Source: http://eem.jacksonkelly.com/2010/04/index.html
Timestamp: 2018-02-21 17:09:57
Document Index: 79752492

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 98', 'art 372', '§165', '§52', '§2601', '§404', '§ 404', '§404', '§404', '§404', '§404', '§404', '§303', '§404', '§404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 402', '§ 404', '§ 404', 'art 230', '§ 230']

Energy and Environment Monitor: April 2010
New Additional Greenhouse Gas Reporting Requirements for Oil and Gas Industry
April 12, 2010 EPA published a proposed rule related to greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting from the oil and gas industry, applicable to sectors of the oil and gas industry deemed by EPA to have significant fugitive and vented emissions of carbon dioxide and methane. The comment period is open until June 11, 2010. (40 CFR Part 98, Subpart W; 75 Fed Reg 18607-18650).
EPA previously proposed a version of this rule, but that proposal never became final. The Agency views this proposal as a new regulation and requires that full comments to be submitted, as previously submitted comments on the earlier version of the rule will not be considered. The proposed rule requires reporting of GHG emissions from the following industry segments:
•	Onshore petroleum and natural gas production,
•	Offshore petroleum and natural gas production,
•	Natural gas processing,
•	Natural gas transmission compressor stations,
•	Underground natural gas storage,
•	Liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage,
•	LNG import and export terminals, and distribution.
The proposed supplemental rulemaking requires that the named sources monitor and report emissions of GHGs above certain threshold levels. Annual reporting of fugitive and vented carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) emissions from petroleum and natural gas systems facilities, as well as combustion-related CO2, CH4, and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from flares at those facilities is required. The proposed rule establishes thresholds and frequency for reporting, as well as verification through monitoring, reporting at the facility level and recordkeeping requirements. The proposed rule applies to facilities in the segments of the petroleum and natural gas industry, as listed above, that emit GHGs greater than or equal to 25,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year.
Posted on April 30, 2010 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Residential Homebuilder Settles Clean Water Act Violations in 18 States and D.C. Settlement Affects 161 Construction Sites in Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc., a builder of residential homes nationwide, has agreed to pay a $1 million civil penalty to resolve alleged Clean Water Act violations at 591 construction sites in 18 states and the District of Columbia, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Justice Department announced today. As part of the settlement, the company will also implement a company-wide stormwater compliance program designed to improve compliance with storm water run-off requirements at existing and future construction sites around the country.
“This case is a result of EPA’s effort to protect local waters by vigorously enforcing the nation’s environmental laws,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator of EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance and Assurance. “Without appropriate onsite pollution controls, sediment-laden runoff from construction sites can pollute local waterways. This enforcement agreement will mean cleaner water for hundreds of communities across the country.”
“Restoring and preserving the Chesapeake Bay is one of EPA’s top priorities, and preventing polluted stormwater from entering the bay watershed is vital to keeping it healthy,” said Peter S. Silva, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Water. “This enforcement action will help protect the bay by addressing stormwater pollution at the source.”
“This settlement will bring positive change to construction sites in 18 states and the District of Columbia, said Ignacia S. Moreno, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “Harmful storm water run-off from construction sites is something that is easily prevented. The construction industry needs to implement required controls or face the possibility of a federal lawsuit.”
A portion of the settlement helps EPA efforts to protect the Chesapeake Bay, North America’s largest and most biologically diverse estuary. The bay and its tidal tributaries are threatened by pollution from a variety of sources, and overburdened with nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment that can be carried by storm water. A total of 161 Hovnanian construction sites in the District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia fall within the bay watershed and are covered by this settlement.
Along with the federal government, the District of Columbia, the states of Maryland and West Virginia and the Commonwealth of Virginia have joined the settlement. The District and each of the states will receive a portion of the $1 million penalty.
The consent decree, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, is subject to a 30-day public comment period and approval by the federal court.
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/cwa/hovnanian.html
This article includes publically available information, and was assembled by Rachel Shanteau, Acacia Environmental Group LLC. For more information on the author see here.
Posted on April 28, 2010 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
4/19/2010: Scientists call for research on climate link to geological hazards
4/19/2010: Foes of California's global warming law pour money into a campaign to delay it
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-climate-ballot19-2010apr19,0,3972523.story
4/20/2010: US cautious on prospects for climate deal
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ig9fu24KV50GtINHo4MDYLDvksKA
4/20/2010: Global Warming: Why Aren't Temperatures Even Higher?
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1982477,00.html
4/21/2010: State anti-global warming bill probably dead
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt_and_politics/article_1c85cf22-4d98-11df-a55f-001cc4c03286.html
4/22/2010: Branson's 'Carbon War Room' Puts Industry on Front Line of U.S. Climate Debate
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/04/22/22climatewire-bransons-carbon-war-room-puts-industry-on-fr-73959.html
4/22/2010: Many Television Weather Forecasters Doubt Global Warming
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Eco/climate-change-debate-climatologists-meteorologists-divided-global-warming/story?id=10447809
4/23/2010: Grass-roots warming summit calls for greenhouse cuts
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN2211571120100423
4/24/2010: Cuban VP Says Bolivia Summit on Climate Change Was a Success
http://www.cubanews.ain.cu/2010/0424estebanlazo.htm
4/24/2010: California Teamsters oppose effort to delay global warming measure
http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/scimedemail/la-me-trucks-20100424,0,737058.story
USEPA Proposes to Add 16 Chemicals to the Toxics Release Inventory Program
On April 6, 2010, United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) proposed to add 16 chemicals to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) list of reportable chemicals. The TRI program is a database containing information on toxic chemical releases and waste management activities from federal facilities and certain industries, which is publically available. This is the first time chemicals have been proposed to be added to the TRI program in more than 10 years.
The proposed chemicals have been classified as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen” by the National Toxicology Program in its Report on Carcinogens document. Therefore, USEPA believes they meet the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act section 313(d)(2)(B) listing criteria. Four of the proposed chemicals are polycyclic aromatic compounds (PAC) and are of special concern because; they are persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic chemicals that are likely to remain a long-term environmental and human health concern.
USEPA is accepting comments on or before June 7, 2010. For more information, please see 75 Fed. Reg. 17333 (2010) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 372)
TSCA, USEPA Reassessment of PCB Use Authorizations
Under an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) dated April 7, 2010, the USEPA is now accepting comments through July 6, 2010 for the use and distribution in commerce of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and PCB Items and certain other areas of the regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Specifically, USEPA is reassessing its TSCA PCB use and distribution in commerce regulations to address the following:
1)	The use, distribution in commerce, marking and storage for reuse of liquid PCBs in electric and non-electric equipment.
2)	The use of the 50 ppm level for excluded PCB products.
3)	The use of non-liquid PCBs.
4)	The use and distribution in commerce of PCBs in porous surfaces.
5)	Marking of PCB articles in use.
USEPA is also reassessing the definitions of “excluded manufacturing process,” quantifiable level/level of detection,” and “recycled PCBs.”
TSCA became effective on January 1, 1977 and generally prohibited the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, and use of PCBs. USEPA published the first regulations addressing the use of equipment containing PCBs on May 31, 1979 (44 FR 31514). In a follow up proposed rule for the PCB use authorizations on June 7, 1978 (43 FR 24801), USEPA proposed to authorize non-totally enclosed PCB use activities five years after the effective date of the Final Rule. USEPA states that this ANPRM is intended to undertake this PCB use activity examination. Since the late 1970s, the USEPA believes there have been many changes in the industrial sectors that use PCB containing equipment and USEPA believes that the “balance of risks and benefits from the continued use of remaining equipment containing PCBs may have changed enough to consider amending the current regulations.”
Under 40 CRF 761.30, a broad range of liquid-filled PCB equipment is currently authorized for use in a non-totally enclosed manner, including: electrical transformers, railroad transformers, mining equipment, and various types of electrical equipment. In addition, a broad range of such types of equipment may be serviced. Furthermore, liquid PCBs are authorized for use where they are a contaminant in the following equipment:
·	Natural gas pipeline systems.
·	Contaminated natural gas pipe and appurtenances.
·	Other gas or liquid transmission systems.
Under this ANPRM, USEPA is considering a number of regulatory measures that would phase out all PCB electrical equipment uses with interim deadlines by equipment concentration and type, as follows:
·	2015. Eliminate all use of Askarel equipment (>100,000 ppm PCBs). USEPA is considering allowing exceptions on a case-by-case basis.
·	2020. Eliminate all uses of oil-filled PCB equipment (>500 ppm PCBs) and the authorization for use of PCBs at ≥50 ppm in pipeline systems.
·	2025. Eliminate all use of any PCB contaminated equipment (≥50 ppm), which is still authorized for use.
In this ANPRM, the USEPA states that there are no use authorizations for non-liquid PCB-containing products if they contain PCBs at concentrations ≥50 ppm, including but not limited to adhesives, caulk, coatings, grease, paint, rubber or plastic electrical insulation, gaskets, sealants, and waxes. Therefore, as per the ANPRM, the USEPA is soliciting public comment on both the liquid and non-liquid PCB use authorizations that will be permitted in the future under TSCA.
The ANPRM is available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/byRIN/2070-AJe8 for review. The Office of Management and Budget completed its review of the ANPRM on February 1, 2010, and the ANPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 7, 2010. USEPA has scheduled four public meetings to obtain input on the ANPRM on the following dates and locations:
·	May 4, 2010. New York City, New York.
·	May 18, 2010. Chicago, Illinois.
·	May 25, 2010. Atlanta, Georgia.
·	May 27, 2010. Washington, D.C.
Additional information regarding the time and locations for the public meetings is available at http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/pcbs/publicmeetings.htm. The public comment period will end on July 6, 2010. Comments on the ANPRM can be submitted to the USEPA vial mail or hand-delivery, or on-line at http://www.regulations.gov.
U.S. EPA Takes Final Action on Reconsideration of The PSD Interpretive Memo
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has completed its reconsideration of a December 18, 2008 memorandum by then-U.S. EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson that established the Agency’s interpretation of when a pollutant is covered by the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). The PSD Permitting Program is the preconstruction review process for major stationary sources such as power plants, factories, and other large industrial facilities to ensure that modifications to existing facilities and construction of new facilities will not degrade air quality and to ensure that state-of the-art control technology known as best available control technology or BACT is installed at new facilities or at existing facilities that are undergoing a major modification.
With the exception of one limited refinement, U.S. EPA will continue applying its existing test requiring the “actual control” of emissions of a pollutant to determine the scope of pollutants subject to the federal PSD Program. In addition, U.S. EPA has refined its interpretation to establish that PSD permitting requirements apply to a newly regulated pollutant at the time a regulatory requirement to control emissions of that pollutant “takes effect” rather than upon the date the regulation containing such a requirement is signed by the U.S. EPA Administrator, the date the rule is published in the Federal Register, or the legally effective date for the rule after publication in the Federal Register. Thus, the PSD requirements will not apply to a newly regulated pollutant, such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) until a regulatory requirement to control emissions of that pollutant “takes effect.” States and regulated entities generally supported U.S. EPA’s actual control interpretation. U.S. EPA published its decision on April 2, 2010, in a final action titled “Reconsideration of its Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs” (75 Fed. Reg. 17,004). For the text of the April 2, 2010 final action, click here.
The December 18, 2008 memorandum, commonly referred to as the PSD Interpretive Memo or Johnson Memo, addresses issues that arose following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), holding that CO2 and other GHGs constitute “air pollutants” within the meaning of the CAA and the Environmental Appeals Board’s decision in Deseret Power Electric Cooperative, PSD Appeal No. 07-03 (EAB Nov. 13, 2008), remanding a PSD permit that did not include BACT limits for CO2. The Board remanded the permit to the U.S. EPA Region to “reconsider whether or not to impose a CO2 BACT limit in light of the ‘subject to regulation’ definition under the CAA.”
In affirming its actual control interpretation, U.S. EPA rejected four alternative interpretations of the term “subject to regulation” found in CAA §§165(a)(4) and 169(3), which include the BACT provisions of the Act, and in the definition of “regulated NSR pollutant” found in 40 CFR §52.21(b)(50)(iv), which includes “any pollutant that is otherwise subject to regulation under the Act.” The interpretations that U.S. EPA rejected were generally supported by environmental and public interest groups and included: (1) monitoring and reporting requirements; (2) the inclusion of regulatory requirements for a pollutant in a U.S. EPA-approved state implementation plan (SIP); (3) a U.S. EPA finding of endangerment; and (4) a U.S. EPA grant of a section 209 waiver. Id. at 17007-7014.
In the PSD Interpretive Memo, U.S. EPA stated that the fourth part of the definition of “regulated NSR pollutant” should “apply to a pollutant upon promulgation of a regulation that requires actual control of the emissions.” See Memo at 14. For the text of the PSD Interpretive Memo, click here. In the October 7, 2009 notice, U.S. EPA proposed to modify its interpretation of the fourth part with respect to the timing of PSD applicability. Specifically, U.S. EPA proposed to interpret the term “subject to regulation” in the statute and regulation to mean that PSD requirements apply “when the regulations addressing a particular pollutant become final and effective.” Id. at 17015/3. States and regulated entities generally supported U.S. EPA’s proposal. Many entities urged U.S. EPA to use the compliance date of a rule as its “effective” date. Id. at 17006/2.
In the final action, U.S. EPA interprets the time that a pollutant becomes subject to regulation under the Act to be “the point in time when a control or restriction that functions to limit pollutant emissions takes effect or becomes operative to control or restrict the regulated activity.” Id. at 17016/2. In deciding to construe the point at which a pollutant becomes “subject to regulation” to be when a control or restriction is operative on the activity regulated, U.S. EPA rejected an interpretation that a pollutant does not become subject to regulation “until the time that an individual source engages in the regulated activity.” Nor did U.S. EPA agree that a pollutant does not become subject to regulation “until the date when a source must certify compliance with regulatory requirements or submit a compliance report.” Id. at 17016/3.
U.S. EPA also discusses the application of the PSD Interpretive Memo to PSD permitting for GHGs and states that GHGs will initially become “subject to regulation” under the Act on January 2, 2011, and that the PSD permitting program would apply to GHGs on that date. Because U.S. EPA has not yet finalized the PSD Tailoring and Title V Rule for phasing in PSD requirements for GHG sources, U.S. EPA concludes only that “GHGs would not be considered ‘subject to regulation’ (no source would be subject to PSD permitting requirements for GHGs) earlier than January 2, 2011.” Id. at 17007/1 & 17019/1. U.S. EPA acknowledges the implementation challenges but concludes that it lacks authority to establish a specific date when the PSD permitting requirements initially apply to GHGs based solely on practical implementation considerations. Id. at 17020/2-3. The Tailoring Rule will address GHG-specific circumstances that will exist beyond January 2, 2011. Id. at 17020/3.
In the April 2 final action, U.S. EPA explains that the PSD program requires consideration of energy efficiency when selecting BACT and that the BACT provisions of the PSD program need to be used “to promote technology choices for control of criteria pollutants that will also facilitate the reduction of GHG emissions.” Id. at 17020/3. According to U.S. EPA, “BACT for other pollutants can, through application of more efficient production processes, indirectly result in lower GHG emissions.” Id. at 17021/1. U.S. EPA recognizes that “the BACT process may be more time and resource intensive when applied to a new pollutant,” such as CO2, and promises to issue guidance in the near future on indirect GHG benefits and BACT for GHGs. Id. at 17008 -7009 & 17020-21.
For PSD permit applications that are pending on the date GHGs initially become “subject to regulation,” that is January 2, 2011, U.S. EPA declines to establish a transition or grandfathering provision. Id. at 17021. This is true even if permit applications were filed and determined to be complete before January 2, 2011. Id. at 17021-22.
Because U.S. EPA received several comments addressing the application of Title V permitting requirements to GHGs, U.S. EPA also addressed the application of the Title V program to sources of GHGs in the April 2, final action. Currently GHGs are not considered to be subject to regulation and have not been considered to trigger applicability under Title V. U.S. EPA adopts the same approach for Title V as for PSD. Thus, a source that is not currently subject to Title V for its GHG emissions could become so no earlier than January 2, 2011.
Because this action is nationally applicable, any legal challenges must be brought in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Petitions for review are due June 1, 2010. Id. at 17023.
4/11/2010: Senators prepare compromise climate change bill
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/11/AR2010041101511.html
4/12/2010: Dealing With Climate Change Is Up To Companies, Not Just Governments
http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/12/climate-change-warming-leadership-citizenship-environment.html?boxes=leadershipchannellatest
4/13/2010: Climate Change Plan B
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-c-esty/climate-change-plan-b_b_536314.html
4/14/2010: Clean coal is solution to climate change, Peabody executive testifies
http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/5112743060/articles/powergenworldwide/coal-generation/coal-generation-equipment/2010/04/CCS-testimony.html
4/15/2010: Obama on Afghan: We can't be there in perpetuity
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/15/AR2010041501315.html
4/15/2010: Coal Executives Split on Carbon Caps, Climate Science
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/04/15/15greenwire-coal-executives-split-on-carbon-caps-climate-s-57111.html
4/16/2010: Congress worked out health care. Is climate change next?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/15/AR2010041505755.html?hpid=topnews
4/16/2010: Cuccinelli challenges EPA on global warming findings
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/16/AR2010041602533.html
4/16/2010: Could Iceland's Volcano Slow Global Warming?
4/18/2010: Major economies to delve into climate impasse
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iJN9xFJDCJAP4oT6f6IlmbYOh2Xw
TSCA Reform Legislation Introduced in the U.S. Senate
The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. §2601 et seq., 1976) provides the USEPA with the authority to require reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures. Certain substances are generally excluded from the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), including, among others, food, drugs, cosmetics, and pesticides. However, TSCA addresses the production, importation, use, and disposal of specific chemicals including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), radon, and lead-based paint.
The environmental community has been concerned that TSCA has become outdated since its enactment in 1976 and from their perspective, that TSCA has not successfully protected Americans from “dangerous” chemicals. In particular, the environmental community states that of the 80,000 chemicals currently on the market, the USEPA has required the regulated community to perform health risk testing under Sections 4 and 5 of TSCA on only approximately 200 of these chemicals. A summary of the environmental community perspective on TSCA is provided in comments by the Honorable Bobby L. Rush (D-IL) at the opening of TSCA review hearings in the House on February 27, 2009 (http://www.blueplanetgreenliving.com/2009/02/27/toxic-substances-control-act-hearings-%E2%80%94-a-hopeful-start/). In response to the environmental community concerns, on April 15, 2010, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced a “long-anticipated” bill in the Senate to reform TSCA, entitled the “Safe Chemicals Act of 2010.” A copy of the bill can be obtained at http://lautenberg.senate.gov/assets/SCA2010.pdf.
According to an on-line article by Time, “The bill will eventually allow for the testing, in some format, of every chemical in use in the U.S. today, but chemicals of concern-for which existing data suggest potential harm to human health or the environment-would likely move to the front of the list. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1982489,00.html#ixzz0lHFPbQZQ
Based on an “Issue Alert, Senator Lautenberg Introduces TSCA Reform Legislation” (April 15, 2010) prepared by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Chamber looks forward to participating with both the Senate and the House “to ensure that TSCA reforms are based on sound science and protect the safety of all consumers, while promoting jobs and innovation.” As excerpted from the “Issue Alert,” the U.S. Chamber of Commerce also states:
“While the Chamber believes that TSCA has been protective of human health and the environment, we support efforts to modernize TSCA to reflect technological advances that have occurred since its passage. Any changes, however, must ensure an effective chemical regulatory system that promotes safety, job creation, and innovation.
The Chamber agrees with certain concepts in the bill, such as: a risk-based approach to prioritizing chemicals for review, efforts to minimize animal testing and practical approaches to information and data development.
Unfortunately, the bill lacks an adequate preemption provision and instead allows states to develop different chemical management standards that will result in a patchwork of laws that will make it difficult to bring products to the marketplace. The Chamber also objects to the proposed standard for decision-making, and providing EPA authority that infringes on other agency jurisdictions.”
Posted on April 19, 2010 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
EPA Continues Assault on Surface Mining in Central Appalachia
During the first week of April 2010, the Obama administration USEPA completed its attempt to wrest Clean Water Act Control over surface mining in Central Appalachia from other federal and state agencies. On April 1, 2010, it issued the following three documents:
1. A detailed guidance document entitled: “Improving EPA Review of Appalachian Surface Coal Mining Operations Under the Clean Water Act, NEPA, and the Environmental Justice Executive Order”
2. “A Field-Based Aquatic Life Benchmark for Conductivity in Central Appalachian Streams”
3. A draft report entitled: “The Effects of Mountaintop Mines and Valley Fills on Aquatic Ecosystems of the Central Appalachian Coalfields”
Together, these documents seek to impose specific conductance (conductivity) limits on discharges from valley fills that would ensure in-stream conductivity levels do not exceed 300-500 uS/cm.
The following day, on April 2, 2010, USEPA published its long-awaited Proposed Determination to “veto” the “fill” permit issued by the Corps of Engineers for Mingo Logan’s Spruce No. 1 Mine in Logan County, West Virginia. See 75 Fed. Reg. 16788 (April 2, 2010). The first of these documents is reviewed below.
Detailed Guidance: “Improving EPA Review of Appalachian Surface Coal Mining Operations Under the Clean Water Act, NEPA, and the Environmental Justice Executive Order”
This document, which is addressed to EPA Regions 3, 4 and 5, starts with a recitation of USEPA work designed to show impacts from surface mining. It claims that:
• A recent EPA study found that 9 out of every 10 streams downstream from surface mining operations were impaired based on genus-level assessment of aquatic life.1
• Recent studies correlate loss of mayfly taxa to increased levels of specific conductance (conductivity) or total dissolved solids.
• There are “elevated levels” of “highly toxic and bioaccumulative selenium in streams downstream of valley fills.”2
• Appalachian deforestation has been linked to significant changes in aquatic communities as well as to modified storm water runoff regimes, accelerated sediment and nutrient transport, reduced organic matter inputs, shifts in the stream’s energy base and altered thermal regimes.3
The Guidance, which is effective immediately, requires that Regions 3, 4 and 5 take the following steps as to state-issued NPDES permits and Corps-issued §404 permits:
NPDES Permit Reviews
• Reasonable Potential Analyses Required:
– USEPA determined that a number of state-issued NPDES permits did not evaluate whether proposed discharges had a “reasonable potential” to violate either “numeric” or “narrative” water quality standards. The guidance requires Regions to ensure that State NPDES authorities are conducting such analyses for new and renewed NPDES permits.
– For numeric standards, the in-stream concentrations of substances such as iron and aluminum, the Guidance requires new operations to project their likely water quality from nearby operations and requires existing operations to use site-specific data to project likely future concentrations.
– For narrative water quality standards (which typically prohibit “significant adverse impacts to the chemical, physical, hydrologic, or biological components of aquatic ecosystems”), USEPA expects NPDES permit authorities to document how they determine whether a proposed or existing operation will violate the narrative standards and to impose effluent limits on other permit conditions to prevent violations of the standards.
– The difficulty here will be for states to devise methods for measuring compliance with narrative standards and to develop any required effluent or permit conditions. USEPA’s Guidance cites its own work by Pond, et al. as showing impacts at the genus level to mayflies as grounds for applying in-stream limits on conductivity of 300-500 uS/cm—a nearly impossible standard—even though there is not a national conductivity standard.
– While the Guidance states that discharges associated with activities other than mining should be evaluated to determine whether they are likely to result in in-stream conductivity levels above 500 uS/cm, USEPA does not have studies showing that non-mining activities are reasonably likely to exceed conductivity “standards” and believes that “circumstances unique to surface coal mining . . . are principally responsible for the increase in conductivity levels. . . .” A quick review of data on the USGS website shows, however, that many of the streams and rivers in parts of Virginia unaffected by mining typically exceed a mean conductivity level of 500 uS/cm, including: Maury River at Rockbridge Baths (near Lexington, Va.), 834 uS/cm; New River at Radford, 535 uS/cm; Appomattox River near Farmville, 538 uS/cm; and the Jackson River near Bacova, 532 uS/cm.
• Antidegradation Analysis
Where water quality is better than required by water quality standards, NPDES programs prohibit significant degradation with a demonstration that there are important social and economic reasons for allowing limited degradation down to the allowable in-stream concentration.
– USEPA’s Guidance stresses that state antidegradation analyses must include a two-part analysis: demonstration of the extent to which a discharge is “necessary” in the manner and magnitude proposed and of its importance for social and economic development.
• Oversight of “General” NPDES Permits
– USEPA believes that state authorities which authorize coal mine discharges with General Permits should instead require Individual Permits “in all instances.” This statement is aimed squarely at Region 4 and Kentucky.
Strengthen USEPA’s Review of § 404 Permits Based by the Corps of Engineers
USEPA set out its “expectations for the analyses necessary to . . . achieve full compliance with the 404(b)(1) Guidelines,” including compliance with water quality standards, prevention of significant degradation and full analysis of avoidance, minimization and mitigation:
• Meeting Water Quality Standards
USEPA observed that the §404(b)(1) Guidelines require compliance with water quality standards. Even though states must “certify” that a proposal meets water quality standards and the Corps is required to accept that certification, USEPA claims that concerns with meeting narrative water quality standards and states’ past failures to adopt numeric conductivity standards have caused it to use its §404 oversight authority to restrict permits over what are really NPDES issues. While it notes that its Guidance sets out NPDES permit requirements to ensure compliance with water quality standards, it claims that the §404(b)(1) Guidelines “establish an independent obligation to address potential violations of water quality standards.”
• Preventing Significant Deterioration
In addition to the antidegradation provisions of the NPDES program, USEPA claims that the §404(b)(1) Guidelines impose an independent obligation on the Corps and USEPA to prohibit “significant degradation” to water quality. Here, it relies on its own conductivity studies to claim:
– Conductivities below 300 uS/cm will protect 95% of “native benthic species.”
– Conductivities above 500 uS/cm “are likely to be associated with adverse impacts that could rise to the level of significant adverse degradation of the aquatic ecosystems,” and that any permit allowing for in-stream increases above 500 uS/cm should demonstrate, “based on site or receiving water-specific information,” how the permit is consistent with the §404(b)(1) Guidelines.
– Projects which propose conductivity levels above 300 uS/cm should include permit conditions and adaptive management plans to prevent conductivities from rising to levels that may cause significant degradation.
– Permits should “sequence” their approval of valley fills so that only one fill at a time is permitted.
USEPA sets out a list of specific substances for which monitoring should be conducted. It also provides that applicants should use the methodology used by the state for determining whether streams are “impaired” under §303(d) of the Clean Water Act. To the extent those methods (such as the WVSCI) are comprised of biological indices measuring macroinvertebrates only to the “family” level, applicants should be evaluating them to the “genus” level.
• Ensuring Independent Water Quality Protection from §404 Permits
Requires USEPA Regions to ensure that §404 permit includes additional limits to meet water quality standards.4
• Assessing and Mitigating for Affected Stream “Functions”
– USEPA says that applicants or the Corps should conduct “functional stream impact assessments” and ensure that they are used to “quantify the environmental effects” and to ensure that the “mitigation adequately replaces lost stream functions.” The document does not purport to describe or define the “functions” that must be evaluated5 or how they can be “replaced” by mitigation.
– USEPA states that groin and sediment ditches, however, do not replace stream function and should not be given mitigation credit.
• Ensuring Environmental Justice
– Where a permit will result in adverse human health or environmental effects on lower income or minority populations, Regions are to suggest ways to avoid or mitigate for the impacts.
• Sequencing Multiple Valley Fill Projects
– Valley fills generally should be constructed one at a time unless site-specific data suggest “no potential downstream water quality concerns.”
– New fills should not be constructed until previously constructed fills meet water quality standards.
– A conductivity “trends” analysis should be conducted and evaluated against two “threshold” values: the first a value at which a “trend toward causing a water quality standard degradation is identified and triggers an “adaptive management plan”; and the second a value at which the permittee would be prohibited from constructing additional fills until remediation has caused discharges from past fills to meet water quality standards. Based on the remainder of the document and USEPA’s recent comments on a § 404 permit for the “Hobet 45” permit, the two values are likely to be 300 uS/cm and 500 uS/cm respectively.6
• Minimizing Excess Spoil Generation
• Certifying Mine Plan and Ensuring Full Utilization of Fill Disposal Sites
• Minimizing Conductivity Impacts and In-Stream Impoundments
– Ensure that rock has been tested for acid, selenium, heavy metals or “soluble strata that are likely to lead to high conductivity and that these materials are handled to minimize exposure to rainwater and groundwater.
– Encourages “compaction” of fills to retard surface infiltration, leaving the top six feet unconsolidated (presumably to encourage root growth after mining) and discourages the use of “end dump” fills.7
– Minimize the number of in-stream sediment “ponds located below valley fills.”
• Reduce Drainage Area Through Fills
– Encourages use of sidehill fills and drains in fills to intercept and divert groundwater
– Encourages the use of natural drainage through coal and rock formations that divert flow away from surface waters.8
1Historically, the WVDEP has used a macroinvertebrate index developed for use in West Virginia by USEPA to measure stream health. That index, known as the West Virginia Stream Condition Index (“WVSCI”), relied on relative proportions of pollution intolerant insects (mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies) at the family level. The genus level is more specific. While many types of mayflies are frequently absent downstream of surface mines, the waters draining those mines frequently are not “impaired” using the WVSCI.
Pond, an EPA employee, has long worked to show the impacts of mining on the aquatic environment. He and his cohorts developed their own genus-level biological index, which emphasizes the loss of mayflies to show impairment. Their index has never been submitted to rulemaking.
2 The 2002 study cited by USEPA examined fills that were constructed before regulators and mine operators knew there was selenium present in their overburden. Since then, WVDEP has required mine operators in selenium-prone areas to sample coreholes for the presence of selenium in advance of mining and to selectively handle material with higher concentrations of selenium to minimize the potential for it to leach into area streams.
3 USEPA’s citation for these propositions is a 1992 study done at the Coweeta Institute that had nothing to do with mining. One of its authors, Bruce Wallace former professor at the University of Georgia, testified at length in OVEC v. Aracoma, 479 F. Supp. 2d 607 (S.D. W.Va. 2007), rev’d. 556 F.3d 177 (4th Cir. 2009), the case in which anti-mining activists’ arguments were rejected by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
4 Alone among virtually all industries that obtain § 404 permits, effluent from “filled” areas is controlled by an NPDES permit issued under § 402 of the Clean Water Act because SMCRA requires that water contacting areas disturbed by surface mining pass through a sediment control structure. Discharges of fill into wetlands and other waterbodies by other industries are not otherwise controlled by NPDES permits. For these industries it makes sense that the § 404 program evaluates whether matter dispersed from the fill area will violate water quality standards by diffusing into adjacent waters. Where, however, those discharges are controlled by an NPDES permit which is required to meet water quality standards and where the state certifies that the project will meet those standards, USEPA’s policy works only to give it oversight authority it does not possess.
5 The Corps uses the § 404(b)(1) Guidelines at 40 C.F.R. Part 230 to review applications. 40 C.F.R. § 230.11(e) requires the Corps to determine the effect that the proposed discharge will have on “the structure and function of the aquatic ecosystem.” That term is not expressly defined, but the rule requires that “consideration shall be given to . . . changes in substrate characteristics and elevation, water or substrate chemistry, nutrient, currents, circulation, fluctuation, and salinity on the recolonization and existence of indigenous aquatic organisms and communities.” In OVEC, anti-mining activists argued that the term “function” required an analysis of the rate of change in temperature, sediment flux, leaf litter breakdown and nutrient spiraling because these were generally accepted “functions.” See OVEC v. Aracoma, 479 F. Supp. 2d 607 (S.D. W.Va. 2007). The Fourth Circuit disagreed, and deferred to the Corps, but there is no clear definition of this term currently in use. 556 F.3d 177 (4th Cir. 2009).
6 See discussion in note 8, below.
7 This practice will likely promote faster runoff and higher peak flows than do end dump fills. In West Virginia, where surface mining permittees must demonstrate that their mines will not increase peak discharges compared to pre-mining conditions, this will likely require the construction of larger in-stream ponds below valley fills to serve as detention devices.
8 This is likely a reference to conditions on which USEPA insisted in the Hobet 45 permit where it encouraged the operator to let water accumulate in mine pits where “it will seep into the coal seams which are natural aquifers.” See Correspondence from EPA Region Admin. to Corps’ Col. Peterson re: Hobet 45 Permit (Jan. 4, 2010).
Manchin Executive Order
In response to the explosion in West Virginia at the Upper Big Branch Mine on April 5, 2010, in which 29 miners died, Governor Manchin issued Executive Order No. 1-10 Wednesday, April 14, 2010. Under the Order, West Virginia’s underground coal mine operators are to cease production for one day this Friday, April 16, 2010, both to honor the lost and injured miners and to review each mine’s safety measures.
The Order also calls for immediate action to identify and remedy conditions that create a risk of combustion or explosion in the underground coal mines in the state. Specifically, the Order calls on State mine safety officials to immediately inspect all active underground coal mines and the evacuation or closure of any coal mine that poses an imminent danger to the safety of miners.
Inspectors have been asked to investigate the mines for combustion risks. This will concern standards relating to: ventilation; the detection, monitoring and removal or dangerous accumulations of explosive or noxious gases; electricity and electric equipment; and control of coal dust and rock dusting.
Further, the Order seeks to tighten the state’s standards for rock dusting of underground mines. Under the Order, mine inspectors must collect dust samples which shall be tested to determine compliance with mandatory total incombustible content (TIC) standards as well as TIC standards recommended by a National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health report that required eighty percent (80%) TIC in both intake airways and return airways. The Director will consider compliance with mandatory or recommended TIC standards when determining whether an imminent danger exists in a mine or whether there is a history of repeated significant and substantial violations that warrants closure of a mine.
To hasten the inspections, the Governor is requiring that high priority coal mines, those that the Director determines that combustion risks have repeatedly occurred at the mine over the past twelve-months, be inspected within the next two weeks. If a mine has combustion risks identified a reinspection is required to occur before and in addition to the next quarterly inspection.
Posted on April 14, 2010 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)