In a controversial change, the 2015 version of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) general permit for industrial stormwater discharges (known as the Multi-Sector General Permit, or MSGP) expressly prohibits the discharge of any pollutants that are not listed in the permit. The prior version of the MSGP – issued in 2008 – did not include this express prohibition on discharges of unlisted pollutants. As a result of this change, facilities operating under the MSGP may need to supplement their reliance on the general permit with a separate, facility-specific National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit or be at increased risk of liability for discharges of unlisted pollutants. The 2015 MSGP became effective on June 4, 2015, and facilities operating under the expiring 2008 version of the MSGP must submit their Notices of Intent to operate under the 2015 MSGP by September 2, 2015, absent an extension from EPA. Continue Reading
On May 7, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a direct final rule in the Federal Register. The rule allows for rescission of certain Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits under the Clean Air Act. The agency took this step in response to the Supreme Court’s decision last year in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014).
In UARG, the Court struck part of EPA’s so-called Tailoring Rule. In this Rule, EPA had provided that new or modified stationary sources emitting more than a certain amount of greenhouse gases must obtain PSD permits, limiting their emissions of greenhouse gases, whether or not they also emit one or more traditional pollutants at a level sufficient to trigger such a requirement. But because sources emit greenhouse gases in much greater quantities than they do traditional pollutants, applying the express statutory threshold designed with those pollutants in mind could have required EPA to issue permits to millions of sources nationwide. In the Rule, EPA therefore purported to alter the statutory threshold to a much higher level. Continue Reading
On April 24, the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion in Myersville Citizens for a Rural Community v. FERC, upholding the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (“FERC” or the “Commission”) approval of Dominion Transmission’s construction of a natural gas compressor station in Myersville, Maryland. Local citizens challenged the approval on a host of procedural and substantive grounds, but the court rejected them all.
First, the court held that FERC’s finding of public need for the project was supported by substantial evidence in the record, even though Dominion did not submit the most recent versions of its long-term contracts to sell its expanded supply, because the company did submit a summary of the agreements’ terms and an affidavit from a corporate officer stating that it had executed binding agreements for 100 percent of the additional capacity resulting from the project. (Here, the court also rejected petitioners’ argument that the project would “overbuild” capacity beyond the amount disclosed in its application; the compressor under construction is more powerful than the one originally proposed, but that is due to differences between the originally proposed location and the final one.) Continue Reading
Last week the Southern District of Ohio held that air emissions from DuPont’s Teflon production operations at its Washington Works Facility in West Virginia, which landed on a water supplier’s wellfield and contaminated the soil and groundwater, constituted disposal of solid waste under RCRA.
The plaintiff, a nonprofit water supplier, sued DuPont in a citizen suit for “imminent and substantial endangerment” under RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B). The plaintiff claimed that Teflon production operations at DuPont’s Washington Works Facility in West Virginia produced air emissions that landed on the plaintiff’s wellfield, polluting the land and groundwater beneath it. The alleged hazardous wastes emitted by DuPont’s operations were perfluorooctanoic acid (C8) and other perfluorinated compounds (PFCs). DuPont used C8 in its manufacturing processes from 1951 until it was finally phased out completely in June 2013. DuPont did not contest either the fact that it released C8 or the amount of C8 it released through its air emissions. Instead, DuPont argued that air emissions are not a disposal covered by RCRA. Continue Reading
In yet another recent case involving the intersection of CERCLA and state law, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington held that CERCLA legislatively displaced federal common law public nuisance claims for damages arising out of environmental contamination. The case is Anderson v. Teck Metals, Ltd., No. CV-13-420-LRS, 2015 WL 59100 (E.D. Wash. Jan. 5, 2015). The defendant in the case was a smelter located in British Columbia, Canada, and the plaintiffs were residents of Washington who alleged personal injuries from the smelter’s air emissions. Among several other legal theories, the plaintiffs asserted a federal common law public nuisance claim for damages. Although the court rejected the defendant’s argument that only a state entity may assert a federal common law public nuisance claim, it agreed with the defendant that such a claim was legislatively displaced by CERCLA.
The court decided the legislative displacement question by determining whether CERCLA addressed the nature of the hazard at issue. Id. at *9 (“[t]he test for whether congressional legislation excludes the declaration of federal common law is simply whether the statute ‘speak[s] directly to [the] question’ at issue.”). Examining CERCLA, the court concluded that the harm of which plaintiffs complained is one to which Congress has spoken directly by way of CERCLA. The fact that CERCLA does not itself provide remedies for personal injury was irrelevant to the analysis for legislative displacement, the court explained. Id. at *10. It was sufficient that “Congress has provided a comprehensive liability and remediation scheme to address releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances by making polluters strictly liable for response costs to clean up the hazardous substances, and liable for natural resource damages to remedy harm to the environment for which they are responsible.” Id. Continue Reading
This month a federal court in Maine rejected a challenge to a permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) for the Oakfield wind power project. The court determined that the Army Corps did not violate the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Protection Act) in issuing the permit. The court’s decision is part of a growing trend of cases concluding that a federal agency’s obligations under the Eagle Protection Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act are limited where the agency permits or authorizes a private project.
In Protect Our Lakes v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 13-cv-402 (D. Me. Feb. 20, 2015), the plaintiffs filed suit against the Army Corps over the issuance of a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit that authorized the Oakfield wind project developer to permanently and temporarily fill in certain wetlands during project construction. The plaintiffs challenged the permit on a number of grounds, but abandoned all but their claims under the ESA and Eagle Protection Act during summary judgment. Under the ESA, the plaintiffs argued that the Army Corps improperly relied upon incomplete data to analyze the impact of the project’s construction on Atlantic salmon and did not obtain an incidental take statement in light of the determination that the project was not likely to adversely affect salmon. The court denied relief under both claims, holding that the ESA required use of the best data available, which can include incomplete data. Op. at 8 (“the best scientific data available standard does not require agencies to have complete information before acting”). The court also held that no incidental take statement is required where an action is not anticipated to result in the take of a listed species. Op. at 9. Continue Reading
Last week, a federal district court in Nevada ruled that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) failed to adequately explain a decision to authorize a proposed wind energy project. The court remanded the decision to BLM for analysis the court determined to be absent from the administrative record and ordered the agency to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS) to address new information regarding the presence of golden eagles within the project area. This decision reinforces the importance of developing and maintaining a thorough administrative record for projects requiring federal approval.
In Bundorf v. Jewell, a group of plaintiffs filed suit against BLM and FWS, claiming that the agencies violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and a number of other environmental laws in approving the Searchlight Wind Energy Project in southern Nevada. The project consists of 87 wind turbine generators and energy transmission systems that will occupy approximately 160 acres of land in the Piute Valley. On account of the project’s location, the BLM and FWS had to analyze the project’s potential impacts on the environment, including impacts on protected species such as the desert tortoise, golden and bald eagles, and other bird and bat species. Given the project’s potential impacts, the project proponent had to prepare a Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy (BBCS) to assist in mitigating impacts to bat and bird species. In challenging this project, the plaintiffs argued that the wildlife analyses performed contained significant data gaps and inconsistent conclusions that prevented the agencies from properly evaluating the adverse effects on the species. Continue Reading
At the conclusion of 2014, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) released revised draft guidance for federal agencies evaluating the effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change as part of an environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The guidance directs agencies to consider the effects of a proposed action on climate change by following a proportionality principle and utilizing a specified emissions threshold. Generally, the established threshold dictates whether an agency should prepare a quantitative or qualitative analysis. According to the CEQ, the guidance is designed to provide for better and more informed federal decisions regarding GHG emissions and the effects of climate change. It is also supposed to reduce the risk of litigation driven by uncertainty in the NEPA assessment process. Though the CEQ claims that the substance of the guidance is already baked into NEPA’s existing framework, a reading of the guidance suggests that agencies may be obligated to prepare additional analyses.
The CEQ instructs federal agencies to consider two issues when addressing climate change: “(1) the potential effects of a proposed action on climate change as indicated by its GHG emissions; and (2) the implications of climate change for the environmental effects of a proposed action.” GHG Guidance at 3. Though affording agencies “substantial discretion” on how to address these issues, the guidance directs agencies to prepare a quantitative analysis of potential climate change impacts where a proposed action is anticipated to emit 25,000 metric tons of CO2e emissions or greater on an annual basis. The CEQ cautions that this number does not define what constitutes a “significant impact” that would require the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) instead of an environmental assessment (EA). Instead, the ultimate significance determination remains subject to an agency’s consideration of context and intensity, as set forth in the CEQ Regulations. Id. at 19.
This Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit issued an opinion in No. 13-5136, Grunewald v. Jarvis, affirming the lower court’s decision that the National Park Service’s promulgation of the White-Tailed Deer Management Plan was lawful. At issue in that case was whether the service’s adoption of a plan for culling the population of white-tailed deer in Rock Creek National Park violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to comply with certain federal statutes, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Much of the court of appeals’ decision affirming the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants (see 930 F. Supp. 2d 73 [D.D.C. 2013]) is a relatively vanilla application of the APA. But the final prong of the court’s NEPA analysis is noteworthy in that it explicitly excludes psychological harms from the scope of impacts that fall within NEPA’s ambit.
Under NEPA and its implementing regulations, agencies are required to consider the “environmental impact” of major federal actions, including “aesthetic” issues and “the relationship of people with [the] environment.” Slip Op. at 22 (quoting NEPA and CFR language). The plaintiffs argued that the Park Service did not adequately consider public objections that killing deer will “significantly mar [the public’s] ability to enjoy using this Park” and “fundamentally transform the [Park’s] overall character.” Id. Continue Reading
EPA plans to propose new regulations this year to address the management of hazardous waste pharmaceuticals under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The agency anticipates issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking on this issue in June 2015, according to its updated regulatory agenda, the availability of which was announced in the Federal Register on December 22, 2014 (79 Fed. Reg. 76,772).
EPA previously issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on this topic in December 2008 (73 Fed. Reg. 73,520). Its 2008 proposal would have added hazardous waste pharmaceuticals to the Universal Waste Rule, which modifies RCRA’s hazardous waste regulations to streamline the management of certain hazardous wastes. EPA explained at the time that it hoped the approach would facilitate the implementation of pharmaceutical take-back programs. But after receiving adverse public comment on the proposal, EPA did not follow up with a final rule. In its online discussion “Management of Hazardous Waste Pharmaceuticals,” EPA explains that “comment on the December 2008 proposal revealed numerous concerns over the lack of notification requirements for those facilities that generate, handle or transport ‘universal waste’ pharmaceuticals as well as for the lack of tracking requirements for the shipment of these wastes.” Continue Reading