Source: https://eem.jacksonkelly.com/2012/11/index.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 12:48:17+00:00

Document:
For the first time, a lawsuit has been filed against the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) over a local moratorium placed on hydraulic fracking. Filed on November 15 by natural-gas developer Lenape Resources, Inc. against the DEC and the Town of Avon in western New York, the suit is expected to prompt the agency to express its position on municipal fracking bans and moratoria.
Around 150 bans or moratoria on fracking are in effect across New York. Four lawsuits challenging such bans have already been filed, with mixed results. For instance, two previous decisions have upheld fracking bans in the towns of Middlefield and Dryden and the rights of towns to use zoning laws to prohibit fracking. Another court decision overturned a two-year fracking moratorium in Binghamton that did not use zoning laws as the basis for prohibition. Appeals of these cases remain pending.
In the Lenape suit, the company argues that the Town of Avon exceeded its authority by passing a moratorium on fracking when only the DEC is permitted to regulate gas development within the state. The company further argues that the DEC is at fault for allowing Avon to implement the moratorium.
The suit comes as the DEC planned to seek a 90-day extension to complete fracking rules in order for a health-impact study to be completed. The DEC’s final decision on whether fracking will be allowed in New York is likely to be pushed back until 2013.
The eagerly-awaited decision in Martin v. Hamblet was released late on Thanksgiving eve, with the Court holding that surface owners have no right to appeal the issuance of a well work permit by the West Virginia DEP’s Office of Oil and Gas. This decision is a significant win for the oil and gas industry.
Martin was quite the industry battle involving not only the parties but representative groups on both sides of the issue. The West Virginia Oil and Natural Gas Association and the Independent Oil and Gas Association of West Virginia weighed in with amicus briefs supporting EQT and the DEP. The West Virginia Surface Owners’ Rights Organization was allowed to intervene in the appeal and was given permission to orally argue. The surface owner also added counsel from an environmental law firm long known for litigation against the coal industry.
Martin is important because it maintains the statutory scheme as envisioned by the Legislature and allows permit issues to be determined among the mineral owners. Surface owners, under Martin, will not be able to inject themselves into the process and cause delay; instead, they maintain statutory and common law rights to seek equitable relief and damages where their interests are violated.
6. The right of judicial review with regard to the issuance or refusal of a well work permit as provided by W. Va. Code §22-6-41 (1994) (Repl. Vol. 2009) does not extend to owners of the surface rights of the property upon which the proposed well is to be drilled. To the extent that State ex rel. Lovejoy v. Callaghan, 213 W. Va. 1, 576 S.E.2d 246 (2002), indicates otherwise, it is overruled.
EQT applied for a permit with the Office of Oil and Gas of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”), for “a shallow well targeting the Marcellus formation with a ‘horizontal leg into the Marcellus.’” EQT notified all of the surface owners, including Hamblet, about the application.
Hamblet hired counsel and submitted surface owner comments centering on issues with four other wells, and complained of property damage and “failed attempts at revegetation and irresponsible handling of timber”, lack of erosion control, and concerns regarding waste water. EQT responded. After the DEP inspected the property, it issued the permit.
right to appeal the issuance of the permit under any relevant statutory authority.” After a hearing, the Circuit Court denied the motion, agreeing with Hamblet’s argument that under a prior case, State ex rel. Lovejoy v. Callaghan, 213 W. Va. 1, 576 S.E.2d 246 (2002), surface owners had the right to appeal the issuance of permits. The circuit court agreed to certify the question to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
Examining the applicable statutory provisions, the Court first noted that under W. Va. Code §22-6-41, “[a]ny party to the proceedings under … [§22-6-16] of this article adversely affected by the order of issuance of a drilling permit or to the issuance of a fracturing permit or the refusal of the director to grant a drilling permit or fracturing permit is entitled to judicial review thereof.” The Court then examined the plain language of W. Va. Code §22-6-16 and found the parties to a proceeding are the coal seam owner, operator, or lessee. Since surface owners were not included as parties in the statute, the Court concluded they were not entitled to appeal rights.
W. Va. Code §22-6-16 is clear and unambiguous with regard to who may object to the well proposed to be drilled. Notably absent from the statute is any mention of the surface owner of the subject property. Therefore, in accordance with our rules of statutory construction, it must be concluded that the Legislature intended to deny surface owners the right of judicial review with respect to the issuance of a well work permit as provided in W. Va. Code §22-6-41.
Hamblet also argued a right to appeal under W. Va. Code §22-6-40 (1994) (Repl. Vol. 2009), because the well at issue was “a horizontal Marcellus well as opposed to a deep discovery well” which was at issue in the Lovejoy case.
Here, EQT has a legally binding lease that grants it explicit rights of access to the oil and gas underlying Mr. Hamblet’s property. It is this contractual obligation burdening Mr. Hamblet’s surface estate that deprives him of an unrestricted right to enjoyment of his property, not the issuance of the well work permit at issue. As such, the constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection do not apply.
As explained above, in this case, EQT has a contractual right to extract the gas from the subject property. Thus, any infringement upon the property interests of Mr. Hamblet is a result of the manner in which EQT is exercising its contractual rights. The permit issued by the DEP does not authorize EQT to interfere with Mr. Hamblet’s property rights; rather, the permit merely allows EQT to exercise its existing rights and controls the manner in which it does so. As such, the permitting process arguably encroaches upon EQT’s rights, but does not infringe upon Mr. Hamblet’s property rights. Thus, there is no merit to Mr. Hamblet’s constitutional arguments.
Jackson Kelly attorneys Thomas Hurney and Kenneth Tawney filed the amicus brief on behalf of the West Virginia Oil and Natural Gas Association. Please contact them with any questions you may have.
Patriot Coal Corporation and the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Inc., the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Inc. and the Sierra Club have reached a proposed settlement regarding claims under the Clean Water Act relating to surface mining activities in West Virginia. The proposed settlement will delay compliance dates at 44 outlets subject to lawsuits filed against Patriot and the company expects the savings to assist it in reorganizing its business.
In exchange, Patriot will agree to certain restrictions on large-scale surface mining activities. Notably, these restrictions are consistent with the company’s business plan. As Patriot President & Chief Executive Officer Bennett K. Hatfield explained: “this proposed settlement allows Patriot to continue mining according to existing permits and is consistent with our long-term business plan to focus capital on expanding higher-margin metallurgical coal production and limiting thermal coal investments to selective opportunities where geologic and regulatory risks are minimized."
At least one coal industry commentator echoed Patriot’s assessment, noting that the proposed settlement will not disrupt Patriot’s existing operations and preserves Patriot’s ability to pursue its low-cost Huff Creek Surface Mine.
Finally, much attention has been paid to Patriot’s statement that it “recognizes that our mining operations impact the communities in which we operate in significant ways.” A full reading of Patriot’s comments suggests that it was speaking in large part to the company’s positive impacts on the local economy, including jobs. Nonetheless, many in the environmental community have attempted to portray Patriot’s comments as a concession that surface mining causes harm to local communities. This portrayal is inaccurate.
The settlement remains subject to approval by the Federal District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia following a public comment period, as well as approval by the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.
This article was authored by M. Shane Harvey, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author see here.
What’s on the Horizon for EPA Enforcement?
Last month, attendees at the 20th Fall Meeting of the American Bar Association Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources in Austin, Texas, learned that EPA is developing and implementing a new paradigm for enforcement. This new paradigm, called “Next Generation Compliance,” will use advances in both monitoring and information technology to improve compliance with environmental regulations and permits. Suzanne Murray, Regional Counsel for U.S. EPA Region 6, which encompasses Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas, stood in for Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator for U.S. EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and told conference attendees that the new paradigm would involve more electronic reporting tools and a more integrated enforcement approach that would look across media to achieve broader-based impacts.
The reason the Agency is making this shift in enforcement, Regional Counsel Murray told attendees, is in part because the technology is “available,” but also because of shrinking budgets, U.S. EPA does not have the manpower to do things the way the Agency used to do them. She noted that advances in information and emissions monitoring technology makes more information publically available.
According to Regional Counsel Murray, U.S. EPA plans to integrate reporting requirements in regulations, rely on advanced monitoring technology, and increase e-reporting. For reporting requirements in rules, she stated that EPA would be including provisions for self-certification and third-party certification. With respect to advanced monitoring, she identified flares and excess emissions as areas where technological advances have been made to support advanced monitoring. She stated that while industry had been opposed to the use of fence line monitoring, Region 6 facilities had engaged in fence line monitoring that actually yielded data that benefitted them. She stated that the Agency intended to increase and encourage e-reporting and would be using that data to ensure compliance.
Regarding the more integrated enforcement initiative, Regional Counsel Murray stated that U.S. EPA was trying to look at compliance more holistically and gave the example of a city with a wastewater drinking water and disposal issues. She said that they were trying to look at the problems more holistically so that the city would not have to rip up the streets more than once.
In response to a question, Regional Counsel Murray confirmed that U.S. EPA was phasing out its current self-audit policy. She also stated that while use of aerial surveillance for enforcement was not widespread because of expense and legitimate concerns regarding privacy, she noted that when the Agency had used it, it had been upheld by the courts. She noted that hand-held cameras were “prevalent” in inspections of the oil and gas industry.
As an example of the increased use of e-reporting, she noted the e-manifesting for RCRA legislation that was signed by President Obama on October 5, 2012.
11/13/12: Fear-Mongering ABC Hypes Latest Global Warming Disaster: The End of Coffee!
Recently the Crime Victims’ Rights Act 18 USC 3771 was held by the Fifth Circuit court of Appeals to allow hundreds of local residents to qualify for crime victims' status and a right to reasonable financial restitution resulting from a company’s Clean Air Act violation. The case arose from a 2007 criminal violation against the CITGO Refinery located in Corpus Christi, Texas for two counts of violating the Clean Air Act for operating an oil water separator which could emit benzene a hazardous air pollutant without a fixed or floating roof as required by the New Source Performance Standards.
Four years after the conviction, but prior to sentencing of CITGO, a pro bono attorney representing 300 citizens in the Corpus Christi area sued for compensation under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. The Federal District Court denied status under the Act since the case was not brought until four years after the conviction and because the alleged victims could show no causal connection between their alleged injuries and the acts of Citgo. The Court found that none of the 950 medical records presented as evidenced noted any chemical exposure or even a mention of chemical odors. VOC monitoring from the Corpus Christi area showed no violation of any federal or State standard. The alleged victims either admitted to smoking, were elderly with numerous health problems or had serious medical conditions. Additionally there are several other benzene sources in the same area as the CITGO refinery. Based on all these facts, the Federal District Court found there was no nexus between the emissions from the refinery for which the violations were imposed and any health effects.
In a Petition for Mandamus before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the citizens argued that under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act there was no need to show medically documented physical injuries or illnesses resulting from the actions for which CITGO was convicted under the criminal penalty provisions of the Clean Air Act. The plaintiffs claimed that other forms of harm qualify them as victims—emotional distress over breathing potentially toxic gases, property damage and risk of future injury. On September 6, 2012, the Fifth Circuit granted the mandamus petition, holding that the presiding Federal District Court’s ruling regarding the timeliness of a number of alleged “crime victims” misconstrued the Crime Victims’ Rights Act.
CITGO has yet to be assessed a fine on the CAA conviction. The Department of Justice has filed a motion with the Federal District Court to empanel a post-conviction “sentencing jury” in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Southern Union case last term that requires a jury to make the fundamental findings of a criminal violation. In this instance, because of the Department’s calculation of “pecuniary gain” to CITGO resulting from its criminal conduct, the Department alleges that CITGO’s criminal fine could total hundreds of millions of dollars.
This article was authored by Barbara Little, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author, see here.
US EPA has published the 2011 TRI dataset. EPA is making the Toxic Release Inventory data available through its web site and in the popular tools, TRI Explorer and Envirofacts. The database contains environmental release and transfer data on nearly 650 chemicals and chemical categories reported to EPA by more than 21,000 industrial and other facilities.
The National Analysis of TRI data will be available in December 2012. National Analysis reports from previous years are available at the National Analysis homepage.
In 2011, the following changes in the TRI program took place.
16 new chemicals were added to the TRI chemical list for 2011.
Section 6.1 of the Reporting Form R - Discharges to Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) - was changed to allow facilities to identify the chemical quantity sent to each individual POTW listed in Section 6.1.
The 2011 Reporting Form R contains a new optional section - 9.1- that allows facilities to submit any miscellaneous information about their TRI data.
This year, the TRI Program provided facilities with additional training on completing the pollution prevention (P2) sections of the Form R and enhanced the TRI-MEweb online reporting application to make it easier for facility reporters to provide optional information on P2 and other topics.
The dataset allows communities to find out about releases and transfers of chemicals at the local level. Examples of industries that report to TRI include manufacturing, metal mining, electric utilities, and commercial hazardous waste treatment facilities among others.
US EPA provides the following disclaimer on TRI data: TRI data only reflect TRI submissions received by EPA from facilities that meet TRI reporting requirements. Other facilities in your area may be releasing toxic chemicals but either weren't required to report to the TRI Program or haven't yet submitted their 2011 data. In addition, a TRI facility may be managing a toxic chemical for which the TRI reporting threshold wasn't exceeded, resulting in that chemical not being reported to the TRI Program.
This article was excerpted from publically available information, and was authored by Joyce Gentry, Acacia Environmental Group LLC. For more information on the author see here.
The Air & Waste Management Association (AWMA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan professional organization that promotes global environmental responsibility and increases the effectiveness of organizations to make critical environmental decisions that benefit society.
The core Purpose of AWMA is to improve environmental knowledge and decisions by providing a neutral forum for exchanging information.
AWMA Chapters are located in 65 countries. Members of the organization include scientists, engineers, lawyers, consultants, compliance managers, regulators, educators and others. The AWMA West Virginia Chapter was originally formed in 1997 and includes environmental professionals located throughout the State.
The West Virginia Chapter chose to sponsor a traveling exhibit titled "Sustainable Choices" at the Clay Center For The Arts & Sciences (Clay Center) in downtown Charleston to improve environmental knowledge in a format that provides information in a positive setting. The exhibition opened January 21, 2012 and was featured on the main floor of the Clay Center through April 29th. The Clay Center is one of only three venues in the country that combines science with visual and performing arts. More than 50,000 school children participate in the Center’s education programs each year. The "Sustainable Choices" exhibit drew over 18,000 viewers, exceeding our expectations.
The "Sustainable Choices" national exhibit consists of seven themed hands-on demonstration stations geared toward introducing and encouraging children of all ages (and maybe a few adults) to develop better living choices which would lead to an environmentally-sustainable future. The intent of each station is to illustrate how to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
The exhibit provides insight into how individuals and families can live more sustainably by providing examples of small daily choices they make that can have large aggregate impacts on the environment, such as into which bags to put their groceries, how they wash clothes, and transportation decisions they make. “From where did I come and where will I go?” is a question for each participant through interactives, graphics and text.
AWMA does much more than provide exhibits for the general public. The West Virginia Chapter has sponsored timely environmental workshops to help industry to comply with air and waste regulatory issues. The Chapter also organizes quarterly meeting that are open to the public and feature presentations by recognized experts who discuss timely topics dealing with environmental issues. Recent meetings have featured presentations on wind power research, land use alternatives for surface coal mining sites and current research regarding specific conductivity in West Virginia waterways. Membership in the organization also provides access to reports by national experts in newsletters, seminars and other publications. If you would like more information about the West Virginia Chapter of AWMA you can contact the writer.

References: v. 
 §22
 v. 
 v. 
 §22
 §22
 §22
 §22
 §22