Jenner & Block

Corporate Environmental Lawyer Blog

May 15, 2019 EPA Adds Seven Sites to the Superfund National Priorities List

Torrence_jpgBy Allison A. Torrence

Map

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.

CATEGORIES: Cercla, Hazmat, Real Estate and Environment, Sustainability

PEOPLE: Allison A. Torrence

April 12, 2019 Trends in Climate Change Litigation: Part 2—Investigations & Litigation by State Attorneys General

Matthew G. Lawson

Del

By Matthew G. Lawson

 

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.

CATEGORIES: Air, Climate Change, Consumer Law and Environment, Greenhouse Gas, Hazmat, Sustainability

PEOPLE: Matthew G. Lawson

April 2, 2019 Trends in Climate Change Litigation: Part 1

Matthew G. Lawson

Climate Change

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.

 

CATEGORIES: Air, Cercla, Climate Change, Consumer Law and Environment, FIFRA, Greenhouse Gas, Hazmat, OSHA, RCRA, Real Estate and Environment, Sustainability, Toxic Tort, TSCA, Water

PEOPLE: Matthew G. Lawson

November 14, 2018 ATSDR and U.S. EPA--Conflicting Guidance Regarding Emerging Contaminant Regulatory Standards?

  By Steven M. Siros   ASTDR

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.

CATEGORIES: Climate Change, Consumer Law and Environment, Hazmat, Sustainability, Water

PEOPLE: Steven R. Englund, Steven M. Siros

October 31, 2018 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 Image result for FERC Logo

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.

CATEGORIES: Climate Change, Hazmat, Sustainability

PEOPLE: Alexander J. Bandza

October 22, 2018 Supreme Court to Hear Dispute Over the United States’ Largest Uranium Deposit

By Matthew G. Lawson

Paladin-langer-heinrich-namibiaOn 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.

CATEGORIES: Hazmat

PEOPLE: Matthew G. Lawson

October 17, 2018 Trump Administration Releases Fall 2018 Regulatory Agenda

Torrence_jpgBy 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
  • Transparency
  • 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.

CATEGORIES: Air, Cercla, Climate Change, FIFRA, Greenhouse Gas, Hazmat, RCRA, TSCA, Water

PEOPLE: Allison A. Torrence

September 17, 2018 EPA Finalizes Unprecedented NPL Listing

By Matthew G. Lawson

Rockwell GrenadaOn 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.

CATEGORIES: Air, Cercla, Climate Change, Greenhouse Gas, Hazmat, Sustainability

PEOPLE: Steven R. Englund, Matthew G. Lawson

September 12, 2018 Pipeline Company Found Guilty for 2015 California Coastal Oil Spill

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.

CATEGORIES: Climate Change, Hazmat, Sustainability, Water

PEOPLE: Steven R. Englund, Alexander J. Bandza

June 25, 2018 EPA e-Manifest Rules Go Into Effect June 30th

Torrence_jpgBy 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:

CATEGORIES: Hazmat, RCRA

PEOPLE: Allison A. Torrence

June 25, 2018 EPA e-Manifest Rules Go Into Effect June 30th

Torrence_jpgBy 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:

CATEGORIES: Hazmat, RCRA

PEOPLE: Allison A. Torrence

March 30, 2018 U.S. EPA Removes Portion of Former Refinery Site from NPL: Precursor to More Expedited CERCLA Cleanups?

Siros

 

By Steven M. Siros Pacific Coast Pipeline

After almost 30 years having been listed on the NPL, U.S. EPA has removed the surface portion of the 55-acre Pacific Coast Pipeline site from that distinctive list.  Since being added to the NPL in 1989, more than 42,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils have been removed from the site and a multi-layer cap has been installed. The groundwater portion of the site will still remain on the NPL in order to address benzene and protect drinking water and agricultural wells.

One goal of EPA Administrator Pruitt’s Superfund Task Force was to improve and expedite site cleanups and accelerate full and partial deletions for sites that meet all applicable requirements. “The partial de-listing of the Pacific Coast Pipeline site is an example of EPA’s commitment to accelerate the remediation of contaminated sites and transform them into productive assets for the community,” said Pruitt.

Whether this partial NPL deletion is a precursor of U.S. EPA taking a more streamlined approach to CERCLA cleanups remains to be seen, but it would appear to be a step in the right direction.

CATEGORIES: Climate Change, Hazmat, Sustainability, Water

PEOPLE: Steven R. Englund, Steven M. Siros

March 8, 2018 Who Wants to Buy a Superfund Site?

 By Matthew G. LawsonSuperfund Sign

On July 25, 2017, Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) administrator Scott Pruitt’s “Superfund Task Force” issued a final report revealing the Task Force’s recommendations for streamlining the remediation process of over 1,300 Superfund sites currently overseen by the EPA.  The Task Force’s recommendations included a strong emphasis on facilitating the redevelopment of Superfund sites by encouraging private sector investment into future use of contaminated sites.  The recommendations were subsequently adopted by Mr. Pruitt, who has repeatedly affirmed that a top priority of the administration is revamping the Superfund program.  In the recent months, it appears EPA and the Trump administration have taken new steps to further the objective of pushing private redevelopment for Superfund Sites. 

On January 17, 2018, EPA posted a “Superfund Redevelopment Focus List” consisting of thirty-one Superfund sites that the agency believes “pose the greatest expected redevelopment and commercial potential.”  EPA claims that the identified sites have significant redevelopment potential based on previous outside interest, access to transportation corridors, high land values, and other development drivers.  “EPA is more than a collaborative partner to remediate the nation’s most contaminated sites, we’re also working to successfully integrate Superfund sites back into communities across the country,” said EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.  “[The] redevelopment list incorporates Superfund sites ready to become catalysts for economic growth and revitalization.”

Along the same lines, President Donald Trump’s sweeping infrastructure proposal, released February 12, 2018, proposed an amendment to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) that would allow Superfund sites to access funding from the EPA’s Brownfield Program, which the administration believes could help stimulate redevelopment of the sites.  The proposal further requests Congress pass an amendment to CERCLA that would allow EPA to enter into settlement agreements with potentially responsible parties to clean up and reuse Superfund sites without filing a consent decree or receiving approval from the Attorney General.  The proposal claims that CERCLA’s limitations “hinder the cleanup and reuse of Superfund sites and contribute to delays in cleanups due to negotiations.”

Time will tell whether the administration’s strategy will be enough to entice new development into the Superfund sites.  To follow the progress of EPA’s Superfund redevelopment efforts, visit EPA’s Superfund Redevelopment Initiative website here

CATEGORIES: Air, Climate Change, Greenhouse Gas, Hazmat, Real Estate and Environment, Sustainability

PEOPLE: Steven R. Englund

March 5, 2018 EPA “Year in Review”

Torrence_jpgBy Allison A. Torrence

Year in ReviewOn Monday, March 5, 2018, EPA issued a report titled EPA Year in Review 2017-2018. The report contains an introductory letter from Administrator Pruitt, who states that he has been “hard at work enacting President Donald Trump’s agenda during [his] first year as EPA Administrator.” The report highlights accomplishments at EPA over the past year, with a focus on the roll back of regulations from the Obama Administration, such as the Clean Power Plan and the Waters of the United States Rule. Administrator Pruitt stated that “[i]n year one, EPA finalized 22 deregulatory actions, saving Americans more than $1 billion in regulatory costs.”

According to the report, Administrator Scott Pruitt set forth a “back-to-basics agenda” with three objectives:

  1. Refocusing the Agency back to its core mission
  2. Restoring power to the states through cooperative federalism
  3. Adhering to the rule of law and improving Agency processes

The report also identifies EPA’s “core mission” as “clean air, land, and water,” and argues that in recent years, “central responsibilities of the Agency took a backseat to ideological crusades, allowing some environmental threats – like cleaning up toxic land – to go unaddressed.” In light of these alleged lapses, EPA states that:

Administrator Pruitt returned the Agency to its core mission and prioritized issues at the heart of EPA’s purpose: ensuring access to clean air and water, cleaning up contaminated lands and returning them to communities for reuse, improving water infrastructure, and ensuring chemicals entering the marketplace are reviewed for safety. In just one year, EPA made immense progress on these fronts, and the American people have seen real, tangible results.

Topics covered in the report include:

  • Air: Improving Air Quality
  • Water: Provide for Clean and Safe Water
  • Land: Revitalize Land for Reuse
  • Chemicals: Ensure Safety of Chemicals
  • Enforcement
  • Cooperative Federalism and Public Participation
  • Rule of Law

The report concludes with several pages of quotes from elected officials, state environmental agencies, and industry representatives, offering praise for the work done by EPA and Administrator Pruitt:

Leslie Rutledge, Attorney General, Ark.: “Administrator Pruitt’s decision last month to completely re-evaluate the WOTUS rule, minimizing the regulatory burden on countless landowners, demonstrates his commitment to building stronger relationships with state partners.” (07/20/17)

The Year in Review report was tweeted out by Administrator Pruitt and can be found on EPA’s website.

CATEGORIES: Air, Cercla, Climate Change, Consumer Law and Environment, Greenhouse Gas, Hazmat, RCRA, Real Estate and Environment, Sustainability, TSCA, Water

PEOPLE: Allison A. Torrence

February 22, 2018 OSHA Makes a Statement on Hex Chrome Enforcement

Andi Kenny

By Andi Kenney  Hex chrome

On January 19, 2018, OSHA issued a citation to Spirit Aerosystems, Inc., alleging one willful and five serious violations of the OSHA hexavalent chromium standard (29 CFR 1910.1026) and assessing $194,006 in penalties.

In the citation, OSHA alleges that the manufacturer of aerostructures (including portions of fuselages) willfully failed to prevent employee exposures to levels above the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 5.0 ug/m3 8 hour time weighted average (TWA) and to implement feasible engineering and work practice controls “to reduce employee exposure to the lowest achievable level.” The citation notes an employee who was sanding and grinding was exposed to hexavalent chromium at 9.0 ug/m3 on a time weighted average, 1.8 times the PEL.

The citation further alleges that Spirit Aerosystems did not perform periodic monitoring every three months, did not perform monitoring when process changed, did not demarcate a regulated area for hex chrome, allowed employees to leave the hex chrome work area without removing contaminated clothing and equipment, and did not adequately train employees regarding the OSHA hex chrome standard. 

The citation is notable for several reasons. First, it is an indication that OSHA is still actively enforcing the hex chrome standard. Second, it underscores OSHA’s position that an increased scheduled work load is a process change that would require additional exposure monitoring. Third, it affirms that the aircraft painting exception, which establishes a 25 ug/m3 exposure limit, does not apply to grinding and sanding operations. Finally, it raises questions about how far an employer has to go to reduce exposures—does the employer’s obligation to implement controls require it to reduce exposure “to the lowest achievable level” as alleged in the citation or does the employer meet its obligation if it reduces exposure to the PEL?

CATEGORIES: Air, Climate Change, Greenhouse Gas, Hazmat, OSHA, Sustainability

PEOPLE: Anne Samuels Kenney (Andi)