Just in case you are not sated with coverage about the Supreme Court argument in Sackett and the potential implications if EPA loses, I thought I would note that I did a brief (8 minutes) interview with LexBlog Network about the issues it presents. You can see it here.
Those following stormwater issues know that EPA is overdue to promulgate a proposed rule for stormwater controls at post-construction sites. The rule has been extremely controversial, with groups such as the Associated General Contractors arguing that EPA has no authority to promulgate post-construction rules. EPA was originally scheduled to issue the proposed rule by September 30. When EPA couldn’t meet that deadline, it negotiated an extension until December 2 (while stating that the deadline for the final rule, November 19, 2012, would still be met). Well, it’s December 15, and no proposal has been issued.
E&E Daily has now reported that, in recent Congressional testimony, EPA Acting Assistant Administrator for Water Nancy Stoner (a law school classmate, I might add) has acknowledged the obvious and admitted that EPA is “behind schedule.” Stoner did not provide a new target for when the rule would be proposed. If I were a betting person, I’d be skeptical that there are any circumstances under which EPA could actually meet the November 19, 2012 deadline for promulgation of a final rule.
Developers have cheered in recent years as the Supreme Court has tightened its standing rules. In a decision issued on Friday in National Association of Home Builders v. EPA, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia may have hoist the developers on their own petard.
After EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers issued a determination that two reaches of the Santa Cruz River constitute “traditional navigable waters” under the Clean Water Act, the National Association of Home Builders sued. The complaint appears to have attached declarations referring to individuals who own property along tributaries of the two reaches, and who asserted that they are have applied for permits under the CWA. None of this was enough for the Court, which made four important points:
· The NAHB itself did not have organizational standing. The Court made clear that an organization does not have standing unless it has credibly asserted that the challenged action “’perceptibly impaired’ a non-abstract interest.”
· NAHB’s effort to assert representational standing for its members generally failed, because it contained no assertions linking this site-specific TNW determination to any broader impacts that would affect developers away from the Santa Cruz River.
· NAHB’s effort to assert standing on behalf of owners in the vicinity of the Santa Cruz River failed because none of the declarations filed with the complaint alleged any harm specifically tied to the issuance of the TNW determination.
· NAHB did not have “procedural standing” to challenge the agencies’ failure to provide notice and an opportunity to comment before issuing the TNW determination. Quoting from the Supreme Court decision in Summers v. Earth Island Institute, the Appeals Court stated that “deprivation of a procedural right without some concrete interest that is affected by the deprivation – a procedural right in vacuo – is insufficient to create Article III standing.” As the Court further noted, allegations of procedural violations may be relevant in assessing the redressability issue, but they cannot loosen the requirement that plaintiffs demonstrate that they have suffered a substantive injury traceable to the procedural violation.
The NABH decision appears plainly correct in light of Supreme Court standing jurisprudence. Moreover, it does not substantially narrow access to the courts. In fact, I think it provides a useful roadmap regarding the types of declarations that will be required to establish standing for developers. What it does make clear is that the courts are not simply discouraging environmental plaintiffs in their standing jurisprudence. Instead, the courts are discouraging each side equally – or at least requiring the same demonstrations from developers as well as environmentalists.
Yesterday, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, or NERC, released its 2011 Long-Term Reliability Assessment. The NERC report identified environmental regulations as one “of the greatest risks” to reliability. Much of the focus of the concern was on EPA’s MACT rule for hazardous air pollutants and its 316(b) rule for cooling water intake structures. While expressing uncertainty about these not-yet finalized rules, the NERC report took an extremely cautious approach, largely assuming the worst in terms of the stringency and inflexibility of these rules.
Appropriate caution? Not according to EPA.
In a letter to NERC, EPA Deputy Administrator Bob Persciasepe accused NERC of simply ignoring what EPA has said regarding the provisions of those rules and how they will be implemented. For example, with respect to the 316(b) rule, NERC assumes that the rule will require closed cycle cooling, even though EPA has explicitly said it will not require closed cycle cooling on all units and the rule will allow the cost of controls and potential impacts on reliability to be considered in determining appropriate technology.
As Persciasepe summarized:
NERC’s draft report describes an extreme outcome that arises from a scenario where the most stringent and costly rules imaginable took effect, and no one at the federal, state, or local level took any steps to ensure the continued reliability of the grid.
Fortunately, the EPA’s analysis and several external analyses show that, where the EPA’s actual rules are accurately characterized, there is no adverse impact on capacity reserves in any region of the country. If isolated, local reliability challenges were to emerge due to individual plant retirements, the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act provide flexibility mechanisms to ensure that sources can be brought into compliance over time while maintaining reliability.
In my most recent post on this subject, I noted that a comprehensive look at the reliability issue by FERC would be helpful. While I understand NERC’s approach to err on the side of caution, I agree with EPA that NERC overdid it here. Most of the old plants at risk of retirement are not going to have to install closed cycle cooling. I wouldn’t quite describe the NERC report as Chicken Little, but I don’t think the sky is falling. I’m still waiting for a more balanced and comprehensive review – and still skeptical that such a report would attain universal credibility, even if were to deserve it.
As part of its efforts to control the impact of mountaintop removal 
mining, EPA has implemented a number of changes – both procedural and substantive – into how § 404 permit applications for such activities will be reviewed. None of these changes have gone through notice and comment rulemaking. As we previously noted, Judge Reggie Walton already expressed skepticism about EPA’s mountaintop removal guidance. Last week, in the latest decision in National Mining Association v. Jackson, Judge Walton shot down EPA’s “Enhanced Coordination Process”, or ECP, for reviews of section 404 permit applications.
Although EPA described the modifications as the types of procedural changes that are within agencies’ inherent authority, Judge Walton was having none of it. He concluded that EPA’s authority under the CWA is subject to certain unambiguous limitations.
The statutory language explicitly establishes the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Corps, as the permitting authority, which strike the Court as an express limitation. … The statute is therefore not ambiguous…. Thus, if a responsibility involving the permitting process has not been delegated to the EPA by Congress, that function is vested in the Corps as the permitting authority.
Under the Multi—Criteria Resource Assessment, or MCIR [don’t ask me why it’s “MCIR” and not “MCRA”], EPA, not the Corps, initially applies § 404(b) guidelines, and EPA directs the Corps how to process mountaintop removal § 404 permit applications. To Judge Walton, these changes exceed EPA’s statutory authority under the CWA.
Judge Walton also concluded that the ECP, including the MCIR violated EPA’s obligation to provide notice and an opportunity to comment on the change in rules that the ECP represents. For those of you who are not APA geeks, the APA exempts from the obligation to provide notice and comment “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.” While the ECP sounds procedural – after all, the word “process” is in the label – Judge Walton concluded that the rules were substantive and required notice and comment under the APA. To Judge Walton,
The fact that the creation of the MCIR Assessment removed the task of applying the 404(b)(1) guidelines to pending permits from the Corps and bestowed it upon the EPA signifies a substantive, rather than a procedural, change to the permitting framework. … [I]t is apparent that the MCIR Assessment and the EC Process “effectively amend” the Section 404 permitting process by conferring additional reviewing authority on the EPA – authority that the statute reserves for the Corps. American Mining therefore compels a finding that the MCIR Assessment and the EC Process are legislative rules.
Another day, another defeat for EPA. The APA lives.
Late last week, Greenwire reported that EPA is delaying its proposed construction general permit, or CGP, for stormwater. The delay is certainly a victory for the real estate industry, which has been fighting hard to delay the rule and, in particular, its numeric turbidity limit. The industry had complained about the data on which the standard was based, calculation errors by EPA, and what it views as a 10-fold underestimate of the compliance costs.
EPA denies that the delay was a political decision by the White House or OMB and stated that it needs to gather more information about existing stormwater treatment technologies before issuing the rule.
We’ll see whether EPA gets any credit from the business community for the delay. They certainly won’t get any from environmental groups. It’s important to remember that the rule is actually the result of litigation brought by the NRDC, so EPA cannot continue to delay indefinitely or it will just find itself back in court. As is often the case, EPA is going to have a difficult time avoiding being caught between a rock and a hard place at some point on this rule.
The fight about guidance and rules is in the news again. Yesterday, EPA finalized its guidance on Clean Water Act permitting with respect to mountaintop mining. 
As most of our readers know, EPA issued Interim Guidance in April 2010. In January 2011, in National Mining Association v. Jackson, Judge Reggie Walton, while denying plaintiff’s preliminary injunction, signaled that he thought that EPA’s Interim Guidance probably was a legislative rule that should have gone through notice and comment rule-making.
Judge Walton’s decision did not deter EPA, which finalized the guidance without significant changes. As the Legal Planet blog – a supporter of the guidance – noted, “the only differences between the interim guidance and this final one are cosmetic.” What are the nature of those cosmetic changes? They emphasize the flexible, non-binding nature of the guidance, hoping to fare better in the next round of judicial review than the agency did in defending the Interim Guidance.
EPA reiterates that this guidance is guidance and not a rule. The CWA provisions and supporting regulations described in this document contain the legally and practically binding requirements. This guidance does not substitute for those provisions or regulations and is not itself a regulation. It does not impose legally or practically binding requirements on EPA, the Corps, or the regulated community, and may not apply to a particular situation depending on the circumstances. Any decisions regarding a particular permit will be based on the facts relevant to that permit and will be evaluated in accordance with the applicable statutes, regulations, and case law. Interested persons are always free to raise questions regarding the recommendations in this guidance in a particular situation. EPA will consider whether or not the recommendations or interpretations in this guidance are appropriate in each situation based on the statutes, regulations, and case law. The use of language such as “recommend,” “may,” “should,” and “can” is intended to describe agency policies and recommendations, while the use of mandatory terminology such as “must” and “required” refers to existing requirements under the CWA, its implementing regulations, and relevant case law.
The real trick about guidance is that it is not what EPA says in the document that matters; it is how EPA actually utilizes the guidance in practice. It is in some respects similar to the distinction between a facial constitutional challenge to a regulation and an “as applied” challenge. If EPA actually implements this document as a guide to its decision-making, then it is guidance. If EPA line staff implement it by rote, then it’s a rule. In other words, if it walks like a duck, it’s a duck, even if it does not talk like one..jpeg)
Time will tell whether the courts believe EPA’s protestations that this really is just guidance. Time will also tell whether EPA implements this as guidance or implements it as a rule.
As I noted earlier this month, the Supreme Court denied GE’s certiorari petition seeking to challenge the constitutionality of EPA’s use of unilateral administrative orders issued under section 106 of CERCLA. It thus comes as something of a surprise that the Court today accepted a certiorari petition in Sackett v. EPA. The Sackets are appealing a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals holding that pre-enforcement review is not available to challenge unilateral administrative orders issued by EPA pursuant to section 319 of the Clean Water Act. Lest anyone think that this is simply the Court reining in that liberal 9th Circuit, the 9th Circuit decision followed the lead of all four other circuit courts that have already addressed the question.
So, not only did the Supreme Court grant cert. in a CWA case even though it denied cert. challenging a very similar provision under CERCLA, it did so without a circuit split to resolve.
CERCLA’s order provision does differ slightly from that of the CWA. CERCLA explicitly prohibits pre-enforcement review; the CWA does not. It seemed to me that, while I am firmly on the side of the challengers as to the practical import of unilateral orders, EPA’s legal authority remains fairly solid. As the Court of Appeals noted, even in the absence of a specific statutory prohibition, judicial review is prohibited as long as preclusion “is fairly discernible in the statutory scheme.” Given the distinction between orders and civil enforcement, which is separately provided for in the CWA, and that the CWA does provide for judicial review of civil penalties imposed by EPA, a fair reading of the statute would seem to preclude pre-enforcement review of orders. This conclusion is buttressed by the purpose of the order provision, which is allow EPA to move quickly in particular cases, and the legislative history, which also seems to support preclusion.
The Court’s order granting cert. identified two questions – both the statutory interpretation question and the assertion that a ban on pre-enforcement review violates the due process clause. However, the constitutional claim is precisely what the Court refused to hear in the GE case. Obviously, that is not binding precedent, but why would the Court deny cert. to GE only to grant it three weeks later to the Sacketts?
Whatever the answer, there is a lot riding on this case. Notwithstanding the denial of cert. in the GE case, if the Supreme Court allows pre-enforcement review of orders under the CWA, it will have repercussions beyond the CWA. The CAA order provision would certainly be on shaky ground and, if the Court’s opinion were predicated on constitutional concerns rather than statutory interpretation, CERCLA’s order authority would seem to fail as well.
I should be telling my clients not to get their hopes up, but it's hard not to get one's hopes up.
After a relatively quiet period, there were a number of items of interest on the air/climate front this week. First, AEP announced that upcoming pollution controls would result in shutting down 6,000 megawatts of coal-fired capacity, or 25% of its coal fleet. AEP also announced that it would spend $6 billion to $8 billion in bringing the rest of its fleet into compliance.
On the flip side of this issue, the Bipartisan Policy Center issued a report concluding that compliance with the various EPA rules in the works (Clean Air Transport Rule, Utility MACT Rule, coal combustion ash rule, Clean Water Act intake structure rule, and NSPS for GHG) would not have a significant impact on electric system reliability. The quick summary is that most of the plants that will close are uncontrolled, older, smaller, plants that already don’t run much, particularly with natural gas prices low. The report acknowledges that some of these small plants are important in addressing peak loads in some areas, but concludes that concerns in those areas can be addressed with appropriate planning.
Next came news that EPA has reached agreement to delay its second round GHG NSPS proposal from July 26, 2011 to September 30, 2011 – though the final rule is still targeted for May 26, 2012. EPA has received extensive comment on this issue and my take is that there is no hidden agenda here; EPA is just trying to take those comments into account and be responsive, where possible.
Finally, former Representative Bob Inglis, whose support for action on climate change was sufficient to get him defeated by a Tea Party Candidate in the GOP primary in 2010, has announced formation of what is described as a “conservative coalition” to address climate change. Money quote:
Conservatives typically are people who try to be cognizant of risk and move to minimize risk. To be told of risk and to consciously decide to disregard it seems to be the opposite of conservative…. What I hope to do is be part of an effort that calls conservatives to return to conservatism and to turn away from the populist rejection of science.
All I can say is that I wish former Representative Inglis the best of luck in that endeavor.
I posted recently that EPA actually seems to be listening to comments from the regulated community and has changed course in some cases in response to those comments. The release by EPA and the Army Corps yesterday of their long-awaited revised guidance implementing the Supreme Court’s Rapanos decision confirms that EPA is in listening mode. Although I am not normally a fan, this new version seems an appropriate use of guidance.
First, it is not a unilateral effort to expand agency jurisdiction. Instead, it responds to the Supreme Court Rapanos decision. Given the lack of a majority decision, Rapanos certainly left both regulators and the regulated community scratching their heads. Moreover, although one of my concerns about guidance is that it can ossify, that is not the case here. The new guidance replaces EPA’s prior Rapanos guidance, issued in 2008. EPA is entitled to conclude that the prior guidance did not accurately reflect the limits of CWA jurisdiction after Rapanos.
Significantly, in response to substantial pre-issuance pressure to shelve the guidance and instead pursue notice and comment rulemaking, EPA and the Corps have agreed both to take comment on this guidance and to undertake formal rulemaking. Thus, the guidance will serve only to clarify EPA’s and the Corps’ current interpretation pending issuance of a rule.
On the merits, the guidance seems to be a reasonable interpretation of Rapanos. Everyone knows that Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test is not a model of clarity – that’s why guidance is appropriate. Regulated industries benefit from greater clarity – even if more wetlands will be found to be jurisdictional – because uncertainty imposes its own costs. While the American Farm Bureau Federation has already complained about the new guidance, I think we need to distinguish between complaints about the guidance per se and complaints which really go to the scope of the CWA itself.
If the guidance itself is too long for you, EPA has provided a useful summary. The summary of the summary? The following waters are protected by the Clean Water Act:
In addition, the following waters are protected by the Clean Water Act if a fact-specific analysis determines they have a "significant nexus" to a traditional navigable water or interstate water:
For those of you who thought that the sky was about to fall in EPA as part of the budget battle, I’m able to report that EPA survived sufficiently intact to continue to issue new rules. Today, EPA proposed a draft revised construction general permit, or CGP, for stormwater discharges from construction sites disturbing at least one acre (or less, if the project is part of a common development plan that is greater than one acre). The revised CGP would replace the current CGP which is set to expire on June 30. EPA has proposed to extend the current CGP through January 31, 2012, in order to give it time to promulgate the new CGP in final form.
The revised CGP does make some changes. The most notable changes, summarized in EPA's Q&A on the proposal, are intended to incorporate into the CGP the provisions of EPA’s February 2010 effluent limitations guidelines rule, known as the C&D rule. These changes include new requirements concerning:
Sediment and erosion controls
Soil stabilization
Pollution prevention
Inspections
Stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs)
Buffer zones
The buffer zone requirement was included in the C&D rule, but EPA is now proposing to add significant flesh to the bones. Specifically, the rule would require a minimum fifty-foot buffer between the construction site and any waters of the United States which are located either on or immediately adjacent to the site. The rule would provide flexibility to allow the permittee to substitute additional sediment and erosion controls for some or all of the buffer, so long as the controls “achieve the equivalent sediment load reduction as an undisturbed naturally vegetated, 50-foot buffer.”
For my Massachusetts readers, the 50-foot buffer will seem very similar to the buffer zone already required under the MA Wetlands Protection Act regulations. The jurisdictional scope of the CGP will not be identical to Wetlands Act jurisdiction, but they should be fairly similar.
Comments on the proposed rule will be due 60 days following Federal Register publication.
Sometimes I’m so timely I can’t stand it. This morning, I posted about the difficulty in challenging regulations under Massachusetts law. Later this morning, the SJC agreed. In Entergy v. DEP, the SJC upheld DEP’s authority to regulate cooling water intake structures under the state CWA. Funny how the SJC cited to the same language here as did Judge Sweeney in the Pepin case.
We will apply all rational presumptions in favor of the validity of the administration action and not declare it void unless its provisions cannot by any reasonable construction be interpreted in harmony with the legislative mandate.
Entergy argued that the statute and DEP’s regulations under it have always focused on discharges of pollutants, rather than intake of water. This was not persuasive to the SJC. The Court stated that
[T]he permitting regime for discharges does not foreclose the department from developing compatible methods of regulating water intakes…. Specific statutory authority to act in a particular respect does not bar consistent action under general statutory authority.
The Court’s bottom line?
We will not substitute our judgment as to the need for a regulation, or the propriety of the means chosen to implement the statutory goals, for that of the agency, so long as the regulation is rationally related to those goals. [T]he purpose of conferring broad power on an expert agency is to permit discretion in determining the best approaches to a complex issue.”
I think that the SJC probably got this case right based on its own precedents. However, the Court’s last statement is almost breathtaking in its scope. Has there ever been a clearer or broader defense of the modern administrative state? With a statement like that, could one imagine the SJC ever concluding that the legislature delegated too much authority to the regulatory agencies? And yet, as conservatives sometimes note, it is the legislators, and not the agency personnel, who are elected and who are supposed to make the big picture decisions.
Jefferson would be turning over in his grave.
Earlier this week, EPA announced its long-awaited revised proposal for a cooling water intake structure rule for existing facilities. Praise is much less interesting than criticism, and thus less conducive to entertaining blog posts, but I’m afraid EPA has left me no choice. Within the confines of what the Clean Water Act requires, EPA seems to have gotten this one pretty much right.
EPA has a useful summary of the rule here. I could certainly quarrel with aspects of the rule, but the basic structure makes sense. It applies to facilities that take at least 25% of their water from an adjacent waterbody and use more than 2MGD/day. Limits are imposed on total fish impingement, though facilities can meet an alternative standard by limiting approach velocity to 0.5 feet per second. EPA has gotten out of the command and control business, at least for existing units. Facilities that withdraw at least 125 MGD would have to perform studies leading to site-specific standards to address entrainment concerns. Finally, new units that increase generating capacity would be have to used close-cycle cooling (or something equivalent).
One measure of EPA’s success here may be that environmental NGOs are already criticizing the proposal because, instead of setting immovable national standards, the rule would give too much discretion to state permitting authorities.
It really is worth noting that the 316(b) proposal is only one of several in which EPA has listened to the concerns of industry and revised rules or proposed rules in response to those concerns. First, EPA revised its proposed Tailoring Rule to raise the jurisdictional thresholds to exclude additional smaller sources. Then, it revised the boiler rule in response to concerns that its original proposal really wasn’t feasible. Now, it has avoided a one size fits all rule for CWIS, allowing site-specific factors to come into play.
Just so I don’t lose all my credibility with my clients, I must note that there remain areas in which EPA seems completely tone-deaf regarding reasonable regulatory reforms. The last bastion of soviet-style command and control known as the Superfund program certainly springs to mind. However, while I doubt EPA will get much credit for it, it is only fair to acknowledge that there does seem to be at least something of a pattern unfolding here. Whether this is really a change in EPA’s DNA or whether it is simply a response to current political realities, only time will tell. Whatever the cause, it’s certainly welcome.
I don’t normally blog about cases in which I’m involved, but since this one made the front page of the Boston Globe, I suppose it’s sufficiently newsworthy. Yesterday, EPA announced that a settlement had been reached among EPA, MassDEP, our client GenOn Kendall, and the Charles River Watershed Association and the Conservation Law Foundation concerning the NPDES permit for Kendall Station. 
As a result of the settlement, when all the equipment needed to implement it has been installed, both the water intake and discharge and the thermal load will be reduced by over 95%.
How will this be accomplished? Installation of certain new equipment at Kendall Station and a new steam pipe across the Charles River will allow facility to sell more steam to Boston and avoid putting excess heat into the River. As a result, not only will the impacts on the River be reduced, there will be collateral air emissions benefits, as Kendall’s clean gas displaces fuel oil as a source of steam in Boston.
Credit in the first instance has to go to our client, GenOn, for thinking creatively about how to respond to the problem posed by the very restrictive conditions imposed in its 2006 NPDES renewal. GenOn firmly believed that it had strong technical arguments with which to dispute the permit terms. Rather than focusing on those arguments, however, GenOn instead worked to figure out a solution that will allow the plant to remain economic, while addressing the concerns of the regulators.
Credit also goes to EPA Region I and MassDEP, both of which responded enthusiastically and constructively to GenOn’s proposal. Notwithstanding the win-win nature of the solution, the negotiations were complicated and the permit is extremely complex. However, the agencies kept their eyes on the prize.
Finally, credit also goes to the Charles River Watershed Association and the Conservation Law Foundation. Both of them had appealed the original permit, arguing that it was not sufficiently stringent (well, they are environmental NGOs). They could have tried to play bad cop to the agencies’ good cop. After all, it may take until 2016 until all the new equipment is in place and operational. CRWA and CLF could have used this delay to extort more from GenOn. In fact, while GenOn was pleased to contribute $250,000 to a fish restocking effort in the Charles River that CRWA will help implement, CLF and CRWA cooperated fully in the final settlement.
One aspect of the settlement is particularly worth noting. As discussed, the settlement works because Kendall Station is in an urban location and has a market for additional steam. Many commentators have discussed the important role of combined heat and power in helping achieve the nation’s environmental goals. Not everything is going to be solar and wind. Clean gas facilities that can sell steam will be a major contributor over the coming decades. Often, environmental justice concerns are raised with respect to urban power plants. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. If we want CHP, then we have to put the power where there’s a market for the steam.
However, that full rant can wait for another day. Right now, as Peter Shelley of CLF said in the Globe, “this solution is the type of thing that makes you feel good.”
In Cool Hand Luke, Paul Newman is sentenced to two years on a chain gang for cutting the heads off of municipal parking meters. The Mingo Logan Coal Company wants to cut the top off of 3.5 square miles of West Virginia mountaintop. This week, EPA gave the company's Spruce No. 1 Mine 
proposal the death penalty, using its authority under § 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to veto a permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers in 2007. As EPA noted in its press release, this is only the 13th time in 38 years that EPA has utilized § 404(c) to veto a permit.
EPA’s decision resulted in howls of protest, not just from the mine’s owner, but also from the two Senators from West Virginia. Joe Manchin, who famously campaigned with an advertisement in which he shot a purported copy of cap-and-trade legislation, described EPA’s decision as a “shocking display of overreach.”
EPA’s characterization was slightly different. The agency summarized the mine’s impacts as follows:
Burying more than 35,000 feet (more than 6 miles) of high-quality streams under mining waste, which will eliminate all fish, invertebrates, salamanders, and other wildlife that live in them;
Polluting downstream waters as a result of burying these streams, which will lead to unhealthy levels of salinity and toxic levels of selenium;
Causing downstream watershed degradation that will kill aquatic wildlife, impact birdlife, reduce habitat value, and increase susceptibility to toxic algal blooms;
Inadequately mitigating for the mine’s environmental impacts to high-quality streams , by using mining ditches, for example, to offset the functions provided by these natural streams; and
Failure to consider cumulative watershed degradation resulting from past, present, and future mining in the area.
While I’m sure that the owner will dispute some of EPA’s characterization, my money’s on EPA, overreach or not. The impacts of mountaintop mining are substantial and I don’t see a court rejecting EPA’s conclusion that they are, in this case, “unacceptable.”
To bring the situation back to Cool Hand Luke, what EPA and the mining companies have here is a failure to communicate, and EPA is the one in the Strother Martin role, 
wielding a very painful veto hammer.
When EPA creates a web page solely addressing one stormwater settlement, you can safely assume that EPA thinks it is important and is trying to send a message. Thus, EPA’s announcement earlier this week of a settlement with Beazer Homes to resolve allegations that Beazer Homes violated federal stormwater requirements at construction sites in 21 – count ‘em, 21 – states should make everyone in the construction industry sit up and take notice.
The settlement requires Beazer Homes to pay a penalty of $925,000 (mostly to EPA, but some to each of the states). EPA estimated a price tag for the injunctive relief of almost $9,487,384. Basically, the consent decree simply requires Beazer Homes to comply with stormwater regulations, but EPA has imposed certain management requirements on Beazer Homes to ensure that compliance really will happen. Beazer Homes must develop an overall stormwater compliance program, designate a nationwide stormwater compliance manager, and also identify division-level compliance managers who must inspect every construction site within their jurisdiction at least quarterly to ensure that individual sites are in compliance.
Stormwater is clearly one of EPA’s top priorities. The press release for the Beazer Homes settlement states so explicitly:
Keeping contaminated stormwater out of America’s waters is one of EPA’s national enforcement initiatives.
As concerns about nutrients increase, and EPA faces pressure from citizen groups regarding TMDLs for nutrients, we should only expect more such announcements. An ounce of prevention might be worth $9,487,384 of cure (not including a penalty).
Almost all – 46 – states have delegated programs under the Clean Water Act. One criterion that EPA must determine has been satisfied before approving delegation is that the state has the ability to "abate violations of the permit … including civil and criminal penalties and other ways and means of enforcement."
EPA’s regulations provide that this criterion will be met if :
State law allows an opportunity for judicial review that is the same as that available to obtain judicial review in federal court of a federally-issued NPDES permit. A State will not meet this standard if it narrowly restricts the class of persons who may challenge the approval or denial of permits….
With respect to citizen suits, this language seems fairly clear. As long as the state does not impose heightened standing requirements, the same opportunity for judicial review exists.
When EPA approved delegation of the NPDES program to Alaska, notwithstanding that Alaska has a version of the so-called “English Rule,” which requires that losing parties pay fees to the winners, various citizen groups challenged the delegation, on the ground that the Alaska fee shifting provision means that, as a practical matter, Alaska restricts access to the courts in ways not permitted under the CWA. Last week, in Akiak Native Community v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the delegation.
I actually wish that the Court had gone further than it did. As noted above, I think that, in the absence of different standing requirements, there is a comparable “opportunity” for judicial review. Instead, the Court’s decision was more limited, holding only that, as a result of certain limits on Alaska’s application of the fee-shifting rule, the plaintiffs had not met their burden to establish that EPA’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. Indeed, the Court noted that EPA could potentially reverse the delegation if it later finds in practice that Alaska courts are applying the fee-shifting provisions in ways that discourage citizen plaintiffs.
I just want to know – what’s so bad about fee-shifting?
Sometimes, the headline writes the story. EPA’s TMDL program under the Clean Water Act has been the subject of so much litigation since its inception that EPA has a web page devoted to the status of litigation on the establishment of TMDLs.
Bringing things close to home, the Conservation Law Foundation and the Coalition for Buzzards Bay filed suit late last month, challenging implementation by MassDEP and EPA of the TMDL program for certain embayments on Cape Cod and Nantucket. (Full disclosure time – this firm represents the CBB on unrelated matters.)
The law suit claims that MassDEP erred in determining the waste load allocation, or WLA, in establishing the TMDLs for the embayments, because it failed to identify septic systems, stormwater systems, and wastewater treatment systems as point sources. (Since we also represent wastewater treatment system operators – though none that are the subject of these TMDLs – I think that, like Joe Friday, this is going to be a “Just the facts, ma’am,” post.)
With respect to stormwater systems, MassDEP determined that systems located less than 200 feet from the embayments were point sources, but that those farther away were not. The basis for this determination, according to the complaint, was that the more proximate systems in fact discharge to surface waters, whereas the more distant ones discharge to groundwater, so that there is no point source discharge to surface water.
The complaint does not identify the basis for MassDEP’s conclusion that septic systems are not point sources, but presumably it is also based on a conclusion that the systems discharge to groundwater and thus are not point sources of surface water pollution.
Without commenting on the merits – just the facts, ma’am – I will note that a determination that septic systems and stormwater drainage systems that discharge initially to groundwater are point sources under the CWA would have dramatic consequences for the regulation of nutrient pollution under the CWA. In situations where there are industrial sources of these pollutants, those industrial sources might be quite pleased to have someone else bear share of the burden of reductions necessary to meet the TMDL. Given the brouhaha over how state agencies would cope with permitting hundreds or thousands of new stationary sources under EPA’s Clean Air Act PSD program for GHGs, however, I cannot imagine that MassDEP – or other state environmental agencies – would eagerly assume the responsibility for permitting septic systems.
Why do I foresee more litigation in the TMDL program’s future?
Late July saw some movement on the cooling water intake structure (CWIS) front.
On Friday, July 23, in ConocoPhillips, et al. v. EPA, the Fifth Circuit granted EPA’s motion for a voluntary remand of the existing-facilities portion of its Phase III regulation. The Phase III rule, promulgated in 2006, addressed CWIS at existing small power plants and other facilities in certain industries, including the pulp and paper, chemical, primary metals and petroleum and coal products industries, as well as new oil and gas extraction facilities. The Phase III rule did not set a “best technology available” (BTA) standard for existing facilities, and instead continued the current practice of “best professional judgment,” case-by-case determinations of BTA. Not surprisingly, the rule was challenged by a number of entities.
Last year, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, the agency had requested that the portion of the regulation dealing with existing facilities be remanded so that the agency could reevaluate it in conjunction with its proceedings on remand of the 2004 Phase II rule, which addressed CWIS at large, existing, power plants. In Entergy the Supreme Court held that EPA could, but was not required, to employ cost-benefit analysis when determining the BTA and has discretion to consider to what degree costs and benefits should be weighed in making such a determination. The Fifth Circuit’s recent ruling now clears the way for EPA to combine Phase II and Phase III into a single rulemaking covering all existing CWIS facilities. (At the same time that it remanded the Phase III rule as it relates to existing facilities, the court deferred to the agency and upheld the rule as it applies to new offshore oil and gas facilities).
This decision dovetails with the agency’s announcement two days earlier that it would be sending to the OMB for approval a proposed survey that would help the agency determine the benefits of the proposed regulatory options for CWIS. Data collected during the survey, which will be of approximately 2000 households, will be used to calculate willingness to pay for the reduction of fish losses at CWIS. Comments on the proposal must be submitted by September 20, 2010.
So, it looks like some progress is being made towards a determination of what constitutes BTA for CWIS at existing facilities, but how long it will take for it to be made is unclear. Obviously, it seems that the agency’s previously announced intentions, as reported in the BNA Daily Environment Report, to issue a proposed rule in the middle of this year were a bit optimistic.
Last week, in City of Pittsfield v. EPA, the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed denial of a petition by the City of Pittsfield seeking review of an NPDES permit issued by EPA. The case makes no new law and, by itself, is not particularly remarkable. Cases on NPDES permit appeals have held for some time that a permittee appealing an NPDES permit must set forth in detail in its petition basically every conceivable claim or argument that they might want to assert. Pretty much no detail is too small. The City of Pittsfield failed to do this, instead relying on their prior comments on the draft permit. Not good enough, said the Court.
For some reason, reading the decision brought to mind another recent appellate decision, General Electric v. Jackson, in which the D.C. Circuit laid to rest arguments that EPA’s unilateral order authority under § 106 of CERCLA is unconstitutional. As I noted in commenting on that decision, it too was unremarkable by itself and fully consistent with prior case law on the subject.
What do these two cases have in common? To me, they are evidence that, while the government can over-reach and does lose some cases, the deck remains stacked overwhelmingly in the government’s favor. The power of the government as regulator is awesome to behold. Looking at the GE case first, does anyone really deny that EPA’s § 106 order authority is extremely coercive? Looking at the Pittsfield case, doesn’t it seem odd that a party appealing a permit has to identify with particularity every single nit that they might want to pick with the permit? Even after the Supreme Court’s recent decisions tightening pleading standards, the pleading burden on a permit appellant remains much more substantial than on any other type of litigant.
Why should this be so? Why is it that the government doesn’t lose when it’s wrong, but only when it’s crazy wrong?
Just askin’.
Sometimes, the practice of environmental law just takes my breath away. A decision issued earlier last month in United States v. Washington DOT was about as stunning as it gets. Ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, Judge Robert Bryan held that the Washington State Department of Transportation had “arranged” for the disposal of hazardous substances within the meaning of CERCLA by designing state highways with stormwater collection and drainage structures, where those drainage structures ultimately deposited stormwater containing hazardous substances into Commencement Bay -- now, a Superfund site -- in Tacoma, Washington. 
I’m sorry, but if that doesn’t make you sit up and take notice, then you’re just too jaded. Under this logic, isn’t everyone who constructs a parking lot potentially liable for the hazardous substances that run off in stormwater sheet flow?
For those who aren’t aware, phosphorus, the stormwater contaminant du jour, is a listed hazardous substance under Superfund. Maybe EPA doesn’t need to bother with new stormwater regulatory programs. Instead, it can just issue notices of responsibility to everyone whose discharge of phosphorus has contributed to contamination of a river or lake.
The Court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment regarding whether the discharges of contaminated stormwater were federally permitted releases. Since the Washington DOT had an NPDES permit, it argued that it was not liable under § 107(j) of CERCLA. However, as the Court noted, even if the DOT might otherwise have a defense, if any of the releases occurred before the permit issued – almost certain, except in the case of newer roads – or if any discharges violated the permit, then the Washington DOT would still be liable and would have the burden of establishing a divisibility defense.
If one were a conspiracy theorist, one might wonder if EPA were using this case to gently encourage the regulated community to support its recent efforts to expand its stormwater regulatory program. Certainly, few members of the regulated community would rather defend Superfund litigation than comply with a stormwater permit.
You can’t make this stuff up.
EPA is proceeding with its plan to establish a new program to regulate stormwater discharges from new development and redevelopment, with a target date for a final rule by November 2012. The next step: the reissuance of draft mandatory questionnaires that, once finalized, will be sent to various stakeholders, including approximately 738,000 owners and developers of residential, industrial and commercial sites. According to EPA, the “target population for the Owner/Developer Questionnaires is all development establishments in the United States,” as defined by 8 NAICS codes (see Part A.4 of EPA’s Supporting Statement for further information on whether your business would be covered).
The questionnaires request detailed information about real estate improvements during the last five years as well as the financial characteristics of development companies and their projects. There are two versions of the Owner/Developer questionnaire, but only the longer version -- which will be sent to “selected recipients” -- seems to address the types of stormwater controls actually used, or the cost of those controls, in any detail. Thus, while the longer questionnaire will present an additional burden for its recipients, it will also allow developers to report key information for the regulated community, including the cost-effectiveness and context of stormwater controls (e.g. soil types, urban vs. rural settings).
Among other stakeholder groups, EPA will also send questionnaires to owners and operators of municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) and to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting authorities. That means that one party that apparently won’t have to fill out a questionnaire is the Massachusetts DEP, which, along with 4 other states and the District of Columbia, does not have NPDES permitting authority. Particularly in light of MA DEP’s own recent stormwater proposal, EPA might consider asking all state environmental authorities about the scope of their current and planned regulatory efforts with respect to stormwater, so as to better coordinate state and federal programs.
We’re pleased that EPA is making an effort to base its regulatory proposal on good information. Nevertheless, developers should watch the rulemaking process carefully between now and 2012. The 30 day public comment period on the draft questionnaires ends June 9, 2010.
EPA Region 1 continues to roll out new programs on the stormwater front, and this week’s development is particularly important for private property owners in the Charles River watershed. The agency released proposed amendments to the Residual Designation for the Charles River (“RDA”) and a Draft General Permit for Residually Designated Discharges. While the proposed permit only affects the Massachusetts communities of Milford, Bellingham, and Franklin, EPA has stated that it may expand the General Permit to include other Charles River communities in the future, so property owners along the entire length of the Charles River should be paying attention.
The full set of materials can be found on the EPA’s website, but here are a few highlights:
2-acre threshold: “Designated Discharges” covered by the permit consist of two or more acres of privately-owned impervious surfaces. (Many publicly-owned properties located in the Charles River basin will be subject to the Massachusetts North Coastal Small MS4 General Permit, released in draft by EPA Region 1 earlier this year.)
Aggregation: As those of you following stormwater issues in Massachusetts are aware, the first draft of the RDA was linked to the proposed state stormwater regulations, which included an “aggregation rule” with a number of onerous consequences. The amended RDA and the draft General permit are no longer connected to the stalled state regulations, but they still include the concept of requiring a single permit for contiguous but separately owned properties that share stormwater controls. Fortunately, unlike the state proposal, each co-permittee will only be responsible for ensuring compliance for “all terms and conditions of this permit applicable to the activities that it controls or has the right to control.”
Permit requirements: The draft permit includes a series of stormwater control requirements including a 65% phosphorus load reduction target (derived from the Lower Charles River TMDL) that permittees can implement on-site through structural or non-structural controls or through a “Certified Municipal Phosphorus Program.”
Comments are due June 30. We expect EPA to take a lot less time to finalize these documents than MassDEP has taken to finalize its own stormwater program.
Last week, EPA proposed to veto a permit for the No. 1 Spruce Mine in West Virginia. Yesterday, EPA went much farther, announcing new guidance – effective immediately – which will impose numeric water quality based effluent limits, or WQBELs, on effluent from surface mining projects. EPA has at least tentatively concluded that high conductivity resulting from discharges of mountaintop fill has adversely affected streams downstream of surface mining operations.
The guidance is fairly straightforward – and for those to whom is it not sufficiently simple, EPA has provided a six-page summary version. Basically, EPA has concluded that permits for mountaintop mining must contain WQBELs that will ensure that in-stream conductivity levels do not exceed 500 microsiemens per centimeter (500 uS/cm). If modeling suggests that mining activities will result in any level above 300 uS/cm, “EPA should work with the permitting authority to ensure that the permit includes conditions that protect against conductivity levels exceeding 500 uS/cm.”
If you’re wondering what those levels mean and how big an impact the requirement to impose WQBELs will have, E&E Daily reported that EPA Administrator Jackson stated last evening that there are "no or very few valley fills that are going to meet this standard."
Though the guidance is effective immediately, EPA is characterizing it as a proposal and will take comment until December 1, 2010.
Earlier this week, EPA announced release of a draft North Coastal Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System General Permit. Once finalized, the General Permit will affect 84 communities in eastern
The draft General Permit is only the latest salvo in an ongoing debate among EPA, MassDEP, municipalities and the regulated community regarding how to control stormwater discharges. The background to all of this is the increasing attention being given to the TMDL process and NGO efforts, including litigation, to ensure that EPA and the state actually make the TMDL process work.
As followers of this blog know, in November 2008, MassDEP released an extremely ambitious set of draft stormwater regulations. I think it is fair – and apt – to say that MassDEP was deluged with comments. While MassDEP may not accept this characterization, the length of time which has passed without issuance of final MassDEP regulations suggests that MassDEP may in fact have, as requested by the regulated community, gone back to the drawing board.
One of the issues raised by the regulated community in commenting on the MassDEP proposal was precisely that, because EPA regulates MS4s, it would make sense for the federal MS4 program, rather than a new state program, to be the bedrock for stormwater regulation. One big question left hanging with today’s announcement by EPA will be the extent, if any, to which MassDEP now builds on the MS4 permit, rather than creating its own program from scratch.
Since the regulated community to some extent asked for this permit, I can’t complain about the concept, but make no mistake, the MS4 General Permit will impose significant changes on municipalities and those changes will absolutely trickle down to the regulated entities.
The draft permit is 57 pages, not including appendices, so it is far too long to summarize here, but I will note some highlights:
Municipalities within the Charles River Watershed subject to approved TMDLs will have to develop specific Phosphorus Control Plans to demonstrate how they will attain the phosphorus reductions required.
New and increased stormwater discharges will face stringent requirements. In some cases, such discharges will not be eligible for coverage under the General Permit, but will instead require individual permits.
Municipalities will have to reduce discharges to the Maximum Extent Practicable, or MEP, through the use of Best Management Practices.
Municipalities will be required to enhance programs to identify and eliminate illicit discharges.
Notwithstanding the existing General permit for construction sites, permittees will have to continue to develop their own construction site stormwater program.
Permittees will have to establish a program to minimize post-construction run-off by tracking the extent of impervious surfaces and imposing new requirements on new development and redevelopment.
Municipalities have already cried foul based on concerns about the cost of implementing the General Permit. Unfortunately, unless Congress amends the Clean Water Act to eliminate the TMDL program, it is difficult to see how a general permit in some form can be avoided. Indeed, as already noted, the MS4 level is probably the right place to focus stormwater reduction efforts. The question will be how efficiently the program can be implemented and whether EPA and MassDEP can harmonize their respective programs in a way that allows progress towards attaining compliance with the TMDL program in a cost-effective way.
Yesterday, EPA released its effluent guidelines for construction sites. The guidelines establish the first national standard containing numeric limitations on stormwater discharges. The final standard imposed is 280 nephelometric turbidity units. It will apply to all construction sites greater than 20 acres in size as of 18 months following the effective date of the regulations (which will be 60 days after Federal Register promulgation) and sites larger than 10 acres 4 years after the effective date.
As expected, EPA did not take NRDC and Waterkeeper Alliance up on their suggestion that EPA impose post-construction controls. However, since EPA has already signaled that its long-term plan is to impose stormwater controls beyond the current universe of industry and construction sites, it seems at this point that broader stormwater regulation by EPA is more a question of when than whether.
On Tuesday, EPA announced its intention to issue new effluent guidelines for the Steam Electric Power Generating industry by sometime in 2012. The announcement follows an EPA study in 2008 which indicated that toxic metals, particularly those collected as part of flue gas desulfurization processes, can pose a problem in facility effluent. EPA’s announcement is not particularly surprising, given the ongoing study and given that EPA has not revised the guidelines since 1982. Indeed, notwithstanding EPA’s announcement, Environmental Integrity Project, Defenders of Wildlife and Sierra Club announced that they would still sue EPA over its failure to timely update the guidelines.
There are two reasons why this announcement is significant beyond just its implications for effluent discharges from these facilities. First, it’s hard to see EPA’s announcement – and the threat of NGO litigation – as anything other than another bullet aimed squarely at the coal industry. From climate change, to attacks on mountaintop removal, to the reaction to the TVA spill, to this effort to make the effluent guidelines more stringent, there is no doubt that coal is in the cross-hairs at the moment. If there are any doubters concerning this point, Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers isn’t among them. He was quoted in this morning’s Energy & Environment Daily as saying that it is at least possible to envision a world in 2050 “where coal is not in the equation.”
The other reason why this announcement is significant is that it raises fairly squarely the question regarding the very structure of our current regulatory system. It’s not really any more than happenstance and political convenience that we regulate different environmental media differently. In this context, it is noteworthy that EPA’s Science Advisory Board just recommended that EPA consider setting multi-pollutant standards under the Clean Air Act, rather than regulating each pollutant separately. Theoretically, that’s good as far as it goes, but it doesn’t really solve the problem of the balkanization of EPA’s different regulatory programs. In the long run, EPA’s regulatory efforts would be much more cost-effective – and would probably garner much more public support – if they were rationally based on an overall assessment of risk, across pollutants and across media.
I’m not holding my breath.
As we have reported, EPA and MADEP have both been taking steps over the past year to broaden the scope of their stormwater programs beyond existing regulation under the rules concerning stormwater discharges associated with industrial or construction activity. EPA has proposed using residual designation authority in Maine and Massachusetts and the MADEP proposed sweeping rules governing existing private facilities.
In the regulated community, there has been substantial concern that these efforts have focused too narrowly on private properties, with the MADEP proposed rules, for example, potentially requiring costly retrofits on many properties without consideration of whether there might be more cost-effective ways to control stormwater pollution, such as through increased focus on MS4s.
Based on this week’s news, EPA may have heard these complaints.
On Wednesday, EPA Region I announced enforcement actions against municipalities for violations of MS4 requirements. EPA proposed to fine nine communities in Massachusetts and New Hampshire; EPA also issued orders requiring that the municipalities take certain actions to come into compliance with the MS4 requirements. Given the current economic climate and the erosion in municipal budgets, the willingness to impose penalties demonstrates EPA’s seriousness in enforcing the MS4 requirements.
So why does the private sector need to remain worried? One word in the first sentence of EPA’s press release says it all: “integrated.” Wednesday’s enforcement announcement was part of “a new integrated effort” to enforce stormwater requirements. While this notice was focused on illegal connections to storm sewers, is there any doubt that this is also part of a broader “integrated” effort to attack stormwater pollution more generally? Now, when EPA and MADEP come calling on the private sector, the agencies can respond to complaints about unequal focus by noting that they have already made municipalities take their medicine; now it’s time for the private sector to do so as well.
Spoonful of sugar, anyone?
As many readers of this blog will have already learned, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Entergy v. Riverkeeper yesterday. The Court reversed the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and held that EPA was within its authority to consider cost-benefit analysis in setting standards for cooling water intake structures under § 316(b) of the Clean Water Act.
I’m definitely getting on my soapbox here, but this should not be news and it should not be controversial – though I certainly realize that it is. If current conditions tell us anything, it is that resources are not infinite. The irony here is that it is environmentalists who tend to make this point most frequently. Unfortunately, they don’t like to acknowledge that, because resources are not infinite, cost-benefit decisions get made implicitly, even when EPA does not utilize cost-benefit analysis in its regulations.
When I was just a poor Superfund lawyer, I attended a public meeting in Somersworth, New Hampshire, as local residents tried in vain to persuade EPA that they could save more lives by installing traffic signals and hiring public safety personnel than by spending millions of dollars cleaning up an old landfill to the nth degree. The simple truth is that when we force regulated industries to incur costs without regard to the associated benefits, other spending gets displaced. It may be better to have power plant owners spend money on closed cycle cooling than on worker health benefits or, God forbid, payments to shareholders, but let’s make the decision honestly and not ignore the trade-offs.
I still don’t understand why the debate can’t be about how fairly to define costs and benefits. There are serious issues here, but there’s certainly no free lunch. I posted recently about my disappointment regarding early indications that the Obama administration will not be a friend to common sense regulatory reform. The same issues arise here. The Obama administration, because of its undoubted credibility, could advance the cause of cost-benefit analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. I fear it is not going to happen.
For the same reason, it’s quite possible that the Riverkeeper decision may be much ado about nothing. Riverkeeper holds that EPA may consider costs and benefits, but does not require it. Environmentalists are already clamoring for EPA to rewrite the 316(b) rules and I wouldn’t be surprised if the agency does so.
Demonstrating that the recent announcement of new stormwater controls for the Charles River in Massachusetts were not an aberration, EPA, joining with the Maine DEP, announced last Friday that it will be imposing new stormwater regulations for discharges into Long Creek, which ultimately flows into Casco Bay.
Responding to petitions from the Conservation Law Foundation, EPA has exercised its Residual Designation Authority under its NPDES permitting regulations.
The new designation can be found on EPA’s website. Notably, the new program will apply to impervious surfaces larger than one acre. This is a smaller area than is currently proposed for the Charles River. EPA estimates that regulating impervious surfaces one acre and up will place 90% of all impervious area in the Long Creek watershed under NPDES jurisdiction.
Owners of properties in other degraded watersheds, you may be next on the list.
Although some of you may think that the regulatory agencies are now all climate change all the time, Massachusetts DEP has demonstrated that there is still life in some more traditional aspects of environmental regulation. MassDEP has just proposed sweeping new stormwater regulations that would go far beyond the traditional EPA model of regulating construction sites and stormwater discharges from industrial facilities.
DEP’s proposal is far too detailed for a blog post. For those interested in this issue, take a look at the client alert we issued, which hits the big issues. One big-picture item to note: There certainly seems to be something of a competition brewing between EPA and DEP regarding regulations of stormwater.
Anyone who has at least 5 – and perhaps at least 2 – acres of impervious surface should certainly consider commenting on the regulations when they are formally issued for public comment.
On September 22, EPA issued a new Stormwater Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) to cover 4,100 facilities with discharges associated with an industrial activity. The permit replaces the MSGP that was issued in 2000 and expired in October 2005. The expired permit continued to be valid for facilities that were covered by the permit at the time it expired.
The new permit applies to states not authorized to implement EPA’s NPDES program, including Massachusetts and New Hampshire. It will be effective as of September 29, 2008.
Although EPA claims of regulatory reform sometimes ring hollow, the new MSGP truly does seem to be an improvement over the prior MSGP for industrial facilities. One significant improvement is that permit now separates technical requirements for effluent limitations from the requirement to prepare and implement stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPP). Importantly, EPA has clarified that a SWPPP is not an effluent limitation. Therefore, industrial facilities may amend SWPPP without EPA approval. More important, because the SWPPP is not an effluent limitation, noncompliance with the SWPPP will not subject a permittee to claims that he/she has violated an effluent limitation (though noncompliance with a SWPPP may be a violation of a record-keeping requirement).
EPA has also significantly streamlined its filing and compliance systems. First, notice of intent to be covered by the MSGP may be made electronically, through a new “eNOI” system. Second, EPA has created a “Water Locator” tool, which will enable facilities to obtained certain relevant information, such as applicable total maximum daily loads, or TMDLs, on-line. Facilities will also be able to provide required monitoring data on-line.
In short, while the new permit may not eliminate any substantive complaints that industrial facilities may have with EPA’s stormwater program, it should reduce transaction costs associated with compliance.
Enter keywords:
Add this blog to your feeds or put your e-mail in the box below and hit GO to subscribe by e-mail.
A partner at Foley Hoag, Seth Jaffe is recognized by Chambers USA, The Best Lawyers in America and Massachusetts SuperLawyers as a leading practitio...More...
Amy Boyd assists business clients with an array of administrative law concerns involving regulatory compliance, environmental litigation, government...More...
Elisabeth DeLisle assists clients with environmental litigation, compliance and due diligence issues. She represents public and private clients on a w...More...
Robby Sanoff has over 25 years of experience in litigation and dispute resolution that emphasizes environmental, insurance, and contract matters. He i...More...
In today’s fast changing world, almost all of us get our news – including our news about developments in environmentalMore...