and diagrams of the facility site plan, drainage, and evacuation plan.

EPA commonly conducts inspections at subject facilities to ensure that SPCC and FRP plans are effectively implemented. Should your facility have an oil spill, plan on an inspection very soon to evaluate compliance and mitigation efforts with your respective requirements.

Suggested Actions

Beyond being aware of the above implications and requirements, below are several actions to consider to ensure compliance and minimize possible enforcement and/or litigation when the least expected occurs.

  • Act Fast: Should an oil spill occur, regardless of size, act fast to respond, mitigate, and determine if notification is required. This includes immediate internal coordination with those responsible for responding, as well as outreach to your environment counsel and/or consultant. If the determination for reporting is close, it is recommended that you report (with a qualified caveat) rather than withhold.
  • Education and Training: Ensure your staff is trained to effectively respond to, report, and prevent oil spills. Oil spills happen despite best attempts otherwise. When the inevitable happens, make sure facility staff are prepared to respond and mitigate the potential impacts of the spill, including having spill reporting hotlines and other contact numbers easily accessible and staff trained on where all information is located. Also, learn from past spills and/or near spills by conducting evaluations and identifying lessons learned to be utilized to prevent future spills.
  • Prepare for Outside Communication: If the spill is significant or causes public impacts, be prepared for outreach by the public, including local news and community groups. Notifications to the NRC are available online and impacts to public or private property often lead to alerts to local news and organizations. Ensure your public affairs contact(s) are aware and develop necessary communication, including desk statements, should the spill create public attention.
  • Review Compliance: Evaluate your current compliance with federal, state, or local requirements, including the development, assessment, and update (if needed) of SPCC and/or FRP response plans. This includes determining if either or both are required at your facility. Should a spill occur, it is important to make sure your response plans are up-to-date and ready for implementation.
  • Regular Audits and Updates: Periodically audit your spill response and prevention measures (SPCC and FRP plans), including any changes to facility operations, secondary containment features, or volumes of oil stored, to identify and correct inaccuracies and ensure that your plans are up-to-date. For FRP, this includes submitting updates to the appropriate EPA regional office within 60 days of each change that may materially affect the response to a worst-case discharge.
  • Insurance: Though not always necessary, consider appropriate insurance coverage to mitigate potential financial liabilities.
  • Consultation: If you have any doubts about your obligations during an oil spill or need assistance with compliance, please do not hesitate to contact your environment counsel or consultants for guidance and support.

1 While this discussion focuses on the impacts of oil spills, it’s important to remember that Section 311 of the CWA (though not OPA) also applies to hazardous substances—discharges to a WOTUS that exceed a reportable quantity pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 117.3—though the federal government may typically utilize the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund), or combination thereof, to pursue such releases.

© 2024 Beveridge & Diamond PC
For more news on Oil Spills, visit the NLR Environmental, Energy & Resources section.

Rise in VCM Business May Trigger CFTC Oversight on Sales of Carbon Offset Credits

Many major companies have announced a blueprint to minimize their carbon footprint. Some companies have gone so far as to proclaim that they will achieve “net zero” emissions in the near future. To accomplish their climate goals, many have turned to purchasing products called “carbon offset credits.”

Offset credits are defined as tradable “rights” or certificates linked to activities that lower the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. These offsets are purchased and sold on what is commonly referred to as “voluntary carbon markets” (VCMs), where owners of carbon-reducing projects can sell or trade their carbon offsets to emitters who wish to offset the negative effects of their emissions.[1] The VCMs, however, have been subject to criticism and concern due to lack of effective regulation to combat potential fraud. In response, the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has announced its intent to increase enforcement resources and expertise to police the carbon markets.

How It Works

The owner of the carbon-reducing project applies to an independent (and largely unregulated) registry for carbon offsets. The registry then evaluates the project, often relying on complex information submitted by the project owner, to determine whether and how much atmospheric carbon the project will reduce. If the registry determines the project will reduce atmospheric carbon, it will issue a carbon offset credit to the project owner.

Typically, one offset credit represents one metric ton of carbon dioxide removed or kept out of the atmosphere. The price of offset credits will vary depending on different project types, different levels of benefits, and the markets in which they are traded. Once the registry issues the offset credit, the project owner can sell it to whomever it wants on a VCM. It is not uncommon for profit-seeking entities such as brokers or investors to purchase the offset credit and then sell it to the “end user,” which is the entity that wants to take credit for the carbon reduction. Once the “end user” purchases the offset credit, the credit is “retired” to ensure that it cannot be sold again.

Although voluntary carbon markets have been around for decades, they have taken off in recent years amid a deluge of corporate climate commitments. From 2018 to 2021, the VCM’s value grew from $300 million to $2 billion. Global management consultancy company McKinsey estimates that the value of VCMs may reach as high as $180 billion by 2030, while Research and Markets has projected a global value of $2.68 trillion by 2028.

Yet, the voluntary carbon market is fragmented and largely unregulated, suffers from varying accounting standards, and has been described as “the Wild West” for fraud. An investigation by The Guardian found that 90% of offsets issued by one of the largest registries for rainforest preservation projects were worthless because they did not represent legitimate carbon reductions. The voluntary carbon market is largely unregulated in the United States, and carbon offsets are almost exclusively issued by nongovernmental entities. Perhaps not surprisingly, regulators have started to look at the voluntary carbon markets more closely. In particular, the CFTC has shown an increasing interest in carbon in recent years.

Road Ahead

In September 2020, the CFTC’s Climate-Related Market Risk Subcommittee issued a report, “Managing Climate Risk in the U.S. Financial System,” that concluded climate change poses a major risk to the stability and integrity of the US economy and presented several dozen recommendations to mitigate climate risks. Less than a year later, CFTC Chairperson Rostin Behnam created the Climate Risk Unit to focus on the role of derivatives “in climate-related risk and transitioning to a low carbon economy.”

In June 2022, the CFTC held the first ever Voluntary Carbon Markets Convening to discuss issues related to a potential carbon offset market and to solicit input from industry participants in the CFTC’s potential role. After the Convening, the CFTC issued an RFI asking whether and how the CFTC should be involved in creating and regulating a voluntary carbon market. The responses to the RFI reflected that, while most industry participants agreed on the need for additional transparency and standardization in the voluntary carbon markets, they disagreed on the role the CFTC should play in such a market. A group of seven United States senators, including Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), argued that the CFTC should establish a robust regime governing the carbon market. Others argued that it is too soon for the CFTC to create rules and a registration mechanism, expressing concern that those actions might stifle industry innovation and progress.

At a keynote speech in January 2023, Chair Behnam stated that the CFTC “can play a role in voluntary [carbon] markets.” CFTC Commissioner Goldsmith Romero echoed the sentiment a month later in another speech and gave proposals for the CFTC to “promote resilience to climate risk.” Among those was a proposal that the “Commission should promote market integrity by increasing enforcement resources and expertise to combat greenwashing and other forms of fraud.”

The voluntary carbon market, Goldsmith Romero noted, “carr[ies] particular concerns of greenwashing, fraud, and manipulation” which “can lead to serious harm, distort market pricing, seriously damage a company’s reputation, and undermine the integrity of the markets.” This is particularly true with an esoteric commodity such as carbon offsets. For tangible commodities such as soybeans or oil, verifying delivery of the goods is relatively easy. But for carbon offsets, the offset purchaser often cannot verify that the promised greenhouse gas reduction is actually occurring; instead, the purchaser must rely on the promises made by the project owner or independent registry.

At present, the CFTC has limited enforcement jurisdiction over carbon offsets because only a limited number of carbon derivatives are traded on regulated futures markets. Carbon, as well as carbon and other environmental offsets or credits, are generally considered “commodities” as defined by § 1a(9) of the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936 (CEA). As a regulated commodity, transactions involving carbon credits or offsets are subject to the CFTC’s anti-fraud and anti-manipulation enforcement jurisdiction.

As VCMs continue to grow, it is likely that offerings of carbon derivatives such as futures, options, and swaps will grow with them, which may provide the jurisdictional catalyst for the CFTC to get more involved. The CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of futures markets, including oversight of the listing of new contracts on futures exchanges. Currently, a limited number of carbon futures are available to trade, and most trade on already regulated exchanges such as the Global Emissions Offset (GEO) futures contracts traded at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME). The price of CME’s GEO futures contract is based on CORSIA-eligible (Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation) offset credits issued through specific independent registries.

But given the varying standards and methodologies for these registries, combined with an increasing number of investigations that have found significant issues with offset credits, it is reasonable to expect that the CFTC may eventually seek to engage in more oversight of the registries to ensure that futures contracts are not being manipulated and the offset credits are actually delivering the carbon reductions promised. Given that offsets are widely traded as commodities, that demand for offset-based derivatives products is growing, and that fraud may be a widespread problem throughout the marketplace, it seems like a matter of when, not if, the CFTC begins to regulate VCMs more heavily.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Although often used interchangeably, voluntary carbon markets are different from compliance carbon markets. Compliance carbon markets are regulated markets set by “cap-and-trade” regulations at the state, national, or international governmental organizations. Governmental organizations set a cap on carbon emissions and then provide members with credits that act as a “permission slip” for a company to emit up to the cap. Voluntary carbon markets, on the other hand, involve trading of carbon credits between companies to reduce their own carbon footprint.

© 2023 ArentFox Schiff LLP
For more Environmental Law news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Beware Before You Flare: EPA Revamps Rulemaking to Pave the Way for Methane Emission Reductions

On November 15, 2022, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) issued the pre-publication version of supplemental proposed rulemaking for reduction of methane emissions in the oil and natural gas sector. The original proposed rule, published on November 15, 2021, sought to strengthen methane standards for new sources (New Source Performance Standards or NSPS), establish nationwide emission guidelines (EG) for regulation of existing sources, and develop new standards for unregulated sources. US EPA ultimately received more than 470,000 public comments. The rules, once finalized, will be included in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart OOOOb (NSPS) and Subpart OOOOc (EG).

The agency anticipated a need for additional review in the original proposed rule, in which US EPA stated it would issue supplemental proposed rulemaking under its authority in the Clean Air Act sections 111(b) and (d). While the original rule already had an ambitious target of reducing methane by 74%, the supplemental proposal would reduce methane from covered sources by 87% below 2005 levels. The rule generally governs production and processing (i.e., well sites, compressor stations, and natural gas processing plants) as well as natural gas transmission and storage.

Key changes in the supplemental proposed rule include the following:

  • Super-emitter Response Program: Establishment of a super-emitter response program intended to reduce the risk of such events. Owners or operators that receive certified notifications of emissions greater than 100 kg/hr of methane would be required to take action.
  • Well Closure Plans: EPA will now require owners of well sites to submit a well closure plan that includes steps to plug wells, requires financial assurance, and includes a schedule to complete the closure and perform a final survey.
  • Advanced Methane Detection: In response to comments supporting advanced methane detection technologies, EPA has proposed a matrix where owners and operators have the flexibility to use approved alternative screening approaches with development of a plan and notification to the agency. The agency will further update the proposed protocol for optical gas imaging (OGI) in Appendix K.
  • Leak Inspection: EPA will now require identification and correction of leaks, a source of fugitive emissions, at all well sites, including new and existing. While EPA removed exemptions, the type of leak monitoring will vary depending on site characteristics and equipment in four primary categories: (1) single wellhead-only and small well sites; (2) wellhead-only sites with two or more wellheads; (3) sites with major production and processing equipment; and (4) well sites on the Alaska North Slope.
  • Flares: EPA will require flare flames to be lit at all times. Additionally, in order to flare, owners of oil wells with associated gas will be required to either implement alternatives permitted by the rule (such as routing to a sales line) or certify that alternatives are not safe or technically feasible.
  • Additional Regulated Sources: EPA has added strengthened standards for pneumatic pumps (zero-emission standard), updated standards for wet seal centrifugal compressors, and developed new standards for dry seal centrifugal pumps (currently unregulated).

Given the agency’s significant focus on environmental justice and community outreach, US EPA also seeks to provide more opportunities for vulnerable communities and Tribal communities to participate in the development of state plans. In fact, the agency held a webinar specific to Tribal communities and environmental justice communities on November 17, 2022. During the webinar, US EPA explained how the revised rule requires states to conduct meaningful engagement with vulnerable communities through early outreach and request for input. States developing plans for EG will be required to participate in “timely engagement with pertinent stakeholder representation . . . [i]t must include the development of public participation strategies to overcome linguistic, cultural, institutional, geographic, and other barriers to participation to assure pertinent stakeholder representation.”

The agency is also seeking additional insight from the regulated industry on advanced technologies that can be utilized to reduce methane and utilize associated gas. The original proposed rule requested public comment on a potential standard for oil wells with associated gas that would require owners or operators to route associated gas to a sales line or, alternatively, use it for another beneficial use. During this round of comments, US EPA now seeks to understand emerging technologies “that provide uses for the associated gas in a beneficial manner other than routing to a sales line, using as a fuel, or reinjecting the gas.”

The agency extended the timeline for a final rulemaking to 2023 and has issued new opportunities for public comment and training. Written comments are due to the agency by February 13, 2023 and can be submitted to Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317. There will also be a series of public hearings on January 10-11, 2023 that require advance registration. To assist in preparation, US EPA published a document highlighting areas where the agency continues to seek public input. We are prepared to assist clients in engaging with the agency by providing comment and preparing for the final rule to be implemented next year.

Article By Jennifer Tharp of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

For more environmental legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© Copyright 2022 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

New Jersey Appellate Division Affirms Municipal Court Jurisdiction to Enforce Spill Act Penalties

On November 13, 2019, the Appellate Division held that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) can bring a penalty enforcement action under the Spill Compensation and Control Act (the “Spill Act”), N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11 et seq., in either the Superior Court or the municipal court with territorial jurisdiction. State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection v. Alsol Corporation, No. A-3546-17T1, — A.3d – (N.J. Super. App. Div. Div. Nov. 13, 2019).

In this case, DEP filed a summons in municipal court against Alsol Corporation (“Alsol”) alleging that Alsol failed to remediate certain property in accordance with DEP regulations, and sought to impose penalties against Alsol under the Spill Act. Alsol successfully moved to dismiss DEP’s summons for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In dismissing the summons, the municipal court concluded that its jurisdiction to enforce civil penalties under the Spill Act was limited to “where a finding of liability ha[d] already been adjudicated.” DEP appealed to the Law Division, which reversed the municipal court’s decision. Alsol then appealed to the Appellate Division.

Following a de novo review, the Appellate Division affirmed and held that municipal courts have jurisdiction to impose civil penalties in a summary proceeding under the Spill Act. The Spill Act provides that any person who violates the Act or a court order issued under the Act, or fails to pay a civil administrative penalty will “be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $50,000.00 per day for each violation,” and such penalties “may be recovered with costs in a summary proceeding pursuant to the [Penalty Enforcement Law of 1999] in the Superior Court or a municipal court.” N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11u(d). The Appellate Division found that “a plain reading” of the Spill Act authorizes DEP to bring a penalty enforcement action in municipal court. In its reasoning, the Appellate Division cited to a prior decision in which it addressed an analogous issue under the Solid Waste Management Act, and also noted that the Supreme Court endorsed such an approach in Rule 7:2-1(h) “by making this type of summary action cognizable in the municipal courts using the Special Summons . . . DEP used” in this case.

Potentially responsible parties under the Spill Act should be aware that DEP may seek to impose and enforce penalties under the Spill Act in municipal court or Superior Court, and should treat a municipal court summons with the same urgency as a Superior Court complaint.

© 2019 Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C. All Rights Reserved

More on NJ environmental regulation on the National Law Review Environmental, Energy & Resources law page.

University Of Surrey Announces New Study On Microbial Organisms To Digest Plastic Waste

On October 16, 2019, the University of Surrey, United Kingdom, announced that its researchers have partnered with colleagues from France, Germany, and Spain to start working on a new technique to tackle plastic waste. According to the university’s article, this novel technique may revolutionize the recycling industry. The plan is to create engineered microbial communities that will digest two types of plastic polymers — polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polyurethane (PU) — and transform them into molecules that can be used to develop a more environmentally friendly material called Bio-PU. This more environmentally friendly material is often used as a construction and insulation material.

According to the University of Surrey, current physical or chemical methods to degrade PET and PU are inefficient. Impurities in PET polymers and high energy costs associated with the high temperatures required to break down the material make its degradation very difficult. Similarly, degradation of PU is limited due to the difficulty in breaking down urethane bonds in the material. Given these challenges, University of Surrey Senior Lecturer in synthetic biology Dr. Jose Jimenez highlights that “[m]oving away from the reliance on single use plastics is a positive step; however, the problem of how we deal with current plastic waste still needs to be addressed.” Hence, the project will investigate the ability of microorganisms to digest plastic waste and turn it into a more environmentally friendly material that can be recycled.

©2019 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

For more plastics pollution activities, see the National Law Review Environmental, Energy & Resources law page.

PFAS — What’s all the Fuss?

Recently, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have been the subject of much publicity, major ongoing litigation over alleged personal injury and property damage, and statutory and regulatory action. In Massachusetts and New Hampshire, contamination incidents, lawsuits, and concerns over drinking water impacts have led to proposals for adoption of extremely low (parts per trillion) drinking water guidelines or enforceable standards. Nationally, although there are drinking water “advisories,” the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering whether to start rulemaking to identify PFAS as “hazardous substances” under the federal Superfund law, and whether to adopt enforceable maximum contaminant levels as national drinking water standards.

What’s all the fuss? Although manufacturers stopped making two of the most well-known PFAS (PFOA and PFOS) over a decade ago, PFAS are a category of substances that includes hundreds of compounds, and a number of them appear to have toxic effects. PFAS had – and continue to have – a variety of uses in a multitude of products, and therefore have been manufactured or used (and sometimes released) at a large number of facilities. Commercial products have included, among others, cookware, food packaging, personal care products, and stain resistant chemicals for apparel and carpets. Industrial and commercial uses included photo imaging, metal plating, semiconductor coatings, firefighting aqueous film-forming foam, car wash solutions, and rubber and plastics. As a result, PFAS are present in the environment, and have been detected in certain drinking water systems. Further, PFAS are still being manufactured and used, but discharge of PFAS in air and water typically have not been regulated. PFAS also are highly mobile and highly persistent in the environment, and, therefore, will be present for scores of years.

Although the toxicological risks for many PFAS have not yet been determined with confidence, PFOA and PFOS have been tested fairly extensively. Manufacturers point out that not all PFAS have the same chemical structures and toxicity. Nevertheless, the Conservation Law Foundation and other environmental advocates are petitioning for regulation of the entire class.

Because PFAS haven’t yet fallen under most federal regulatory schemes, many states have been “filling the gap” with guidance and regulatory action. In Maine, PFAS are already the subject of guidance and regulations by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The most recent DEP Remedial Action Guidelines (RAGs, 2018) for PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS issued by Maine include:

  • Soil RAGs as low as 0.0095 ppm
  • Groundwater residential use RAG as low as 0.40 ppb
  • Fish tissue guidelines for recreational anglers as low as 0.052 ppm

And under DEP Chapter 418, Screening Levels for Beneficial Use have been set for certain PFAS as low as 0.0025 ppm.

It is clear there will be more regulation and legislation at federal and state levels. Further, litigation has commenced in a number of states (including Maine) for perceived or real damages from PFAS contamination under negligence and other tort theories.

What to do? Depending on where you sit, here are a few actions to consider.

  • If you are unsure whether you use PFAS, a limited review of safety data sheets may identify PFAS chemicals.
  • Determine if you stored, used, or currently use PFAS, and consider the potential toxicity of the specific compounds and potential impact of potential regulations.
  • If you stored or used PFAS in the past, consider whether there were potential releases or residuals that could pose health risks or liability risks.
  • If you are considering purchasing a business or real property, consider whether PFAS may have been used or released on site, and the potential risk and liability issues. Note that because PFAS are not federal “hazardous substances” they are not within the scope of the standard Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.
  • If you generate or ship wastes that may contain PFAS, consider voluntary testing and the possibility that testing may soon be requested or required.
  • If you use groundwater as drinking water or for production use, consider whether PFAS may be present from historic or recent uses.
  • Keep posted on national and state regulatory and legislative developments.
©2019 Pierce Atwood LLP. All rights reserved.
This post was written by Kenneth F. Gray and Thomas R. Doyle of Pierce Atwood LLP.

EPA Proposal Acknowledges Areas With Dangerous Air Pollution, But Leaves Some Out and Has Failed to Step in When States Haven’t Protected Residents

EPATwo weeks ago, the Environmental Protection Agency published proposals to designate 12 areas of the country—including Alton and Marion, Illinois; Jefferson and Posey, Indiana; DeSoto Parish, Louisiana; Anne Arundel and Baltimore, Maryland; St. Clair, Michigan; Franklin, Missouri; Muskogee, Oklahoma; and Freestone, Rusk, and Titus, Texas—as “nonattainment” for the dangerous pollutant sulfur dioxide, or SO2.  While EPA won’t finalize the designations until July, what needs to happen next is for the agency to recognize that there are far more than 12 areas across the United States that are in need of having their air cleaned up.

But to explain the importance of all this, we need to back up a bit.  One of the most powerful tools under the Clean Air Act for protecting the air we breathe is something called an “ambient air quality standard.”  The way it works is this: EPA follows the science and determines the level for certain pollutants above which it’s unsafe for human health, and then issues standards for those pollutants.  For SO2 pollution, it’s 75 parts per billion.  EPA then determines what parts of the country have safe air quality, and what parts have air quality worse than the standard.  These latter areas are called “nonattainment,” and the Clean Air Act imposes strict requirements on states to fix their air quality problems, and directs EPA to step in and handle things if states don’t shoulder their responsibility.

Although EPA set the SO2 standard in 2010, since then, implementation has been stymied.  EPA hasn’t designated many areas, and even with the areas it has already designated as nonattainment, states have almost universally failed to develop the required plans to reduce SO2 pollution and EPA has failed to step in solve the problem expeditiously–including in Detroit, Michigan.  The consequence is that hundreds of thousands of residents are regularly breathing levels of pollution the agency knows causes severe public health impacts, particularly on children and the elderly.

SO2 is a nasty pollutant.  Exposure to even low concentrations for even short durations (as little as five minutes) can trigger asthma attacks and respiratory distress. In fact, studies show correlations between short-term exposure and increased visits to emergency departments and hospital admissions for respiratory illnesses, particularly in at-risk populations including children, the elderly, and asthmatics.  In places like Detroit, where everybody—EPA, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder, and the polluters themselves—know that the air is unsafe, the asthma rates are high, the public is suffering, but state and EPA action is both missing and overdue.

We know how to fix this problem. Almost all SO2 pollution comes from a tiny handful of sources: coal-fired power plants.

sierra20clubThat means that restoring clean air is as simple as modeling the pollution from the few hundred remaining coal plants in the country, and ensuring that they have emission limits in place that protect our air and our communities.

But why use modeling instead of air monitors to assess the safety of the air we breathe?  Two reasons: First, when almost all the pollution comes from just a few large sources, modeling is actually much faster, cheaper, and more accurate than setting up a monitoring network and waiting years for the data to come in.  EPA has carefully developed modeling software for this purpose, and has subjected it to more rigorous field testing than any other modeling tool it has ever created.

Second, the sad fact is that the nation’s air monitoring network for SO2 pollution is woefully inadequate.  During the Reagan administration, the U.S. had roughly 1,500 SO2 pollution monitors, which sounds like a lot, until you realize just how big a country the U.S. is—there are more than 3,000 counties in the U.S.  But since then, the number has dropped even further, to less than 450 (in a country spanning 3.8 million square miles!).  And none of them are where they need to be to keep an eye on peak concentrations of SO2 pollution: they are often miles away from large polluting sources or are in places like offshore islands, where the air they measure is a lot cleaner than the air we actually breathe.

This is what is so critical about EPA’s proposals: the new designations would be based on modeling.

Of course, not everybody is likely to be happy about this.  Plenty of states and industry submitted modeling to EPA (rather suspiciously, industry modeling rather universally shows impacts just below the limit), but oftentimes such analysis was skewed towards hiding the true impacts of the pollution.  In some cases, states submitted modeling not of what power plants actually emitted, but what the state wished they had emitted. In others, states or industry modelers used unapproved software add-ons that cripple the model and unsurprisingly yield results purporting air quality to be much better than it actually is.  This is a bit like calculating how much you’d have in your savings account if you’d been stashing away a lot more money than you actually had, and pretending the bank gave you a much better interest rate than it actually did.  It might be a fun exercise, but it has little to do with reality.

Nor did EPA go as far as it should.  While EPA in this round of proposed designations was looking at just 66 areas total, many more than the 12 it identified as having bad air should be considered as “nonattainment” for SO2 pollution.  Places like Gibson County in Indiana, and additional parts of Illinois, Michigan, Louisiana, Ohio, and regions in Texas all have unsafe air quality because of coal plants, and EPA should designate them in nonattainment as well.

The first step in fixing a problem is recognizing that there is a problem, so EPA should not shy away from calling a spade a spade and finalizing nonattainment designations for these areas. And, where problems have already been identified–such as in Detroit–EPA should stop sitting on its hands and move expeditiously to protect the breathing public.

Article By Zack Fabish of Sierra Club

© Sierra Club 2016

Report on State Preparedness to Implement EPA Clean Power Plan

Analysis_Group_logo_1200x900px

States are well positioned to implement the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan, according to a new study conducted by Analysis Group Senior Advisor Susan Tierney and Vice Presidents Paul Hibbard and Andrea Okie. The report, “EPA’s Clean Power Plan: States’ Tools for Reducing Costs & Increasing Benefits to Consumers,”is based on a careful analysis of states that already have experience regulating carbon pollution. It finds that those states’ economies have seen net increases in economic output and jobs. “Several states have already put a price on carbon dioxide pollution, and their economies are doing fine. The bottom line: the economy can handle – and actually benefit from – these rules,” said Dr. Tierney.

The EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan would regulate carbon emissions from existing fossil-fueled power plants using EPA’s existing authority under the Clean Air Act. The draft rules, due to be finalized next year, allow a variety of market-based and other approaches states can choose from to cut greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

The Analysis Group team analyzed the carbon-control rules already in place in several states to see what insights they might hold for the success of the national rule. The report was based on states’ existing track records, rather than projecting costs and benefits that might be expected under the Clean Power Plan. The report, funded by the Energy Foundation and the Merck Family Fund, was released at the summer conference of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) in Dallas, Texas.

Read the report

ARTICLE BY

Susan F. Tierney, PhD
Paul J. Hibbard
Andrea Okie
 
OF
Analysis Group, Inc.

West Virginia Chemical Spill Prompts Wave of Lawsuits

Beveridge Diamond Logo

 

The January 9th, 2014 chemical release at a Freedom Industries, Inc. facility in West Virginia has shown, yet again, that major environmental releases are likely to prompt major environmental lawsuits. As a result of the spill of 7,500 gallons of 4-MCHM, a chemical foam used to wash coal, 300,000 residents of nine counties were told not to use tap water for anything other than toilet-flushing or firefighting, area businesses were forced to close, and hospitals took emergency measures to conserve water.

More than 60 lawsuits were filed in state court by residents and business owners in eight counties against West Virginia-American Water Company and Freedom Industries. The suits assert personal injury claims ranging from emotional distress and requests for medical monitoring to property-related claims such as trespass. Freedom Industries and the water supply company promptly removed the 62 actions to federal court, which Plaintiffs moved to remand. On April 18th, U.S. District Court Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. issued an order consolidating the cases for the limited purposes of adjudicating a motion to remand the actions to state court. See Desimone Hospitality Servs. LLC v. West Virginia-American Water Co., No.  2:14-CV-14845 (S.D. W. Va., Apr. 18, 2014). Citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), Judge Copenhaver explained that consolidation was particularly appropriate here because “[t]he risk of inconsistent adjudications, substantial expense to the parties, and inefficient use of court resources markedly increases here if the court declines consolidation to some extent.”  See Desimone Hospitality Services LLC, slip op. at 23-24.

In addition to these suits, non-profit groups also have filed an emergency petition with the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals accusing the state’s Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Health and Human Resources of failing to perform their legal duties to protect the public’s health in response to the spill. See Covenant House v. Huffman, No. 14-0112 (W. Va. February 7, 2014).

Article By:

Daniel M. Krainin
Gayatri M. Patel
Mackenzie S. Schoonmaker
Of:
Beveridge & Diamond PC