ATSDR and U.S. EPA--Conflicting Guidance Regarding Emerging Contaminant Regulatory Standards?
By Steven M. Siros
The director of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Peter Breysse, continues to defend his agency's minimal risk levels (MRLs) for perfluorinated chemicals that were released in June 2018 as part of a draft toxicological profile. In response to questions posed at a recent Senate hearing, Breysse noted that ATSDR’s draft MRLs roughly corresponded to drinking water levels of 14 parts per trillion (ppt) for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and 21 ppt for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). Where these levels are exceeded, ATSDR has recommended that residents take steps to lower their exposures and contact state and local authorities. Breysse also recommended that residents consult with physicians and noted that ATSDR has information on its website for physicians to consult regarding exposure risks for these chemicals.
The drinking water levels referenced in the ATSDR toxicological profile (14 ppt for PFOS and 21 ppt for PFOA) correspond generally with regulatory standards implemented in several states, including New Jersey and Vermont, both of which have the lowest regulatory levels for these compounds in the United States. However, the ATSDR MRLs are much stricter than U. S. EPA’s drinking water advisory level of 70 ppt. In addition, many news outlets reported that U.S. EPA had sought to delay ATSDR’s issuance of its June 2018 toxicological profile. Perhaps coincidentally, at about the same time as ATSDR issued its draft report, U.S. EPA announced plans to begin to evaluate the need for a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for PFOA and PFOS.
Although ATSDR and U.S. EPA continue to work cooperatively (at least on paper) to address PFOA and PFOS at contaminated properties throughout the United States, it remains to be seen how well these agencies will cooperate in setting an MCL for these contaminants. The agencies' "cooperative" relationship may face choppy waters, especially in light of ATSDR's continued defense of its MRLs and U.S. EPA's skeptical view regarding same.
In Midterm Elections, Colorado Voters Reject High Profile Anti-Fracking Initiative
By Matthew G. Lawson
On Tuesday, November 6th, Colorado voters rejected a highly contested ballot initiative which would have set unprecedented limits on oil and gas drilling in the state. The measure, Proposition 112, would have prohibited drilling new oil or natural gas wells within 2,500 feet of certain occupied buildings—including homes, schools and hospitals; various water sources—including lakes, rivers and creeks; and other areas specifically designated as “vulnerable” by the state. In total, a report from the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission estimated that the measure would have prohibited new hydraulic fracturing operations on as much as 95% of the land in Colorado’s top oil and gas producing counties.
The proposition received a high degree of pre-election attention, with individuals from politician Bernie Sanders to actor Leonardo DiCaprio encouraging Colorado voters to support the initiative. While early polling indicated Proposition 112 was supported by the majority of Colorado voters, the initiative was ultimately defeated with 57% of the state’s voters opposing it in Tuesday’s elections. In what may have served as a fatal blow, Colorado’s governor-elect, Jared Polis, distanced himself from the ballot initiative in the days leading up to the election. The newly elected Democrat had campaigned as a pro-environment alternative to his Republican opponent, but categorized the ballot initiative as “economically damaging” to the state of Colorado.
At present, New York, Vermont, and Maryland are the only states to have established outright bans on fracking. None of those states, however, has oil and gas reserves approaching the production capacity of Colorado. The state’s oil and gas industry has grown dramatically in the last decade, with the state’s production of crude oil rising from 73,000 barrels per day in 2008 to 477,000 barrels per day in August 2018. As the state’s production of oil and gas continues to grow, it appears likely that legislative battles over fracking regulations will continue to unfold.
New Jersey Federal District Court Dismisses Enviro’s Constitutional Challenges to FERC’s Approval of PennEast’s $1B Gas Pipeline, Holding that the Court Doesn’t Have Jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act
By: Alexander J. Bandza
On Monday, in N.J. Conservation Found. v. FERC (No. 17-11991), the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the New Jersey Conservation Foundation’s (“NJCF”) suit against the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) because the Court found that the courts of appeals, and not it, had subject matter jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act (“NGA”). NJCF’s suit sought to declare that FERC’s practice of issuing certificates authorizing the construction of natural gas pipeline facilities violated the U.S. Constitution. While pled solely against FERC and its Commissioners, the case was predicated on FERC’s prior approval of PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC’s (“PennEast”) right to construct a $1B interstate natural gas pipeline. NJCF’s case centered on three purported Constitutional issues with FERC’s environmental analysis: (1) FERC’s approvals that delegate the power of eminent domain in the absence of adequate public use analyses violate the Takings Clause; (2) FERC’s approvals that grant eminent domain prior to receiving environmental impact findings from regulatory agencies violate the Fifth Amendment; and (3) FERC’s approvals that provide for subsequent state or federal authorizations, which then may require changes to the pipeline route or prevent construction, also violate the Takings Clause. The Court granted FERC’s motion to dismiss, holding that the Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction because the NGA vested the courts of appeals, not district courts, with exclusive jurisdiction to hear NJCF’s claims. NJCF is another voice in a growing chorus of district court and appellate cases that have rejected dissatisfied parties’ collateral attempts to re-litigate FERC’s decisions and decision-making processes, especially with regard to environmental issues, outside of FERC.
The FERC Proceedings
In September 2015, PennEast submitted an application under the NGA to construct and operate an interstate natural gas pipeline from Pennsylvania to New Jersey. Numerous parties, including NJCF, intervened in that FERC proceeding and submitted comments to FERC. FERC’s Office of Energy Projects (“Office”) initiated an environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act to study the pipeline’s potential environmental impacts. The Office concluded that the pipeline would result in some adverse effects, but they would be reduced to “less than significant levels” with certain mitigation measures. The Office recommended that FERC’s final authorization, if any, should include these mitigation measures.
On January 19, 2018, FERC issued its Certificate Order of “public convenience and necessity” adopting the Office’s findings. FERC then granted a Certificate to PennEast, subject to compliance with environmental and operating conditions. Numerous parties, including NJCF, filed requests for rehearing and moved to stay the Certificate Order. FERC ultimately issued a final order denying rehearing. NJCF and others sought review of FERC’s PennEast orders in the D.C. Circuit in addition to instant matter, which contained Constitutional claims and was filed in the New Jersey District Court.
The New Jersey District Court’s Opinion
FERC moved to dismiss NJCF’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the New Jersey District Court lacked jurisdiction to hear NJCF’s claims because the NGA vests the courts of appeals with exclusive jurisdiction to hear matters relating to a pipeline certificate proceeding. The Court agreed and dismissed NJCF’s complaint, holding that the “weight of the authorities” is that the NGA explicitly precluded the Court’s review of NJCF’s Constitutional claims.
According to the Court, the NGA confers on FERC “exclusive jurisdiction” over the “transportation and sale of natural gas in interstate commerce.” Op. at 2. Another section of the NGA provides that once a party requests rehearing of a FERC order, a party aggrieved by that particular order may seek judicial review in a court of appeals. Id. at 3. NJCF argued that the NGA’s statutory language limiting the avenues of review did not apply here because its case instead challenged “FERC’s general pattern and practice of granting unconstitutional certificates.” Indeed, the Court recognized that NJCF “painstakingly characterize[d] its claims as constitutional in nature . . . — whether a conditional certificate, issued by FERC, that is not sufficient to authorize pipeline construction may constitutionally permit a private company to condemn land for a pipeline that may never be built.”
Despite NJCF’s artful pleading, the Court surveyed the substantial number of decisions holding that because the NGA’s exclusive jurisdiction provision is so broad in scope, the NGA is the “exclusive remedy for matters relating to the construction of interstate natural gas pipelines.” Id. at 7-18. The Court had no shortage of colorful language from the collection of “well-settled” authorities in support of its holding: Third and Fourth Circuits—“there is no area of review, whether relating to final or preliminary orders, available in the district court”; Sixth Circuit—“exclusive means exclusive”; Tenth Circuit—it “would be hard pressed to formulate a [statutory framework] with a more expansive scope”; and First Circuit (although under the Federal Power Act’s similar provision)—challenges brought in the district court outside that scheme are “impermissible collateral attacks.” As a result, according to the Court, NJCF “cannot escape the NGA’s statutory scheme of review by circumventing [its] plain language.”
The Court’s opinion is available here.
The United States’ Largest Wholesale Energy Provider Launches Blockchain-Based Pilot for Renewable Energy Markets
By Matthew G. Lawson
On April 18, 2018, the Corporate Environmental Lawyer published a blog entry discussing the growing use of Blockchain technology by startup companies seeking to connect populations without access to traditional electricity markets to electricity produced by distributed renewable energy systems. As discussed in that blog entry, proponents of Blockchain technology have asserted the platform’s built-in efficiencies would allow it to compete with traditional, utility-owned electrical grids, with one company going as far as setting up a “micro-grid” in Brooklyn, New York. It appears that the marriage between Blockchain and the electricity grid may be moving forward at an accelerated pace as the technology is now being examined and piloted by major utility operators.
PJM Interconnection (“PJM”), the United States’ largest power grid operator and market administrator serving over 65 million people from Chicago to Washington D.C., has announced its intention to test a Blockchain system that will allow clean-energy buyers and sellers to trade the renewable energy credits that wind and solar farms produce as they generate electricity. Working through its subsidiary—PJM Environmental Information Services—PJM has announced a partnership with Energy Web Foundation, a nonprofit entity with experience developing Blockchain platforms for smaller energy markets in Europe and Asia. The partnership hopes to rollout a pilot for the program by the end of the first quarter of 2018. “This collaboration between EWF and PJM-EIS is a major milestone for the adoption of advanced digital technologies in the energy sector,” said Hervé Touati, CEO of Energy Web Foundation. “We are excited to partner with a leader such as PJM-EIS.”
Blockchain, the technology that functions as a public ledger underpinning digital currency transactions, continues to be promoted as a key driver of growing renewable energy markets. At its core, the belief that Blockchain can spur renewable energy growth and disrupt current energy markets stems from the potential built-in efficiencies of the technology, which allow buyers and sellers of clean power to interact directly, without the need for a central coordinator. While the potential impact of Blockchain on future energy markets is still unknown, the successful use of the technology by PJM could represent a major milestone in the growth and development of the technology in the marketplace.
New Law Requires Widespread Testing for Unregulated Contaminants
By Steven M. Siros
On October 23, 2018, President Trump signed into law America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 which, in addition to authorizing federal funding for water infrastructure projects, also requires drinking water systems serving more than 3,300 people to test for unregulated contaminants pursuant to U.S. EPA’s Unregulated Contaminants Monitoring Rule (UCMR). Prior to this new law, only drinking water systems that served more than 10,000 people were required to monitor for unregulated contaminants. Contaminants covered by the UCMR include PFOA, PFOS, 1,2,3-TCP, hexavalent chromium and 1,4-dioxane. This new testing requirement, which goes into effect in 2021, is expected to add more than 5,000 drinking water systems to the list of systems that are required to test for these unregulated contaminants.
The challenge that continues to be faced by drinking water systems across the country is what to do if these contaminants are in fact found in the drinking water supply. As their name would imply, U.S. EPA has yet to set drinking standards for these contaminants although many states and local entities continue to enact a patchwork of regulatory requirements often without regard to the technical feasibility of treating these chemicals and/or the health risks actually posed by these chemicals. Unfortunately, until such time as U.S. EPA takes action to enact a federal standard, the regulated community will continue to be subject to this regulatory quagmire and now, with the new testing requirements, more drinking water systems will be forced to struggle with this issue without any clear regulatory guidance.
Supreme Court to Hear Dispute Over the United States’ Largest Uranium Deposit
By Matthew G. Lawson
On November 5, 2018, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on a landmark case regarding the preemptive effect of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (the “Atomic Energy Act”) on a state’s regulation of uranium mining. The case, Virginia Uranium Inc. v. Warren, questions whether the Atomic Energy Act’s regulation of radiation safety standards extends to preempt a Virginia state law banning uranium mining within the borders of the state. The Virginia law dates back to the early 1980s, after the largest uranium deposit in the United States was discovered in Pittsylvania County, Virginia. In response to the discovery, the Virginia General Assembly asked the state’s Coal and Energy Commission to evaluate the potential safety effects of uranium mining, and enacted an indefinite ban on mining the deposit. The unharvested deposit is valued at up to $6 billion USD.
In 2007, the owners of the land, Virginia Uranium Inc., Cole Hill LLC and Bowen Minerals LLC, announced their intention to begin mining the deposit. After failing to convince the Virginia legislature to overturn its mining ban, the plaintiffs sought to challenge Virginia’s law as preempted under the Atomic Energy Act.
The Atomic Energy Act gives the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission the sole power to regulate several steps in the production of nuclear fuel, including setting radiation safety standards for milling uranium ore and disposing of uranium waste byproducts. The Atomic Energy Act does not, however, directly regulate the mining of uranium on non-federal land.
According to the Plaintiffs/Petitioners, the Virginia ban is preempted by the Atomic Energy Act because the purpose and direct effect of Virginia’s law is to regulate radiation safety standards, which the Atomic Energy Act exclusively entrusted to the purview of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Predictably, the Virginia legislature has taken a much less expansive view of the law, arguing that the Atomic Energy Act only regulates uranium “after [uranium’s] removal from its place of deposit in nature.” Thus, according to the legislature, a state is free to regulate—or ban—the harvesting of uranium prior to its removal from the deposit.
The eventual resolution of the dispute will not only have a significant impact on the availability of American mined uranium, but may also potentially set the stage for the broader battle over states' rights brewing between the Trump administration and liberal states like California, which have looked to enact environmental laws in areas currently regulated by the federal government.
Trump Administration Releases Fall 2018 Regulatory Agenda
By Allison A. Torrence
The Trump Administration has released its Fall 2018 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. This regulatory agenda “reports on the actions administrative agencies plan to issue in the near and long term [and] demonstrates this Administration’s ongoing commitment to fundamental regulatory reform and a reorientation toward reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens on the American people.”
According to the Trump Administration, the regulatory agenda reflects the following broad regulatory reform priorities:
- Advancing Regulatory Reform
- Public Notice of Regulatory Development
- Consistent Practice across the Federal Government
The EPA-specific regulatory agenda lists 148 regulatory actions in either the proposed rule stage or final rule stage, and provides information about the planned regulatory actions and the timing of those actions. Notable regulatory actions under consideration by EPA include:
More information, and EPA's Statement of Priorities, can be found here.
EPA To Begin Superfund Adaptive Management Pilot Program
By Allison A. Torrence
Under the Trump Administration, EPA has expressed a renewed focus on the Superfund program and making sure that site cleanups operate optimally. In 2017, EPA established a Superfund Task Force, “to provide recommendations for improving and expediting site cleanups and promoting redevelopment.” The Superfund Task Force has made a number of recommendations, including recommending that EPA “Promote the Application of Adaptive Management at Complex Sites” and “Broaden the Use of Adaptive Management (AM) at Superfund Sites.”
According to the Superfund Task Force,
To implement the Superfund Task Force recommendations, EPA has issued a pre-decisional draft plan that describes how it will implement an Adaptive Management Pilot Program at selected Superfund sites across the country.
Adaptive Management is an approach used at large and/or complex sites that focuses limited resources on making informed decisions throughout the remedial process…Under an Adaptive Management strategy, Regions are encouraged to consider greater use of early and/or interim actions including use of removal authority or interim remedies, to address immediate risks, prevent source migration, and to return portions of sites to use pending more detailed evaluations on other parts of sites.
EPA believes that Adaptive Management will streamline decision making, facilitate site progress, and help control costs. Key elements of EPA’s Adaptive Management plans include:
- Define Site/Project Objectives
- Model(s) the site being managed
- Identify potential actions
- Monitor and evaluate outcomes
- Incorporate learning into future decisions
- Stakeholder participation
EPA presented information about the Adaptive Management Pilot Program in an October 2018 webinar. Comments on the Adaptive Management Pilot Program are due October 9, 2018. Later in October 2018, EPA Regions will nominate sites to participate in the pilot programs, and EPA anticipates selecting pilots by November 2018.
EPA Finalizes TSCA Fees Rule; Estimates Chemical Manufactures to Pay $20 Million Annually in Fees
By Allison A. Torrence
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (a/k/a the TSCA Reform Act), signed into law in 2016, was a major overhaul of the 40-year-old chemical law, reforming how new and existing chemicals are evaluated and deemed “safe.” Since the law’s passage, EPA has completed determinations on 1,602 new chemical cases. EPA has also taken action to ban or restrict use of five existing chemicals, including trichloroethylene (TCE) and methylene chloride, which EPA found to pose heightened risks.
EPA has expended considerable resources over the past two year to fulfil these new review and evaluation requirements. EPA has now taken action to pass some of those costs down to the chemical industry in the form of fees authorized by the TSCA Reform Act.
On September 27, 2018, Acting EPA Administrator Wheeler signed the final Fees Rule, setting out the fees EPA will impose on industry to pay for the costly TSCA review process. The final rule will become effective one day after publication in the Federal Register, which is expected to happen in the next few days.
Under the Fees Rule, affected businesses will begin incurring fees on October 1, 2018. The Fees Rule requires payment from manufactures when they take the following actions:
- Submit test data for EPA review
- Submit a pre-manufacture notice for a new chemicals or a notice of new use
- Manufacture or process a chemical substance that is the subject of a risk evaluation
- Request that EPA conduct a chemical risk evaluation
According to EPA, the Fees Rule will impact primarily the following industries:
- Chemical Manufacturers (NAICS code 325)
- Petroleum and Coal Products (NAICS code 324)
- Chemical, Petroleum and Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS code 424)
EPA estimates that the annualized fees collected from industry under the Fees Rule will be approximately $20 million, excluding fees collected for manufacturer-requested risk evaluations (which will be approximately $4.2 million). As required by the TSCA Reform Act, EPA will evaluate and readjust, if necessary, the fees every three years.
The Fees Rule will be found at 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter R (Parts 700-791).
More information and a list of FAQs is available at the EPA’s website.
EPA Finalizes Unprecedented NPL Listing
By Matthew G. Lawson
On September 13, 2018, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) took the final, unprecedented step of adding a contaminated site to the Superfund National Priorities List (“NPL”) based solely on the risk to human health posed by indoor air vapor intrusion at the site. The newly designated site, which consists of the former Rockwell International Wheel & Trim facility and its surrounding 76 acres (the “Site”), is located in Grenada, Mississippi. The Site has an extensive history. Beginning in 1966, the Rockwell facility operated as a wheel cover manufacturing and chrome plating plant. After chrome plating operations ceased in 2001, the facility was used for metal stamping until approximately 2007. According to EPA, the Site’s historic operations resulted in multiple releases of trichloroethene, toluene, and hexavalent chromium into the surrounding soil and adjacent wetland. However, EPA’s primary concern—and reason for listing the site—is the potential for airborne volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”) to enter the facility through cracks, joints, and other openings, resulting in contaminated indoor air. The potential for indoor air contamination appears to be of particular concern to EPA, given that nearly 400 individuals currently work within the facility.
The Site will now join a list of approximately 160 contaminated sites that have been federally designated as NPL sites. The NPL includes the nation’s most contaminated and/or dangerous hazardous waste sites. A contaminated site must be added to the NPL to become eligible for federal funding for permanent cleanup under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. While EPA’s decision to list the Site based on risks from indoor air contamination is unprecedented, the move is not all together surprising, given EPA’s recent rulemaking actions. In May 2017, EPA passed a final rule expanding the list of factors the agency is allowed to consider when designating NPL sites to specifically include risks to human health from impacted indoor air. In the preamble to the rule, EPA noted that it needed the authority to list sites on the basis of significant risk to human health from vapor intrusion contamination.
In contrast to EPA’s position, environmental consultants operating at the Site have strongly opposed the NPL designation. Several of the firms submitted comments on the final listing, asserting that EPA’s risk evaluation failed to take into account the Sub Slab Depressurization System (“SSDS”) installed at the facility in 2017, which subsequently reduced levels of VOCs in the indoor air to safe levels. However, EPA rejected these arguments, noting that even though the SSDS may protect workers from immediate threats, “it is not intended to address possible long-term remedial goals such as addressing the sources of the contamination below the building.”
EPA’s designation of the Site should alert potentially responsible parties that vapor intrusion issues may result in an increased chance of a site becoming listed on the NPL. In addition, parties relying on engineering controls to maintain compliant indoor air vapor levels should note the potential for EPA to deem such actions insufficient as long-term site remedies.
United Airlines Steps Up to Cut Greenhouse Gases
By Steven M. Siros
United Airlines became the first U.S. airline to publicly commit to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 50% by 2050. In a press release issued on September 13, 2018, United Airlines explained that it would achieve that reduction by expanding its use of more sustainable biofuels and by relying on more fuel-efficient aircraft and implementing other operational changes to better conserve fuel. United Airlines' commitment to reduce GHG emissions by 50% by 2020 is consistent with reduction targets established by the International Air Transport Association in May 2018.
U.S. EPA has yet to regulate GHG emissions from aircraft in the United States, notwithstanding U.S. EPA’s July 25, 2016 endangerment finding for GHG emissions from aircraft and U.S. EPA’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking contemplating adoption of the International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) aviation carbon emission design standards.
The decision by United Airlines is likely to be followed by other U.S. carriers that have international routes because those carriers will be subject to the ICAO standards when flying internationally.
Pipeline Company Found Guilty for 2015 California Coastal Oil Spill
By Alexander J. Bandza
Last week, the Santa Barbara County District Attorney and California Attorney General obtained guilty verdicts against Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. regarding the 2015 Refugio Oil Spill near Santa Barbara, CA. By way of background, on May 19, 2015, a pipeline operated by Plains to transport crude oil ruptured on shore just north of Refugio State Beach in Santa Barbara County, California, causing over 140,000 gallons of crude oil to be released from the pipeline, which spilled crude oil into the Pacific Ocean and across coastal beaches. At trial, testimony revealed that over 100,000 gallons of crude oil were never recovered.
Plains was convicted of one felony for unlawfully discharging oil into state waters and eight misdemeanors for the following: failing to timely call emergency response agencies; violating a county ordinance banning oil spills; and killing marine mammals, protected sea birds, and other sea life. Sentencing will be held on December 13, 2018.
According to a statement by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, the verdict “should send a message: If you endanger our environment and wildlife, we will hold you accountable. At the California Department of Justice, we will continue prosecuting corporate negligence and willful ignorance to the fullest extent of the law.” (Emphasis added.)
As noted in Law360 (sub. req.), the verdict “underscore[s] the importance of pipeline companies taking their maintenance, inspection and compliance duties seriously, especially in states like California which have strict requirements and liability where knowledge or intent isn’t necessary to sustain criminal convictions.” Furthermore, the conviction specifically as to failure to notify emergency responders “underscores the importance of that duty and that companies must ensure their policies leave no room for error.” The relative rarity of criminal environmental convictions for corporations means this case is one to watch is it moves towards sentencing and/or appeals.
Chicago’s Trump Tower Sued for Violation of the Clean Water Act
By Matthew G. Lawson
In a recently filed lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court, the State of Illinois accused Trump International Hotel & Tower of violating multiple clean water laws and endangering fish and aquatic life in the Chicago River. The lawsuit, filed on August 13, 2018 by Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, alleges that the Trump Tower’s water intake cooling system failed to comply with state and federal permit requirements, which are designed to limit the number of fish killed by the intake screens or sudden changes in pressure and temperature caused by the cooling system. The state’s lawsuit further alleges that the Trump Tower's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit (“NPDES Permit”) expired on August 31, 2017, and that the building had been operating without a permit for nearly a year.
The 1,400 ft. skyscraper is one of the city’s largest users of river water. In order to cool the tower, the building, like most other buildings along the river, uses a water intake cooling system that siphons approximately 20 million gallons of water per day (“MGD”) from the Chicago River. After being utilized to cool the building, this water is subsequently pumped back into the river up to 35 degrees hotter than its original temperature. Because the building's intake system withdraws more than 2 MGD, the building must comply with regulations promulgated under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”). According to the attorney general’s lawsuit, these regulations required Trump Tower to document the efforts it has taken to minimize the impact of its intake system on the river’s fish and other aquatic life—actions which the lawsuit claims the building failed to complete. According to a Chicago Tribune article published in June 2018, Trump Tower is the only building relying on water from the Chicago River that has failed to document these efforts.
In May 2017, Trump Tower submitted a delayed application to renew its then expiring NPDES permit. Despite the building’s alleged failure to timely submit a permit renewal request, it appears the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“IEPA”) had been preparing to reissue the Trump Tower’s NPDES Permit as recently as last January. However, the agency changed course after several environmental groups threatened to sue prompting the agency to delay reissuance of the NPDES Permit.
Representatives of the Trump organization have responded to the lawsuit with criticism. “We are disappointed that the Illinois Attorney General would choose to file this suit considering such items are generally handled at the administrative level,” stated a representative for the Trump Organization. “One can only conclude that this decision was motivated by politics.”
Environmental groups responded positively to the lawsuit. The Illinois Chapter of the Sierra Club and Friends of the Chicago River, which had jointly announced their own plans to bring suit against Trump Tower last June, stated that they looked forward to assisting in the state’s lawsuit “to assure an outcome that addresses the permit violations, protects additional aquatic life from harm, and makes the river healthier for fish."
This is not the first time Attorney General Madigan has gone after Trump Tower for discharge violations. In 2012, the State sued Trump Tower for failing to obtain a permit for the same intake system. The 2012 lawsuit resulted in Trump Tower agreeing to pay $46,000 in fines and obtaining the proper permitting. In its most recent lawsuit, the State is seeking a preliminary and (after trial) permanent injunction to stop Trump Tower from using its cooling water intake system. In addition, the complaint seeks $10,000 in daily penalties. In an interesting twist, it appears that industry groups previously urged the Trump Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency to overhaul or eliminate the CWA’s cooling water intake rules, which industry groups described as “cumbersome.”
Drinking Water Providers Seek Pause in Rush to Set MCLs for Emerging Contaminants
By Steven M. Siros
The presence of emerging contaminants such as perfluorinated chemicals (PFOS) and 1,4-dioxane in drinking water often make the headlines as sampling technologies become more sophisticated and these contaminants are being detected with increasing frequency in drinking water systems across the country. There has been a significant push to compel regulators to set regulatory standards and/or issue health advisories for these emerging contaminants, but the impact that these standards and health advisories have on drinking water systems cannot be ignored.
In reaction to media coverage of these emerging contaminants in drinking water supplies, state regulators have been at the front of the pack in trying to set what are often conflicting standards that may not always reflect the current state of science regarding these contaminants. These state regulations often fail to consider the difficulties that drinking water suppliers face in complying with these standards, especially in instances where there are not established treatment technologies that are capable of treating these contaminants in a cost-effective manner. In addition, when setting health advisories for various contaminants, U.S. EPA typically does not consider the effect of those advisories on drinking water providers. It is often the case, however, that these providers are pressured either by state regulators and/or the general public to ensure that the drinking water meets these health advisory levels, which are set without regard to whether cost-effective technologies exist that are capable of treating these emerging contaminants.
These concerns were recently highlighted in comments submitted by the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) in response to ongoing efforts by U.S. EPA to set standards for PFOS in drinking water. The AMWA cautioned U.S. EPA from rushing to adopt an MCL for PFOS, noting that “it is crucial that we have effective treatment technologies that are available and feasible to implement before any regulatory or non-regulatory action is taken.” The AMWA further noted that significant gaps existed with respect to the public health effects of PFOS in drinking water systems and recommended that these gaps should be remedied before regulatory standards were set by U.S. EPA.
The AMWA and other water quality professionals support a federal standard that would apply to all drinking water systems and that appropriately takes into consideration the current state of science regarding these emerging contaminants, but also considers the technical and economic feasibility of treating these contaminants. Otherwise, there will continue to be a patchwork of regulations for these emerging contaminants, as is the case in New Jersey, where the state maximum contaminant level for PFOS has been set at 14 parts per trillion, as compared to the U.S. EPA health advisory of 70 parts per trillion. Another example of such an emerging contaminant is 1,4-dioxane, which has a U.S. EPA health advisory level of 0.35 parts per billion. Some states have relied on that health advisory level to compel drinking water systems to treat 1,4-dioxane to below 0.35 parts per billion notwithstanding that there are not cost-effective treatment methodologies to treat 1,4-dioxane to that level. Other states, such as Oklahoma, have no regulatory standard for 1,4-dioxane in drinking water. Until such time as the science and treatment technologies catch up with public perception, it will continue to be difficult for drinking water providers to know with certainty exactly how to deal with these emerging contaminants.
EPA e-Manifest Rules Go Into Effect June 30th
By Allison A. Torrence
Beginning on June 30, 2018, EPA will launch its new Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest (e-Manifest) System. EPA’s e-Manifest system is many years in the making and follows the 2012 Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act, and two final rules issued by EPA in 2014 and 2017.
Beginning on June 30th, the following changes take effect:
- Facilities that receive hazardous waste that requires manifesting must submit manifests to EPA.
- EPA will charge receiving facilities for all paper and e-manifests (lower fees for e-manifests; higher fees for paper manifests).
- Generators, transporters and disposers of hazardous waste may transmit waste manifest data electronically through EPA’s e-Manifest system.
The new requirement for receiving facilities to submit all manifests to EPA is a big change. To assist industry in this transition, EPA recently announced that it would grant extra time for receiving facilities to submit paper manifests during the initial months after system launch.
Under EPA’s regulations, receiving facilities must submit paper manifests to EPA within 30 days of receipt. However, EPA will allow receiving facilities to submit paper manifests they receive between June 30, 2018, and September 1, 2018, by September 30, 2018. This effectively provides receiving facilities up to 60 additional days, over the existing 30 days provided in the regulations, to submit paper manifests to EPA.
EPA will impose a per manifest fee for each manifest submitted to the system based on the type (paper or electronic) and mode of submission (mail, data upload, image file upload). EPA has stated that it will publish the final fee schedule to the e-Manifest website prior to the system launch on June 30, 2018 (but has not done so to date).
EPA’s current best estimates for the initial per manifest fees are:
- $4.00 for an electronic manifest (including hybrid)
- $7.00 for a data file upload of paper manifest data
- $13.00 for the upload of paper manifest image
- $20.00 for submission of a paper manifest form by mail
Generators, transporters and disposers of hazardous waste may still use paper manifests, and parties that do so will use EPA’s new five-part form in place of the existing six-part form. However, as shown above, EPA’s manifest fees likely will be significantly higher for paper manifests than for electronic.
For more information, you can check out the following EPA resources: