Ali Nelson, Senior Counsel, was featured in Rock Products October edition discussing the litigation surrounding the regulatory definition of ‘Waters of the United States’ and the recent court decisions leading to the application of different definitions in different states.
In the United States, the largest category for water consumption is electric power generation. Similarly, the largest demand for electricity is water extraction and distribution (Department of Energy). This strong interdependence drives great opportunity in the Energy-Water Nexus (EWN) to impact both energy and water consumption.
As a proud supporter of the Midwest
Megan Caldwell was featured in Rock Products discussing the potential for asbestos rock to make a comeback as a result of a recent rule proposed by the Trump Administration. She provides insights into the history, international production and significant new use of asbestos rock. Is asbestos poised to make a comeback? Only time will tell.
As we previously reported, major changes are going into effect tomorrow concerning California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, known as Proposition 65. This law requires businesses to notify Californians about significant amounts of chemicals in products in their homes or workplaces, that are released into the environment, or that are present at certain
On August 21, 2018, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a prepublication copy of its proposed Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule. If adopted, the rule would (1) establish emission guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions from existing electric utility generating units (EGUs); (2) revise the regulations governing how states implement the emission guidelines; and (3) revise the New Source Review (NSR) program to allow modification to existing EGUs without triggering permitting requirements.
The Clean Power Plan regulations adopted by the Obama administration would have limited GHG emissions by directing states to reduce emissions by applying a combination of three “building blocks” as the best system of emission reduction (BSER), which consisted of:
1) Improving heat rate at affected coal-fired steam generating units;
2) Substituting increased generation from lower-emitting natural gas combined cycle units for decreased generation from higher-emitting affected steam generating units; and
3) Substituting increased generation from new zero-emitting renewable energy generating capacity for decreased generation from affected fossil fuel-fired generating units.
Federal environmental requirements and regulations have been relaxed (or are proposed to be relaxed) since President Trump was elected, but those environmental regulatory changes have not yet realized benefits for renewable energy and transmission project permitting.
As mainstream media sources like the New York Times have reported, the Trump administration’s efforts to weaken environmental laws has been somewhat substantial; to date, 67 environmental actions have been targeted by the administration, including 33 that already have been overturned, 24 with rollbacks in progress, and 10 regulations in limbo. However, most of those regulatory changes are unrelated to transmission or renewable energy project permitting. And even those regulatory changes that are loosely related to permitting haven’t yet impacted the speed with which permits are issued by federal agencies (or state agencies with delegated authority to implement federal programs), or the number of permits issued (versus denied). However, the key here is that the impacts haven’t been realized yet; permit processing efficiency and issuance are likely to improve as time goes on, particularly since some of the changes are directly intended to speed up permitting.
Continue Reading
As a reminder, the State of Texas’s new stormwater construction general permit is now in effect. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s (TCEQ) has renewed its General Permit to Discharge under the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit, Permit No. TXR150000, which authorizes discharges from construction sites into surface water in the state. Operators of
On February 20, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requested comments on whether pollutant discharges from point sources that reach jurisdictional surface waters via groundwater or other subsurface flow with a direct hydrologic connection to the jurisdictional surface water may be subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act (CWA).
The answer to this question will have far reaching implications because the scope of the agency’s powers under the CWA determines the scope of:
As a result, the extent to which a discharge to groundwater that reaches jurisdictional surface waters is subject to regulation under the CWA is a significant issue for farmers, manufacturers, and anyone who discharges to groundwater.
Background
The CWA regulates the discharge of pollutants and placement of fill into “navigable waters,” and defines navigable waters as “the waters of the United States.” Since the CWA was passed in 1972, there has been much debate over the extent to which waters that are not considered navigable in fact and wetlands may be regulated as waters of the United States. This uncertainty has given rise to a variety of CWA citizen suits alleging that discharges from point sources that migrate via groundwater to waters of the United States require NPDES permits.
Over the years, various federal courts have reached differing conclusions on the question of whether discharges to groundwater can be considered discharges to waters of the United States. Most recently, the Ninth Circuit addressed this issue in Hawaii Wildlife Fund v. County of Maui, 881 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 2018). In that case, the County of Maui (the “County”) discharged treated effluent from its wastewater reclamation facility into injection wells. Tracer dye studies confirmed that this effluent migrated through the groundwater to the Pacific Ocean. A three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the County’s discharge triggered Clean Water Act jurisdiction and the need for an NPDES permit because the groundwater was hydrologically connected to the Pacific Ocean, a water of the United States. Under the court’s ruling, an indirect discharge of contaminants from point sources that travels through groundwater and ultimately reaches navigable waters will now be subject to federal permitting requirements.
Continue Reading
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) have recently issued memoranda concerning civil enforcement of violations, including violations of environmental laws.
The January 22, 2018 EPA memorandum, entitled “Interim [Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance] Guidance on Enhancing Regional-State Planning and Communication on Compliance Assurance Work in Authorized
On January 25, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) withdrew its 1995 “once in always in” guidance. Under that guidance, facilities classified as “major sources” of hazardous air pollutants (“HAP”) as of the “first compliance date” of a maximum achievable control technology (“MACT”) standard under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act are required to comply permanently with the MACT standard. Now, EPA’s current policy is that a major source that limits its potential to emit (“PTE”) to below major source thresholds can become an area source and will no longer be subject to the major source MACT.
The Clean Air Act defines “major source” as “any stationary source or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the potential to emit considering controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons per year or more of any hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of hazardous air pollutants.” This definition expressly allows PTE to be calculated “considering controls,” and does not address the timing for when a source will be classified as a major source. As a result, EPA found that its “once in always in” policy “created an artificial time limit” contrary to the plain language of the Clean Air Act and must be withdrawn.
Continue Reading