As reported in the New York Times, Senator Murkowski announced that  the Senate will vote June 10th on her resolution to block EPA from implementing climate change regulation under the Clean Air Act.  The proposal was announced this past December and the vote follows finalization of EPA regulations that will initiate regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) January 2011.

The legislative activity stems from the Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA which held that EPA had the authority to set standards for motor vehicles under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act to control GHGs.  Prior to establishing standards, Section 202 requires the EPA to make a finding that GHGs "cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare."  (so called "endangerment finding") 

On January 14, 2010, EPA finalized its Endangerment Finding.  The Murkowski resolution would undue the EPA finding, thereby effectively blocking implementation of GHG standards for motor vehicles. Here is the language from the resolution:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the endangerment finding and the cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (published at 74 Fed. Reg. 66496 (December 15, 4 2009)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.

The resolution is based on the Congressional Review Act which gives Congress authority to disapprove Agency rules.   If utilized the CRA says the rule "may not be reissued in substantially the same form."  This from the New York Times:

Murkowski’s resolution would need 51 votes to clear the chamber. She already has 41 co-sponsors, including three Democrats: Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

Even if the resolution passes the Senate, it faces an uphill climb in the House, which does not have the same expedited procedures, and it faces a likely veto from President Obama. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has warned that nullifying the endangerment finding would upend the administration’s joint EPA and Transportation Department fuel economy standards and greenhouse gas emission limits for cars and light-duty trucks.

(You can watch Senator’s Murkowski’s Floor Statement by clicking here)

While there may be a decent chance the resolution passes the Senate, it almost certainly won’t make it past the President’s desk. 

What is the true "scope" of the resolution?

While the resolution will never be signed by the President, does the resolution really accomplish what it is intended to accomplish- block EPA from regulating GHGs under the Clean Air Act?  There are a few reasons to believe that this is not the case:

  • Endangerment Finding is Limited to Motor Vehicle Rule-  The Endangerment Finding is a prerequisite to regulation of GHGs from motor vehicles.  However, GHGs can become a "regulated pollutant" through other means than the motor vehicle standards.  Any EPA action that is viewed as controlling emissions of GHGs automatically triggers multiple provisions of the Clean Air Act, most notably the New Source Review program.  While the resolution would delay EPA, it does not necessarily block EPA from regulating GHGs under the Clean Air Act.
  • CRA Standard has wiggle room-  The CRA states the regulation cannot be issued in "substantially the same form."  Couldn’t EPA simply make a new affirmative endangerment finding based upon a wider set of scientific data or more recent data?  Couldn’t this be viewed as a finding that is not "substantially" in the same form?

Senator Murkowski’s effort is limited by what she can accomplish under the CRA.  Obviously, there must be an EPA regulation adopted for Congress to use its authority block it.  But let’s be clear going forward, using the CRA means Congress cannot truly block EPA from regulating GHGs.  That could only be accomplished through Legislation which removed GHGs as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. 
 

Greenhouse Gas Regulation Commences January 2, 2011 without Legislation

On May 13, 2010, EPA finalized its regulatory approach for control greenhouse gases (GHGs) from large stationary sources.  As discussed in prior posts, the statutory thresholds for triggering EPA’s New Source Review program (NSR) are 100/250 tons per year of a regulated Clean Air Act pollutant. 

As its name implies, EPA’s NSR program requires emission reductions from new or modified sources that emit pollutants above the 100/250 TPY threshold in the Clean Air Act.  This trigger level works reasonably well for typical Clean Air Act pollutants, but not for CO2 which is emitted in much larger quantities.  If the 100/250 threshold were applied for GHGs, EPA indicates thousands of sources would be required to obtain federal air permits under NSR. 

To prevent what EPA calls would be an "absurd" result if the statutory thresholds were applied, EPA is proposing to phase the thresholds in over time.  EPA claims they have the authority to temporarily raise the statutory thresholds based on seldom used legal doctrines known as the "absurd results" doctrine and "administrative necessity."  Whether EPA truly has that authority remains to be seen.

However, the so called "Tailoring Rule" finalized on May 13th is the mechanism that raises the statutory thresholds thereby bringing in only the largest sources of GHGs.  Here is how EPA is phasing in NSR requirements for sources of GHGs:

Phase 1:  January 2, 2011 to June 30, 2011

New Sources (Construction Permits)-  Only sources that trigger NSR due to their non-GHG emissions would be required to address GHG emissions in their permits if GHG emissions exceed 75,000 tons per year.  If GHG’s exceed that threshold they must meet the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) standard to minimize GHG emissions.

Existing Sources-Must incorporate GHG related requirements into their operating permits (Title V).  Right now those requirements are limited to the GHG reporting rules previously established by EPA (40 CFR Part 98- reporting rule fact sheet)

Phase 2:  July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2013

New Sources (Construction Permits)-  Expands beyond just those sources trigger NSR for other pollutants and with 75,000 tons per year of GHG emission.  Any source that emits 100,000 tons per year of GHGs would trigger NSR permitting, even if they don’t require an NSR permit due to other pollutant emissions. 

Existing Sources-  Any modification to a source that would increase GHG emission by more than 75,000 tons per year triggers NSR.  Also, existing sources with emission of 100,000 tons per year, even they have not modified their facility in any way, will be required to obtain an operating permit (Title V) based solely on their GHG emissions.  (EPA estimates the universe of source covered is about 550- mostly landfills and industrial manufacturers.)

Phase 3  Second Rulemaking by July 1, 2012

EPA has stated it will complete a second phase of rulemaking by July 1, 2012 that will further reduce the trigger thresholds below those established in Phase 2.  EPA states it will evaluate a possible threshold of 50,000 tons per year.   Smaller sources would not be covered until April 30, 2016.

Continual Duty to Reduce the Thresholds

Legally, EPA is under a duty to reduce the trigger thresholds as soon as practicable to be in line with the statutory triggers of 100/250 tons per year.  The key question is- How long will the courts allow them to delay implementing what is expressly stated in the Clean Air Act?

(Photo: everystockphoto- cjohnson7) 

Last week, two distinct paths clearly emerged for addressing climate change.  The first, legislation that would put in place a market mechanism to reduce emission over time- the Kerry-Lieberman Bill.  The second, EPA’s use of its existing regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse (GHGs) emissions (EPA Tailoring Rule)

EPA Regulation Under the Clean Air Act

One road-regulation under the Clean Air Act-we know very well.  We may not be able to see how it exactly will fit with reducing GHGs, but we know all the familiar mechanisms-

  • New Source Review– slow permitting process for new facilities.  An ever evolving mandated technology standard.  Poorly designed rules that lack clarity for when NSR is triggered.  Lots of litigation.
  • Title V permits–  a program originally designed to make air permitting more easily understood, has led to permits that are hundreds of pages long.
  • NAAQs and SIPs– It is totally unclear how these mechanisms would fit with climate change. Its issues maybe, by themselves, prompted former Administrator Johnson to comment the Clean Air Act is "ill suited" to regulated GHGs.  What we do know about the NAAQS process in relation to climate change is it will require State to utilize complex planning processes to reduce GHG emissions.  An inefficient mechanism to achieve your goal of reducing GHGs.
  • NSPS– ill-defined command and control technology standards for GHG reductions. 

Cap and Trade- A Market Mechanism for Reducing Emissions

Kerry-Lieberman (otherwise known as the American Power Act) sets up a sector based cap and trade mechanism.  Each sector (power, manufacturing and transportation) has its own cap.

The concept is to set an overall cap for total emission from the sector that is gradually reduced over time.   Each regulated unit must have an allowance for each ton of emissions. 

The big difference from the command and control approach of EPA regulation is that the market will help drive innovation and reduce emissions.  Each allowance will have a price associated with it. If projects that reduce emission can generate reductions cheaper than that price, project developers will make money by selling the credits to the regulated entities who need the allowances. 

Right now there is a tremendous amount of hesitancy to move forward with the cap and trade approach.  A myriad of issues are used as reasons for not supporting the proposal:

  • The financial metldown- has led to disdain for Wall Street, many are unwilling to support a "trading" proposal that will allow big banks and investment companies to participate in the process. 
  • Europe’s cap-and-trade has experience major issues.  Fraud with credit generation.  A verification system that is seen as cumbersome and ineffective.  A cap that is accused of "leaking."
  • BP Oil Spill-  the President tried a horse trade- he would support off-shore drilling in exchange for passage of an energy bill.  After the spill, this horse trade no longer works.  What compromises are left that could move the legislation forward.

Embarking on the "Well Traveled Road"

Most give the Kerry-Lieberman Bill almost zero chance of passing this year.  Many are calling it a "discussion draft" that will be used as a starting point next year when the legislation is revisited.

With little chance of passage in the next year and possibly beyond, we default to the "well traveled road" of EPA regulation.  Those who think its likely Congressional amendments introduced to block EPA from exercising its authority have a chance of passing, are placing their faith in a false hope.  There will never be enough support to pass this type of amendment.

With no Legislative relief, we are left with EPA regulations.  Its really time to start understanding the regulatory approach that has been unveiled and identify the pitfalls.  The largest pitfall is EPA belief it has legal authority to phase in NSR regulation by raising the triggers for federal air permits.  We will watch how this plays out, but a disaster could truly ensue if EPA’s Tailoring Rule is struck down.

As we move forward, we hopefully will revisit Legislation because it truly offers the best solution.  Just as Robert Frost wrote, the road less traveled can make all the difference.  

Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.       Robert Frost
 

Liability for pre-existing contamination acts as a strong deterrent to re-use of brownfield properties.  Prospective purchasers simply do not want to expose themselves to potential liability especially when they had nothing to do with the contamination.

At the federal level, there has been an attempt to address liability exposure in order to provide prospective purchasers some level of liability protection.  However, even though tools exist at the federal level, potential exposure to state environmental liabilities can act as its own deterrent. 

While Clean Ohio may be one of the best brownfield grant programs, not every redevelopment or re-use of a brownfield is right for Clean Ohio.  Given the number of vacant and idled brownfield properties in Ohio, perhaps its time Ohio looked to strengthen protections for innocent purchasers to encourage re-use and prevent urban sprawl.

Federal "Innocent Landowner" Defense

CERCLA (otherwise known as the Superfund law) establishes joint and several liability to a variety of parties, including property owners, for releases of hazardous substances.  Liability can attach regardless of whether you generated or brought the contamination to the property.

The 2002 Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfield Revitalization Act (“the Brownfield Amendments”) amended CERCLA to provide for protections for purchasers of property.  Under the Brownfield Amendments a person can receive liability protections when purchasing contaminated property, it the person meets certain requirements. This is commonly referred to as the “innocent landowner defense.”

Under federal law, in order to establish the innocent landowner defense the purchaser must, prior to the date of acquisition of the property, perform “all appropriate inquiries” into prior ownership and uses of a property. In 2005, U.S. EPA finalized a rule which establishes mandatory standards for conducting all appropriate inquiries ("AAI Rule").

If the investigation (a Phase I assessment) spots no issues, then the legal protection attaches if procedures are followed set forth in the AAI rule. If the investigation of the property reveals the likelihood that a release has occurred, the AAI rule requires reasonable steps be taken to address the release or contain it before you receive liability protection.

But what about State environmental liability?

State environmental statutes provides separate authority to bring actions for historical contamination on brownfield properties.  While there are certain limitations on that authority, I have had clients express concern regarding this liability exposure.

The State of Ohio does not have a regulation or even a policy that recognizes the "innocent landowner" defense.  Meeting the AAI rule will not establish a legal defense against state statutory environmental liabilities.  While the State may exercise enforcement discretion, some clients don’t have the risk tolerance to live with that potential exposure.

Should Ohio adopt some kind of "innocent landowner" protection to attract re-use of brownfields?

At a minimum, some formal recognition of the AAI rule by the State would at least provide some level of comfort.  However, given the number of brownfield sites in the State, something stronger is warranted. 

One potential model is the Clean Michigan Initiative.  Under this law, the State provides liability protection to innocent purchasers similar to the federal AAI rule.  Here is a quick synopsis of the program:

  • Baseline Environmental Assessment (BEA)- A BEA is performed which is a simpler, streamlined alternative to full blown clean up of the site.
  • Establish the Baseline– BEA is used to gather information about a contaminated property when the owner or operator changes so existing contamination can be distinguished from any that might occur once a new owner or operator acquires the property.
  • Timing- the BEA must be performed prior to or no more than 45 days after the date of purchase, foreclosure, or becoming the operator, whichever occurs first; 
  • Disclose –  the results of the BEA must be provided to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and subsequent purchasers and lessee operators.
  • Due Care Responsibilities– Purchasers need only take actions sufficient to ensure that their use of the property: 1) does not allow an unacceptable exposure to contamination, 2) does not worsen the contamination, and 3) protects against the reasonably foreseeable actions of third parties such as contractors or trespassers.

Very similar to the Federal AAI rule, Michigan’s BEA serves as a good model to address State liabilities at contaminated properties.  Such protection could further encourage re-use of industrial sites that remain idled or vacant.

On April 23, 2010 EPA is finalized revisions to the Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program (RRP) that went final on April 22, 2008. 

Under the revisions EPA eliminates the “opt-out” provision that currently exempts a renovation firm from the training and work practice
requirements if the firm obtains certification from the owner that no child under age 6 or pregnant women resides in the home and the home is not a child-occupied facility.

The second major revisions requires renovation firms to provide a copy of the records demonstrating compliance with the training and work practice requirements of the RRP rule to the owner and, if different, the occupant of the building being renovated or the operator of the child-occupied facility.

The RRP rule establishes requirements for training renovators and dust sampling technicians; for certifying renovators, dust sampling technicians, and renovation firms; for accrediting providers of renovation and dust sampling technician training; for renovation work practices; and for record keeping rule.

 

Last week, Senator Voinovich drew attention and criticism for proposing a significant expansion of the preemption language in the forthcoming bi-partisan climate bill to be introduced by Senators Kerry, Lieberman and Graham.  Failure to carefully consider the preemption language and possible additional limits on other regulatory authority would be short-sighted. 

One of the main reasons for Congress to pass climate legislation would be to remove the morass of uncertainty and mounting litigation in relation to climate change regulation.  If the bill has narrowly drawn preemption language, the certainty the businesses need will simply be non-existent.

The whole point of climate legislation should be to develop a national strategy to address the issue.  A narrow preemption would mean creation of new regulatory authority that just adds to the current chaos surrounding climate regulation. 

Here is a quick summary of what Senator Voinovich is proposing as reported in the New York Times :

Voinovich is circulating a proposal (pdf) that would go beyond Clean Air Act pre-emptions to block the federal government from regulating greenhouse gas emissions under laws including the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. The amendment would fully prohibit states from regulating greenhouse gases based on their effects on climate change and would prohibit public nuisance litigation related to climate change.

Notably, Voinovich’s measure would also prevent EPA from moving forward with its part of a joint rulemaking finalized this month with the Transportation Department. The rules seek to raise the fuel economy of the nation’s passenger fleet while imposing the first-ever greenhouse gas standards on cars and trucks.

The bi-partisan bill was supposed to be released today.  However, political issues over immigration have "temporarily" delayed introduction of the new measure.  Without viewing the new legislation, its difficult to make a comparison between the Voinovich proposal and the bi-partisan legislative proposal.  From what is anticipated, here is the break down of pre-emption language:
 

Regulations Preempted
Regulatory Authority Senator Kerry’s Bill Senator Voinovich Language
EPA’s New Source Review and other Clean Air Act Authority Yes Yes
Vehicle CO2 Emission Standards No Only Transportation would have authority
Endangered Species Act No Yes
Public and Federal Nuisance Actions No Yes
State and Regional Regulations (Ex: RGGI) Maybe Yes

 

EPA’s Clean Air Act and New Source Review Regulations

EPA’s Tailoring Rule is perhaps the best example of vague climate change regulatory authority.  EPA admits that regulation of CO2 like any other pollutant would lead to absurd results.  The Tailoring Rule is meant to phase in regulation of CO2.  However, no one knows whether EPA has the authority to phase-in those regulations.  Is that something we really want to leave to chance?

Public Nuisance Lawsuits

The pre-emption language must include public nuisance claims.  Courts across the country have had a influx of suits filed against large greenhouse gas emitters seeking redress for their contribution to climate change.  Right now the Courts are split over whether the suits "raise a political question" which is outside the review of the judiciary.  Also, if Congress acts in passage it may pre-empt some of the federal nuisance authority Plaintiffs rely upon. However, it is very difficult to see how that legal question shakes out if the Kerry Bill initially only covers utilities. 

Even if Senator Kerry’s bill uses a phased in approach, the bill should explicitly pre-empt nuisance lawsuits.  Expensive litigation that often leads to inconsistent Court rulings is no way to develop a common sense regulatory policy. 

Regional and State Regulations

If the bi-partisan bill fails to pre-empt State and regional climate change regulations we will be left with a patchwork regulatory scheme across the country.  Avoiding such a patchwork regulatory scheme was one of the major reasons the Obama Administration decided to push the compromise on vehicle emission standards.  Otherwise, California and other states would have established separate vehicle standards only applicable in their states.

Conclusion

With the bills anticipated narrower focus, expansive preemption may be much more difficult.  It is anticipated that the bi-partisan bill will start with limits on the utility sector and possibly phase in other sectors of the economy over time.   If a bill passes, what remains as legal authority becomes even more important if the bill has a narrow focus. 

Environmental groups will be looking to press for action in all areas where authority would remain. The logical argument for Congressional action is to remove the uncertainty and develop a national regulatory approach to addressing climate change.  This can only be accomplished if the focus is on the bill as THE approach, not just one new regulation to add to the existing patchwork of regulations.

The administration of the Clean Ohio program is largely governed by the policies developed by the Clean Ohio Council. Separate policies have been generated for the Clean Ohio Assistance Fund (COAF) and the Clean Ohio Revitalization Fund (CORF).

Over the life of the Clean Ohio program, the Clean Ohio Council has routinely updated the program policies to address issues and provide additional clarification to applicants. The policies govern critical components of the brownfield grant program including eligibility, evaluation of projects and administration of grants.

The policies are used as a mechanism to address many of the more common issues that arise and to modify the program. Every brownfield project is different and on most Clean Ohio projects issues will arise that are unique to that project or that are not clearly addressed by the policies. However, it is important to pay attention any time the Council updates their policies.

On March 19, 2010, the Clean Ohio Council approved changes to the policies that govern projects seeking funding under the Clean Ohio Revitalization Fund (CORF). CORF funding is awarded on a competitive basis semi-annually by the Clean Ohio Council. The new policies were placed on the Clean Ohio web page today and are effective immediately.

An Ohio EPA newsletter states the changes were made based upon recommendations received from the Ohio Department of Development (ODOD), Ohio EPA, grantees and other interested parties. While the changes do adjust some of the administrative procedures, there are no changes on the scale of past policy updates. Prior changes included creation of the Redevelopment Ready Track and the addition of extensive conflict of interest provisions.

Here is a quick summary of the changes made:

• Eligible Grant Costs– Costs incurred responding to Ohio EPA comments are now eligible. However, costs associated with re-issuance of a No Further Action letter are not eligible. Clarification was provided that costs incurred in preparing an application are not eligible.
 

• Clarification of Eligible Infrastructure Work– To be eligible as match, infrastructure work must be performed on or at the project property. Infrastructure work used as match must be completed prior the end of the grant. The 10% limit on use of grant funds for infrastructure costs was maintained. A new definition of what constitutes “infrastructure” was added which states:

            o “Infrastructure” means technical structures that support society, including but not limited to roads, bridges, water supply, sewers, power grids, and telecommunications, but excludes vertical structures, such as buildings and parking garages. The exclusion of buildings and parking garages is the most important clarification of this added definition.
 

• Requires a Project Resource and Advisory Meeting (PRAM)- The PRAM meeting includes ODOD and Ohio EPA at the Site. This is where any issues identified with the clean up or proposed project can be discussed early on with the State Agencies. While these meetings have been routine, the policy update makes clear that the meeting is mandatory and must be conducted prior to placing the grant application in the library for public comment.
 

• Integrated Rankings– Under the policy revisions, if an Integrating Committee ranks multiple projects, and a project is withdrawn prior to the Clean Ohio Council award meeting, lower ranked projects will move up in ranking. This is an important change because projects do routinely drop out of the process and some areas of the state (including Cleveland) typically have multiple projects submitted. The Integrated Committee related points are crucial you’re your application is in a competitive grant round.
 

• Initiation and Completion of the Project- New requirements were added regarding funding projects. Applicants are not required to open a Technical Assistance Account with Ohio EPA within 60 days of grant award. These accounts are used to discuss clean up issues with Ohio EPA. Work must commence on site within 12 months of the effective date of the grant agreement. Finally, projects must be completed within 48 months (including issuance of the Covenant Not to Sue by Ohio EPA) of the date the grant contract is executed.

 

On March 31st, a Federal District Court in Tennessee (6th Circuit) issued the latest decision in relation to litigation stemming from New Source Review (NSR) enforcement actions against electric coal fired utilities.  The TVA Bull Run decision is another example of the inconsistent application of the test for determining when projects trigger NSR.

The NSR regulatory program continues to serve as the best example of poorly drafted or applied environmental regulations that has major implications for business and industry.  Clear standards and well drafted rulemaking should always be the highest priority for EPA.  Otherwise, businesses are treated in an inconsistent manner and EPA simply looks bad.

Similar to other NSR enforcement actions against coal-fired utilities, the TVA case turned on whether the Routine Maintenance, Repair and Replacement (RMRR) exception covered the projects at issue.  Simply put, if the projects are viewed as routine, the RMRR exception applies and NSR will not be triggered.

The two main projects at issue were:

  1. Replacement of an economizer to reduce forced outages related to tube leaks
  2. Replacement and repair related to tubing associated with the superheater which super heats steam at the plant

What makes this case interesting is that its not the first time these types of projects have been evaluated by the federal courts in determining whether RMRR applies.  In evaluating these projects under the NSR test, Courts have reached opposite conclusions.  A finding NSR is triggered can subject a utility to billions in pollution equipment upgrades and penalties, so you would think consistency would be very important.

Determining whether RMRR exception applies, involves analysis of the following factors:

  • Nature and extent of project
  • Purpose
  • Frequency of these types of repairs (is it routine)
  • Cost of the project

Whether the RMRR exception covers a project has turned on whether the Court hearing the case applies the factors above relative to the specific emission unit or the industry as a whole.  For example, application of the factor known as frequency of repair– should the factor be viewed as how frequently the repair occurred on the specific unit or the frequency it occurred on similar units throughout industry?

The significant differences in opinion over the basic application of the test for RMRR has led to completely inconsistent holdings.  While TVA found RMRR covered the projects, two other federal courts (Ohio Edison and Sierra Club v. Morgan) have found similar projects, including economizer replacement projects, did not fall within RMRR.

The inconsistent rulings have created a significant competitive advantage to those businesses that find themselves lucky enough to operate in a jurisdiction where Courts take a broader view of RMRR.  How can such a major split in the federal case law persist? And more importantly, how can the NSR federal regulations be deemed clear when multiple federal courts have reached opposite conclusions?

 

I have been on all sides of the fence relative to environmental enforcement actions.  I have represented the State, managed Ohio EPA enforcement program and now I represent companies who find themselves the subject of enforcement.  These experiences have given me valuable insight into what things to do and not to do when dealing with compliance oversight.

When speaking on the topic of enforcement, I am asked to provide practical advice on how to reduce the chances that your business will be a target of EPA enforcement.  In this post I provide five tips regarding your early interactions with EPA.

Much of my advice may be viewed as simple common sense.  However, I am consistently surprised how many times companies don’t follow these simple steps. 

Relationship with Inspector–

Most inspectors are assigned a Division (air, water, hazardous waste, etc.) and a geographic territory.  This means you are likely to see this same person again and again at your facility. 

  • If possible, try and develop a good relationship with the inspector.  Cooperation at this lowest level can often prevent communication issues that sometimes lead to enforcement. 
  • Also, while not true in all cases, developing a good reputation with inspector assigned to your facility may lead to additional flexibility when addressing Agency concerns or issues.

    • Ask yourself-  Which report or permit application will get more scrutiny- one submitted by a company with a good reputation/relationship or a bad one….

The EPA Inspection– 

The Agency has the ability to perform both announced and unannounced inspections of your facility.  It is understandable that companies are frustrated by the disruption that an EPA inspection causes at their facility.  Just don’t let that frustration carry over to your interactions with the inspector. 

  • Listen closely to the inspector– Accompany them during the inspection. If they point out concerns that can easily be addressed, fix them. Also, follow up in writing telling the inspector what you have done. EPA appreciates pro-active companies who listen and respond to Agency concerns. This can go a long way toward establishing a good reputation.
  • Debrief with the inspector– Don’t be shy about asking for an oral report of the inspector’s findings during or after the inspection. Take notes of any concerns or requests for information made by the inspector. Then follow up if possible. Don’t wait for the inspector to provide a letter if you can easily address some of the issues.  If you are able to provide information not available during the inspection that demonstrates compliance, you may avoid seeing these issues in a formal notice or letter from EPA.

Respond to Requests for Information or Notice of Violations– 

If you receive a notice of violation (NOV) or a request for information, respond within the time frame requested or write and ask for additional time.  ALWAYS WRITE A RESPONSE.  It is far better to write a letter formally disputing findings, then to not respond at all. 

  • Silence will quickly lead to more NOVs and escalated enforcement.  Companies have learned time and again, simply ignoring the situation will not make it go away.  Also, the higher you go up the enforcement chain the more likely you will see a demand for civil penalties.

In the Early Stages of Interaction Involve an Attorney to Help Respond–

This may come across as a blatant advertisement, but its not intended as one.  The fact of the matter is the difficult compliance issues often arise due to the complexity of the environmental regulations. 

  • How your respond or what information you choose to provide in this early stage can significantly impact the likelihood or severity of escalated enforcement.  Make sure you are putting your company in the best defensive position possible, particularly on issues that carry significant risk of liability.

Try and Resolve Issues at Lowest Level Possible–

A common reaction of companies who find themselves in a major disagreement with EPA or subject to enforcement, is the to call senior management and complain.  Some may think if they just get management involved they will see it their way and the issued will be resolved. 

  • Due to the number of issues that arise, senior manager constantly push decision making down to the lowest possible level.  Usually the first question you will get when you call is "have you talked through these issues with staff assigned?"   Even if you don’t hear that question, the first thing they will do when the hang up the phone is to call the inspector to hear "their side of the story." 
  • Remember, you are trying to build a relationship with your inspector.  It is human nature to not like it when someone tries to "go over your head."  Sometimes the situation demands such action be taken, but be prudent when choosing to utilize that option.

Of course every situation is different.  The five pieces of practical advice are meant to be general guidelines on conduct rather than legal insight.  The more significant the dispute or compliance issue, the more cautious you should be in your interactions with the Agency.  Hire a good supporting team to assist on those issues. 

 

On October 30, 2009 U.S. EPA finalized the first mandatory rule related to climate change- Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Mandatory Reporting Rule.  Beginning this year 31 industries must track and report their emissions.  Overall, the original GHG mandatory reporting rule required reporting for an estimated 85 percent of the total GHG emissions in the U.S. 

Only a few months later, U.S. EPA has already decided to expand the scope of their GHG mandatory reporting rule.  Under the proposal, new source categories will have to begin collecting data January 1, 2011. New source covered would include:

  • Expansion of Oil & Gas Production/Storage/Transmission- Vented, flared and fugitive emissions from petroleum and natural gas facilities that emit equal to or greater than 25,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year .  This sector was in the original rule but has been expanded to include the following facilities:  offshore & onshore production facilities and LNG import and export facilities and natural gas distribution facilities owned or operated by local distribution facilities
  • Carbon Sequestration– Facilities that inject carbon dioxide (CO2) underground for the purpose of long-term geologic sequestration (GS) or to enhance oil and gas recovery
  • Large sources of fluorinated greenhouse gases (F-GHGs) – GHG covered include: hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).  Source include: electronic manufacturers (semiconductors, phot voltaic, liquid crystal display and micro-electo-mechanical systems), flurinated gas production, manufacture and use of electric transmissiona and distribution equipment

Focus on Natural Gas and Petroleum Industry

Why does EPA say it is focusing on the natural gas and petroleum industry?  The primary GHG emitted in methane which is 20 time as potent as CO2 at warming the atmosphere.  The potency of methane makes this sector the fifth largest source category covered by the mandatory reporting rule.  Also, the vast infrastructure associated with the industry.  This from EPA’s preamble:

The U.S. petroleum and natural gas industry encompasses hundreds of thousands of wells, hundreds of processing facilities, and over a million miles of
transmission and distribution pipelines.

While the scope of emissions may argue for inclusion in the rule, the difficulty always has been making accurate calculations of fugitive methane emissions from the oil & gas sector.  Through this rulemaking EPA wants to change some of the methodologies for measuring fugitive and vented emissions.  This from EPA:

Whereas the initial proposal focused on comprehensive leak detection and direct measurement, this proposal includes direct measurement of emissions for only the most significant emissions sources, and the use of engineering estimates, emission modeling software, and emission factors, as appropriate, for other sources.

These fugitive emissions from leaks in valves in hundreds of miles of pipes has always made this a difficult area to measure accurately.  No doubt this will be the most complex area to measure. 

Over the last several years, interest in addressing fugitive emissions of methane from natural gas storage and piping were strong carbon offset projects.  The question now arises whether EPA is contemplating mandatory standards for this sector versus placing incentives for voluntary projects. 

Is the reporting rule an indication EPA may enact mandatory rules that include specifications for the design of valves on piping to reduce GHG emission?  Can you imagine the complexities involved in writing such a rule?  Further evidence that command and control regulation is not the right approach to reducing GHG emissions.