EPA Adds Seven Sites to the Superfund National Priorities List
By Allison A. Torrence
On May 13, 2019, U.S. EPA announced that it is adding seven sites to the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL), which includes the most serious contaminated sites in the country. EPA uses the NPL as a basis for prioritizing contaminated site cleanup funding and enforcement activities.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA a/k/a Superfund) requires EPA to create a list of national priorities among sites with known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances throughout the United States, and update that list every year. EPA has established a Hazard Ranking System (HRS) screening tool, which EPA uses, along with public comments, to determine which contaminated sites should be on the NPL.
Under the Trump Administration, EPA has expressed a renewed focus on contaminated site cleanup, declaring the Superfund program to be a “cornerstone” of EPA’s core mission to protect human health and the environment. EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler reiterated this focus when announcing the seven new NPL sites:
By adding these sites to the National Priorities List, we are taking action to clean up some of the nation’s most contaminated sites, protect the health of the local communities, and return the sites to safe and productive reuse. Our commitment to these communities is that sites on the National Priorities List will be a true national priority. We’ve elevated the Superfund program to a top priority, and in Fiscal Year 2018, EPA deleted all or part of 22 sites from the NPL, the largest number of deletions in one year since Fiscal Year 2005.
Currently, there are 1,344 NPL sites across the United States. The following sites are being added to the NPL per EPA’s announcement:
- Magna Metals in Cortlandt Manor, New York
- PROTECO in Peñuelas, Puerto Rico
- Shaffer Equipment/Arbuckle Creek Area in Minden, West Virginia
- Cliff Drive Groundwater Contamination in Logansport, Indiana
- McLouth Steel Corp in Trenton, Michigan
- Sporlan Valve Plant #1 in Washington, Missouri
- Copper Bluff Mine in Hoopa, California
Information about the NPL sites, including a map of all sites, is available on EPA’s website.
Shareholder Activism: Trends in Climate Change Litigation, Part 4
In the fourth installment of the Corporate Environmental Lawyer's discussion of emerging trends in Climate Change Litigation, we are highlighting the growing trend of Climate Change Shareholder Activism. While not active litigation, pressure from activist shareholders who wish to influence the environmental policy of public companies is another powerful force in the climate change litigation arena.
One notable example of this activism is the investor group Climate Action 100+. Climate Action 100+ is an investor organization consisting of over 300 institution investors who collectively manage more than $33 trillion in assets of some of the largest carbon emitting companies in the world. The organization’s stated objective is to “engag[e] companies on improving governance, curbing emissions and strengthening climate-related financial disclosures.”
While the organization was recently formed in 2017, Climate Action 100+ has already secured several victories in its attempt to influence public companies in carbon intensive industries.
In late 2018, following negotiations with Climate Action 100+, Royal Dutch Shell announced new short-term carbon emission reduction goals in order to ensure the company stays in step with the global emissions goals set out in the Paris Accords. Shell has agreed to reduce its net emissions around 20% by 2035 and around 50% by 2015.
In February 2019, Australia’s largest coal miner, Glencore, succumbed to shareholder pressure mounted by Climate Action 100+ and agreed to freeze its coal production at current levels. The company further announced it would take steps to increase disclosure of its emissions and environmental impacts.
Climate Change Lawsuits Brought by Coastal Municipalities and States Against the Fossil Fuel Industry: Trends in Climate Change Litigation, Part 3
In the third installment of Jenner & Block’s Corporate Environmental Lawyer's discussion of emerging trends in Climate Change Litigation, we are discussing a quickly proliferating form of litigation—lawsuits filed by U.S. states and municipalities against companies that operate in industry sectors which have historically had high levels of greenhouse gas emissions.
At present, the most common target for this litigation in the United States has been the oil and gas industry. In these cases, plaintiff cities or states will often bring suit against a large number of oil and gas companies as members of the collective industry. These claims are usually brought in state court, where the plaintiffs can take advantage of potentially favorable state common law. Using this strategy, plaintiffs have asserted claims against the fossil-fuel industry under state law theories such as nuisance, failure to warn of the known impacts of climate change, and unjust enrichment. Of course, as a counter to this strategy and in hopes of demonstrating preemption under the Clean Air Act, defendants will often look to remove climate change cases to federal court.
In order to satisfy Article III Standing requirements, Plaintiffs in these cases have generally been coastal communities which allege that they have suffered harm or are uniquely at risk of suffering harm from rising sea levels as a result of climate change.
Several examples of this ongoing litigation includes:
County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp. et al. (2018): claims brought by six California municipalities and counties against 37 fossil-fuel companies in California state court. The plaintiffs, alleging they will be damaged by the effects of climate change, brought a variety of claims under state common law including nuisance, negligence, failure to warn, and trespass. Following defendants’ removal of the case to federal court, plaintiffs successfully remanded back to state court on the grounds that their claims did not implicate a federal question or raise preemption issues. Defendants have filed an interlocutory appeal in the Ninth Circuit which is currently being briefed by the parties.
City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c. et al. (2018): claims brought by the City of Oakland and San Francisco against fossil-fuel companies under California common and statutory law. Plaintiffs asserted that the industry’s GHG emissions amounted to a “public nuisance” under California law. However, unlike San Mateo, the defendants in City of Oakland were able to successfully remove and ultimately retain the matter in federal court. The Northern District of California court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand the case back to state court based on its finding that federal common law necessarily governed the nuisance claims. The district court subsequently dismissed the suits on the grounds that the plaintiffs’ claims raised a “Political Question” best addressed by the legislature as opposed to judicial branch. This dismissal has also been appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
Exploring the E-Suite with Joel Brammeier, President and CEO, Alliance for the Great Lakes
Rhode Island v. Chevron Corp. et al. (2018): The first such case to be brought by a U.S. State, Rhode Island asserted claims for nuisance, strict liability, failure to warn, design defect, trespass, impairment of public trust resources, and violations of the Environmental Rights Act against 21 fossil-fuel companies. Rhode Island’s lawsuit asserts that the state’s extensive coastline will be damaged through rising sea levels, increased frequency and severity of flooding, extreme precipitation events, and ocean warming and acidification. Defendants have removed the case to federal court, and the parties are currently briefing Rhode Island’s attempt to remand the case back to state court.
Exploring the E-Suite with Joel Brammeier, President and CEO, Alliance for the Great Lakes
Tell us about Alliance for Great Lakes, including what the organization does and your role.
The Alliance drives the local, state and federal policy reforms and implementation necessary to create a healthy Great Lakes for all people and wildlife, forever. We do this by communicating our thought leadership on issues, building powerful networks of influencers, and educating and activating tens of thousands of volunteers, advocates and donors each year who bring their voices to our priorities.
As President and CEO of the Alliance, I concentrate on three principal responsibilities. The first is making sure that the Alliance is focused on the most significant issues affecting clean water in the Great Lakes. That involves a lot of listening, reading, and prioritizing our work. Second, I focus on the financial viability of the Alliance. Fundraising is is my time to listen to what is important to our supporters and communicate to them how their investment in clean water is impacting the Great Lakes. Finally, I work to support the core components of the Alliance—our staff, our volunteers, and the Board of Directors. Everyone needs to be fully engaged, informed, and moving forward to advance the Alliance’s mission.
What is your professional background that you led you to become involved in policy issues concerning protection of fresh water assets and related environmental issues?
After undergrad at Valparaiso University and grad school at University of Michigan, I moved to Chicago in the late 1990s to follow the person who eventually became my spouse. At that time, I began volunteering with a number of NGOs in the Chicago area in order to build my network of relationships and assess how I could become professionally involved. I carried a deep values commitment to non-profit service, mostly due to observing the work of my parents as a teacher and member of the clergy. I had decided on focusing on environmental work in high school after a variety of positive outdoor experiences with my family. After about a year volunteering in various capacities in Chicago, an entry-level position opened up with a group called the Lake Michigan Federation. The combination of my personal value for the Great Lakes that was imprinted on me in childhood, along with my expertise from my education and volunteering, was enough to get me the job. Since that time, I have advanced through the growth and expansion of the organization to become the president of the Alliance for the Great Lakes.
What do you think are the emerging policy issues regarding fresh water assets and the environment of the Great Lakes and how do you think they should be addressed?
It is still all about clean water, but in a much more inclusive and equitable way than is traditional for the mainstream environmental movement. The greatest emerging challenge is how to ensure Great Lakes water is protected and restored in a way that matters personally to all the people of the Great Lakes. For example, drinking water protection is commonly a top reason the public cites as a reason to protect the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Water Resources Compact & Agreement is a monumental agreement among the states and provinces to ensure water is not diverted to far-flung locations, and that the natural hydrology of the lakes is protected. But this policy doesn’t ensure people can actually access safe, clean and affordable drinking water. It is not credible to say a large natural source of drinking water is truly protected if millions of people who rely on that water cannot safely or reliably use it. And this is today’s unfortunate reality, from manure contamination in northeast Wisconsin, to toxic algae in Lake Erie, to lead and PFAS contamination across the region. Often those harms are falling on people who are already suffering an outsize burden in other parts of their lives.
On specific issues, I think the greatest challenges are 1) changing how we grow food so the agricultural economy does not pollute our water 2) restoring the vital water infrastructure that is the basis of people’s health and the Great Lakes regional economy and 3) preventing the continued influx of invasive species that threaten to torpedo our way of life. Solving these challenges depends on a broad and engaged public that is motivated to action to protect the Great Lakes.
What do you enjoy most about your work at the Alliance for the Great Lakes?
The people I work with, the ability to protect something that is personally important to me and the fact that clean water for all people and wildlife is a hard cause to argue against.
What do you find to be the most challenging aspect of your work?
Environmental advocacy works on big problems with many deeply embedded interests and motivations. Changing that system takes time and can be frustrating. The flip side of that is when you are successful, you are changing a system in a lasting way and you know it will benefit people now and well into the future.
What or who helped you succeed as a policy maker and advocate?
I’m not the kind of person who needs or wants to be in the spotlight taking credit, I just want to work smart and get the result I’m looking for. I’ve relied on so many people because this work is by nature collaborative and I would miss many if I named names. But I will mention one. Cameron Davis, who is now a commissioner at Chicago’s Metropolitan Water Reclamation District, gave me my first real shot at being an environmental professional. I’m sure I screwed up plenty while working for him, but he still let me follow him around and listen to him for years. This was fundamental to me learning how environmental policy change happens. I’m truly thankful for that time. I’ve had five Board of Directors chairs in my time leading the Alliance, without whom I never would have been able to figure out how to run an organization. School does not train you for that and board leadership is vital. The Alliance is fortunate to have a large and diverse base of financial supporters, and I reflect constantly on my obligation to them to make sure our work is addressing their desire for clean and safe water.
Describe those projects as an environmental policy advocate of which you are the proudest.
I’ve done some transformative work in invasive species prevention where I can look back at policies and decisions by elected officials and know that I was one of the people at the center of making those things happen. If you get to be part of one thing like that in a lifetime, it’s pretty great. I’ve been a core part of, though definitely not the leader, of a successful movement to make the Great Lakes a national priority in the United States. I’m also quite proud of dramatically expanding the reach of my organization and becoming a leader in engaging people in advocacy, as public support is critical for success.
What advice would you give a young person today who is considering starting out in your field?
Looking back, I realize today that I received a privileged opportunity when I joined the Lake Michigan Federation. It was a relatively small group rebounding from a tough time in the right way, and I was fortunate to get that job. Today, the green & blue movement is pervasive in our economy and culture in a way that just did not exist twenty years ago. Young professionals can and should seek out careers with environmental organizations, but also remember that there are opportunities to shape systems change throughout the private sector. They should ask their future bosses to communicate their personal vision for change. Look for somewhere in your work where you can take the lead on at least one thing that is important to you and your career. Listen to understand how environmental choices affect the daily lives of people and build your work around that knowledge. And consider spending some time in politics early on – understanding what motivates our decision makers is absolutely critical to devising strategies to make sure the right decisions are made.
Mr. Brammeier was interviewed by Gabrielle Sigel, Co-Chair, Environmental and Workplace Health and Safety Law Practice, Jenner & Block
Trends in Climate Change Litigation: Part 2—Investigations & Litigation by State Attorneys General
In the second installation of Jenner & Block’s Corporate Environmental Lawyer's discussion of emerging trends in Climate Change Litigation, we are highlighting recent investigations brought by US state attorneys general against private companies for allegedly misleading the public and/or company shareholders regarding the potential climate impacts of their operations.
In recent years, several major state investigations were launched following investigative journalism reports of private companies’ failures to disclose the causes and effects of climate change. One such example is the Los Angeles Times 2015 exposé into Exxon Mobil Corp.’s historic in-house research on climate change.
Approximately one month after the publication of the Los Angeles Times’ article, the New York Attorney General subpoenaed Exxon, seeking documents related to the company’s research on the causes and effects of climate change; the integration of its research findings into business decisions; and the company's disclosures of this information to shareholders and the Securities and Exchange Commission. The attorney general’s investigation was grounded in New York's shareholder-protection statute, the Martin Act, as well as New York’s consumer protection and general business laws.
In 2016, New York’s investigation was publically supported by a coalition of top state enforcement officials from Vermont, Virginia, Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut, and the Virgin Islands, all of which agreed to share information and strategies in similar climate change investigations and future litigation. Exxon responded by filing its own lawsuit seeking to block New York and Massachusetts’ investigations.
After a three-year contentious investigation, the New York Attorney General's office sued Exxon on October 24, 2018, alleging that Exxon engaged in “a longstanding fraudulent scheme” to deceive investors by providing false and misleading information about the financial risks the company faced from its contributions to climate change.
Jenner & Block’s Corporate Environmental Lawyer will continue to update on this matter, as well as other important climate change litigation cases, as they unfold.
Jenner & Block's Insurance Coverage for Environmental Claims Webinar
By Steven M. Siros
On Tuesday, April 16th, from 12:00 - 1:00 pm CST, Jenner & Block is hosting an interactive webinar that will discuss how environmental claims can arise in many different contexts and how high costs can be avoided. One way to manage the cost of environmental claims associated with historical operations is to pursue coverage under historical (and often pre-pollution exclusion) occurrence-based commercial general liability insurance policies. Our panelists will discuss the nuances and pitfalls that can arise in environmental insurance litigation and creative strategies to maximize recovery. In addition, companies facing environmental risks in their current operations or transactions can also manage environmental risk through a variety of current insurance products. Our panelists will identify current options available to manage environmental risks going forward and provide insight into the costs and benefits of those insurance products.
Jenner & Block Partners Allison Torrence and Brian Scarbrough will be panelists, along with Richard Reich, Managing Director at Aon Risk Services Central, Inc. Jenner & Block Associate Alex Bandza will moderate the webinar.
Please click here to RSVP for this webinar.
New Jersey Puts PFAS Manufacturers in the Cross-Hairs
By Steven M. Siros
New Jersey continues to take an aggressive stance with respect to per- and polyfluoralkyl (PFAS) contamination. On March 25, 2019, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) issued a “Statewide PFAS Directive Information Request and Notice to Insurers” to five major chemical companies notifying those companies that NJDEP believed them to be responsible for PFAS impacts to the air and waters of New Jersey. In addition to seeking recovery from these companies for past costs incurred by NJDEP to investigate and remediate PFAS impacts, the Directive also seeks to compel these companies to assume responsibility for ongoing remediation of drinking water systems throughout the state. The Directive further seeks information from these companies regarding historical PFAS manufacturing practices as well as information regarding these companies’ ongoing efforts to manufacture PFAS replacement chemicals.
Although environmental organizations have been quick to praise the NJDEP Directive, in reality, the state agency may have overstepped its authority. NJDEP has been quick to point out that the Directive is not a final agency action, formal enforcement order, or other final legal determination and therefore cannot be appealed or contested. Notwithstanding NJDEP’s efforts to insulate its Directive from immediate legal challenge, it will almost certainly draw strong industry challenges. For example, NJDEP’s efforts to obtain information regarding PFAS replacement chemicals may run afoul of the Toxic Substances Control Act and its efforts to compel reimbursement of past claims and/or the takeover of ongoing remedial actions will certainly be the subject of court challenges.
Continuing its full court PFAS press, on April 1, 2019, New Jersey unveiled a proposed drinking water standard of 14 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and 13 ppt for PFOS. These proposed drinking water levels are significantly lower than the current U.S. EPA health advisory level of 70 ppt for combined PFOS/PFOA.
Trends in Climate Change Litigation: Part 1
By Matthew G. Lawson
The term “climate change litigation” has become a shorthand for a wide range of different legal proceedings associated with addressing the environmental impacts of climate change. Plaintiffs in climate change lawsuits may include individuals, non-governmental organizations, private companies, state or local level governments, and even company shareholders who, through various legal theories, allege that they have been harmed or will suffer future harm as a direct result of the world’s changing climate. The targets of climate change litigation have included individual public and private companies, government bodies, and even entire industry groups. While there appears to be no shortage of plaintiffs, defendants, or legal theories emerging in climate change litigation, one clear trend is that the number of these lawsuits has grown dramatically in recent years. By one count, more than fifty climate change suits have been filed in the United States every year since 2009, with over one hundred suits being filed in both 2016 and 2017.
In light of the growing trend of climate change litigation, Jenner & Block’s Corporate Environmental Lawyer blog is starting a periodic blog update which will discuss the emerging trends and key cases in this litigation arena. In each update, our blog will focus on a sub-set of climate change cases and discuss recent decisions on the topic. In Part 1 of this series, we will be discussing Citizen-Initiated Litigation Against National Governments.
Citizen-Initiated Litigation Against National Governments.
Perhaps the most high-profile and well-publicized cases in the climate change litigation arena have been lawsuits brought by private citizens against their own national government. A common objective of these cases is to push governments to implement policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions through legal hooks such as international agreements, international treaties, or constitutional provisions. While the early focal point for these cases has been European countries, citizen-initiated litigation continues to spread across the globe, including the United States.
Several examples of this emerging type of litigation have included:
Urgenda Foundation v. The State of the Netherlands (2015): In the first internationally recognized climate change lawsuit asserted against a national government, a Dutch environmental group, the Urgenda Foundation, represented over 900 citizens in a lawsuit alleging that the Dutch government had failed to address the risks of climate change. Ruling in support of the citizen group, the Hague court determined that the Dutch government was required to protect the living environment from the dangers of climate change by reducing CO2 emissions a minimum of 25%—relative to 1990 levels—by the year 2020. This decision was later upheld by the Dutch court of appeals which recognized the plaintiffs’ claims under the European Convention on Human Rights, an international convention to protect human rights in Europe.
Friends of the Irish Environment v. Ireland (2018): Following the success of the Urgenda litigation, an Irish advocacy group, Friends of the Irish Environment (FIE), filed suit in the Irish High Court in an attempt to compel the government to increase its GHG emissions reduction goals. Following the path laid out in Urgenda, the FIE plaintiffs asserted their claims under the theory that the Irish government was not fulfilling its objectives under the Paris Climate Agreement. This case was argued before the High Court on January 22, 2019, and is currently awaiting a decision.
Juliana v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1224 (2016): Launched by the U.S. advocacy group, Our Children’s Trust, Juliana is a lawsuit filed by 21 young people (ages eight to nineteen) who assert that the United States is denying its youngest citizens their constitutional right to a safe and livable climate. Unlike the cases brought in Ireland or the Netherlands, the plaintiffs in Juliana have not taken the position that the United States is bound to reduce GHG emissions through any form of internal law or agreement. Instead, the plaintiffs’ complaint asserts the legal theory that the United States Constitution provides its citizens a substantive due process right “to a climate system capable of sustaining human life.” In conjunction with this argument, the plaintiffs have asserted a unique application of the centuries-old “Public Trust Doctrine,” arguing that the climate itself is a natural resource that must be held in trust for the people. Juliana has gone through a complex legal history, including multiple attempts at dismissal from both the Obama and now Trump administrations. Currently, the case is being briefed in front of the 9th Circuit on interlocutory appeal.
EPA Can’t Dodge Gold King Mine Liability
By Steven M. Siros
U.S. EPA continues to be on the hook for damages associated with the Gold King Mine located in San Juan County, Colorado. Several years ago, a contractor working on behalf of U.S. EPA to address environmental impacts associated with a closed gold mine, destroyed a plug holding water trapped inside of the mine, causing the release of approximately three million gallons of mine waste water into Cement Creek, which was a tributary of the Animas River. Although U.S. EPA took responsibility for the incident, it has refused to pay damages incurred as a result of he release, leading to lawsuits being filed by a variety of plaintiffs, including the states of Utah and New Mexico, the Navajo Nation, and affected individuals. Plaintiffs asserted a variety of claims, including claims under CERCLA, RCRA, CWA, and the Federal Tort Claims Act (FCTA). U.S. EPA filed a motion to dismiss, arguing among other things, that it was entitled to sovereign immunity for damages resulting from an ongoing cleanup effort.
On February 28, 2019, the federal district court in New Mexico rejected U.S. EPA’s claim that it was protected from CERCLA liability on sovereign immunity grounds, noting that at least three circuit courts have found that U.S. EPA can face liability under CERCLA where U. S. EPA’s actions in remediating a site are alleged to have caused releases of hazardous wastes. The court also found that plaintiffs’ allegations (which included Utah and New Mexico, as well as the Navajo Nation and individuals), if proven, would demonstrate U.S. EPA’s liability as an “arranger,” “operator,” and “transporter” of hazardous substances. Specifically, Plaintiffs stated claims for arranger liability because they "allege that EPA took intentional steps to dispose of a hazardous substance.” With respect to operator liability, the court noted that Plaintiffs “allege that EPA managed, directed, or conducted operations specifically related to the pollution, that is, operations having to do with the leakage or disposal of hazardous waste.” Finally, regarding transporter liability, Plaintiffs “allege that EPA took steps to drain the mine and treat the water at the site.”
With respect to the RCRA, CWA, and FCTA claims, the court concluded that there were disputed issues of fact that precluded the court from being able to grant dismissal of those claims. We will continue to provide updates on this proceeding.
OSHRC Rules No General Duty Clause Hazard Or Feasible Abatement For Heat Exposure
By Gabrielle Sigel
In a 2-1 decision on February 28, 2019, the full Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (“OSHRC”) vacated the U.S. Secretary of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (“OSHA”) citation charging a roofing contractor with a “general duty clause” violation for exposing employees “to the hazard of excessive heat from working on a commercial roof in the direct sun” and separately vacated a citation for failure to train employees regarding heat-related risks. Sec’y of Labor v. A.H. Sturgill Roofing, Inc., OSHRC Docket No. 13-0224. OSHA had issued the citations following the physical collapse and subsequent death of a temporary worker on the first day of his work for the roofing company.
Different from a violation based on an OSHA regulation, a general duty clause violation alleges that the employer has violated the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act’s provision stating: “Each employer … shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.” 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1).
In Sturgill, OSHRC ruled that two of the requirements of a general duty clause violation—the existence of a hazard and a feasible means of abatement—had not been proven by the Secretary of Labor. Specifically, OSHRC ruled that, “upon weighing the evidence …, the Secretary has not established the existence of a hazard likely to cause death or serious physical harm.” (Op. at 4.) OSHRC’s majority rejected OSHA’s reliance on a National Weather Service heat index chart; the Secretary’s expert’s testimony, by a physician who formerly had served as OSHA’s medical officer, that worksite conditions were hazardous; and testimony of the coroner that the employee’s death was due to complications from heat stroke. With respect to whether the circumstances of an individual employee’s death can be evidence of the existence of a hazard, the majority noted that the employer here did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the employee’s pre-existing conditions that would have made the new temporary employee susceptible to illness. OSHRC found that given “the constraints that the [Americans with Disabilities Act] and the [Age Discrimination in Employment Act] impose” on employers’ hiring inquiries, the employer here could not have asked more to inquire about the new employee’s physical condition. (Op. at 13.) Moreover, OSHRC’s majority found that proof of the “realistic possibility” of an injury cannot be based on whether an employer had knowledge of the “hidden characteristics of an ‘eggshell employee.’” (Op. at 12, fn. 14.) Thus, OSHRC ruled that the Secretary had not proven that an excessive heat hazard was present.
Although not necessary to do so after having found no hazard at the worksite, the OSHRC majority also considered whether OSHA had demonstrated the feasibility and effectiveness of an abatement measure that would have materially reduced the incidence of a hazard (Op. 15-19; 34-48), which is another legal element for a valid general duty clause claim. The dissenting Commissioner Attwood found that the Secretary needed only to prove that the employer had not established an effective heat illness prevention program. The OSHRC majority disagreed and found that here, based on the Secretary’s litigation position, the employer had five alternative methods to secure abatement and because the employer proved that it had adequately implemented three of those measures, the Secretary could not prove that the employer had not abated any heat illness hazard. Thus, based on failure to prove two elements of a general duty clause violation—hazard existence and failure to abate—the OSHA citation was vacated.
Because there was no hazard present, and because the Secretary did not show that “a reasonably prudent employer” would have given training different than what Sturgill had provided, the failure to train violation, which was based on an OSHA regulation, also was vacated. (Op. at 19-22.) In doing so, OSHRC rejected the argument that the employer’s training must have been insufficient because the supervisor was not aware of the employee’s distress until he collapsed. (Op. at 22, fn. 22.)
Perhaps more important than this decision based on the Sturgill evidence are the OSHRC majority’s statements in footnotes and Chairman MacDougall’s separate concurrence regarding the general duty clause and its use by OSHA. Chairman MacDougall and Commissioner Sullivan, both Trump Administration appointees, questioned the use of the general duty clause as an enforcement mechanism. These two Commissioners footnoted that:
While practical considerations may have lead [sic] OSHA over the years, to rely on the general duty clause in lieu of setting standards, the provisions seems to have increasingly become more of a “gotcha” and “catch all” for the agency to utilize, which as a practical matter often leaves employers confused as to what is required of them.
(Op. at 8, fn. 9.) The majority noted with apparent approval that California, unlike federal OSHA, had adopted a heat illness prevention regulation in 2006. In her separate concurrence, Chairman MacDougall stated that the OSHA citation in the Sturgill case “construe[d] the general duty clause to cover work situations in ways that Congress never intended and to unreasonably stretch longstanding Commission precedent by applying the provision to broadly-defined risks inherent in the work being performed.” (Op. at 23, MacDougall concurring.) The Chairman then cited to two other of her recent decisions questioning the use of the clause, as well as an OSHRC decision from 1986. Other discussions in the majority’s footnotes and concurrences, including comments on their colleague’s dissent, give an indication of the OSHRC’s future rulings on general duty clause violations, especially once Commissioner Attwood’s term expires in April 2019 and likely a third Trump-appointed Commissioner will join OSHRC.
In sum, the Sturgill case is a warning that over the next several years OSHA likely will find it more difficult to use a general duty clause violation as an enforcement tool given OSHRC’s strong message of disapproval for its use for anything other than as a “stopgap measure to protect employees until standards could be adopted.” (Op. at 8, fn. 9, citations omitted.) Employers who are issued a citation based on a general duty clause violation may find several bases for challenging such a citation based on a close study of OSHRC’s Sturgill decision.
BACT to the Future: Enviros Petition for Review on Natural Gas Power Plant Air Permit, Saying Batteries Are “BACT” Under the Clean Air Act
By Alexander J. Bandza
Last week, the Center for Biological Diversity and other environmental groups petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review of EPA Region 9’s decision in December 2018 to issue a final prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit for the Palmdale Energy Project (Project), a gas-fired plant being developed in the city of Palmdale, CA. These environmental groups had previously but unsuccessfully challenged the permit in front of EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board (EAB), arguing that a new control technology configuration—namely, replacing the combined-cycle turbines’ duct burners with battery storage—should be used to satisfy EPA Region 9’s “Best Available Control Technology” (BACT) requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EAB denied the environmental groups’ appeal in October 2018. However, as the EAB explicitly recognized, “energy storage technology is a rapidly growing development in the electrical power supply sector,” and therefore the totality of the environmental groups’ efforts may spur additional consideration of battery storage as an option for facilities to meet their obligations under the CAA.
By way of overview, an entity desiring to construct a “major emitting facility” in a CAA-defined “attainment” or “unclassifiable” area must obtain preconstruction approval, in the form of a PSD permit, to build such a facility. CAA § 165. An applicant for a PSD permit must show that its proposal will achieve emissions limits established by BACT for pollutants emitted from its facility in amounts greater than applicable levels of significance. A BACT analysis is a site-specific, pollutant-specific determination that results in the selection of emissions limits representing application of air pollution control technologies or methods appropriate for the facility in question.
In October 2015, Palmdale filed an application with EPA Region 9 for a PSD permit to construct and operate the Project, a new major stationary source, on fifty acres of land in the City of Palmdale, California. The facility consists of two natural gas-fired combustion turbine generators, each of which is equipped with a natural gas-fired duct burner. Each of the two combustion turbine/duct burner combinations vents heat energy to its own dedicated heat recovery steam generator (HRSG), and steam from both HRSGs is routed to a single steam turbine generator. The duct burners boost the total heat input to the HRSGs, which increases steam output from the HRSGs and concomitantly the amount of electricity the steam generator, and thus the entire facility, produces.
In August 2017, EPA Region 9 issued and invited public comment on a draft PSD permit for the construction and operation of, including the regulation of emissions from, the proposed facility. The environmental groups identified a new control technology configuration—replacing the combined-cycle turbines’ duct burners with battery storage—that neither the Project applicant nor EPA Region 9 had identified as a potential control technology in the original BACT analysis. In response to the comments, EPA Region 9 determined that using battery storage to replace duct burners could be rejected as technically infeasible, ineffective, and on the basis of energy, environmental, and economic impacts. As to the first basis for rejection, EPA Region 9 analyzed the largest battery configuration that the environmental groups had identified in their comments—a Tesla 100 MW lithium-ion battery storage facility for an Australian wind farm. EPA Region 9 concluded that the duct burners could meet the hours required under the longer peak demand periods, whereas the battery configuration could not. Thus, EPA Region 9 rejected battery storage could be BACT.
The EAB affirmed, concluding that the environmental groups failed meet their burden of establishing that the Region’s analysis was clearly erroneous or otherwise warrants review. However, the EAB provided hope for future battery-storage efforts (emphasis added): “The Board observes that its decision is based on the record in this matter and its decision should not be taken to suggest that the Conservation Groups’ proposal can never be BACT for a particular facility. As the Board noted above, BACT is an emission limit that is based on a ‘case-by-case’ analysis, and the Region recognizes that ‘[e]nergy storage technology is a rapidly growing development in the electrical power supply sector[.]’ Thus, what may not be BACT for purposes of this permit application may be BACT for a future permit application.” Because the environmental groups’ challenge focuses on EPA Region 9’s approval of this air permit, it is anticipated that many of the same arguments and discussion will occur at the Ninth Circuit.
OSHA Rescinds Electronic Submission of Injury/Illness Logs and Incident Reports and Raises Penalties
By Gabrielle Sigel
On January 25, 2019, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued a Final Rule eliminating the requirement that certain employers electronically submit to OSHA information from their annual OSHA 300 log of workplace injuries and illnesses and their OSHA 301 incident reports, which are required to be created after each logged injury and illness. OSHA also announced that, pursuant to annual escalating requirements, penalties for OSHA violations in 2019 would increase to a maximum of $132,598 per willful or repeat violation and a maximum of $13,260 for all other types of violations.
Pursuant to a regulation issued in the final year of the Obama Administration, employers of establishments with 250 or more employees were to be required to submit information from their 300 logs and 301 reports annually to OSHA through an electronic portal. However, the portal was never established during the Obama or Trump Administrations, and the submission obligation was repeatedly suspended until, through the Final Rule, the electronic submission requirement was rescinded entirely.
OSHA described the Final Rule rescinding the submission requirement as primarily driven to “protect worker privacy,” because the OSHA 300 logs and 301 reports contain identifying information which “might be publicly disclosed” under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests or otherwise. In the Final Rule’s preamble, OSHA stressed that its position is that data electronically submitted to OSHA regarding injuries and illnesses are exempt from FOIA public disclosure, both to protect OSHA’s enforcement efforts and to protect employees’ privacy. OSHA stated, however, that despite its position, it is concerned that “it still could be required by a court to release the data,” if it had not rescinded the broader submission requirements. OSHA also expressed concern that, if information from the 300 logs and 301 reports had been electronically collected pursuant to the regulation as issued in 2016, there were increased risks of cyber-security issues involved in protecting sensitive information. OSHA also stated that by rescinding the electronic submission requirement, OSHA can “focus its resources on initiatives that its past experience has shown to be useful … rather than on collecting and processing information from Forms 300 and 301 with uncertain value for OSHA enforcement and compliance assistance.”
Employers of establishments with 250 or more employees, or with 20-249 employees in designated high-hazard industries, remain obligated to annually, electronically submit information from OSHA Form 300A, which summarizes information from the annual OSHA 300 log and 301 reports. The OSHA Summary Form 300A for 2018 injuries and illnesses must be physically posted at each establishment by February 1, 2019, and submitted electronically to OSHA by March 2, 2019. The Form 300A electronic submission information also has been amended to require employers to include their Employer Identification Number (EIN). The requirement to electronically submit the 300A Summary and EIN applies nationwide, including to employers in the 28 State Plan States.
The January 25, 2019 Final Rule does not change the obligation of employers in most industries (unless specifically exempted) to maintain OSHA 300 logs and 301 reports at their establishments, for inspection by OSHA, employees, and their representatives. In addition, all employers continue to be required to report to OSHA, within prescribed time periods, when an employee is killed on the job or suffers a work-related hospitalization, amputation, or loss of an eye. State requirements regarding injury reporting may be more stringent than those imposed by federal OSHA.
What's in Your Baby Powder: NY Proposes Stringent New Disclosure Requirements on Cleaning and Personal Care Products
Exploring the E-Suite: Vol. 1, No. I
By Alexander M. Smith
Last week, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced the Consumer Right to Know Act (“Act”) as part of his proposed executive budget. The Act would authorize the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, along with the New York Department of Health and the New York Department of State, to promulgate regulations requiring product manufacturers to disclose the presence of potentially hazardous substances on their product labeling. Among other things, the Act would require these agencies to assess the feasibility of on-package labeling; develop regulations establishing a labeling requirement for designated products; develop a list of more than 1,000 substances that must be labeled; and identify the types of consumer products that will be subject to these new labeling requirements. The Act would also extend the Department of Environmental Conservation’s disclosure requirements for household cleaning products to encompass all cleaning products sold in New York, and it would empower the Department of Health to require similar disclosures for personal care products like shampoo, deodorant, or baby powder. Needless to say, these disclosure requirements would be among the most stringent—if not the most stringent—in the United States.
Governor Cuomo’s announcement is available here. We will keep our readers updated on the progress of Governor Cuomo’s proposal.
Exploring the E-Suite with Sharon Neal, Assistant General Counsel-EHS Counsel,
Exelon BSC, Law Department
How did you get involved in environmental law?
My interest in the environment began when I was young, around 10‑12 years old. I recall hearing my parents talk of their concerns about the environment and that triggered my curiosity. In college, I began by focusing on environmental science. In my sophomore year, a single paragraph in an environmental studies text discussed environmental law as an up-and-coming field for those with an interest in protecting the environment and shaping policy. From that moment, I decided to become an environmental lawyer. I graduated from Loyola University Chicago School of Law in 1988. I became a lawyer for the Illinois EPA in 1990, and I have been practicing environmental law ever since.
What do you enjoy most about your work in environmental law?
I have never stopped finding my work in this field interesting and meaningful. No two days mirror one another. There is always something new to learn and do in light of the vast, ever changing nature of the environmental field. Even after more than 20 years with Exelon, my knowledge of the Company’s broad range of operations continues to grow. I have also so enjoyed and appreciated the many talented, intelligent and committed people with whom I have worked over my entire career, who have a wide range of expertise, such as in environmental science, investigation, remediation, nuclear operations, utility operations, regulatory and governmental affairs, and law. They have truly enriched my practice and life.
What do you find to be the most challenging aspect of environmental law?
As a field, environmental law is especially challenging in light of the seemingly endless and changing laws, regulations, and other requirements, at the federal, state and local levels, with separate requirements for air, land, and water. It is challenging to stay current and to understand the legal implications for a large company that has many different types of complex operations. As with all fast-paced work, deadlines and competition for time are always a challenge. Also, unique to environmental law, is the deep intersection of science, law, and policy. The longer I have practiced, the more I have come to understand that you cannot possibly be an expert in all aspects of environmental law; there just too much to know and to know well. However, I do feel that what makes this field challenging also makes it continually interesting.
What or who helped you succeed as an environmental lawyer?
I have had the privilege of working with so many exceptionally bright and experienced environmental specialists, consultants, attorneys (in-house and outside counsel) since my start in environmental law, as well as great, supportive managers and company leaders, here at Exelon, who prioritize environmental compliance and stewardship. That has made all the difference. Much of what I do is as part of a team made up of persons with diverse expertise. We work together and rely on each other to succeed.
What do you think are the emerging issues in the field of environmental law?
Climate change will be at the heart of much of environmental law and policy going forward. There will be great emphasis on efforts to limit the operations that impact and create climate change, along with more and continuing efforts to reduce those impacts. There also will be a focus on responding and adapting to the effects that we already are seeing and that we will increasingly see in the future. We cannot overstate the significance of climate change in environmental issues going forward.
Describe those projects as an environmental lawyer of which you are the proudest.
Looking at my career as a whole, what stands out initially is the work I did when I was with the Illinois EPA. That was my first environmental position, so my learning curve was steep. Yet, within those first couple of years, I was able to negotiate and write state laws and regulations. I appreciate that I had the opportunity to do such important work so early in my career.
I have worked on so many interesting matters at Exelon. The focus of my work has changed many times over the years, depending on regulatory and operational/business developments. Some of the most fascinating work has been supporting Exelon Nuclear, including on Clean Water Act issues. I have spent much time at our nuclear stations, including at the Quad Cities Generating Stations, which, among other things, operates a successful fish hatchery that feeds into the Mississippi River. I also had the opportunity to attend a U.S. Supreme Court argument concerning federal regulations under the Clean Water Act, which affected Exelon, among other regulated entities. I have supported Exelon on many interesting projects over the years focused on evaluating, preventing and mitigating environmental impacts. I have especially enjoyed learning about and supporting Exelon’s many environmental stewardship projects.
Which community service or pro bono matters have been the most meaningful to you and why?
Exelon has an extensive pro bono and volunteer network, which provides opportunities for employees to participate in numerous activities that benefit a wide range of organizations and individuals in the communities that Exelon serves. At our annual Exelon Law Department All Hands clinics, attorneys and support staff work together to help many persons in single day’s event. At a recent clinic, we assisted seniors with planning and preparing important end of life documents. Last year’s clinic focused on providing support for those seeking immigration relief. Exelon’s Law Department holds such clinics annually in each of its four main cities, Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington D.C.
In the past year, I have also participated in some especially rewarding events and projects focused on introducing children and young adults to the field of law. A few of these events have supported “Just the Beginning”, a pipeline organization that motivates young people in economically challenged communities to become part of the legal profession and future leaders. I have also worked with young students in the “Lawyers in the Classroom” program, sponsored by the Constitutional Rights Foundation Chicago. It is a pleasure to teach and talk with the students in these programs and encourage them to see the legal profession as meaningful and attainable.
Also, in the past year, at the recommendation of a friend and colleague within the Exelon/EHS legal group, I became a board member of Thresholds, one of the oldest and largest Illinois organizations supporting persons with mental illnesses and substance use disorders. Thresholds provides a wide range of support—from care to employment to housing—for thousands of people in the broader Chicagoland community. I have been deeply gratified by the support I have received from Exelon and other friends, such as Jenner & Block, for my work on behalf of Thresholds.
What advice would you give a young person today who is considering starting out in your field?
I am confident that environmental law, and the field of environmental studies, in general, will continue to be important, fascinating work. If you have the opportunity to work for the government, especially early in your career, take that opportunity. Government service is an incredible place to learn, not only substantive environmental law, but many aspects of how policy comes to be law, how regulations are drafted and laws are enacted, interagency relationships, and the needs and role of the regulated community. I am grateful to have had that opportunity at the start of my career.
Ms. Neal was interviewed by Gabrielle Sigel, Co-Chair, Environmental and Workplace Health and Safety Law Practice, Jenner & Block
How Low Can You Go—States Continue to Lower Regulatory Bar on PFAS in Drinking Water
By Steven M. Siros
In 2016, U.S. EPA established an advisory level of 70 parts per trillion (PPT) for combined perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)-- two of the more commonly found polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). However, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) recently suggested that these advisory levels may not be stringent enough, releasing draft risk values earlier in 2018 that are significantly more conservative than the values relied upon by U.S. EPA in 2016. The ATSDR draft report identifies a minimal risk level for PFOA that equates to approximately 11 ppt and approximately seven ppt for PFOS.
The ATSDR draft report, the issuance of which the White House had sought to delay, has been subject to criticism by both sides of the spectrum, with some questioning the science behind the conclusions reached in the report, while others claim that the draft report doesn’t go far enough. The public comment period on the draft report closed on August 20, 2018 and the report has yet to be finalized.
However, in lieu of waiting for the report to be finalized and/or for U.S. EPA to take further action to revise its current health advisory level, several states have elected to move forward to establish their own regulatory limits for these chemicals. New Jersey and Vermont had taken the lead in adopting more stringent regulatory standards, with New Jersey adopting a 14 ppt limit for PFOA and Vermont adopting a 20 ppt limit for combined PFAS in drinking water. However, these levels were established prior to the release of the draft ATSDR report and a number of other states have since jumped on the regulatory bandwagon. For example, New York’s Drinking Water Quality Council recently recommended that New York adopt a 10 ppt limit for PFOA and PFOS. Michigan, which had adopted U.S. EPA’s recommended advisory level of 70 ppt, also is in the process of developing more stringent standards for PFAS in drinking water.
ATSDR has yet to release a time-line for finalizing its draft toxicological profile for PFAS and although U.S. EPA has announced that it intends to evaluate the need for a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for PFOA and PFOS, that is several years away. In the interim, it appears likely that individual states will continue to adopt their own individual regulatory levels for these chemicals in drinking water which will continue to result in a patchwork regulatory framework across the United States.