Tag: EPA

EPA’s Power-Plant Cooling Water Rule Takes a Surprise Endangered Species Turn

Bracewell & Giuliani Logo

A surprise awaits those who reach page 334 of the 559-page preamble to EPA’s final cooling-water-intake rule – a potentially significant expansion of the Endangered Species Act.   

The rule, which EPA has not yet officially published, is intended to protect aquatic species affected by cooling water intake at power plants and other large facilities.  It is the result of a lawsuit by environmental groups, settled by EPA, and delayed on several occasions.  Most recently, the rule was hung up as a result of concerns voiced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (the Services) about whether the final rule would do enough to protect threatened and endangered species.  EPA thought it would; the Services disagreed.  The Services’ concerns eventually caused EPA to miss a court-ordered deadline to publish the final rule.

Now that the rule is out, it appears that, in order to finally get the Service’s approval, EPA included in the final rule a first-of-its kind process that expands the Endangered Species Act to entities that previously didn’t have to comply with it.  Understanding why requires a paragraph of background:

The ESA applies to (1) anyone who might harm or harass a listed species and (2) federal government actions in general.  Federal government compliance typically involves a process under Section 7 of the Act called “consultation,” which essentially involves the agency working with the Services to determine if the action will harm species or their habitat.  Many federal environmental responsibilities are carried out at the state level, including issuing clean water act permits like the ones involved in the 316(b) rule.  But states don’t have to engage in consultation when they undertake these federal responsibilities.  Until now.

EPA’s 316(b) rule doesn’t call the new process consultation, but it looks a lot like it.  Consultation involves the federal action agency, in concert with the Services, determining whether the action will jeopardize the recovery of protected species or adversely modify their habitat.  Often, if the Services conclude that there might be an ESA issue, they recommend project changes to eliminate the possibility.  Since projects can’t go forward if the Services believe species or their habitat will be adversely affected, these recommended changes are usually adopted by the action agency.

The new 316(b) process looks very similar: The state drafts a 316(b) permit for a facility’s cooling-water intake structure.  But rather than finalize it and send it to the facility, which they do for every other clean water act permit, the state will send a copy of the draft 316(b) permit to the Services.  The Services may then provide “recommendations” on the permit.  If they do, the state must include those recommendations in the permit and the facility receiving the permit must implement them.  If not, the facility is in violation of 316(b). 

In other words, just as in consultation, the Services are consulted about impacts to species and their habitat.  If the Services have concerns, they will provide recommended changes to the State permit writer.  The State has to adopt those changes and the facility has to implement them or else the project can’t go forward.  Thus, for the first time, states issuing federal permits will have to function like a federal agency for Section 7 purposes.  We’ve attached a copy of the Services’ flowchart of the process below (in the flowchart, the state is referred to as the “Director.”). 

We’ll be following this process closely, both to see if it is challenged and to see if it spreads to other federal clean water or clean air act permitting carried out at the state level.

EPA

Article By:

Lowell M. Rothschild
Of:
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

Which Way is the Wind Blowing? U.S. Supreme Court Upholds EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

Barnes Burgandy Logo

On April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision upholding EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (also known as the Transport Rule). The Transport Rule restricts air emissions from upwind states that in EPA’s judgment contribute significantly to nonattainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards(NAAQS) in downwind states. According to EPA’s regulatory impact analysis, the Rule is expected to have significant cost implications for electric generating utilities, and much of the costs could occur in Midwestern and Southern states that were identified in the Transport Rule as contributing to nonattainment of the NAAQS for states along the East Coast.

The Transport Rule was promulgated pursuant to what is often called the “Good Neighbor” provision of the Clean Air Act. In the Rule, EPA established a two-step approach for restricting emissions in upwind states. First, EPA used air modeling to determine which upwind states contributed more than one percent to the NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 in downwind states. Second, EPA determined the level of emission reductions that could be achieved in downwind states based on cost estimates for reducing emissions. For example, EPA concluded that significant emission reductions could be obtained for a cost of $500 per ton of NOx reduced, but that at greater than $500 per ton the emission reductions were minimal. The Agency then translated those cost estimates into the amount of emissions that upwind states would be required to eliminate. Lastly, EPA developed a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) detailing how states were to comply with the emission budgets assigned under the Transport Rule.

As we previously reported in August 2012, the Transport Rule had been struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Aug. 21, 2012. The Court of Appeals struck down the rule primarily for two reasons. First, the court found the cost estimates that EPA used as a basis to justify emission reductions would in some cases result in requirements for upwind states to reduce their emissions more than necessary to eliminate “significant” contributions to nonattainment in downwind states. The court held that EPA could only require reductions proportionate to a specific upwind state’s contribution to a downwind state’s nonattainment status. Second, the court held that states should have been given an opportunity to develop their own implementation plans before EPA required states to follow the FIP in the Transport Rule.

In reversing the Court of Appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the Clean Air Act does not require EPA to mandate only proportionate reductions in emissions from upwind states. The court argued that the “proportionality approach could scarcely be satisfied in practice” because there are multiple upwind states that each affect multiple downwind states. The Court concluded that the proportionality approach would mean that “each upwind State will be required to reduce emissions by the amount necessary to eliminate that State’s largest downwind contribution,” but that would result in cumulative emission reductions and “costly overregulation.” The court also concluded that it was appropriate for EPA to use cost as a means of allocating emissions, instead of the proportionality approach favored by the D.C. Circuit.

Regarding the FIP approach, the court held that after EPA issues a NAAQS, each state is required to propose a State Implementation Plan (SIP), including requirements to satisfy the Good Neighbor provision of the Clean Air Act. Therefore, the Court held it was appropriate for EPA to establish a FIP because the statutory deadline to propose SIPs that complied with the Good Neighbor provision had passed. The court rejected the D.C. Circuit’s conclusion that it was premature to establish a FIP before EPA had made a determination regarding each upwind state’s contribution to downwind states’ nonattainment.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, authored a dissent in the case agreeing with the D.C. Circuit that costs are not contemplated as a basis for reducing emissions under the Good Neighbor provision. Further, the dissent addressed the majority opinion’s assertion that the proportionality approach would result in “costly overregulation.” The dissent stated, “over-control is no more likely to occur when the required reductions are apportioned among upwind States on the basis of amounts of pollutants contributed than when they are apportioned on the basis of cost.” The dissent went on to note, “the solution to over-control under a proportional-reduction system is not difficult to discern. In calculating good-neighbor responsibilities, EPA . . . would set upwind States’ obligations at levels that, after taking into account those reductions, suffice to produce attainment in all downwind States. Doubtless, there are multiple ways for the Agency to accomplish that task in accordance with the statute’s amounts-based, proportional focus.”

At this juncture, it is unclear whether EPA will need to promulgate additional rules to implement the Transport Rule as many of the Transport Rules’ deadlines have already expired. Additionally, it is unclear whether other legal challenges to the Transport Rule, including challenges to whether the Rule satisfies regional haze emission requirements, will delay final implementation of the Rule. Those challenges have been stayed since the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the rule in 2012 but appear to be able to proceed now that the vacatur has been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. There are also questions as to whether the Transport Rule, which was designed to help meet the 1997 ozone NAAQs of 80 ppb, will need to be reworked by EPA to meet the stricter 2008 ozone NAAQs of 75 ppb. It is also possible that estimates of emission cuts expected from the original the Transport Rule will change given the move by several power plants to convert from coal to natural gas in recent years.

A copy of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision is available here.

Article By:

Michael H. Elam
Hae Park-Suk
Of:
Barnes & Thornburg LLP

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Takes First Step Toward Possible Federal Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing

SchiffHardin-logo_4c_LLP_www

On May 9th the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) initiated a process that may result in federal regulation of the fluids used in hydraulic fracturing(fracking).  In the past 10 years, United States production of oil and gas has skyrocketed, due in part to the increased use of fracking technologies that use high‐pressure injection of fluids, sand, and chemicals to stimulate the release of oil and gas from geological formations which were difficult to access with other techniques.  While fracking technologies have been in use for some time, environmentalists have argued that the public lacked adequate information to assess whether chemicals used in fracking posed represented threats to human health or the environment.

Last Friday, the USEPA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking under Section 8 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) soliciting comment on whether companies must publicly disclose the chemicals used in the fracking process.  The notice starts the public participation process and seeks comment on

  • The types of chemical information that could be reported under TSCA;
  • The regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to obtain information on chemicals and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing activities;
  • Whether fracking-related chemicals should be regulated through a voluntary mechanism under the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990.

According to the USEPA, this process will help inform its efforts to facilitate transparency and public disclosure of chemicals used during hydraulic fracturing and will not duplicate existing reporting requirements.  James Jones, the USEPA’s assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, said that the “EPA looks forward to hearing from the public and stakeholders about public disclosure of chemicals used during hydraulic fracturing, and we will continue working with our federal, state, local, and tribal partners to ensure that we complement but not duplicate existing reporting requirements.”

The notice includes a list of questions to be considered by stakeholders and the public in formulating their comments.  The USEPA anticipates that the notice will publish in the Federal Register by the week of May 19, 2014.  The comment period closes 90 days after publication in the Federal Register.  When published, comments may be submitted through regulations.gov with reference to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-1019.

The Prepublication Copy Notice can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/prepub_hf_anpr_14t-0069_2014-05-09.pdf and more information from the USEPA on hydraulic fracturing can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/hydraulicfracturing

Article By:

Edward Casmere
J. Michael Showalter
Of: 
Schiff Hardin LLP

Environmental Review Commission Holds Final Meeting Prior to Start of 2014 Short Session

Poyner Spruill

It seemed fitting that the Environmental Review Commission (the Commission), met yesterday, Earth Day, for its last scheduled meeting before the start of the 2014 short session.  Yesterday’s meeting was chaired by Representative Ruth Samuelson.  The Commission heard presentations from Tom Reeder, Director of the Division of Water Resources at DENR, Paul Newton, North Carolina State President of Duke Energy, Edward Finley, Jr., Chairman of the North Carolina Utilities Commission, and Chris Ayers, Executive Director of the North Carolina Utilities Commission Public Staff.  At the close of the meeting the Chairwoman entertained public comment for close to an hour.

Duke Energy presented its support for a coal ash plan that could potentially incorporate several options into one solution and addresses, not only the Dan River, but other active and retired sites.  Duke Energy presented three scenarios to the committee.  The first plan, costing $2.0-2.5 billion, 1) incorporates the use of hybrid caps in places of the closure of some sites, 2) moves some sites to new lined structural fills or landfills, 3) continues the Asheville structural fill, and 4) converts some sites to dry fly ash.  The second plan, costing $6.0-8.0 billion, would incrementally excavate ash from 10 sites to landfills over a 20 to 30 year period.  The third plan, costing $7.0-10.0 billion, would incrementally move the ash to all-dry pneumatic bottom ash handling systems and include the thermally-driven evaporation of other process water.  Mr. Newton stated Duke believed the answer was somewhere between the first and second options.

The Sierra Club, the Roanoke River Basin Association, and the Catawba Riverkeeper, among several others, offered their comment.

The Sierra Club urged that the General Assembly set minimum standards for the closure of coal ash ponds such that Duke Energy could propose alternatives that adequately demonstrate effective protection of water supplies.  The Sierra Club also asked the legislature to bring coal ash under its waste management laws, since North Carolina is the only state that does not treat wet coal ash as solid waste.  Finally, the Sierra Club asked legislators to regulate structural fills and require liners and groundwater monitoring when coal ash is used as structural fill.

Other speakers asked the Commission to require the drainage and removal of coal ash from all open coal ash pits and the storage of all coal ash in dry, sealed above-ground containers or the reuse of the ash in products such as concrete.

The Commission did not take any votes and did not introduce any potential legislation.  The Commission had previously met on April 9th of this month and voted to approve its final report for the 2014 short session, which includes the Commission’s legislative proposals.

Article By:

Jillian DeCamp
Of:
Poyner Spruill LLP

EPA’s Proposed Waters of the U.S. Rule: Does It Regulate Puddles? – Environmental Protection Agency

Bracewell & Giuliani Logo

In a leaked draft, EPA was seen to have been contemplating explicitly excluding puddles from regulation, but, in the end, didn’t do so. EPA provided an explanation as to why, but the rule is so broad, we think EPA’s explanation may not be completely relevant. In other words, because the rule is so broad, many puddles actually might fall under federal jurisdiction. The reason is the host of new definitions proposed by EPA. Previously undefined terms like tributary, neighboring, and floodplain are all now defined, and in a way that creates a web of federal jurisdiction. Here’s how:

  1. The rule starts with an initial list of jurisdictional areas, which includes (a) waters that are, have been, or could be used in interstate commerce, (b) interstate waters, and (c) the territorial seas.
  2. The rule then adds to this list all tributaries of these waters. Tributary gets defined for the first time as any feature with a bed and bank that contributes flow to any water on the initial list. Many features, like dry arroyos and mountain channels, have bed and bank even though they only flow when it rains or the snow melts:
  3. The rule then continues, adding to the list of jurisdictional waters all waters that are adjacent to the initial waters and their tributaries. Adjacent is “bordering, contiguous or neighboring.”
  4. EPA then defines neighboring for the first time to include any water in the floodplain or a riparian area of the initial waters and their tributaries. These also get new definitions. Floodplain is an area along a water, formed by sediment deposition and inundated during moderate to high flows. Riparian area is one bordering any water where surface or groundwater “directly influence the ecological processes and plant and animal community structure in that area.”

The end result is that areas are jurisdictional, as far upstream as one can find a bed and bank, and as far outward from that bed and bank as the area “directly influences” the area’s ecology or is formed by sediment and gets inundation from high flows. That is a lot of area. To give you a sense of the potential breadth of areas “subject to inundation,” this map shows in blue the flooding along the Mississippi River in 2011 and the counties/parishes at risk of significant flooding:

Fully one-third of Arkansas was covered. One half of the counties in Illinois were at risk.

This brings us back to puddles. In the proposal’s preamble, EPA says it removed puddles from the “not jurisdictional” list for clarity, not to imply they are jurisdictional.

Some puddles, it says, are not jurisdictional. The language of the rule, however, suggests that puddles are arguably jurisdictional if they are in floodplains or riparian areas. The fact that puddles aren’t always wet may not be decisive: EPA considers streams which flow only when it rains or snow melts to be jurisdictional and identifies dry features as “water”:

We’re not saying that EPA would take the position that puddles are jurisdictional – our only point is that the language of the proposed rule is so broad that it could. And we haven’t even started on the “significant nexus” test.

This is the second in a series of posts regarding EPA’s proposed rule redefining “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act.

For Part One, click here.

Photo credits, from top: Photo of the Las Cruces Arroyo from Wikipedia. Mississippi River map from the US Census Bureau. Photo of a wetland from the Arid West Region Regional Supplement to the Corps’ Wetland Delineation Manual.

Article By:

Lowell M. Rothschild
Of:
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) Proposes Emergency Petcoke Rules to the Illinois Pollution Control Board

SchiffHardin-logo_4c_LLP_www

On Thursday, January 16, 2013, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA)filed a proposal and motion for emergency rulemaking regarding the containment of coke (also referred to as petroleum coke, or petcoke) and coal at bulk terminals with the Illinois Pollution Control Board (Board).  In the proposed rule, IEPA asserts that fugitive emissions emanating from several outdoor storage areas at bulk terminals in Cook County are not properly controlled and, therefore, constitute a threat to the public interest, safety, or welfare.  The rule requires sources to engage in a number of management activities, take immediate measures to suppress fugitive emissions, and totally enclose all coke and coal piles. [1]

The rule applies to coke and coal bulk terminals which are defined as sources, sites, or facilities that store, handle, blend, process, transport, or otherwise manage coke or coal.  A number of these bulk terminals are located along shipping channels and waterways such as the Calumet River, Illinois River, and the I&M Canal.  Excluded from the rule are sources, sites, or facilities that “produce” or “consume” the coke or coal, such as mines or coal-fired power plant sites.  We highlight a few key requirements and deadlines included in the proposal below, but this is not an exhaustive list.  To see the entire proposal, please click here.

  • Within 60 days, all coke and coal that has been at the source for more than a year must be moved to a location that complies with the requirements of the Act and Board regulations.
  • All other coke and coal must be used or removed within a year from the date it was received.
  • Within 45 days, sources must submit a plan to IEPA for the total enclosure of all coke and coal within two years.
  • Within 45 days, sources must submit to IEPA and follow a Coke and Coal Fugitive Dust Plan.
  • All plans submitted pursuant to the proposed rules will be posted on IEPA’s website and subject to a 30-day public comment period.
  • Beginning 60 days after the effective date, new setback requirements apply in Cook County, municipalities, and their immediate surroundings requiring coke and coal piles that are not totally enclosed to be located at least 200 feet inside the property line of the source.
  • Beginning 60 days after the effective date, all coke and coal piles must be on impermeable pads and located at least 200 feet from waters of the U.S., public water supply reservoirs and intakes, and any potable water well.
  • No loading or unloading or otherwise “disturbing” coke and coal piles when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour.
  • Sources must discontinue the use of non-paved roads within 90 days

Owners or operators of sources subject to the emergency rules will have to implement a number of other operational measures to comply with the rules.  In addition, the rule proposes rigorous recordkeeping and reporting requirements that impose, at minimum, monthly certification and reporting requirements.

The Illinois economy relies on shipping canals and water systems on a daily basis as transportation corridors so we are further reviewing this proposal to ensure the end result does not impede commerce.  The proposal raises several questions such as whether it is economically reasonable or even technically feasible to totally enclose all of these areas in the manner prescribed in the rules especially given the short timeframes for compliance.  This rule could also be reaching unintended entities.  Finally, we are reviewing whether IEPA has adequately supported that an emergency exists.  The Agency’s proposal as filed does not provide clear answers to these questions and we intend to work closely with the IEPA to help identify areas where the regulatory approach may be improved.  The Board will address IEPA’s motion at the January 23, 2014 Board meeting, but the Board can take a number of actions and the outcome is unknown.  Nonetheless, the rulemaking docket is now open to accept public comments through noon on Tuesday, January 21.  This is the time to begin educating the State and others as to the importance of the coke and coal industry to the State and nation, and to ensure that the difficulties presented by the rule are known.  Since emergency rules, once effective, have a limited effective period, the next step for the State will be to develop a more permanent framework for regulation, either through a full rulemaking or legislation.  Industry must be mindful of the need to participate fully in order to ensure any framework developed is achievable and sensible.

[1] Generally, “coke” is derived from the distillation of coal, including metallurgical coke, or “metcoke” or from oil refinery coker units or other cracking processes, including petroleum coke, or “petcoke.”  Coke is primarily used as a fuel.

Article by:

Amy Antoniolli

Of:

Schiff Hardin LLP

EPA Enforcement in 2012 Protects Communities From Harmful Pollution

The National Law Review recently published an article by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Enforcement in 2012 Protects Communities From Harmful Pollution:

EPA

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today released its annual enforcement results, showing significant environmental and public health protections achieved – a reduction of 2.2 billion pounds of air, water and land pollution, as well as 4.4 billion pounds of hazardous waste, and $252 million in civil and criminal penalties levied – while also focusing on enforcement efforts that reduce smaller amounts of pollution but have substantial health impacts in communities.

“Enforcement plays a vital role in protecting communities from harmful pollution,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “We are using vigorous enforcement, as well as innovations in monitoring and transparency, to reduce pollution violations, protect and empower communities and focus on the environmental problems that matter most.”

FY 2012 results include:

  • Sustained and focused enforcement attention on serious violators of clean drinking water standards has resulted in improvements in compliance. The number of systems with serious violations has declined by more than 60 percent in the past three years as a result of combined federal and state enforcement work, protecting people’s health through safer drinking water.
  • More than 67 percent of large combined sewer systems serving people across the country are implementing clean water solutions to reduce raw sewage and contaminated stormwater and more are underway. EPA is working with communities to design integrated solutions to these water quality problems, and incorporating innovative and cost effective green infrastructure to save money and achieve multiple community benefits.
  • EPA is bringing criminal prosecutions where criminal activity threatens public health, like failing to use required pollution control equipment or knowingly violating pollution rules resulting in death or serious harm or falsifying pollution information. See a case example in Louisiana.
  • EPA is advancing environmental justice by incorporating fenceline monitoring, which requires companies to monitor their air emissions and make that data available public, into settlements, ensuring that local residents have access to critical information about pollution that may be affecting their community. EPA also secured $44 million in additional investments through settlements for supplemental environmental projects that benefit impacted communities. See an oil refinery case example.
  • EPA is increasing transparency to use the power of public accountability to help improve environmental compliance. EPA’s 2012 enforcement actions map provides information about violators in communities. EPA’sstate dashboards and Clean Water Act pollutant loading tool provides the public with information about local pollution that may affect them and allows the public to take a closer look at how government is responding to pollution problems.

More information about EPA’s FY 2012 enforcement results:
http://www.epa.gov/enforcement/data/eoy2012/index.html

© Copyright 2012 United States Environmental Protection Agency

Court Strikes Down EPA Overreaching – Again

An article by Robert M. Stonestreet of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP regarding the EPA recently appeared in The National Law Review:

 

For the third time in the past 10 months, a federal court has declared that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has violated the law through its efforts to impose additional restrictions on coal operations in the Appalachian States. On July 31, 2012, the federal District Court for the District of Columbia struck down EPA’s “guidance memorandum” for coal-related water permitting actions. The guidance purports to establish a number of “recommendations” and “suggestions” for the Corps of Engineers and State agencies like the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) to “consider” when processing applications for mining related permits. One of the recommendations is that permits should place limitations on conductivity levels in discharges from mining operations to ensure compliance with “narrative water quality standards,” such as the requirement that discharges into State waters do not cause a “significant adverse impact” to aquatic ecosystems. Conductivity is a measurement of how well water conducts electricity and is considered to be a rough surrogate for the concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS) present in water. Neither EPA nor the Appalachian States have adopted a water quality standard for conductivity. Nonetheless, for more than two years the State agencies have been effectively prevented from issuing new water discharge permits for mining-related projects unless they included conditions that implemented the views expressed in EPA’s “guidance.”

The National Mining Association and the States of West Virginia and Kentucky sued EPA on the grounds that EPA’s “suggestions” and “recommendations” were effectively binding obligations, and therefore constituted a rulemaking action that EPA undertook without following the procedures required by law for issuing new regulations. U. S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton agreed. “Review of the Final Guidance itself and of the post-implementation evidence before the Court makes clear that the Final Guidance, whether intentionally or not, has caused EPA field offices and the State permitting authorities to believe that permits should and will be denied if its ‘suggestions’ and ‘recommendations’ are not satisfied.” Judge Walton further found that the guidance improperly interjected EPA into the permitting process for “dredge and fill” permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as well as the mining-related permits issued by State agencies like WVDEP, which have obtained federal approval to administer those permitting programs.

Judge Walton’s decision invalidating EPA’s guidance is only the latest in a string of court defeats for the EPA. In October 2011, as part of the same lawsuit, Judge Walton declared that EPA’s efforts to develop a new procedure for processing and evaluating “dredge and fill” permit applications for coal mining projects in Appalachia exceeded EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act. Following that decision, federal Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee, ruled on March 23, 2012 that EPA violated the Clean Water Act in January 2011 by attempting to retroactively “veto” a permit that was granted to Mingo Logan Coal Company in January 2007.

What does this latest decision mean for the coal industry in West Virginia?

The upshot is an affirmation that the Corps of Engineers and WVDEP are the lead regulatory agencies responsible for determining the terms of mining-related permits. More importantly, Judge Walton’s decision invalidating EPA’s guidance should mean that WVDEP is free to interpret and apply West Virginia law to determine the appropriate terms to include in mining-related permits, including what requirements are necessary to ensure compliance with West Virginia’s narrative water quality standards. Earlier this year, the West Virginia Legislature passed a bill making clear that WVDEP has the authority to interpret and apply those standards, and established a number of specific factors for WVDEP to consider. Through its guidance, EPA had effectively arrogated to itself the role of interpreting and applying the narrative water quality standards in West Virginia and the other Appalachian States.

The practical effect of the decision may be negligible, or at least short-lived. EPA has a right to review and comment on all proposed water discharge permits issued by WVDEP. EPA can formally object to those permits, and if the grounds for those objections are not resolved to its satisfaction, EPA can prevent WVDEP from issuing the permits. EPA could undertake the required rulemaking process to formally implement the invalidated guidance. EPA is also in the process of developing a water quality standard for conductivity that could potentially be forced on the States. That would present a substantial regulatory burden on all West Virginia businesses because virtually all industrial discharges, particularly from publicly owned water treatment plants and any activity entailing even temporary earth disturbance, have conductivity levels in excess of background levels, and treatment is very expensive. Right now, EPA’s focus is on the coal industry. But other industries beware. You could be next.

© 2012 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP

DC Appeals Court Upholds EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Rules

Timothy J. Lundgren of Varnum LLP recently had an article regarding EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Rules, published in The National Law Review:
Varnum LLP

The U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, upheld the EPA’s greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations against a challenge brought by business interests and the attorney generals of a number of states seeking relief from EPA’s new GHG regulations. As a result, EPA’s GHG regulations remain effective, and PSD and Title V permits must continue to include BACT limits on GHG emissions. Barring a reversal by the Supreme Court (which seems unlikely at this point) or action by Congress, the inexorable processes of the CAA will likely lead to further and more restrictive regulation of GHGs by EPA going forward.

The regulations grow out of an earlier case decided at the Supreme Court, in 2007,Massachusetts v. EPA, which determined that GHGs are an “air pollutant” for purposes of the Clean Air Act, and so are subject to regulation. Since that 2007 decision, the EPA has taken a number of steps related to GHG regulation, including issuing an Endangerment Finding (that GHGs may “reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare”), setting emission standards for cars and light trucks (the “Tailpipe Rule”), and establishing construction and operating permits for major stationary sources of GHGs. These permits would require implementation of the best available control technology (“BACT”) to limit GHG emissions.

The various Petitioners raised numerous substantive and procedural challenges to EPA’s findings, including claims that the bases for EPA’s Endangerment Finding and Tailpipe Rule were improper, that the scientific record was inadequate or improperly addressed, and that the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) had not been met during the development of these regulations, among other claims. The court upheld EPA’s review of and reliance on the scientific record it had compiled, as well as its compliance with the APA. The court also rejected challenges to major source permitting requirements, largely based on the statutory language of the Clean Air Act. Given the court’s heavy reliance on the Clean Air Act and the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision, a reversal seems unlikely without some change in direction by the high court.

© 2012 Varnum LLP

Air Quality Alert: EPA Proposes Stricter Particulate Matter Standard

An article by Environmental Law Department of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Air Quality Alert: EPA Proposes Stricter Particulate Matter Standard, was featured in The National Law Review:

On June 15, 2012, U.S. EPA proposed stricter standards to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under the Clean Air Act for fine particulate matter. The proposed rule, which is the result of a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals in the Washington D.C Circuit brought by environmental groups and certain states, proposes to tighten the annual standard for particulate matter under 2.5 microns (PM 2.5) from 15 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) (the 2006 standard) to between 12 and 13 ug/m3. The rule also proposes a new separate standard for improving visibility in urban areas of either 28 to 30 “deciviews,” a measurement of visibility. The proposed rule and “fact sheets” provided by the Agency make clear that EPA is not proposing a change to the existing 24-hour and secondary standards for fine and course particulate matter set in 2006.

EPA claims that the new standard will come at an annual cost of between $2.9 million and $69 million (depending upon a final standard of 12 or 13 ug/m3), but claims these costs are outweighed by alleged health benefits of $220 million to $5.9 billion. EPA is also claiming that all but six counties in the United States should be able to meet the new standards without additional action. However, San Bernadino and Riverside Counties in California, Santa Cruz County in Arizona, Wayne County in Michigan, Jefferson County in Alabama, and Lincoln County in Montana – are all expected to need to reduce fine particulate emissions to attain the new standards.

Under state and federal Clean Air Act regulations, counties that are out of attainment with the NAAQs can be subject to special “Retro-active Control Technology” (RACT) requirements, and new sources of fine particulate emissions will need to obtain “offsets” prior to construction among other requirements.

In addition to the new proposed standards, EPA is also proposing changes to monitoring requirements for fine particulate matter including the addition of fine particulate ambient air monitors especially along urban highways.

EPA’s proposed rule comes during an election year and is expected to draw broad criticism from Republicans and industry groups. Environmental groups are already praising the new proposed lower standards. The new proposed rule has not yet been published in the Federal Register. Comments on the new proposed rule are due within 63 days of publication in the Federal Register and can be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. The proposed rule and related fact sheets can be viewed at http://www.epa.gov/pm/actions.html.

© 2012 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP