Category: Environmental Law

State Water Board Unveils Aggressive Plan to Issue Investigative Orders for PFAS

Environmental & Natural Resources

  • Within the month, the State Board will issue orders requiring investigation of potential PFAS contamination, a widely used class of chemicals, at more than a thousand California facilities.
  • Phase I targets airports and landfills.
  • Phases II & III, to be implemented later this year, will include refineries, bulk terminals, fire training facilities, wildfire areas, manufacturers, wastewater plants, and domestic wells.

On March 6, the California State Water Resources Control Board announced it will soon issue orders to owners and operators of more than a thousand facilities in California requiring environmental investigation and sampling for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known by the acronym PFAS. As “Item 10” in a four-hour meeting providing updates on state and federal programs addressing PFAS, Darrin Polhemus, Deputy Director of the State Board’s Division of Drinking Water (DDW), and Shahla Farahnak, Assistant Deputy Director of the Division of Water Quality (DWQ), unveiled an aggressive “Phased Investigation Plan.”

ABOUT PFAS

PFAS are a class of chemicals widely used for decades in many consumer products for their grease- and stain-resistant properties, including nonstick products, carpeting, furniture, and makeup. PFAS were also commonly essential ingredients of firefighting foams used at airports and other locations where large quantities of flammable fuels were present. PFAS compounds are potentially toxic at extremely low levels. In the last several years, public scrutiny of PFAS has accelerated as their environmental prevalence has become better understood. Testing performed in connection with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) third “Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule” (UCMR3) identified 133 PFAS detections in California drinking water systems, and follow-up testing resulted in nearly 300 more detections.

PHASE I ORDERS IMMINENT

In Phase I of its investigation plan, the State Board will issue orders to 31 airports it believes to have used PFAS-containing aqueous firefighting foam, and 252 landfills it believes to have accepted materials that contain PFAS. The State Board will also issue investigative orders to operators of 578 drinking water wells within a two-mile radius of one of the airports, and 353 drinking water wells within a one-mile radius of the landfills. It will also issue orders for 389 drinking water sources within a mile radius of PFAS impacts identified in the UCMR3 testing.

State Board staff have already drafted the Phase I orders and expect to issue them by the end of this month, if not sooner.

PHASES II & III EXPECTED SUMMER/FALL 2019

The State Board is still formulating the next phases, but staff said “high priority” targets in Phase II will be refineries, bulk terminals, and non-airport fire training areas. Phase II would also include manufacturers of PFAS, if any. (Presently, the Board does not believe there are any in California, but it intends to verify that understanding as part of the investigation.) In the second phase, the State Board will also test storm water in areas of the massive 2017 and 2018 California wildfires to evaluate whether burning of consumer products in those fires resulted in PFAS releases to the environment.

Phase III will focus on so-called “secondary manufacturers” – those that use PFAS in their products or processes. Board staff specifically mentioned plating facilities as potential targets. The third phase will also include wastewater treatment and pre-treatment plants, and domestic wells.

State Board staff expects to implement Phases II and III in the summer and fall of this year.

TIMELINE AND STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR RESPONDING TO ORDERS

If you get an order, you will need to be prepared to respond quickly. Targeted source facilities will receive an order issued by the State Board under the authority of California Water Code section 13267. These orders will require businesses to respond to a questionnaire regarding the historical use of PFAS-containing products within 30 days, and to submit work plans for conducting testing within 60 days. After the work plans are accepted, businesses will have 90 days to perform the testing and submit the results.

Source: Presentation at State Water Resources Control Board Meeting, March 6, 2019, Water Boards PFAS Phased Investigation Approach
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/pfas/docs/7_investigation_plan.pdf

Regulated entities should use great care in responding to these orders. Failure to comply may be punished by fines ranging from $5,000 to $25,000 per day per violation. Under the statute, the burden, including costs, of the ordered reporting must “bear a reasonable relationship to the need for the report and the benefits to be obtained from the reports” and responding parties may take steps to protect their trade secrets from public disclosure as a result of required reporting. Moreover, appropriate execution of the required testing is critical. Because PFAS are so widely used in consumer products, there are myriad opportunities for cross-contamination that could result in false positives if exacting sampling protocols are not utilized.

Targeted water system operators will receive an order from DDW under California Health & Safety Code section 116400. Those orders will require periodic PFAS analyses, likely on a quarterly basis, unless DDW determines that a different schedule is reasonable.

FEDERAL PFAS ACTION PLAN AND NEXT STEPS IN CALIFORNIA

California’s Phased Investigation Plan comes on the heels of the February 14 release of the USEPA’s PFAS Action Plan, identifying short- and long-term actions USEPA plans to take over the coming years. USEPA said it will set federally enforceable Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) – two members of the PFAS family, designate those chemicals as hazardous substances under the Superfund law, require monitoring for additional PFAS in the next UCMR, and develop interim cleanup standards for PFAS in groundwater. The Action Plan would give the federal government greater enforcement authority over PFAS and has come under fire from a number of consumer advocacy and political organizations.

The State Board, somewhat uncharacteristically, has not been on the forefront of PFAS regulation. In 2016, the USEPA published a Health Advisory Level of 70 parts per trillion (ppt) in drinking water for combined PFOA and PFOS. Then, in November 2017, New Jersey announced that it would be the first state to establish a legally enforceable MCL for PFOA, setting it at 14 ppt, the most stringent standard in the country.

California has been more measured in its response. As Allen Matkins previously reported, in November 2017, the state added PFOA and PFOS to the Proposition 65 list of chemicals “known to the state” to cause reproductive toxicity, and in July of last year DDW set “notification levels” of 13 ppt for PFOS and 14 ppt for PFOA, and a “response level” of 70 ppt for combined PFOA and PFOS. Yet, to date, there is no enforceable drinking water or cleanup standard for PFAS in California, and Deputy Director Polhemus’ comments at the March 6 meeting made clear that none is imminent. The State Board and others are struggling with how best to address the whole class of thousands of PFAS chemicals without undertaking the massive regulatory effort required to set MCLs for each individual chemical in the family. Given this challenge, DDW has not requested a Public Health Goal (PHG) for any PFAS chemicals, and Deputy Director Polhemus said any such PHG is still at least a couple of years off, with potential MCLs at least a few years behind that.

The release of DDW’s Phased Investigation Plan, however, is the first major step in California’s systematic approach to investigating the release of PFAS to the environment, and signals an imminent new regulatory regime.

More information on the State Board’s March 6, 2019 meeting is available here.

© 2010-2019 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
This post was written by Kamran Javandel and Vaneeta Chintamaneni of Allen Matkins.

Municipal utilities need to be concerned with PFAS

Municipalities face increasing challenges under the growing regulatory focus of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state environmental agencies on the emerging contaminants Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, known by the acronym “PFAS.” This newsletter will describe some of those challenges for municipalities and the announcement  and the importance of following good protocol when sampling and analyzing for these compounds.

What are PFASs and why are they considered harmful?

PFASs are a group of chemicals that have been used since the middle of the 20th century in many industrial applications and consumer products including stain proofing for water proof carpeting, clothing, upholstery, leather treatment, food paper wrappings, firefighting foams (commonly used at military bases, airports, fire stations and refineries), car washing cleaners, metal plating and non-stick cookware (such as Teflon). Some research has suggested probable links between exposure to PFAS and diagnosed high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, testicular and kidney cancers and pregnancy induced hypertension. As a result, the family of PFAS chemicals have been classified by EPA as an “emerging contaminant.”

EPA has set a lifetime health advisory (LTHA) level (the level below which no harm is expected) for two PFASs in drinking water: perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS). The PFOA/PFOS LTHA level is 70 parts/trillion, which is equivalent to about 3 ½ drops of water in an Olympic swimming pool. The low threshold is a signal of the risk potential for this emerging contaminant as well as the difficulty in confidently determining the concentrations of PFOA/PFOS in water samples and the challenges in undertaking cost effective remediation when PFASs are discovered.

PFAS concerns for municipal utilities

In November 2018, President Trump signed the America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (AWIA). This legislation will require smaller communities to test their water systems for chemicals like PFOA and PFOS. Prior to the signing of this AWIA legislation, only water systems with more than 10,000 community customers were required to test for PFAS chemicals. Under this new legislation, smaller water utility communities who serve between 3,000 – 10,000 customers must also begin testing for these emerging contaminants.

In addition, on Feb. 4, 2019, the EPA announced its PFAS Action Plan. See here. In particular, EPA has announced its intention to develop a maximum contaminant level for PFOS and PFOA, including the LTHA reference point of 70 parts/trillion as a federally enforceable drinking water standard, under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

In a memorandum dated Feb. 20, 2018, the state of Michigan announced a monitoring proposal for waste water treatment plants that accept potential sources of PFAS to begin testing their facilities for PFAS containing chemicals. Michigan also has begun testing leachate from landfill facilities that accept municipal solid waste. The results of these preliminary tests have recorded the presence of PFAS in leachate generated by many of these landfills. Since leachate is commonly sent to wastewater treatment facilities for treatment, this discovery of PFAS in leachate could raise additional concerns for municipal treatment facilities, particularly since PFAS compounds are not specifically addressed in municipal wastewater treatment. The concern is that the PFAS is eluding treatment and is present in the effluent or other waste streams, or is adsorbing to the biosolids and sludges generated by the WWTP, which are thereafter frequently land spread with uncertain impacts.

An additional concern for municipalities, separate from wastewater, relates to historic (and potentially closed) waste landfills owned and operated by municipalities. Certain studies suggest that discarded carpet (such as Stainmaster products) and clothing (such as products treated with Scotchgard) are leading sources of PFAS contamination, including the leachate, in landfills.

Finally, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) has convened a PFAS Technical Advisory Group to discuss a broad range of PFAS concerns in Wisconsin. The first quarterly meeting of the Advisory Group occurred on Feb. 22, 2019. More information on the PFAS Technical Advisory Group can be found here.

All of these developments suggest that municipal utilities should be concerned about the legal implications of detections of PFAS. Given the extraordinarily low health advisory standards that apply to this class of chemicals (parts per trillion), these municipal utilities must take great care in deciding when to test for these materials and, if a decision is made to test, the quality assurance and quality control measures that should be taken to ensure reliable results.

Copyright © 2019 Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

 

This post was written by Arthur J. Harrington Daniel C.W. Narvey and Edward (Ned) B. Witte of Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

Read more on PFAS regulation on the Environmental type of law page.

U.S.EPA Announces National “PFAS Action Plan”

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA) acting Administrator, Andrew Wheeler, held a press conference at EPA Region III in Horsham, Pennsylvania on Feb. 14, 2019, to announce the U.S.EPA’s PFAS Action Plan. Wheeler indicated that similar announcements of and press conferences relating to the PFAS Action Plan were being held simultaneously in each of the U.S.EPA’s ten regional offices, underlying the importance of the announcement. Wheeler stated that the Agency’s plan was the most comprehensive cross-agency plan introduced by the U.S.EPA.

Acting Administrator Wheeler highlighted five key elements of the PFAS Action Plan:

  1. U.S.EPA has initiated actions to develop a Maximum Contaminant Level, or MCL, for PFAS, and specifically for two PFAS compounds, PFOS and PFOA, by the end of 2019. Wheeler stated that this would be the first substance to have an MCL established since the Safe Drinking Water Act was amended in 1996. Wheeler added that the U.S.EPA maintains that the 70 parts per trillion (ppt) standard is a federally enforceable groundwater standard, despite misconceptions to the contrary.

  2. U.S.EPA will continue to pursue enforcement actions utilizing the existing Health Advisory Level for PFAS of 70 ppt or 70 nanograms per liter.

  3. U.S.EPA will expand monitoring and data gathering related to PFAS, including adding PFAS to the toxics release inventory, which should generate additional information on the extent of PFAS in the industry and in the environment. Wheeler indicated that U.S.EPA is using enhanced mapping tools to identify where and in what communities PFAS is in the groundwater and in the environment.

  4. U.S.EPA will expand research into the impacts of PFAS on human health and the environment, studying fate and transport issues associated with PFAS. Wheeler stated that U.S.EPA wants to “close the gap” on the science related to PFAS, including the more recently manufactured perfluourinated compound known as “GenX”,

  5. U.S.EPA will develop a “risk communication toolbox” that will provide information to the public and the regulated community more clearly.

Copyright © 2019 Godfrey & Kahn S.C.
For more Environmental News, check out the National Law Review’s Environmental Type of Law page.

After Shutdown, US EPA Announces New Hearing Date for the New WOTUS Rule

As a result of the recent lapse in appropriations, the US EPA and US Department of the Army (Army) delayed a planned January 23, 2019 hearing regarding the proposed new “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) definition. Publication of the proposed rule and the start of the comment period on the rule were also postponed due to the shutdown. On February 6, 2019, EPA announced that the hearing will now be held on February 27 and 28, 2019.   The Office of the Federal Register has not yet published the proposed rule, which will start the clock on the 60-day comment period.

Because it determines the scope of the Clean Water Act, the definition of “waters of the United States” has been a hot-button issue since it was amended, and significantly broadened, by the Obama administration in mid-2015.  The 2015 rule was challenged by 31 states and numerous other stakeholders in multiple lawsuits. In October 2015, the Sixth Circuit issued a nationwide stay of the rule. The nationwide stay was lifted when the US Supreme Court determined on January 13, 2017, that review of the rule falls within the jurisdiction of the district courts.   Although the nationwide stay is no longer in effect, decisions by the US District Courts for the Districts of North Dakota, Southern District of Georgia, and Southern District of Texas, preliminarily enjoining the 2015 rule in 28 states remain in effect. Thus, the Obama-era rule is in effect in only 22 states, the District of Columbia, and US territories.

In an effort to eliminate or narrow the Obama-era rule and reestablish a consistent nationwide rule, on December 11, 2018, the US EPA and the Army signed a newly proposed rule revising the WOTUS definition. The proposed rule is part of the agencies’ two-step plan to remove and replace the 2015 rule, which the agencies believe exceeds US EPA’s statutory authority. The first step, a rule which suspended the application of the 2015 rule, was enjoined and vacated by two district courts. Despite this roadblock, the agencies moved forward with step two and submitted the new proposed definition rule to the Office of the Federal Register. However, due to the shutdown, it has not yet been published. The 60-day comment period for the rule will begin on the date of publication.

Under the proposed rule “waters of the United States” encompasses “traditional navigable waters, including the territorial seas; tributaries that contribute perennial or intermittent flow to such waters; certain ditches; certain lakes and ponds; impoundments of otherwise jurisdictional waters; and wetlands adjacent to other jurisdictional waters.” Importantly, the agencies propose to eliminate the case-by-case application of the significant nexus test, which under the 2015 rule extends the definition of WOTUS to water, including wetlands, that “significantly affects the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of a water.” The agencies propose instead “the establishment of clear categories of jurisdictional waters.”

The new WOTUS definition would also exclude from regulation some tributaries and waters adjacent to jurisdictional waters. The 2015 rule extends to adjacent waters that are bordering, contiguous or neighboring a jurisdictional water, which broadly encompasses any water within 100 feet of a jurisdictional water or water located within the 100-year floodplain of a jurisdictional water. By contrast, the proposed rule includes only adjacent wetlands that “abut or have a direct hydrological surface connection” to a water. Under the 2015 Obama-era rule, a tributary is a water that contributes flow to a jurisdictional water. The proposed rule eliminates ephemeral flows from being considered a tributary, requiring a water that contributes at least “perennial or intermittent flow.” Given these and other significant differences between the two rules, once published, the proposed rule is certain to draw intense debate over the proper reach of the Clean Water Act.

US EPA is not alone in experiencing delays, as the federal rulemaking process ground to a halt during the shutdown. The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) issued “Government Shutdown FAQs,” stating that in an appropriations lapse the OFR may publish documents from unfunded agencies “directly related to the performance of governmental functions necessary to address imminent threats to safety of human life or protection of property.”   And, in the case of a partial shutdown, where some agencies are funded, the OFR may publish documents from funded agencies “if delaying publication until the end of the appropriations lapse would prevent or significantly damage the execution of funded functions at the agency.”

 

© Copyright 2019 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
This post was written by Weslynn P. Reed of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP.
For more environmental legislative and regulatory news check out the National Law Review’s Environmental Type of 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 Sued to Issue Pending Methylene Chloride Prohibition Rule in Final

On January 14, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, the Vermont Public Interest Group; Safer Chemicals, Health Families; and two individuals (plaintiffs) followed up on their earlier notice of intent to sue and filed a complaint against Andrew Wheeler and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to compel EPA to perform its “mandatory duty” to “address the serious and imminent threat to human health presented by paint removal products containing methylene chloride.”  Plaintiffs bring the action under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 20(a) which states that “any person may commence a civil action … against the Administrator to compel the Administrator to perform any act or duty under this Act which is not discretionary.”  Plaintiffs allege that EPA has not performed its mandatory duty under TSCA Sections 6(a) and 7.  TSCA Section 6(a) gives EPA the authority to regulate substances that present “an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment” and TSCA Section 7 gives EPA the authority to commence civil actions for seizure and/or relief of “imminent hazards.”  Plaintiffs’ argument to direct EPA to ban methylene chloride is centered on the issue of risk to human health only, however, stating that it presents “an unreasonable risk to human health” as confirmed by EPA.  Under TSCA Section 20(b)(2), plaintiffs are required to submit a notice of intent to sue 60 days prior to filing a complaint which they did on October 31, 2018.

Background

On January 19, 2017, EPA issued a proposed rule under TSCA Section 6 to prohibit the manufacture (including import), processing, and distribution in commerce of methylene chloride for consumer and most types of commercial paint and coating removal (82 Fed. Reg. 7464).  EPA also proposed to prohibit the use of methylene chloride in these commercial uses; to require manufacturers (including importers), processors, and distributors, except for retailers, of methylene chloride for any use to provide downstream notification of these prohibitions throughout the supply chain; and to require recordkeeping.  EPA relied on a risk assessment of methylene chloride published in 2014, the scope of which EPA stated included “consumer and commercial paint and coating removal.”  The proposed rule stated that in the risk assessment, EPA identified risks from inhalation exposure including “neurological effects such as cognitive impairment, sensory impairment, dizziness, incapacitation, and loss of consciousness (leading to risks of falls, concussion, and other injuries)” and, based on EPA’s analysis of worker and consumer populations’ exposures to methylene chloride in paint and coating removal, EPA proposed “a determination that methylene chloride and NMP in paint and coating removal present an unreasonable risk to human health.”  The comment period on the proposed rule was extended several times, ending in May 2017, and in September 2017 EPA held a workshop to help inform EPA’s understanding of methylene chloride use in furniture refinishing.

No further action was taken to issue the rule in final, however, until December 21, 2018, when EPA sent the final rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.  On the same day, EPA also sent another rule to OMB for review titled “Methylene Chloride; Commercial Paint and Coating Removal Training, Certification and Limited Access Program,” which has not previously been included in EPA’s Regulatory Agenda; very little is known about this rule.  Plaintiffs do not refer to it in the complaint but there is speculation, based on its title, that this second rule may allow for some commercial uses of methylene chloride.

Commentary

We recall the lawsuit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Counsel (NRDC) in 2018 challenging EPA’s draft New Chemicals Decision-Making Framework document as a final rule.  The current action further reflects the commitment of detractors of EPA to use the courts and every other means available to oppose the Administration’s TSCA implementation efforts.  Whether and when this court will respond is unclear.  What is clear is that the case will be closely watched, as the outcome will be an important signal to the TSCA stakeholder community regarding the utility of TSCA Section 20(a)(2) to force non-discretionary EPA actions that the Administration may be disinclined to take.

 

©2019 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

Senate Approves Nominations of Three Key Environmental Posts

In the last hours of the 115th Congress, the Senate on January 2, 2019, approved the nominations of three individuals to serve in key environmental posts:

Alexandra Dapolito Dunn — EPA Toxics Office:  The Senate approved the nomination of Alexandra Dunn to serve as the Assistant Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP).  Ms. Dunn had been serving as the administrator for EPA Region 1.  She previously was executive director and general counsel for the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS).  Prior to joining ECOS, Ms. Dunn served as executive director and general counsel for the Association of Clean Water Administrators.  Ms. Dunn also has extensive experience in environmental education, having served as dean of Environmental Law Programs at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University.  In addition, she has taught at the Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America, and, most recently, as an adjunct associate professor of law at the American University’s Washington College of Law.  Ms. Dunn received a B.A. in political science from James Madison University and a J.D. from the Columbus School of Law.  More information on Ms. Dunn’s confirmation hearing is available in our blog item Senate EPW Committee Holds Hearing on Nomination of Alexandra Dunn to Lead OCSPP.

Mary Neumayr — CEQ: The Senate also approved the nomination of Mary Neumayr to head the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).  Ms. Neumayr currently serves as chief of staff for the CEQ.  Prior to joining CEQ in March of 2017, she served in a variety of positions with the Committee on Energy and Commerce in the U.S. House of Representatives, including Deputy Chief Counsel, energy and environment in 2017; Senior Energy Counsel from 2011 to 2017; and Counsel from 2009 to 2010.  Ms. Neumayr also served as Deputy Counsel for environment and nuclear programs at the U.S. Department of Energy from 2006 to 2009, and Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for the environment and natural resources division at the U.S. Department of Justice from 2003 to 2006.  Prior to her government service, Ms. Neumayr was in private legal practice from 1989 to 2003.  She received her B.A. from Thomas Aquinas College and her J.D. from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law.

Kelvin Droegemeier — OSTP:  Finally, the Senate also approved Kelvin Droegemeier to serve as the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).  A meteorologist from the University of Oklahoma, Mr. Droegemeier previously served as Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin’s secretary of science and technology.  He was also previously on the National Science Board for 12 years during the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations.

©2018 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

Four Themes from the National Climate Assessment that May Impact Your Business Strategy

As climate change is integrated more and more into the planning of corporate opportunities and risks, the Fourth National Climate Assessment released last week may be a valuable resource to assess how climate change may impact your business strategy on the horizon.

The assessment, which outlines potential region-by-region impacts from climate change, can be used as a tool to assist companies in understanding the range of possible climate impact. Drafted by experts within the federal government and led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the report provides a summary of the science and modeling used to predict changes in the United States’ climate over the next century, including providing certain economic impact assessments and estimates.

Four modeled scenarios with varying ranges of temperature increases were used in the assessment and impacts were qualified by confidence ranges and likelihood of the suggested impacts. The report discusses population changes, economic changes, and geographic changes that may result from climate change.

Containing a massive amount of both elementary and highly sophisticated information and model results, the assessment may prove to be extremely useful to both public and private companies to plan business growth and opportunities and to identify risks to current business models. The data may be specific enough to identify potential mitigation and adaptation actions for specific facilities to consider implementing.

Four Highlighted Themes

The following themes are indicative of those found throughout the assessment.

  1. “Climate change creates new risks and exacerbates existing vulnerabilities in communities across the United States, presenting growing challenges to human health and safety, quality of life, and the rate of economic growth.” Summary Finding No. 1.

  2. “Without substantial and sustained global mitigation and regional adaptation efforts, climate change is expected to cause growing losses to American infrastructure and property and impede the rate of economic growth over this century.” Summary Finding No. 2.

  3. “Climate change affects the natural, built, and social systems we rely on individually and through their connection to one another. These interconnected systems are increasingly vulnerable to cascading impacts that are often difficult to predict, threatening essential services within and beyond the Nation’s borders.” Summary Finding No. 3.

  4. “Impacts from climate change on extreme weather and climate-related events, air quality, and the transmission of disease through insects and pests, food, and water increasingly threaten the health and well-being of the American people, particularly populations that are already vulnerable.” Summary Finding No. 6.

Midwest Adaptation and Mitigation

According to the report, while climate change might be easier to highlight on the coasts, the Midwest may also experience costs related to increased heat and precipitation events. The report indicates that the Midwest may experience a significant increase in the number of 100 degree days, with Chicago experiencing as many at 60 days per year by the end of this century. This extreme heat may increase mortality, affect transportation, or affect the ability of workers in outdoor jobs or spaces without temperature controls. With near-term planning and adaptation, however, the report notes that many of these impacts can be minimized.

The report highlights that higher heat and precipitation may affect farming and yields, but that adaptation and mitigation can help. For example, the assessment notes that adding buffer zones at agricultural farm fields in the Midwest can minimize damage and soil loss caused by extreme precipitation events.

Other actionable insights from the report directed to the Midwest include:

  • Promoting biodiversity can minimize the impacts of an increasing insect population and diseases that strike a particular species of plants or humans.

  • Planned development growth can decrease habitat and biodiversity loss as well as control storm-related damage.

  • Planned development and agricultural land use can impede the further degradation of the Great Lakes, which is experiencing higher temperatures, lower amounts of winter ice and earlier temperature stratification. These temperature changes may also impact manufacturing facilities that use water from the Great Lakes.

Overall, the assessment recommends adoption of mitigation and adaptation plans in the near future to avoid the most deleterious effects of climate change.

© 2018 Schiff Hardin LLP

ARTICLE BY

Jane E. Montgomery
Schiff Hardin LLP

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s Decision to Vacate Mountain Valley Pipeline Nationwide Permit

On November 27, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued the most recent in a series of decisions from various courts affecting the federal permitting and construction of interstate pipelines. Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 18-1173 (4th Cir. Nov. 27, 2018). In this instance, the Circuit held that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers violated the Clean Water Act when it verified that construction of the Mountain Valley Pipeline project could proceed pursuant to Nationwide Permit 12 in the State of West Virginia.[1] This decision will have an impact on the flexibility of federal and state agencies when it comes to permitting projects under the Clean Water Act Nationwide Permit program.

The Mountain Valley Pipeline project is a 304-mile natural gas pipeline proposed to run through West Virginia and Virginia. Earlier this year, the Corps had reinstated its verification that the project met the requirements of Nationwide Permit 12 – a general permit that provides authorization for certain discharges associated with the construction of linear energy infrastructure. The Circuit vacated the Corps’ verification in its entirety, leaving the project with no authorization under the Clean Water Act.

Unlike many decisions where the issue is the Corps’ own process in promulgating the Nationwide Permit in the first instance or the Corps’ assessment of whether a specific project falls within the federal parameters of the Nationwide Permit, this matter turned on whether the Corps properly incorporated the State’s conditions into its verification and whether the State itself followed the required Clean Water Act process.

In order to use a Nationwide Permit promulgated by the Corps, a project proponent must provide the Federal permitting agency a Section 401 water quality certification from the State (or other permitting agency with jurisdiction over the water) in which the regulated discharge originates, unless the Federal permitting agency determines that the certification requirement has been waived. The State certification and its conditions then become part of the federal Nationwide Permit. With respect to Nationwide Permit 12, the State of West Virginia had issued a general certification that imposed, after public notice and comment, certain special conditions on projects seeking authorization under Nationwide Permit 12 beyond what the Corps required. Two of these special conditions were at issue in this case:

  • Special Condition A, which requires an individual state water quality certification for certain projects including those involving construction of pipelines equal to or greater than 36 inches in diameter or if crossing waters regulated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act; and

  • Special Condition C, which requires that individual stream crossings be completed in a continuous manner within 72 hours in certain conditions.

Pursuant to these Special Conditions, in order to seek authorization under Nationwide Permit 12, Mountain Valley Pipeline was expected to obtain an individual water quality certification and to complete stream crossings within 72 hours. However, West Virginia purported to “waive” its requirement that the pipeline obtain an individual water quality certification following a series of challenges to West Virginia’s individual water quality certification, and the Corps replaced Special Condition C with an alternate condition that the Corps found to be more protective of water quality with the apparent concurrence of the State.

The Fourth Circuit held: (1) the Corps’ verification violated Section 401 of the Clean Water Act because Section 401 unambiguously requires the Corps to incorporate the State’s certification with its special conditions in the federal verification without modification; and (2) Section 401 does not allow a state to waive its special conditions without public notice and comment, meaning that the project proponent remained subject to the condition requiring that it apply for an individual state water quality certification and, therefore, the Corps’ own verification was invalid.

In reaching these conclusions, the Circuit noted that “the Corps’ interpretation would radically empower it to unilaterally set aside state certification conditions as well as undermine the system of cooperative federalism upon which the Clean Water Act is premised.” Sierra Club, No. 18-1173 at *22. With respect to the State’s action purporting to waive its special condition, the Circuit explained that “[a]llowing West Virginia to revoke, on a case-specific basis, conditions imposed in its certification of a nationwide permit would impermissibly allow the state to circumvent [the CWA’s] explicit requirement that state permit certifications satisfy notice requirements.” Id. at *31.

Assuming this decision stands, the upshot is that both the Corps and the States (at least within the Fourth Circuit) will have less flexibility in how projects are permitted when a State has issued a general water quality certification with specific conditions. The Corps will need to require that the terms of such certifications are strictly followed in order to make decisions that comply with the Clean Water Act.

[1] The Circuit’s November 27, 2018 decision supports and expands upon the Circuit’s October 2, 2018 decision to vacate the Corps’ verification on more limited grounds.  Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 18-1173 (4th Cir. Oct. 2, 2018).

© 2018 Bracewell LLP
This post was written by Ann D. Navaro and Christine G. Wyman of Bracewell LLP.

EPA Proposes to Clarify Areas Excluded from Clean Air Act’s Definition of “Ambient Air”

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed a revised policy to clarify what constitutes “ambient air” under the Clean Air Act, which will directly affect what areas stationary sources of air emissions must model to determine the effect of their facilities on air quality. The revised policy will most notably affect sources that have to model air quality around their facilities to demonstrate compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), as well as sources applying for air construction permits under the EPA’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program.

Under current EPA regulations, ambient air is broadly defined as the portion of the atmosphere (external to buildings), that the general public has access. Areas where access is not available are not “ambient.” Sources are often required under the NAAQS and the EPA’s PSD program to model facility impacts on ambient air. Thus, excluding areas from “ambient air” eliminates the need to model emissions impacts on those areas.

Through various guidance documents and letters, the EPA’s historic policy has been to only exclude those areas from the definition of ambient air that are (1) owned or under the control of the source and (2) not accessible by the public due to some physical barrier (like a fence). This policy was rooted in the EPA’s interpretation of the definition of ambient air under 40 CFR §50.1(e), rather than explicit regulatory language.

The EPA now believes that its prior characterization that “physical barriers” must exist to exclude an area as ambient air is unnecessarily limiting. Under the EPA’s revised draft policy, a source may use various “measures,” not limited to mere “physical barriers,” to preclude public access. As a result, non-ambient air can include areas subject to video surveillance, signage, security patrols, or other measures provided that the measures “provide reasonable assurance that the general public will not have access.”

What does the EPA’s revised policy mean for stationary sources if implemented as proposed?

  1. Sources will have additional flexibility to determine what areas must be modeled for air quality analyses;
  2. The EPA’s proposed interpretation is a change in policy rather than a change in regulation, meaning that sources should still consider how their respective state or local permitting authorities interpret the meaning of ambient air;
  3. The draft policy appears to address only measures that a source can implement to preclude public access (e.g. install signs or physically patrol the area), as opposed to other physical conditions beyond fences that might already exist to preclude public access, such as roadways – this may be addressed in the final version of the EPA’s policy.

The EPA is accepting comments on its “Draft Revised Policy on Exclusions from ‘Ambient Air’” through December 21, 2018.

 

© 2018 Schiff Hardin LLP
This post was written by David M. Loring of Schiff Hardin LLP.