Environmental Litigation and Regulation

Subscribe to Environmental Litigation and Regulation via RSS

Deepwater oil and gas production from the Gulf of Mexico has become a significant portion of the current production within the United States, equal to over 1.6 million barrels per day of oil equivalent; total U.S oil production is around 5.3 million barrels per day. (1)  Worldwide shallow water oil production peaked around the year 2000 whereas worldwide deep water production has risen to around 5 million barrels per day. On May 10, 2011, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (“BOEMRE”) approved Royal Dutch Shell’s Exploration Plan S-0744 to better define discoveries announced in 2009 and 2010. (2) 

Several environmental groups filed suit in an attempt to block the approved plan. Gulf Restoration Network, Inc., Florida Wildlife Federation, and Sierra Club Inc. filed a petition on June 8, 2011, in the United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, in an attempt to set aside BOEMRE’s approval of the plan. The allegations in the petition are relatively general, alleging violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) (i.e., for BOEMRE’s alleged failure to appropriately conduct the required environmental assessments and/or impact statements) and further alleging elements required pursuant to 43 U.S.C §1349(c) necessary to maintain the suit under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”).Continue Reading Environmental Groups Attempt to Block Shell Deepwater Gulf of Mexico Drilling

On June 1, 2011, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) issued a notice to Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Region (GOMR) lease and pipeline right-of-way (ROW) holders on reporting hurricane and tropical storm effects. Specifically, the recent notice, designated NTL No. 2011-G01(1), requires four reports, as appropriate:

  • Evacuation

…

On April 28, 2011, Governor Bobby Jindal declared a State of Emergency as a result of growing concern over the predicted crest of the Mississippi River well above flood stage in many areas. Consistent with his authority, on May 13, 2011, James Welsh, Commissioner of Conservation, also issued an emergency and administrative order. It is…

On March 21, 2011, a final rule title “Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Material That Are Solid Waste” was published in the Federal Register. See, 76 Fed. Reg. 15456. The final rule does not as much identify that which is a solid waste as it identifies materials that are not solid waste. The effect of the rule is to determine whether combustion units should be regulated under Section 129 or Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) – solid waste is regulated under Section129 and non-solid waste under Section112. See, 76 Fed. Reg. 15610.

Under current regulations, certain materials (spent, sludges, by-products, specific chemical products and scrap) are solid waste when burned for energy recovery. See, 40 C.F.R. §261.2(c)(2). Materials are not solid waste when recycled through use or reuse as ingredients, as substitute products, or returned to the original process. See, 40 C.F.R. §261(e). The preamble of the final rule expands recycling by indicating that it includes burning for energy recovery. See, 76 Fed. Reg. 15468-69.Continue Reading EPA Clarifies Solid Waste Materials

The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (“LDEQ”) announced a final rule change, effective April 11, 2011, that deletes an exemption from water discharge permitting for pesticides applied directly or near waters of the state(1).  The exemption, based on an identical exemption promulgated by the EPA under the NPDES program, allowed the use of pesticides in…

On January 26, 2011, the U.S. EPA denied petitioner’s request to reconsider the newly promulgated one-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). See, 76 Fed. Reg. 4780. The EPA determined that the objections raised were not of “central relevance” purportedly because they failed to support an argument that the promulgated standards should be revised. The petitioners objected, in part, to non-binding preamble guidance concerning implementation issues that were separate and independent from revisions of the NAAQS. Since the EPA denied reconsideration, no need existed for a stay.

Petitioner’s primary objection centered on perceived changes in EPA policy through utilization of modeling data to designate areas as non-compliant with the SO2 NAAQS. EPA countered that modeling had long been utilized “to determine whether areas have attained the NAAQS.” Petitioners also expressed concerns that modeling may over-predict violations. In its denial, the EPA countered that “modeling can very accurate identify areas of potential daily, maximum 1-hour concentrations above the NAQQS,” and if over-predictions exist, “interested parties would have a fair opportunity to show that using modeling in that case may not be appropriate.” See, 76 Fed. Reg. at 4782. Under this implementation process, the designation of non-attainment, based on modeling, will be the challengeable final decision.Continue Reading EPA Denies Reconsideration of One-hour Sulfur Dioxide Standard

In a recent decision, the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the application of the longstanding subsequent purchaser doctrine to an oilfield legacy case.  The decision Wagoner v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., et. al., No. 10-45507 (La. 2. Cir. 2010) affirmed the legal principle that the right to recover for property damages is a personal…

New major and modified existing stationary sources require air permits prior to beginning construction. Where increases of criteria pollutants  such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulate and volatile organic compounds exceed a “significance” threshold, the permittee is required to analyze available and technically feasible control technology with the goal of selecting the best available control technology (BACT) for new or modified emissions units. With agency agreement, the selection of BACT becomes an enforceable part of the permit. 

We now have a new “pollutant,” greenhouse gas (“GHG”) equivalents for the six regulated greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, perfluorocabons, and hydrofluorocarbons). GHGs are measured as equivalents to carbon dioxide, the most common GHG (CO2e). Starting January 2, 2011, permits issued for facilities that otherwise trigger PSD (as above) and have a new or increased potential to emit (PTE) of CO2e of 75,000 TPY, must address GHG emissions. Following July 1, 2011, a PSD permit may be required for significant increases in GHGs alone (100,000 tpy for a new source or 75,000 tpy for` a modification), even where there is no significant increase of any other regulated criteria pollutant. 

As with other pollutants, once PSD is triggered for GHGs, the permittee must evaluate and propose that which constitutes BACT to control the CO2e. Although the general scheme for selecting BACT is familiar, a top down ranking of available and technical feasible technologies, the available options are not. There are no conventional CO2e scrubbers or waste heat boilers, or filter traps to capture CO2e.  While some technologies are emerging, the process of determining BACT for CO2 control is a new frontier, and lack of guidance can cause permitting delays. To address some of the uncertainties,  EPA issued guidance on November 10, 2010 concerning permitting GHGs explaining the process for determining the required emission control technology – BACT.


Continue Reading EPA Issues Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Permitting Guidance

Electronic Discovery, or “E-Discovery”, is not considered the “novel issue” it once was. However, E-Discovery still presents problems that litigants and courts struggle with. Below is a summary of recent Louisiana Federal Court opinions dealing with the issues surrounding E-Discovery.

In Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, 2007 WL 184889 (W.D. La. Jan. 22, 2007), the Western District of Louisiana granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel. In an unfair competition and trade secret theft action, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant, a former employee, had stolen various data files. Plaintiff had unsuccessfully requested production of defendant’s laptop and desktop. The Court granted the motion to compel the defendant to produce these two items because they were the most likely places that the data files would be located. The Court did institute protective measures so as to prevent the disclosure of any irrelevant or personal information.Continue Reading Recent Developments in E-Discovery in Louisiana