Ohio Environmental Law Blog : Ohio Environmental Lawyer & Attorney : Joseph Koncelik : Frantz Ward Law Firm : Environmental Regulation, Land Use, Compliance : Cleveland, Ohio

On November 23, 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized new rules intended to control stormwater pollution from construction sites.  The rule takes effect on February 2010 and will be phased in over four years. 

The most significant new requirement is the imposition of numeric discharge limits from larger construction sites.  In the past, U.S. EPA required construction site owners/operators to implement best management practices (BMPs) to control stormwater runoff without monitoring or discharge limits.  Once the new standards are phased in, owners/operators will be required to sample stormwater discharges and comply with a numeric standard for the pollutant turbidity in discharges according to the following schedule:

• In 18 months (August 2011), construction sites 20 acres or larger will be required to monitor and meet numeric discharge limits
• In four years, construction sites 10 acres or larger will be required to monitor and meet numeric discharge limits

From the EPA press release:

Owners and operators of sites that impact 10 or more acres of land at one time will be required to monitor discharges and ensure they comply with specific limits on discharges to minimize the impact on nearby water bodies. This is the first time that EPA has imposed national monitoring requirements and enforceable numeric limitations on construction site stormwater discharges.

There are also impacts to smaller construction sites ranging from 1 acre to 10 acres in size.  The rule will impose a series of mandatory Best Management Practices (BMPs) relating to: Erosion and Sediment Controls; Soil Stabilization BMPs; Dewatering BMPs; Pollution Prevention Measures; and Prohibited Discharges.  Previously, owners/operators were allowed to pick and choose their BMPs as long as they met specified engineering requirements.

Stringency of the Numeric Limits

Dirt particles in storm water discharges typically cannot be effectively removed by conventional BMPs (such as sediment basins). In November 2008, U.S. EPA had proposed a numeric limit of 13 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU). To meet the proposed numeric turbidity limit, sites may have been forced to actively treat stormwater.  Active treatment could have included use of chemical treatment and filtration of their storm water discharges.

However, U.S. EPA backed off the stringent 13 NTU proposed limit.  The final rule has a far more relaxed standard of 280 NTU.  EPA decided to increase the limits based upon a flood of comments suggesting the 13 NTU limit would represent less than background levels at some sites and would be nearly impossible to meet.

Even with the high numeric standard, Industry is concerned with the implications of the new rules.  The construction industry is simply not accustomed to being required to take samples and meet specific permit limits.  As detailed on the Associated General Contractors of America, the following could be implications for contractors at larger construction sites:

On all jobsites where the numeric limit applies, the rule requires contractors to collect numerous stormwater runoff samples from all discharge points during every rain event and calculate the NTU level(s). (This may entail taking "grab" samples by hand and performing measurements with a field turbidimeter; however the rule doesn't specify any sort of monitoring protocol or methods - instead EPA is leaving it up to that states to spell that out in their permits.) If the average NTU level of the samples taken over the course of a day exceeds the "daily maximum limit" of 280 NTU on any given calendar day, then the site is in violation of the federal limitation requirement. EPA is also leaving it up to the states to specify applicable requirements for contractors to report on the samples they take of their construction site discharges...

AGC is deeply concerned about the potential impact this rule will have on the construction industry and will provide more information in the near term as we continue to analyze EPA's C&D ELG rulemaking

No doubt the final rule represents a significant increase in the stringency of regulations applicable to the construction industry. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Whether you are redeveloping a former manufacturing site or you operate a business on a contaminated site, the liability risks associated with releases of hazardous substances are significant.  With the unknowns and surprises associated with environmental clean up the future of your business could be at risk without proper protections. There are a range of insurance products that can be essential to businesses looking to minimize such risks.  

Insurance products can provide coverage against neighbors claims that contamination has migrated onto their property.  Products can provide protection against cost overruns on clean up projects.  They can also protect service providers against liability for negligence or mistakes in providing services on clean up projects.

This post provides a basic overview of various environmental insurance products.  In purchasing such products close attention should be paid to the specific terms of the policy offered.  In other words, know and understand the limits of your coverage so there are no surprises should an issue arise in the future.

Pollution Liability Policies

These are the most widely used brownfield insurance products.  They provide a range of protections typically triggered after you have successfully cleaned up a property (signified by regulatory agency signoff on you clean up).  The potential protections in such policies include:

• Third party bodily injury and property damage tor liability claims that arise post clean up as a result of remaining contamination
  • Potential tort claims brought by neighboring property owners who claim could damages based upon bodily injury, property damage, diminution in property value or business interruption based upon pollution from your property migrating off-site
  • Tort claims for on-site property or bodily injury  caused by pollution remaining at the site
  • Pollution released during transport of clean up related soils and materials
• Costs of additional clean up and other related expenses in the event there is a finding of new contamination or a regulator later decides they want more clean up
  • additional clean up of known contamination which regulators had believed did not require remediation
  • clean up of previously unknown contamination
• Legal defense costs associated with the first two types of coverage

When seeking pollution liability insurance careful review of the proposed policy terms is essential.  What items are excluded from coverage?  What risks are so remote they could be excluded and bring down the cost of the policy? Typically, there is a "base policy" that provides some level of standard coverage.  The base coverage is then modified through addition or exclusion of specific coverages (referred to as "endorsements"). 

Different insurance products will offer varying standard terms, those that must be added (special endorsements) and those that are simply not offered.  Some possible special endorsements or  exclusions may include:

• lead-based paint in buildings
• asbestos in soil or buildings
• mold in buildings
• low level radioactive materials
• natural radioactive materials (ex: radon)
• unknown underground storage tanks

It is important to understand the limits of a policy to make sure you are receiving coverage for the most important and largest risks attributable to your site.

Coverage can typically range from anywhere from $1 million to $50 million in protection.  Common policy limits can range between $5 million to $10 million in coverage.  Deductibles can be as low as $10,000 or as high as $1 million or more depending on the coverage sought.

Cost Cap Policies

Cost cap insurance is purchased to protect against the event that the clean up of the site becomes far more costly that initial estimates.   Cost cap insurance is typically expensive and for that reason its less common.  Typical types of events that can be covered include:

• Clean up involved either higher volume or higher concentrations of known pollutants that was anticipated when developing the clean up plan
• Newly found pollutants that were not known during development of the clean up plan
• Additional investigation required as a result of newly found contamination
• Increase costs due to changes in regulatory requirements or standards
• Failure of the proposed remedy for the site

There are even less standard terms in cost cap policies that pollution liability policies.  Business must carefully review the terms to understand their limits of coverage. 

For example, often the clean up plan can be incorporated into the policy.  Coverage may be limited to only those activities set forth in the plan.  If some other activity is required that was not discussed in the clean up plan, there may be no coverage  for increases costs associated with that activity.

As noted, the premiums for cost cap insurance can be expensive.  One study of brownfield insurance products found that premiums ranged anywhere from 10% to 25% of the estimated cost of clean up or the limit of coverage. 

Other Brownfield Insurance Products

1. Pre-funded Programs- these products involve prefunding expenses at a clean up site.  Depending on the type of policy, the insured pays the premium and expected clean up costs upfront.  If clean up is less than anticipated, depending on terms, the insured may get a portion of the prefunded expenses back.  If costs are higher than anticipated, the insurer will pay the cost overruns pursuant to the terms of the policy. 
2. Secured Lender Policies- These policies protect against loses due to pollution on a property that is subject to secure a loan.  The coverage that could be provided includes: a) reimbursement of principal left on the loan due to borrower's default; and b) third party tort claims for bodily injury or property damage after foreclosure on the property.  The purpose of this coverage is to give your lender comfort by minimizing their risk in financing your project.
3. Contractor's Pollution Liability- policies issued to general contractors and others who handle remediation, transportation of hazardous substances, or other aspects of the clean up.  The product will protect against property damage, bodily injury and environmental clean up claims that could arise from working on a clean up sites. 
4. Professional Liability Insurance- purchased to protect against mistakes or negligence of engineers, consultants, labs or other professionals providing services or advice on clean up sites.

Ohio Voluntary Action Program- Insurance Discount

Ohio EPA's Voluntary Action Program (VAP) is the state clean up program addressing brownfield and other voluntary clean ups.  VAP has developed a new component of their program that provides discounts on environmental insurance products.   The Environmental Insurance Program (EIP) began on July 20, 2009 and allows VAP volunteers (and others with an interest in the brownfield property) the ability to obtain Pollution Liability Insurance at a 10% discount off the standard premium rate. 

More Information on Brownfield Insurance Products

BrownfieldsInsurance.org is a site that was developed with funding from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to assist those seeking information and assistance with insurance products that mitigate environmental liabilities associated with brownfield properties. The site contains papers and studies discussing various environmental insurance products.  It also has information regarding professional services.  It is a good basic resource to educate yourself on environmental insurance products. 

(photo: everystockphoto.com-patriarca12) 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A new report regarding fine particulate pollution in the Midwest shows that achieving compliance with federal air quality standards is linked to U.S. EPA's fix for the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).  The Lake Michigan Air Director's Consortium (LADCO) released its white paper discussing recommendation on addressing fine particulate (p.m. 2.5) pollution in the Midwest.  The white paper includes these major findings:

The air quality studies demonstrated that high daily PM2.5 concentrations occur year-round, but are more likely in the winter and summer months, and are associated with elevated concentrations of particulate sulfate (especially in the summer), particulate nitrate (in the winter), and organic carbon (OC). Effective control programs for these PM species include:

• Regional reductions in sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from EGUs and large non-EGUs
• Reductions in ammonia (NH3) emissions from agricultural operations, especially in winter
• Regional reductions in oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emission reductions
• Urban-scale reductions in OC primary emissions from residential wood combustion and mobile sources, and VOC emissions from anthropogenic sources

The report notes that, beside power plant sulfate emissions, PM levels are attributable to agricultural emissions, smoking cars and outdoor wood fireplaces.  However, these types of sources are much more difficult to control. 

• Outdoor wood fireplaces may be responsible for local hot spot type emissions, however regulation of these sources has proved very controversial. 
• Addressing smoking cars and auto emissions in general is always been a difficult task.  Automobile testing, while continuing, is still very controversial. 
• Agricultural operations have fought long and hard to stay out of EPA regulation.  The report acknowledges no federal program for reduction of agricultural ammonia emissions.

In contrast there has been a long track record for regulating power plant emissions.  Starting with the acid rain program, then the NOx SIP call and finally CAIR- there have been three different cap and trade programs set up for reducing emissions.  CAIR is critical because power plants are the largest source of SO2 emissions. (See post, CAIR Impact on Air Quality)  The table below was taken from the report (EGU = Electric Generating Units). 

Table 1. Annual SO2 Emissions in LADCO Region (1000 TPY)

CAIR, under a cap and trade program, would dramatically reduce SO2 power plant emission in two phases- 2010 requires 50% reduction and 2015 requires 65% reduction.  States are counting on the continued existence of CAIR to meet PM air quality standards.  However, the D.C. Circuit Court tossed out CAIR as "fatally flawed."  U.S. EPA is currently working on a "CAIR fix" to address the issues raised in the Court's decision. 

LADCO's white paper makes it clear little thought is being given to what will happen if CAIR cannot be fixed.  A review of the legal issues with CAIR shows the State's better start considering that possibility.

The fact State's have incorporated CAIR into the air quality planning is the main reason the Court allowed CAIR to remain while U.S. EPA worked on its CAIR fix.  But there is no guarantee U.S. EPA is going to find a legally valid way to preserve CAIR.  The Court found many "fatal flaws" but two of those flaws go to the heart of the cap and trade program:

• One of the central problems the Court noted with CAIR was its method for reducing the cap on SO2 emissions.  The Clean Air Act establishes a value for acid rain allowances- one allowance is the right to emit one ton of SO2.  CAIR attempted to reduce the cap by cutting the value of an acid rain allowance in half in 2010. The Court found this to be problematic because the value of acid rain allowances is set forth the Clean Air Act.  The Court said:

Lest EPA forget, it is “a creature of statute,”
and has “only those authorities conferred upon it by Congress”;
“if there is no statute conferring authority, a federal agency has
none.”

CAIR, as program created by rule, cannot trump a statute.  How U.S. EPA can possibly get around the Clean Air Act establishment of acid rain allowance to preserve CAIR reductions is perplexing.

• The Court also questioned the fundamental basis of EPA's cap and trade program that it was not required to eliminate one state's contribution to another state's non-attainment problem.  The Court said:

"Theoretically, sources in Alabama could purchase enough NOx and SO2 allowances to cover all their current emissions, resulting in no change in Alabama's contribution to Davidson County, North Carolina's non-attainment." 

How U.S. EPA can legally show CAIR will address contribution from one state to another while at the same time preserving the cap and trade concept is also perplexing.

While States are counting on preservation of CAIR reductions to meet air quality standards, their faith in U.S. EPA to develop a legally defensible CAIR fix may be misplaced.  Senator Carper has pushed hard to incorporate a new, stronger CAIR-like program in the Senate climate change legislation.  However, this move has not been all that popular as it is seen to slow down progress on climate change.

What will be left if CAIR cannot be repaired is a mess in terms of air quality planning.  It will also make the mountain that much higher to climb for areas recently designated nonattainment by U.S. EPA.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Two federal appeal courts (Fifth and Second Circuits) have issued decisions that will allow lawsuits to proceed that assert common law tort claims based on business contribution to climate change.  Comer v. Murphy Oil USA Inc. is the second decision in the last two months to allow claims to proceed.  Earlier in October, the Second Circuit allows a federal common law tort claim to proceed in Connecticut v. American Electric Power.

In Comer, Mississippi coastal residents, following hurricane Katrina, sued a number of energy, oil refining and chemical manufacturing companies claiming their greenhouse gas emissions contributed to climate change.  The residents argue, that climate change increased the intensity of hurricane Katrina which led to massive damages along the cost.

A key distinguishing factor between the Comer and Connecticut is that the plaintiffs rely upon different legal theories to present their cases.  In Connecticut it was based purely on federal common law tort claims.  In Comer, the Mississippi residents grounded their claims in state common law theories of nuisance, trespass and negligence.  After these decisions, it appears either federal or state law claims can proceed.

It is important to note that another federal district court (Northern District of California) in the case of Native Village of Kivalina v Exxon Mobil Corp.  dismissed a common law tort claim because the Court determined Plaintiffs failed to establish standing.  However, district courts had dismissed similar claims that were later overturned by the appellate court decisions cited above.  Certainly this decision will be appealed to the Ninth Circuit which means we will have three federal district courts weigh in on this question. 

What are the implications of these decisions?

We are a long way from plaintiffs successfully collecting millions or even billions in damages from businesses for their greenhouse gas contribution to climate change.  The two federal appeal courts have only determined that there is enough of an argument for plaintiffs to be allowed to proceed to trial or in other words, the plaintiffs have standing. 

The legal standards for standing are much lower than what is required to be successful in winning a judgment.  For example, tort claims must meet more stringent causation standards than are required to demonstrate standing.  The Comer court found that plaintiffs had demonstrated sufficient causation.  The Court said plaintiffs did not have to show that the defendants greenhouse gas emissions alone caused the damages suffered by plaintiffs.  Rather, it is sufficient for standing that defendant's emissions contributes to the injuries suffered. 

While plaintiffs can now proceed to trial, there is certainly no guarantee of success.  However, these two appellate decisions will certainly embolden many more to file suits against utilities, chemical manufacturers, refiners, etc.  A flood of litigation is certainly on its way.

All this litigation creates significant uncertainty for the business community.  If just one plaintiff is successful in securing damages, the risk of liability will be massive for businesses.  All of this should be considered as the Senate continues to debate Climate Change legislation. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks