Source: https://www.gtlaw-environmentalandenergy.com/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 16:41:04+00:00

Document:
Securing risk-based closure of a contaminated site in Miami-Dade County, known as a “No Further Action with Conditions (NFAC),” typically requires the imposition of institutional controls in the form of a covenant running with the land, accompanied by an opinion of title (See Section 24-44 (2)(k)(ii) of Chapter 24, Code of Miami-Dade County, Fla.). Recently, Miami-Dade County Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources, Division of Environmental Resources Management (DERM), revised the 2013 Risk Based Corrective Action Provisions (RBCA) Guidance document to impose a new requirement as a condition of obtaining approval of the NFAC closure – namely, written notification of the proposed closure to encumbrance holders and those having a claim to or interest in the property subject to the closure (See 2018 RBCA Guidance No.7). Such notice recipients are provided a 30-day comment period (with opportunity to request an extension of another 30 days). In certain cases, as provided in the 2018 RBCA Guidance, joinder of an easement holder may be required.
Why should you care about the revised Guidance?
This change is significant for several reasons: 1) the additional time required to obtain NFAC approval, especially when securing such approval is a prerequisite to a property closing or is desired to market a property for sale; 2) the potential comments by notice recipients, and; 3) the possibility of needing to obtain joinder of an easement holder. The Guidance does not expressly recognize any claim of estoppel or grandfathering with respect to the applicability of the of the 2018 Guidance.
This can prove to be particularly problematic when you have a site that would otherwise be entitled to receive closure approval after several years of remedial effort, only to learn that additional steps are required.
In sum, when dealing with contaminated properties in unincorporated Miami-Dade County that will be undergoing a risk-based environmental closure, keep in mind the notice, timing, and potential joinder obligations under the 2018 RBCA Guidance and consult with an environmental attorney on the particular issues of significance with respect to the property in question.
For more Florida-related environmental content, click here.
Contradicting the argument raised by the United States in a recent amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the EPA finalized new guidance on April 12, 2019, concluding that the Clean Water Act “is best read as excluding all releases of pollutants from a point source to groundwater from NPDES program coverage and liability under Section 301 of the CWA, regardless of a hydrologic connection between the groundwater and a jurisdictional surface water.” A pre-publication Federal Register notice states the agency will be accepting comments on the new guidance for 45 days after publication.
The EPA’s new “interpretive statement” comes at a critical time, as the Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in a case raising this exact issue, County of Maui v. Hawai’i Wildlife Fund, et al. In County of Maui, the Ninth Circuit held the county liable for discharges into jurisdictional waters where those discharges were “fairly traceable” to point sources through groundwater. The United States’ amicus brief in that case suggested that the Clean Water Act applies only to those groundwater discharges with a direct hydrological connection to jurisdictional waters of the United States. The new guidance would exclude even those discharges from the Clean Water Act’s permitting requirements.
Section 400(h) of the National Contingency Plan (NCP) contains an unremarked, yet problematic, last sentence. The NCP, of course, governs response actions under the federal Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund); the government cannot recover costs incurred inconsistently with that regulation. 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(1-4)(A).
(h) Oversight. The lead agency may provide oversight for actions taken by potentially responsible parties to ensure that a response is conducted consistent with this part. The lead agency may also monitor the actions of third parties preauthorized under subpart H of this part. EPA will provide oversight when the response is pursuant to an EPA order or federal consent decree.
40 C.F.R. § 300.400(h). The “lead agency” can be any state or federal agency in charge of a response action, provided the state is operating under a cooperative agreement (essentially a Superfund grant) or a Superfund Memorandum of Agreement. Id. § 300.5. Indeed, the NCP encourages state involvement. Id. §§ 300.500 to .525.
So what does that last sentence mean? It was added in response to comments received on the proposed rule to the effect that “EPA will provide site oversight, and not that it ‘may’ provide oversight.” See 55 Fed. Reg. 8666, 8692 (Mar. 8, 1990). By calling out “EPA,” the language arguably distinguishes the specific obligations of “EPA” from the obligations of the “lead agency,” which could be any agency. That is, if the “lead agency” may provide oversight generally, why does EPA have to provide oversight specifically when the response is pursuant to an EPA order or federal consent decree?
Does that mean that oversight of work under an EPA order or a federal consent decree by an agency other than EPA cannot be consistent with the NCP? Would costs incurred by a state in providing oversight be unrecoverable?
One district court has ruled “the objection [to recovery of costs of state oversight] is without merit since there is nothing in the National Contingency Plan that suggests that EPA cannot use a state agency to meet its oversight responsibilities.” United States v. NCR Corp., No. 1:10-cv-910-WCG, slip op. at 12 (E.D. Wis. July 13, 2018). But as a condition to a consent decree entered March 14, 2019, that decision was vacated by agreement of the parties. United States v. NCR Corp., No. 1:10-cv-910-WCG (E.D. Wis. Mar. 14, 2019).
The U.S. v. NCR reading makes some sense, but if that were what EPA intended the third sentence to mean, the sentence is oddly drafted in context. Should it not use a verb other than “provide” or a subject more generic than “EPA”? When a state undertakes an oversight role, careful litigators should take this issue into account.
For more on CERCLA, click here.
NJDEP’s proposed rulemaking also seeks to add PFOA and PFOS to NJDEP’s List of Hazardous Substances and to set limits for groundwater quality criteria standards to be used in site remediation activities. In the meantime, the interim specific groundwater quality criteria for PFOA and PFOS are currently set at 10 ppt.
Last January, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a memorandum withdrawing the “once in always in” (OIAI) policy that had provided interpretation of the Clean Air Act since 1995. Under the Clean Air Act, the regulations air pollution sources must comply with, depend on whether the source counts as “major” or “nonmajor”; the OIAI policy dictated that once a source qualified as major, subsequent changes in its emission levels would not enable the source to downgrade to nonmajor.
In making its decision to withdraw the policy, the EPA found that imposing a permanent categorization on emitting sources was contrary to the plain language of the Clean Air Act. Permanently categorizing facilities as major sources disincentivized sources implementing voluntary improvements or achieving greater efficiencies. Rescinding the OIAI policy, the EPA determined, could remove this barrier and lead to increased voluntary technological or operational improvements at facilities.
Roughly a year later, with California’s challenge to the OIAI withdrawal still pending in court, the EPA sent a proposed rulemaking to the Office of Management and Budget at the end of February 2019, intending to enshrine in regulation this change of policy. Meanwhile, Pennsylvania has proposed a change to its own air quality permitting program at the state level.
Read more on this topic from Kathleen M. Kline’s article from The Legal Intelligencer supplement Pa. Law Weekly, 42 Pa. L. Weekly 11 (Mar. 12, 2019), by clicking here.
Many investors and developers are reluctant to emphasize environmental due diligence due to concerns that any identified contamination could be a deal killer. Join us for a happy hour discussion of real estate, environmental law, and how to make a lemon of a property into lemonade, on March 14 at Greenberg Traurig’s Philadelphia office, 1717 Arch Street. We will host The Pipeline, a professional development group that connects women in retail real estate.

References: v. 
 § 9607
 § 300
 § 300
 v. 
 v. 
 v.