Tag: environment

Navigable Waters Protection Rule Substantially Narrows the Scope of Waterbodies Subject to Regulation under the Clean Water Act

On January 23, 2020, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) (collectively the “Agencies”) released a final rule re-defining the term “waters of the United States” as applied under the Clean Water Act (“Final Rule”).

The Final Rule substantially narrows the scope of waterbodies subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act—notably removing interstate streams as a separate jurisdictional category; excluding ephemeral streams and water features; requiring rivers, streams and other natural channels to directly or indirectly contribute flow to a territorial sea or traditional navigable water; and excluding wetlands that are not adjacent to another non-wetland jurisdictional water. Further, the Agencies confirm that groundwater is not subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act and, consequently, that surface water features connected only via groundwater likewise are not jurisdictional. In support of this narrower scope, the Agencies explain that states and tribes retain the authority to regulate non-jurisdictional waters within their authority, provided those states and tribes deem such regulation appropriate.

The Final Rule replaces the definition of “waters of the United States” adopted under a 2015 Obama-era “WOTUS Rule” (the “2015 WOTUS Rule”), which was formally repealed by the Agencies on October 22, 2019.  As explained in previous Van Ness Feldman alerts, the 2015 WOTUS Rule expanded federal control over several types of waterbodies, particularly with respect to tributaries, adjacent waters, and wetlands. 2015 WOTUS Rule has been subject to numerous legal challenges. These challenges resulted in a patchwork regulatory regime where application of the 2015 WOTUS Rule was enjoined from implementation in 28 states, while the remaining 22 states were subject to the more expansive regulatory definition of the “waters of the United States.”

The Agencies have described the Final Rule as providing “consistency, predictability, and clarity,” as well as appropriately recognizing state and tribal regulatory authority.  The Final Rule pulls from three Supreme Court opinions in United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes (Riverside Bayview), Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States (SWANCC), and Rapanos v. United States (Rapanos) to adopt a unifying legal theory to define “waters of the United States” based on sufficient surface water connections with downstream traditional navigable waters and territorial seas.  In adopting a unifying interpretive approach, the Agencies explicitly eliminate the case-specific application of their previous interpretation of Justice Kennedy’s significant nexus test in what was called their “Rapanos Guidance.”

Under the Final Rule, the overall categories of jurisdictional and excluded waters, in many ways, are similar to the existing regulatory scheme.  As a practical matter, however, the Final Rule substantially narrows the scope of waterbodies subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act.  The Agencies classify jurisdictional and excluded waters as follows:

The Agencies will primarily rely on states and tribes to regulate non-jurisdictional waters within their authority, provided those states and tribes deem such regulation appropriate.

Among the Final Rule’s most significant changes from the 2015 WOTUS Rule’s definition of federally regulated waters of the United States are the exclusions of ephemeral streams and wetlands that are not adjacent to another non-wetland jurisdictional water.  Another notable element is the Agencies’ confirmation that groundwater is not subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act and, consequently, that surface water features connected only via groundwater likewise are not jurisdictional.

The Final Rule also provides definitions for key terms and offers guidance on their intended application of the regulated and non-regulated categories of waters.  Key issues addressed by the Agencies include:

  • “Tributary” is defined as a river, stream, or similar naturally occurring surface water channel that contributes surface water flow to a territorial sea or traditional navigable water in a typical year directly or through another jurisdictional water.  A tributary must be perennial or intermittent in a typical year.  The Agencies also explain that a tributary does not lose its jurisdictional status if it contributes surface water flow to a downstream jurisdictional water in a typical year through a channelized non-jurisdictional surface water feature, through a subterranean river, culvert, dam, tunnel or similar artificial feature, or through a debris pile, boulder field or similar natural features.  Tributaries include ditches that relocate a tributary, were constructed in a tributary, or are constructed in an adjacent wetland and have surface flow to the downstream jurisdictional water.
  • Certain delineation determinations will require the presence of the necessary jurisdictional features in a “typical year,” i.e., defined as “when precipitation and other climatic variables are within the normal periodic range (e.g. seasonally, annually) for the geographic area of the applicable aquatic resource based on a rolling thirty-year period.”
  • Ditches are not included as a separate category of jurisdictional waters, but instead are included in the definition of tributary.  Ditches that are constructed in, or that relocate, a tributary or that are constructed in adjacent wetlands are included as a tributary and are jurisdictional if the flow in the ditch is perennial or intermittent during a typical year and that flow reaches a traditional navigable water or territorial sea.  The Preamble notes that the majority of ditches used to drain surface and shallow subsurface water from croplands are expected to be non-jurisdictional.
  • Lakes, ponds and other impoundments do not lose their jurisdictional status if they contribute surface water flow to a downstream jurisdictional water through a culvert, dike, pipe, spillway, tunnel or other artificial feature or through a natural feature such as a debris pile or boulder field.  However, lakes, ponds and impoundments that are connected downstream to jurisdictional waters only by diffuse stormwater runoff or directional sheet flow over upland areas are not jurisdictional.  An ecological connection between a lake, pond or impoundment is insufficient to establish federal jurisdiction.
  • An impoundment must have a surface water connection to a downstream jurisdictional water in order to be regulated.  The downstream surface water connection does not need to be natural but may be through any manner of artificial features (tunnels, culverts, spillways, etc.).  However, lakes, ponds and impoundments that lose water only through evaporation, underground seepage or consumptive use are no longer considered jurisdictional waters.
  • Adjacent wetland are defined as wetlands that either:   (i) abut a territorial sea, traditional navigable water, or regulated lake, pond, or impoundment; (ii) are inundated by flooding from one of these jurisdictional waters; (iii) are physically separated from one of these waters by a natural berm, bank, dune or similar natural feature; or (iv) are physically separated from one of these waters by an artificial dike, barrier or other structure, including a road, that allows for a direct hydrologic surface connection with the regulated water in a typical year (such as through a culvert, flood or tide gate, pump or similar feature).  Application of these categories still requires further context to the relevant connections.  For example, the Agencies explain that a subsurface connection through porous soils is insufficient to establish jurisdiction over a wetland separated by an artificial structure, such as a dike.  Likewise, if the surface flow between the wetland and the abutting jurisdictional water across, or through, a dike or other artificial barrier only occurs after a 100-year storm event, this would not be sufficient to establish jurisdiction because the surface water connection would not occur once during a typical year.  Finally, the Final Rule eliminates the prior definition of “adjacent”—which had included the terms “bordering, contiguous, or neighboring.”  The elimination of the prior “adjacent” definition further limits the regulatory reach over wetlands under the Final Rule.

For each category of regulated waters, the Preamble in the Final Rule provides guidance on how the Final Rule will be implemented.  Issues of implementation also are addressed in an “Implementation Statement” that was concurrently issued by the Agencies.

Lawsuits challenging this Final Rule are expected, likely resulting in continuing uncertainty, and, potentially, a further state-by-state patchwork of regulation, until these cases ultimately are addressed by the Supreme Court.  For now, however, project and resource developers should carefully consider how the Final Rule may affect their permitting obligations for proposed development and work in or near waterbodies and wetlands.

© 2020 Van Ness Feldman LLP

For more on WOTUS & the Clean Water Act, see the National Law Review Environmental, Energy & Resources page.

BRAG Biobased Products Blog

USDA Requests Input On HBIIP

On January 16, 2020, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced the issuance of a Request for Information (RFI) to assist with the creation of its new program called Higher Blends Infrastructure Incentive Program (HBIIP). A USDA Rural Development project, HBIIP is designed to expand the availability of domestic ethanol and biodiesel by incentivizing the expansion of sales of renewable fuels. Requesting feedback from all interested parties, this RFI solicits information on options for fuel ethanol and biodiesel infrastructure, innovation, products, technology, and data derived from all HBIIP processes and/or science that drive economic growth, promote health, and increase public benefit. With an approaching deadline for comment submissions by January 30, 2020, thus far, only three parties have submitted comments to USDA.

DOE Announces Launch Of The 2020 Tibbetts Awards Program

On January 21, 2020, the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)/Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Programs Office announced the launch of the U.S. Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Tibbetts Awards. The Tibbetts Awards recognize companies, organizations, and individuals exemplifying the best of the best in the SBIR and STTR programs. Named after the founder of the SBIR program, Roland Tibbetts, the awards also help DOE to document the economic, technical, and societal benefits from SBIR/STTR funding. Nominees can consist of an individual, a company, or an organization that promotes the mission and goals of the SBIR/STTR programs. The mission and goals include:

  • Stimulation of technological innovation;
  • Work with small businesses to meet federal development needs;
  • Encouragement of diverse participation in innovation and entrepreneurship;
  • Increase of private sector commercialization of innovations derived research and development (R&D); and
  • Foster technology transfer through cooperative R&D between small businesses and research institutions.

Nominations are open through February 21, 2020, and can be submitted via this website.

EU Funds Project To Develop Biobased Ropes For Aquaculture

On January 17, 2020, the European Union (EU) announced a new innovative project called BIOGEARS that will be funded under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). The project focuses on the development of biobased gear solutions for the creation of an eco-friendly offshore aquaculture sector using a multitrophic approach and new biobased value chains. With the aim to address the gap of biobased ropes for offshore aquaculture, which is currently manufactured with 100 percent non-recyclable plastics, BIOGEARS will create a biobased value chain under the EU Bioeconomy Strategy framework. The European Bioeconomy Strategy aims to accelerate the deployment of a sustainable and circular European bioeconomy to maximize its contribution towards the 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), as well as the Paris Agreement. With the goal of increasing aquaculture marketable products, BIOGEARS uses an Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) approach by integrating seaweed with mussel production. The BIOGEARS project’s intention is to develop biobased ropes that are tough, durable, and fit-for-purpose while still able to biodegrade in shorter time and managed by local composting facilities.

As part of the project, all project partners will participate in a BLUE LAB to enhance cooperation and enable tracking of innovation of the new biobased materials developed. Project coordinator, Leire Arantzamendi, expressed her hopes of boosting more eco-friendly mussel and seaweed production stating that BIOGEARS “will generate three rope prototypes with a highly reduced carbon footprint along the value chain.” The project will focus on the Atlantic Basin.

©2020 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

For more developments in the Biotech sphere, see the National Law Review Biotech, Food & Drug law section.

House Committee Releases Framework for Comprehensive Climate Legislation

In early 2019, House of Representatives leadership directed each House committee to examine policies within its legislative jurisdiction to address the complex challenges of global climate change. In addition, House leadership created a Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, which would work with standing committees who have jurisdiction, such as the Energy and Commerce Committee, to deliver climate policy recommendations. Standing committees with jurisdiction, as well as the Select Committee, have been holding hearings, moving legislation, and asking the public for ideas and input since the 116th Congress convened in January of 2019.

As a result of these efforts, last week Democratic leadership of the House Energy & Commerce Committee announced their intention to release comprehensive climate change legislation—the Climate Leadership and Environmental Action for our Nation’s (CLEAN) Future Act. The Committee Democrats released a 15-page memorandum outlining the parameters, goals, and timeline for the Committee’s work on the forthcoming bill (the “Legislative Framework”). Comprehensive draft legislative text is expected to be released by the end of January. The Committee also announced its intentions to proceed with legislative action on some bills already introduced. The Committee’s Energy Subcommittee marked up nine such bills on January 9 and reported them for consideration by the full Committee.

Committee Democrats intend the forthcoming bill to create a process to vet and deliberate policies that would address the climate challenge.  It will provide an opportunity to analyze, debate, and refine policies proposed in the Legislative Framework.  At the press announcement, Committee Chair Frank Pallone (D-NJ) stated he intends to engage in the process on a bipartisan basis and hopes that Republicans will participate in the Committee’s forthcoming legislative efforts.

This alert examines the potential implications of the proposed legislation and provides a comprehensive breakdown by industry sector of the first major set of climate-related policy recommendations from the House Energy & Commerce Committee that could result in formal legislative action in over a decade.

Policy Recommendations

According to the Legislative Framework, the CLEAN Future Act would establish programs and policies aimed at achieving net-zero, economy-wide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050. The legislation will be the product of a months-long fact-finding effort by the Committee, which has held fifteen climate-related hearings since the beginning of the 116th Congress and has solicited stakeholder input from the environmental community, environmental justice advocates, labor advocates, industry representatives, and the public. In addition, the legislation will incorporate numerous bills previously introduced by Democrats during this Congress.

The CLEAN Future Act is also notable for what it is not expected to include – a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade program. Committee Chairman Frank Pallone has stated that the CLEAN Future Act can achieve its goals without a carbon tax and that such a policy is outside the Committee’s jurisdiction in any event (the House Ways and Means Committee maintains jurisdiction over all tax-related matters). Jurisdictional boundaries also mean that the CLEAN Future Act does not include some additional provisions under the jurisdiction of other committees, such as energy technology research and development, agriculture, or potential tax-related policies.

Finally, the CLEAN Future Act would not remove any of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) existing authorities under the Clean Air Act to regulate GHG emissions, but rather would augment those authorities as discussed in the summary of the Legislative Framework, below.

Next Steps

The House Energy & Commerce Committee Leadership said they expect to release draft legislative text for the CLEAN Future Act by the end of January. In the interim, the Committee will continue to hold hearings and markups on smaller, sector-specific legislation that may be included in the broader CLEAN Future Act.

Other House committees are also working on climate policy. The House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis is set to release a suite of legislative recommendations in March to inform the development of climate change legislation considered by other Committees that have authority to legislate as well as conduct oversight. Last year, the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Department of Energy (DOE) research programs, approved a series of bills aimed at increasing and improving energy technology innovation. The House Natural Resources Committee introduced legislation in December 2019 that aims to achieve net-zero GHG emissions from public lands and waters by 2040. In addition, the House Ways and Means Committee released a discussion draft in November 2019 for the Growing Renewable Energy and Efficiency Now (GREEN) Act. The GREEN Act would extend and expand existing tax incentives that promote renewable energy and increase energy efficiency. If a carbon tax proposal emerges for Congressional consideration, it would come from that Committee as well.

Congressional Republicans and the White House have thus far opposed the kind of legislative and regulatory mandates contemplated for the CLEAN Future Act, instead offering support for policies that promote energy innovation through funding of research and development programs at DOE. In the Senate, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, led by Chairman Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), is currently developing a comprehensive legislative package focused on energy innovation that could be voted on and readied for full Senate consideration in the first half of 2020.

It is possible that a set of climate-related bills that have been approved by other Committees could receive a House vote as a smaller legislative package this year, particularly as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has committed to bringing climate change legislation for a vote on the House floor in 2020. Some candidates for inclusion in such a package are bills that were reported out of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee that would reauthorize DOE research programs for wind, solar, geothermal, battery storage, and carbon capture and storage.

Even if the entirety of the CLEAN Future Act does not receive a vote in this Congress, entities in affected industries, states, and localities should consider participating in the public process to shape the bill because it is intended to lay down a marker for policies that Democrats are likely to pursue if they prevail in the Presidential election and gain additional seats in Congress.

Specific Elements of the CLEAN Future Act Described in the Legislative Framework

     Title I: National Climate Target for Federal Agencies

The CLEAN Future Act would direct all federal agencies to use existing authorities to achieve economy-wide net-zero GHG emissions by 2050. The bill would take a technology-neutral approach and direct the EPA to evaluate each agency’s plans, make recommendations, and report on progress each year.

     Title II: Power Sector

The CLEAN Future Act would establish a Clean Electricity Standard (CES) requiring all retail electricity suppliers to supply 100 percent clean energy by 2050. The Legislative Framework states that the CLEAN Future Act would incorporate elements of two separate CES bills, one introduced by Senator Tina Smith (D-MN) (S. 1359) and Congressman Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM) (H.R. 2597) and another currently being developed by Energy & Commerce Committee member Diana DeGette (D-CO). The CES under the CLEAN Future Act would allow suppliers to buy and trade clean energy credits, purchase them via auction, or pay an “alternative compliance payment.” As outlined, the CES would provide a limited pathway for continued use of coal and natural gas-fired power by authorizing fossil fuel generators with carbon intensities lower than 0.82 metric tons of CO2 (after any carbon capture) to receive partial credit. An outstanding issue is whether and how existing hydropower would be credited in the CES.

The bill would also direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to: (1) reform energy markets to reduce barriers to integration of clean resources—including energy storage systems and distributed energy resources—and (2) consider climate impacts in reviewing proposed new natural gas pipelines. It also mandates RTO and ISO membership for all electric providers and proposes reforms to the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act of 1978 (PURPA) to promote energy storage deployment and “non-wires solutions,” as well as protecting qualifying facilities’ right-to-contract. Transmission, demand response, transformer reserves, and many other policies affecting the power sector are also addressed in the summary of the legislation.

     Title III: Buildings and Efficiency

According to the Legislative Framework, the CLEAN Future Act would establish targets for model building energy codes for use by states and localities, leading to a requirement of zero-energy-ready buildings by 2030.

     Title IV: Transportation

The CLEAN Future Act would direct EPA to set increasingly stringent GHG emission standards for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles. The bill would also provide support for the development of electric vehicles (EVs) and EV-charging infrastructure, a top priority for House Democrats. The Legislative Framework anticipates provisions for shifting to lower carbon transportation fuels, including for aviation and shipping.

     Title V: Industry

The CLEAN Future Act would establish a “Buy Clean Program” that sets carbon intensity performance targets for construction materials and other products used in federally-funded projects. The legislation would also extend eligibility of DOE’s Section 1703 Loan Guarantee Program to industrial decarbonization projects. Finally, the bill would establish a technology commercialization program for carbon capture and utilization and a prize for direct air capture technologies.

     Title VI: Environmental Justice

The CLEAN Future Act would codify Executive Order 12898 established by President Clinton, which requires federal agencies to integrate environmental justice into their missions. The bill would also introduce environmental justice considerations into the approval of state plans for air pollution regulation and disposal of hazardous waste.

     Title VII: Super Pollutants (Short-Lived Pollutants)

The Legislative Framework also describes provisions that would address short-lived climate pollutants, which account for 20 percent of U.S. GHG emissions on a carbon dioxide-equivalent basis. For example, the legislation would direct the oil and gas sector to reduce methane emissions 65 percent below 2012 levels by 2025, and 90 percent below 2012 levels by 2030. The bill would also prohibit routine flaring for new sources and limit routine flaring for existing sources to 80 percent below 2017 levels by 2025—with a complete phase-out of the practice by 2028. The bill would further direct EPA to regulate emissions from liquefied natural gas facilities and offshore oil and gas operations.

     Title VIII: Economy-wide Policies

Other provisions planned for the bill include energy efficiency programs, State Climate Plans, a National Climate Bank, and workforce training programs.

Regarding State Climate Plans, the bill would set a national climate standard of net-zero GHG emissions in each state by 2050 and grant states flexibility in developing policy plans to meet the standard. Each state plan would be subject to EPA approval. Funding for existing climate-related grant programs and funding for state initiatives are expected to be a significant part of this section of the legislation.

Regarding the National Climate Bank, the bill would incorporate previously introduced legislation, the National Climate Bank Act (H.R. 5416), aimed at mobilizing public and private capital to provide financing for low- and zero-emissions energy technologies, climate resiliency, building efficiency and electrification, industrial decarbonization, grid modernization, agriculture projects, and clean transportation. The bill would require the Bank to prioritize investments in communities that are disproportionately affected by the impacts of climate change.

© 2020 Van Ness Feldman LLP

For updates on the CLEAN Future Act, follow the National Law Review Environmental, Energy & Resources law page.

NEPA Overhaul? CEQ Proposes Significant Changes to Federal Environmental Review

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a division of the Executive Office of the President, today published in the Federal Register a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would make significant changes to its regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

CEQ’s efforts spring from a 2017 Executive Order that directed it to “enhance and modernize the Federal environmental review and authorization process” by, among other initiatives, ensuring “that agencies apply NEPA in a manner that reduces unnecessary burdens and delays as much as possible, including by using CEQ’s authority to interpret NEPA to simplify and accelerate the NEPA review process.”  Today’s publication, the first comprehensive update of the CEQ NEPA regulations since their promulgation in 1978, proposes noteworthy reductions in the scope of and timeline for federal environmental review.

Key proposed changes include:

  • Limiting the scope of the NEPA review.  CEQ proposes to exclude from NEPA review non-federal projects with minimal federal funding or minimal federal involvement such that the agency cannot control the outcome on the project, reasoning that “[i]n such circumstances, there is no practical reason for an agency to conduct a NEPA analysis because the agency could not influence the outcome of its action to address the effects of the project.”  The impact of this change on privately-funded (i.e., non-federal) projects is unclear, however, because major federal actions subject to NEPA review under the proposed rule include “actions approved by permit or other regulatory decision as well as Federal and federally assisted activities.”
  • Eliminating cumulative impact analyses.  CEQ proposes to change how to address cumulative impacts, such that analysis of cumulative effects is not required under NEPA, finding that “categorizing and determining the geographic and temporal scope of such effects has been difficult and can divert agencies from focusing their time and resources on the most significant effects,” and “can lead to encyclopedic documents that include information that is irrelevant or inconsequential to the decision-making process.”
  • Requesting comments on GHGs.  The effect that elimination of cumulative impact analyses will have on NEPA review of the greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts of a proposed project is unclear.  Just last summer, in its proposed draft guidance on how NEPA analyses should address GHG emissions, “Draft National Environmental Policy Act Guidance on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” CEQ stated that “the potential effects of GHG emissions are inherently a global cumulative effect.” CEQ has invited comment on this issue, noting that if it finalizes its proposed rulemaking, it would review the draft GHG guidance for potential revisions consistent with the regulations.
  • Establishing time limits of two years for completion of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) and one year for completion of Environmental Assessments.  Currently, the average time for federal agencies to complete an EIS is four and a half years.  A two-year presumptive time limit, measured from the date of the issuance of the notice of intent to the date a record of decision is signed, would bring the majority of EISs within the timeline achieved by only a quarter of EISs prepared over the last decade, according to the CEQ’s report on EIS Timelines.

Because the rulemaking proposes sweeping changes to NEPA, these changes likely will be challenged in court.  Nevertheless, the changes are indicative of a federal push to reduce the scope and time of environmental review, particularly related to highway and energy infrastructure projects.  In an op-ed piece, CEQ Chairwoman Mary B. Neumayr stated that the proposed changes “would modernize, simplify, and accelerate the NEPA process in order to promote public involvement, increase transparency, and enhance the participation of states, tribes, and localities. These changes would also reduce unnecessary burdens and delays and would make important clarifications to improve the decision-making process.”

Public comments are due March 10, 2020.  CEQ will host two public hearings on the proposed rule: in Denver, CO, on February 11, 2020 and in Washington, DC, on February 25, 2020.

©2020 Pierce Atwood LLP. All rights reserved.

More from The Council on Environmental Quality in the National Law Review Environmental, Energy & Resources legal articles’ section.

NJDEP Releases Report on Sea-Level Rise in New Jersey

On December 12, 2019, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) released a report discussing historical sea-level rise (“SLR”) in New Jersey and estimating SLR for the next 100+ years. The Rising Seas and Changing Coastal Storms report (“Report”) was commissioned by NJDEP and prepared by Rutgers University’s New Jersey Science and Technical Advisory Panel.

The historical data provided in the Report evince New Jersey’s particular vulnerability to SLR, as SLR along its coast has consistently remained higher than the total change in the global average sea-level. For example, from 1911 to 2019, SLR along the New Jersey coast rose 17.6 inches (1.5 feet) compared to 7.6 inches (0.6 feet) globally. In addition, over the last 40 years, the average rate of SLR on the New Jersey coast was 0.2 inch/year compared to 0.1 inch/year globally.

According to the projections in the Report, it is likely that SLR in New Jersey will continue to rise but at even higher rates over the next 30 years. The Report estimates that there is, at minimum, a 66% chance that New Jersey will experience SLR of 0.5 to 1.1 foot/feet between 2000 and 2030, and 0.9 to 2.1 feet between 2000 and 2050.

Interestingly, the Report presents three different scenarios when taking into account SLR projections after 2050. The Report states that such projections “increasingly depend upon the pathway of future global greenhouse gas emissions.” Under a “high-emissions scenario, consistent with the strong, continued growth of fossil fuel consumption,” New Jersey will likely experience SLR of 1.5 to 3.5 feet between 2000 and 2070, and 2.3 to 6.3 feet between 2000 and 2100. Under a “moderate-emissions scenario, roughly consistent with current global policies,” New Jersey will likely experience SLR of 1.4 to 3.1 feet between 2000 and 2070, and 2.0 to 5.2 feet between 2000 and 2100. Under a “low-emissions scenario, consistent with the global goal of limiting to 2°C above early industrial (1850-1900) levels,” New Jersey will likely experience SLR of 1.3 to 2.7 feet between 2000 and 2070, and 1.7 to 4.0 feet between 2000 and 2100.

As stated by Governor Phil Murphy in NJDEP’s press release regarding the Report, “New Jersey is extremely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and we must work together to be more resilient against a rising sea and future storms.”

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

For more on state environmental concerns, see the National Law Review Environmental, Energy & Resources law page.

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.

PFAS Rolling into Regulation

Introduction

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, abbreviated as PFAS, are a class of widely dispersed chemicals quickly gaining notoriety in the public health and environmental remediation space. In 2019, rapid developments toward regulation to govern the investigation and cleanup of PFAS contamination to protect human health are occurring in a wide variety of arenas, including federal regulation and congressional action as well as at the state level through both regulation and enacted legislation. This article examines the current state of regulatory developments for PFAS and projects where things are heading in the remainder of 2019, with particular focus on how those developments will incentivize and accelerate the pace of site cleanups and cost recovery, and pose significant challenges to existing sites where other contaminants are already being addressed.

What are PFAS?

PFAS are a class of more than 4,000 synthetic chemicals comprised of carbon-fluorine chains of varying lengths. PFAS have been in use since the late 1940s, due to their unique resistant physical and chemical properties. For example, PFAS have been used in non-stick applications such as cookware, paper packaging, and textiles, as well as in certain types of firefighting foam.[1] The two most widely studied PFAS are perfluorooctane sulfonate or PFOS and perfluorooctanoic acid or PFOA.

Over the past decade, understanding of PFAS and their potential toxicity to humans and the environment has increased. Of particular concern is their stability in the environment. The properties that made PFAS so desirable for commercial and industrial use keep these compounds from degrading in the environment and allow them to pose a long-term threat if not removed from the environment and/or from drinking water supplies. Common exposure to these compounds can come through their product use as well as drinking from contaminated water supplies impacted by their release. Also notable are the very low levels at which these compounds exhibit their toxicity, and the very stringent levels under consideration by the regulatory agencies for controlling these compounds. For example, EPA has set interim screening levels of 70 nanograms per liter (parts per trillion or ppt), and several states have proposed guidance levels of 15 ppt or less. For context, 15 ppt is equivalent to a few droplets in an Olympic-sized swimming pool.

Federal Regulatory Developments

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) authorizes cleanup at sites where hazardous substances have been released, and enables parties conducting cleanups to seek cost recovery from other potentially responsible parties. The ability to potentially recover costs under CERCLA can be an important driver in encouraging impacted parties to investigate and remediate contaminated sites. However, as an emerging contaminant class, PFAS are not currently regulated as hazardous substances under CERCLA.

In February 2019, EPA issued an Action Plan outlining its steps to address PFAS and protect public health.[2] Among its listed priority actions was to propose a national drinking water regulatory determination for the two most widely studied PFAS, PFOA and PFOS, by the end of 2019. This proposed determination would begin the process towards establishment of a maximum contaminant level, or MCL, for these compounds. Another priority action was to initiate the process to list PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous substances; in April of 2019 at a meeting of state regulators, EPA committed to proposing this hazardous substance designation by the end of 2019.[3] Such a designation will have a multitude of impacts, including 1) PFOA and/or PFOS-contaminated sites will be eligible for listing as Superfund sites; 2) Federal and State authorities will have mechanisms through which they can seek damages or cleanup costs from responsible parties; and 3) Superfund monies will be eligible for use in cleaning up sites contaminated with PFOA and/or PFOS.

This commitment to regulate PFOA and PFOS under CERCLA was reaffirmed in a keynote speech of EPA’s General Counsel on September 12th at the American Bar Association, Section Environment, Energy, and Resources Fall Conference in Boston, Massachusetts. In his speech, the Honorable Matthew Leopold indicated that EPA was actively looking at designating PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous substances by year’s end. This would represent one of the few times in which new contaminants such as these were regulated under CERCLA.

Concurrent with these EPA actions, congressional legislators have called for increased and expedited federal action to regulate PFOA and PFOS, and in some cases the entire PFAS class of 4000 plus chemicals. There have been several bills proposed in 2019 which would commit EPA to taking expedited action with regards to PFAS, including listing some or all PFAS as hazardous substances, and establishing federal MCLs.[4] Perhaps most notably are two bills regarding appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act. S.1790 (passed by the Senate on June 27, 2019) would require EPA to promulgate drinking water MCLs for PFOA and PFOS within two years of enactment, and H.R.2500 (passed by the House on July 12, 2019) would require EPA to designate all PFAS as hazardous substances within one year of enactment.

State officials have also actively petitioned for more expedited federal action on PFAS. On July 30, 2019, 22 state and territory attorneys general issued a letter to Congress requesting that certain PFAS be designated hazardous substances, in particular, PFOA, PFOS, and a PFOA-replacement chemical known as GenX. In their letter, the attorneys general specifically note that such a designation would promote cleanup efforts, including federal facilities formerly owned or operated by the US Department of Defense.[5]

Based on these developments from multiple agencies and levels of government, it appears likely that in the relatively short term PFOA and PFOS will be designated as hazardous substances under CERCLA. This in turn will open the door for CERCLA regulation of PFAS-contaminated sites. Once designated, the next question will be one of appropriate cleanup levels. Typically, EPA would take the lead with establishment of MCLs that can be used to develop risk-based cleanup levels, and from which states could either adopt or modify. However, the process for proposing and finalizing a federal MCL can take years. Thus, faced with increasing public pressure to respond to PFAS contamination, the states have stepped in to fill this gap.

State Regulatory Developments

In November 2018, New Jersey became the first state to issue an MCL for any individual PFAS, specifically for the chemical perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA).[6] For PFOA and PFOS, there are currently no state MCLs that have been finalized. However, many states have established PFOA and PFOS advisory or screening levels, and several states have begun the MCL rule-making process, with some anticipating finalization this year.

In 2019, three states have proposed MCLs of varying concentrations for PFOA and PFOS:

  • In April, New Jersey proposed an MCL of 14 ppt for PFOA and 13 ppt for PFOS; the public comment period has since closed, and the standard is in the process of finalization;[7]
  • In June, New Hampshire proposed an MCL of 12 ppt for PFOA and 15 ppt for PFOS (they also proposed MCLs for two other PFAS chemicals);[8] those MCLs were approved on July 18,[9] and will become effective on October 1; and
  • In July, New York proposed an MCL of 10 ppt for PFOA and PFOS making them the most protective standards in the nation; the proposal is currently out for public comment, which closes on September 24.[10]

In addition, several other states have provided commitments to establishing MCLs in the near future. These include Massachusetts with an MCL rule proposal anticipated by the end of 2019;[11] Michigan with an MCL rule proposal expected by October with finalization in 2020;[12] and Vermont with a commitment to establishing and adopting MCLs by February 1, 2020.[13] Other states are also moving forward with efforts to regulate PFAS. For example, in August 2019 California established notification levels for PFOS and PFOA in drinking water of 6.5 ppt and 5.1 ppt, respectively, that go into effect January 1, 2020. [14],[15]

Conclusion

With federal and state regulatory action underway, and mounting public pressure to expedite a response, it is clear that regulation of some PFAS under CERCLA is imminent. By the end of the year, it is likely that 1) EPA will have designated, or be close to designating, PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances; and 2) several states will have finalized MCLs to regulate their remedial response. These two developments will open the door for parties to investigate, cleanup, and ultimately recover the costs associated with PFAS-contaminated sites. In addition, these developments will likely complicate existing sites in terms of both their required remedial response as well as their cost recovery strategy. New PFAS regulation at existing sites will unlock a myriad of cost implications not the least of which involve cost allocation among potentially responsible parties. In the face of these complications and uncertainties, what is clear is that PFAS regulation has rolled off the horizon and directly in front of those involved with protecting public health and the environment.

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm or its clients. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or accounting advice.

[1]  For a more thorough background on the history and usage of PFAS, see the Interstate Technology Regulatory Council fact sheets at https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/

[2] https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-acting-administrator-announces-first-ever-comprehensive-nationwide-pfas-action-1

https://www.epa.gov/pfas/epas-pfas-action-plan

[3] https://www.asdwa.org/2019/04/11/cooperative-federalism-pfas-are-top-issues-at-ecos-spring-meeting/

[4]  https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45793.pdf

[5]  https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/AG/Press_Releases/2019/Multistate-PFAS-Legislative-Letter73019FINAL.pdf

[6]  New Jersey regulated PFNA largely in response to a regional issue relating to specific historic discharges from a chemical manufacturing facility.

[7]  https://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/notices/20190401a.html

[8]  https://www.des.nh.gov/media/pr/2019/20190628-pfas-standards.htm

[9]  https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rules/jlcar/minutes/AM7-18-19.pdf

[10]  https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-availability-350-million-water-system-upgrades-statewide-and-directs

[11]  https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/06/20/pfas-stakeholder-presentation-20190620.pdf

At the American Bar Association, Section Environment, Energy, and Resources Fall Conference in Boston, Massachusetts, the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection participated in a panel discussion titled “The State of CERCLA Following EPA Reform: More of the Same or Something Super?” In this discussion, Mr. Suuberg indicated that Massachusetts will finalize its PFAS standards by the end of the year, and in an accompanying paper noted that the comment period on the proposed cleanup standard of 20 ppt (for a sum of six PFAS) had closed in July and was currently under review.

[12]       https://www.michigan.gov/egle/0,9429,7-135-3308_3323-494077–rss,00.html

[13]       https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/PFAS/Docs/Act21-2019-VT-PFAS-Law-Factsheet.pdf

[14]            https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/PFOA_PFOS.html

[15]      California already had notification levels of 14 ppt for PFOA and 13 ppt for PFOS and will continue to have a response level for those drinking water systems exceeding 70 ppt for the total combined concentration of both compounds, consistent with EPA’s advisory level. 

© Copyright Nathan 2019

ARTICLE BY Brian Henthorn and Christopher Loos of Nathan.
For more PFAS Regulation developments, see the National Law Review Environmental, Energy & Resources law page.

Washington’s Model Toxics Control Act: Transforming Contaminated Sites into Community and Environmental Assets

The Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) has been cleaning up contaminated sites in Washington State for 30 years. On December 10, 2019, Beveridge & Diamond and the Environmental Law Institute will be hosting a seminar (MTCA 30) to celebrate the success and examine the future of the state’s cleanup statute with an all-star program featuring some of the state’s leading experts. In advance of the seminar, B&D is publishing a series of articles focused on MTCA.

MTCA’s Many Triumphs

MTCA has been spurring the cleanup of contaminated sites in Washington for 30 years. Since MTCA went into effect, over 7,000 sites have been cleaned up. While the workhorse statute is not going to take a rest anytime soon, with more than 6,000 sites requiring further action before closure and over 200 new sites identified each year, the citizen’s initiative already has amassed an impressive legacy. Below are just a few of the many examples where MTCA has been instrumental in turning contaminated properties into productive community and environmental assets – on both large and small scales and in urban and rural areas of Washington.

  • Mount Baker Housing Association – Restoring Brownfields to Provide Affordable Housing in Seattle’s Rainier Valley. In 2016, the Mount Baker Housing Association (MBHA) entered into a prospective purchaser consent decree with the State of Washington to investigate and ultimately clean up chlorinated solvent contamination from a former dry cleaner and petroleum contamination from a former gas station and auto repair facility. The innovative use of MTCA’s prospective purchaser provisions allowed the nonprofit affordable housing developer to take on the risks of investing in properties with known contamination while gaining liability protections and expanding housing options for lower-income earners in an expensive real estate market. Importantly, the settlement also has provided a vehicle for MBHA to receive public funds to cover at least some of the remedial action costs. Just the other week, MBHA released a draft remedial investigation / feasibility study and a draft cleanup action plan for public comment.

  • Puget Sound Initiative – Ensuring Healthy Habitats in Padilla and Fidalgo Bays. In 2007, the Department of Ecology (Ecology) identified seven bays around Puget Sound where it would prioritize cleaning up contaminated sites and habitat restoration. In Padilla and Fidalgo Bays in northern Puget Sound, six industrial waterfront sites have been cleaned up while work on five other sites is in progress. The bays are home to valuable marine habitat, including extensive eelgrass beds, which serve as groundfish nurseries. The sites that have been cleaned up in the last 15 years include a former oil tank farm, a former lumber mill and pulp mill, a boatyard, and former milling, shipbuilding, and marina operations, among others.

  • Kittitas Valley Fire and Rescue – Building a New Fire Station in Ellensburg. When the Kittitas Valley Fire and Rescue was looking for a new fire station location, it purchased a property that had been used for hay scales, as well as truck repair and fueling, with associated soil and groundwater contamination. During property redevelopment, the contamination was investigated and remediated, with assistance from Ecology. With effective planning and use of the building design as a protective cap, cleanup was completed for under $250,000 and in under three months.

  • Kendall Yards – Transforming an Old Railyard in Spokane. In 2005, River Front Properties, LLC entered Ecology’s Voluntary Cleanup Program to address contamination at a 78-acre site to the northwest of Spokane’s downtown area. The site had been used extensively for locomotive repair and servicing and had served as a location for plating and storage operations. Over a single year, 200,000 tons of soil contaminated with petroleum, PAHs, and metals were removed from the site. Now, Kendall Yards has turned into a vibrant community with a growing collection of houses, apartment buildings, offices, and restaurants.

  • Gas Stations, Dry Cleaners, and Underground Storage Tanks Around the State. Contaminated sites are not caused only by heavy industrial operations. Many of the most common sources of contamination are gas stations, dry cleaners, and other businesses with underground storage tanks. Ecology has identified over 7,000 leaking tanks in the state. But significant progress is being made. Contamination from over 4,000 tanks has been remediated, and cleanup has started for over 2,000 more tanks. For gas stations, Ecology has entered into multi-site agreements to facilitate and coordinate cleanups for parties with larger portfolios of sites. Collectively, efforts to address contamination at service stations and dry cleaners have resulted in about a thousand NFA determinations under MTCA.

  • Substantial Public Funding for Cleanups and Related Projects. The 1988 citizens’ initiative resulted in a tax on the “first possession” of hazardous substances in Washington, in addition to MTCA’s cleanup framework. Although the tax revenue has fluctuated due to volatility in oil prices, it generated around $2.2 billion between 1988 and 2017 to support Ecology programs and to fund cleanups and related environmental projects around the state. This funding is critical to remediating sites where sufficient private dollars are not available. For instance, between 2015 and 2017, Ecology provided $1.2 million to remediate American Legion Park in Everett. The park was impacted by the nearby former Asarco smelter. The area-wide cleanup has exceeded the dollars collected in a 2009 bankruptcy settlement with Asarco. This year, the state legislature converted the tax on petroleum products from a price-based tax to a volumetric tax with the goal of making funding more predictable. The Department of Revenue also has estimated that revenues under the new tax will be higher.

© 2019 Beveridge & Diamond PC

For more environmental site developments, see 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.

DOJ Policy Review of SEPs May Have Big Implications for Company Environmental Settlements

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is in the midst of a comprehensive policy review regarding the use of Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) in settlements of environmental enforcement actions. This review could potentially have far-reaching implications for companies that seek to settle such actions brought by either the federal government, or in the case of a citizen suit, a non-governmental organization (NGO). It remains to be seen if the ongoing SEP policy review will result in additional limits on the use of SEPs in settlement, thus limiting the flexibility in achieving penalty mitigation that has been a hallmark of environmental enforcement case resolutions for nearly three decades.

SEPs have been popular among both governmental and non-governmental defendants in enforcement cases for nearly thirty years. SEPs allow settling parties to mitigate a portion of a civil penalty in exchange for performance of environmentally beneficial projects. Under long standing SEP policy, settling parties can receive up to a maximum of 80 percent credit towards mitigation of a portion of a civil penalty for funds expended in performance of SEPs. This policy has proven popular in local communities that benefit from the projects, and these benefits are something that is beyond what is required to achieve compliance with the law. In the early 1990s, SEPs tended to be the exception to the norm of environmental enforcement settlements. But during the later 1990s, SEPs became quite common – even typical.

It is possible that the current ongoing review of SEP policy could result in greater scrutiny of use of SEPs in settlements with companies. Further restrictions on the use of SEPs could take many forms, including limitations on the funds expended, greater scrutiny of the nexus of the SEP to the underlying violations, and even potential elimination of the use of SEPs altogether. Typically, settling parties would much prefer including a SEP as part of a settlement, rather than simply paying all of its out-of-pocket costs as a civil penalty, so further restrictions or elimination of SEPs altogether would not be a positive development for the regulated community.

It is clear that the current administration takes a much more skeptical view of the appropriateness of SEPs than any prior administration. This past August, Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD) Jeffrey Clark issued a memorandum to all ENRD Section Chiefs outlining new limits on the use of SEPs. Under the new policy, the use of SEPs is prohibited in settlements involving state and local governments, which gives less flexibility to both state and local governments as well as DOJ enforcement attorneys in determining appropriate resolution of enforcement cases.

This latest SEP policy memorandum builds on last November’s memorandum from the Attorney General outlining policies and procedure for civil consent decrees and settlements with state and local governments. This November memorandum included a directive that consent decrees “must not be used to achieve general policy goals or to extract greater or different relief from than could be obtained through agency enforcement authority or by litigation the matter to judgment.” Part of the intent of the outlined policy was to ensure accountability of state and local governments as to their policy goals.

Building on this in reference to SEPs, Clark stated “A clearer example of a form of relief that falls within the prohibition in the November 2018 Policy is difficult to imagine.” Clark left open the possibility of limited case-by-case exceptions to the broader policy of the prohibition, under certain limited conditions, pending his further overall review of SEP policies. But Clark further stated that even if certain limitations are satisfied, “there is no guarantee that I will recommend approval . . . “of including a SEP as part of a settlement with a state or local government.”

© 2019 Schiff Hardin LLP

For more Supplemental Environmental Project issues, see the National Law Review Environmental, Energy & Resources law page.