Environmental Litigation and Regulation

Subscribe to Environmental Litigation and Regulation via RSS

On December 19, 2008, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a startling ruling vacating the Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction (“SSM”) rules contained within the NESHAP General Provisions, 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart A. Sierra Club v. Environmental Protection Agency (Docket Nos. 02-1135, 03-1219, 06-1215, 07-1201). The Sierra Club asked the court to strike down the SSM exemption – an exemption that has been in place since the EPA adopted the General Provisions to 40 C.F.R. Part 63 in 1994 pursuant to Section 112 of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). Until this decision, sources were exempted from MACT technology-based emission limits if all elements of the SSM exemption were satisfied. Sources were nevertheless required by the general duty clause to minimize emissions to the greatest extent possible. In 2002, 2003 and 2006, the EPA promulgated rulemakings to revise these SSM requirements.
Continue Reading D.C. Circuit’s Decision Eliminates the Startup, Shutdown, or Malfunction Exemption

I.  LDEQ Recently Issued Proposed Rule Pursuant to Louisiana Mercury Risk Reduction Act to Reduce Use of Mercury-Containing Products and to Force Proper Disposal or Recycling of Mercury-Containing Products

In the August 2008 publication of the Louisiana Register, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (“LDEQ”) issued a proposed rule that will supplement the procedures and requirements set forth in the Louisiana Mercury Risk Reduction Act (La. R.S. 30:2571–2588) for manufacturers of mercury-added products offered for sale, users of mercury-added products in drinking water and wastewater treatment systems, and dismantlers of end-of-life productions that contain mercury-added products within Louisiana (hereinafter “Proposed Rule”). See, La. Admin. Code Tit. 33, §§ 2701, 2703, 2705, 2707, 2709, 2711, 2713, 2715, 2717, 2719, and 2721 (2008). The Proposed Rule was published after the LDEQ’s consideration of numerous comments received in response to a rule published by the LDEQ in the December 2007 Potpourri Section of the Louisiana Register.

The Louisiana Mercury Risk Reduction Act was enacted in June 2006. The law was the first of its kind and provided the LDEQ with the authority to regulate mercury-added products and also gave the LDEQ the authority to handle unregulated mercury sources. The stated intent of the Louisiana Mercury Risk Reduction Act was to “achieve significant reductions in environmental mercury by encouraging the establishment of effective state and local waste reduction, recycling, and management programs while encouraging non-mercury alternatives.” La. R.S. 30:2571(C).Continue Reading Louisiana Mercury Risk Reduction Act – Proposed Rule Released by LDEQ

Several developments concerning the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) regulations occurred in 2006 and 2007. Thoughtful planning and continued tracking of these developments will be necessary to ensure compliance.

EPA revised the SPCC plan requirements in 2006 to:

  • Provide the option to self-certify SPCC Plans in lieu of review and certification by a Professional Engineer for facilities that have an aboveground oil storage capacity of 10,000 gallons or less and meet other qualifying criteria.
  • Provide an alternative to the general secondary containment requirement without requiring a determination of impracticability for qualified oil-filled operational equipment.
  • Define and exempt particular vehicle fuel tanks and other on-board bulk oil storage containers (called motive power containers).
  • Exempt mobile refuelers from the sized secondary containment requirements for bulk storage containers.
  • Remove SPCC requirements for animal fats and vegetable oils for certain types of facilities.
  • Extend the SPCC compliance dates for farms.

Continue Reading Keeping Up With Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Regulations

Environmental litigators face unique challenges in dealing with the expert phase of a lawsuit.  For example, a lawsuit involving alleged environmental contamination of soil, groundwater, or surface waters may require the use of experts such as environmental/civil engineers, hydrogeologists, hydrologists, geologists, soil scientists, agronomists, analytical chemists, toxicologists, environmental chemists, risk assessment experts, wetlands scientists, health…

The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality recently finalized revisions to the “Comprehensive Toxic Air Pollutant Emission Control Program” set forth in LAC 33:III.Chapter 51 of the Louisiana Air Quality Regulations. A final rulemaking, first initiated in September 2005, was published in the December 20, 2007 Louisiana Register and can be obtained at the following web address: http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/tabid/2644/Default.aspx.  Unlike some states, Louisiana has its own air toxics program, which applies to major sources of “toxic air pollutants” as defined in LAC 33:III.5103. State toxic air pollutants include all federal “hazardous air pollutants” set forth in Clean Air Act § 112, and also 13 other pollutants, including ammonia, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, and hydrogen sulfide.

The final rulemaking, published in AQ-256, provides for the following revisions:Continue Reading Louisiana Air Toxics Regulations Revised by LDEQ

The European Commission recently released a preliminary package of broad climate change policies that would affect industry, energy generation and transportation in the European Union. The goals of the climate change policies are to: (1) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by twenty percent (20%) below 1990 levels by the year 2020; (2) to increase the proportion of power generated by renewable resources to twenty percent (20%) of total energy consumption; and (3) to institute a mandate that ten percent (10%) of the fuel consumed by the European vehicles to be from biofuel sources.

The proposed measures include:Continue Reading European Union to Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Twenty Percent by 2020: European Commission Issues Climate Change Policy Package

On December 21, 2007, EPA published notice of its adoption of a final rule to “clarify” the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for projects that do not constitute a major modification under the prevention of significant deterioration (“PSD”) and nonattainment new source review (“NNSR”) programs when calculated by the baseline actual emissions to projected actual emissions (“BAE to PAE”) methodology, but which have a “reasonable possibility” to result in a significant emissions increase.  72 Fed. Reg. 72607. The final rule defines “reasonable possibility” as either: 1) where the difference between BAE and PAE is > 50% of the significance level for the regulated pollutant; or 2) where the difference between BAE and PAE prior to subtraction of the emissions excluded from PAE through the “capable of accommodating/demand growth” exclusion is > 50% of the significance level for the regulated pollutant. However, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements differ depending upon whether “reasonable possibility” is triggered by scenario 1) or 2).
Continue Reading EPA Adopts Final Rule to Clarify “Reasonable Possibility” Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

On August 22, 2007, the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal rendered a decision – In the Matter of Waste Management of Louisiana, L.L.C. (Docket No. 2006 CA 1011) – that may affect the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality’s approval of previous pollution control projects under PSD/NNSR provisions. Appellants LEAN and Concerned Citizens of Livingston Parish asked the court to reverse the lower court’s affirmation of LDEQ’s issuance of a Title V air permit issued to Woodside Landfill in 2004. In 2003, LDEQ exempted from PSD review a pollution control project to install a gas collection and control system and bioremediation area at the landfill. The later-issued Title V permit included conditions for the flare that was installed as part of the project. It is unclear from the facts stated in the opinion whether the original 2003 authorization-to-construct the project or the 2004 permit also authorized an expansion of the landfill. EPA issued a letter of no objection to the Title V permit.
Continue Reading First Circuit Decision to Potentially Affect Air Permitting in Louisiana

In June, we reported that a three judge panel of the District of Columbia Court of Appeal had issued a decision in NRDC v. EPA, Docket 04-1385, to vacate both the Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (“CISWI”) Unit Rule and the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants Rule for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (the “Boiler MACT”).  That report indicated that the court’s decision could be stayed by a timely request for hearing or a stay order.
Continue Reading Boiler MACT, Now It’s Gone!

On June 8, 2007, a three judge panel of the District of Columbia Court of Appeal issued a decision in NRDC v. EPA, vacating both the Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (“CISWI”) Unit Rule and the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants Rule for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (the “Boiler MACT”). The decision will not become effective (meaning the CISWI and Boiler MACT Rules are still effective), until legal delays for rehearing and/or appeal have run. Moreover, two of the three judges wrote concurring opinions which strongly suggest that a stay order, with conditions, is likely to be issued if the parties so request it. With the September 13, 2007, Boiler MACT compliance deadline looming, EPA needs to provide prompt guidance to the thousands of regulated entities on their compliance obligations in light of the decision.
Continue Reading Boiler MACT Rule Vacated, But Not (Yet) Gone!