Source: https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Courses/environment/intro-f2017/index.htm
Timestamp: 2018-07-22 10:15:52
Document Index: 759103063

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 821', '§ 821', '§ 821', '§ 821', '§ 821', '§ 821', '§ 822', '§ 824', '§ 825', '§ 826', '§ 827', '§ 828', '§ 829', '§ 829', '§ 830', '§ 831', '§ 840', '§ 7607', '§ 6928', '§ 11', '§ 1540', '§ 7502', '§ 7503', '§ 111', '§ 7411', '§ 60', '§ 60', '§ 60', '§ 60', 'art 63', 'art 63', '§ 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', '§ 63', '§ 60', '§ 60', '§ 60', '§ 60', '§ 60', '§ 60', '§ 60', '§ 60', '§ 60', '§ 60', '§ 60', '§ 60', '§ 60', '§ 60', '§ 60', '§ 328', '§ 328', '§ 328', '§ 328']

Introduction to Environmental Law (Law 5411 – Richards – Fall 2017)
Aagaard, T., Owen, D. & Pidot, J.,. Practicing Environmental Law, West Academic. 2017
Any supplements will be provided on this site.
Scott Pruitt Is Carrying Out His E.P.A. Agenda in Secret, Critics Say
First Day Assignment:
Text Book Readings: Chapter 1 through page 43.
This material introduces the basic issues of environmental law, the approach of the book, and concludes with a history of environmental law. It is not dense reading, but think about the chronology and the core problems of environmental law.
Background Reading – check back for updates
Elizabeth “Betsy” Southerland’s resignation memo to EPA Secretary Pruitt
Gerardo Ceballos et al., Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 201704949 (2017),
Don’t worry about the technical detail, read for the big picture on changes in biodiversity.
Milestones in EPA and Environmental History
What else is going on in the 1960s/early 1970s?
Vietnam War and Opposition
LSU Law Center: Climate Change Law and Policy Project
The blog for our climate change project.
DOJ Bans settlements that pay to community and third party organizations
EO on flood standards for federal buildings withdrawn: the order signed 15 Aug 2017:
Sec. 6. Executive Order 13690 of January 30, 2015 (Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a Process for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input), is revoked.
Why this is a bad idea: American Society of Civil Engineers , Call for a National Flood Risk Management Strategy (2014)
Montana Environmental Information Center Vs. U.S. Office Of Surface Mining (2017)
(EIS case turning on the climate impact of coal.) The Enforcement Office failed to take a hard look at the indirect and cumulative effects of coal transportation and coal combustion (Count III), it failed to take a hard look at foreseeable greenhouse gas emissions (Count IV), and it made a decision without sufficient consideration for the need to produce an EIS despite significant uncertainty about the critical issues (Count II). The plaintiffs then prevail as to those counts.
This is a good example of how NEPA is used, and a rare example of the court requiring analysis of climate change issues as part of the EIS.
Finish Chapter 1. This is the practice problem, which we will work through in class. Be prepared to argue either of the sides of the problem. This is not a simple question.
Environmental Justice at the EPA
History of the office from Slate
Resignation Letter for Administrator of the EPA Environmental Justice Program
Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994
Escaping one of the nation’s worst environmental disaster zones
Why does tort law fail in these cases? If Pruitt makes good on his promise to clean up these sites, he could do something valuable. If he wades in, he will find that these sites are extremely complex to deal with.
How The Environment Got Political
Great podcast on the history of the politics at the EPA.
Chapter 2 to page 80.
Restatement (2d) of Torts
§ 821A.Types of Nuisance
In this Restatement “nuisance” is used to denote either
(a)a public nuisance as defined in § 821B, or
(b)a private nuisance as defined in § 821D. * * *
§ 821D.Private Nuisance
A private nuisance is a nontrespassory invasion of another’s interest in the private use and enjoyment of land.
§ 821E.Who Can Recover For Private Nuisance
For a private nuisance there is liability only to those who have property rights and privileges in respect to the use and enjoyment of the land affected, including
(a)possessors of the land,
(b)owners of easements and profits in the land, and
(c)ownersof nonpossessory estates in the land that are detrimentally affected by interferences with its use and enjoyment.
§ 821F.Significant Harm
There is liability for a nuisance only to those to whom it causes significant harm, of a kind that would be suffered by a normal person in the community or by property in normal condition and used for a normal purpose.
§ 822.General Rule
One is subject to liability for a private nuisance if, but only if, his conduct is a legal cause of an invasion of another’s interest in the private use and enjoyment of land, and the invasion is either
(a)intentional and unreasonable, or
(b)unintentional and otherwise actionable under the rules controlling liability for negligent or reckless conduct, or for abnormally dangerous conditions or activities.
§ 824.Type of Conduct Essential to Liability
The conduct necessary to make the actor liable for either a public or a private nuisance may consist of
(a)an act; or
(b)a failure to act under circumstances in which the actor is under a duty to take positive action to prevent or abate the interference with the public interest or the invasion of the private interest.
§ 825.Intentional Invasion—What Constitutes
An invasion of another’s interest in the use and enjoyment of land or an interference with the public right, is intentional if the actor
(a)acts for the purpose of causing it, or
(b)knows that it is resulting or is substantially certain to result from his conduct.
§ 826.Unreasonableness of Intentional Invasion
An intentional invasion of another’s interest in the use and enjoyment of land is unreasonable if
(a)the gravity of the harm outweighs the utility of the actor’s conduct, or
(b)the harm caused by the conduct is serious and the financial burden of compensating for this and similar harm to others would not make the continuation of the conduct not feasible.
§ 827.Gravity of Harm—Factors Involved
In determining the gravity of the harm from an intentional invasion of another’s interest in the use and enjoyment of land, the following factors are important:
(a)The extent of the harm involved;
(b)the character of the harm involved;
(c)the social value that the law attaches to the type of use or enjoyment invaded;
(d)the suitability of the particular use or enjoyment invaded to the character of the locality; and
(e)the burden on the person harmed of avoiding the harm.
§ 828.Utility of Conduct—Factors Involved
In determining the utility of conduct that causes an intentional invasion of another’s interest in the use and enjoyment of land, the following factors are important:
(a)the social value that the law attaches to the primary purpose of the conduct;
(b)the suitability of the conduct to the character of the locality; and
(c)the impracticability of preventing or avoiding the invasion.
§ 829.Gravity vs. Utility—Conduct Malicious or Indecent
An intentional invasion of another’s interest in the use and enjoyment of land is unreasonable if the harm is significant and the actor’s conduct is
(a)for the sole purpose of causing harm to the other; or
(b)contrary to common standards of decency.
§ 829A.Gravity vs. Utility—Severe Harm
An intentional invasion of another’s interest in the use and enjoyment of land is unreasonable if the harm resulting from the invasion is severe and greater than the other should be required to bear without compensation.
§ 830.Gravity vs. Utility—Invasion Avoidable
An intentional invasion of another’s interest in the use and enjoyment of land is unreasonable if the harm is significant and it would be practicable for the actor to avoid the harm in whole or in part without undue hardship.
§ 831.Gravity vs. Utility—Conduct Unsuited To Locality
An intentional invasion of another’s interest in the use and enjoyment of land is unreasonable if the harm is significant, and
(a)the particular use or enjoyment interfered with is well suited to the character of the locality; and
(b)the actor’s conduct is unsuited to the character of that locality.
§ 840D.Coming To the Nuisance
The fact that the plaintiff has acquired or improved his land after a nuisance interfering with it has come into existence is not in itself sufficient to bar his action, but it is a factor to be considered in determining whether the nuisance is actionable.
What is in that bottled water?
Read from II. Introduction to Statutory Interpretation (p80) to Problem: Challenging an EPA Rule (p98)
Slides – Introduction to Administrative Law
Reg Map for Informal Rulemaking – pdf
What does a rule look like?
Clean Water Rule: Definition of ‘‘Waters of the United States’’; Proposed Rule
Clean Water Rule: Definition of ‘‘Waters of the United States’’; Final Rule
What does a guidance document look like?
Enforcement Guidance: Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the Americans with Disabilities Act
Recording of last class, Introduction to Administrative Law
Interior secretary recommends Trump alter at least three national monuments, including Bears Ears
Read to IV. Constitutional Law and Environmental Law, p. 115
42 U.S.C. § 7607. Administrative proceedings and judicial review
A little perspective on the Houston Flood
Massachusetts v. E.P.A., 127 S.Ct. 1438 (2007)
Study Guide – Massachusetts v. E.P.A., 127 S.Ct. 1438 (2007)
We are going to read the long version of Mass v. EPA because it is a critical case and because it is a good review of some of the adlaw topics we have discussed. Read these materials carefully and be prepared to discuss the materials.
Slides – Climate Class – Massachusetts v. E.P.A., 127 S.Ct. 1438 (2007)
Warning – these are not lecture slides, they are slides designed to guide our discussion. They are mostly questions, not answers. They are subject to revision before class.
Keep your eye on Hurricane Irma
South Florida Water Management District – great hurricane site
EPA now requires political aide’s sign-off for agency awards, grant applications
Finish Chapter 2. You can skip the edited version of Mass v. EPA. Most of this is background on enforcement, which is generally lost in law school courses because it is mostly outside the appeals court system.
42 U.S. Code § 6928 – Federal enforcement RCRA
ESA § 11, 16 U.S.C. § 1540. Penalties and enforcement (g – citizen suits)
Flooding risk for Florida
Read Chapter 3 to V. State Implementation Plans, p.188
There are a lot of definitions that we will work through to get sense of the structure of the act. Read the problem and the associated material closely. It raises interesting issues political control.
Look at this graphic: Our Nation’s Air 2017 – United States Environmental Protection Agency
PDF version from 2010: EPA – Our Nation’s Air STATUS AND TRENDS THROUGH 2010
Real time air quality map
Outdoor Air Quality – FDA – ozone and particulates
Villeneuve PJ, Chen L, Rowe BH, Coates F. Outdoor air pollution and emergency department visits for asthma among children and adults: A case-crossover study in northern Alberta, Canada. Environmental Health. 2007;6:40. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-6-40.
Clean Air Act Glossary
The Clean Air Act in a Nutshell: How It Works. EPA (2013)
EPA – Air Quality – National Summary
Forest fires in the Northwest
This a severe respiratory threat throughout the Pacific northwest.
Did air pollution create the hurricane drought?
4 Maps That Show the Gigantic Hurricane Irma Evacuation
They are now asking people to evacuate South Florida. Follow the process of evacuation and let’s hope it all works out. The key difference from Houston is storm surge. You cannot shelter in place if you are facing surge.
Interior Department sets Draconian limits on NEPA EIS review
Read Chapter 3 to VI. New Source Review p216.
42 U.S. Code § 7502 – Nonattainment plan provisions in general
(2)RFP – Such plan provisions shall require reasonable further progress.
42 U.S. Code § 7503 – Permit requirements
(a)(1)(A) – attainment area
(a)(1)(B) – nonattainment areas
Louisiana SIP
LA DEQ
LA CAA Permits
Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling 40 C.F.R. Pt. 51, app. S (edited)
Ill – Section 203.302 Maintenance of Reasonable Further Progress and Emission Offsets
Ill – Section 203.303 Baseline and Emission Offsets Determination
Harvey Spawns Air Pollution Problems In Houston
Read to IX. Title V Permitting, p. 244
Work through the problems. That will be the focus of the class. Our objective is to figure out what lawyers do when confronted with these specific questions.
Learning Objectives – New Source Review
The CAA is divided between legacy sources and new – since the CAA – sources
The CAA has been amended several times and emissions standards have been tightened, based on new science and control technologies.
Each new set of regulations or tightening of regulations creates a new set of legacy sources.
A give facility may have sources that are under several different sets of requirements, depending on when they were built and/or permitted.
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle IGCC
New Source Review Workshop Manual (Draft) EPA (Oct. 1990) (Edited)
CAA § 111, 42 U.S.C. § 7411. Standards of performance for new stationary sources
(a)Definitions
(1)The term “standard of performance” means a standard for emissions of air pollutants which reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.
(2)The term “new source” means any stationary source, the construction or modification of which is commenced after the publication of regulations (or, if earlier, proposed regulations) prescribing a standard of performance under this section which will be applicable to such source.
(3)The term “stationary source” means any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any air pollutant. Nothing in subchapter II of this chapter relating to nonroad engines shall be construed to apply to stationary internal combustion engines.
(4)The term “modification” means any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a stationary source which increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source or which results in the emission of any air pollutant not previously emitted. * * *
(b)List of categories of stationary sources; standards of performance; information on pollution control techniques; sources owned or operated by United States; particular systems; revised standards
(1)(A)The Administrator shall, within 90 days after December 31, 1970, publish (and from time to time thereafter shall revise) a list of categories of stationary sources. He shall include a category of sources in such list if in his judgment it causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
(B)Within one year after the inclusion of a category of stationary sources in a list under subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall publish proposed regulations, establishing Federal standards of performance for new sources within such category. * * *
(2)The Administrator may distinguish among classes, types, and sizes within categories of new sources for the purpose of establishing such standards. * * *
§ 60.42Da.Standards for particulate matter (PM).
(a)Except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section, on and after the date on which the initial performance test is completed or required to be completed under § 60.8 [which requires a performance test within 180 days of startup], whichever date comes first, an owner or operator of an affected facility shall not cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from any affected facility for which construction, reconstruction, or modification commenced before March 1, 2005, any gases that contain PM in excess of 13 ng/J (0.03 lb/MMBtu) heat input. * * *
(c)Except as provided in paragraphs (d) and (f) of this section, on and after the date on which the initial performance test is completed or required to be completed under § 60.8, whichever date comes first, no owner or operator of an affected facility that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification after February 28, 2005, but before May 4, 2011, shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from that affected facility any gases that contain PM in excess of either:
(1)18 ng/J (0.14 lb/MWh) gross energy output; or
(2)6.4 ng/J (0.015 lb/MMBtu) heat input derived from the combustion of solid, liquid, or gaseous fuel. * * *
(e)Except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section [which is not relevant to this problem], the owner or operator of an affected facility that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification commenced after May 3, 2011, shall meet the requirements specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1)On and after the date on which the initial performance test is completed or required to be completed under § 60.8, whichever date comes first, the owner or operator shall not cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from that affected facility any gases that contain PM in excess of the applicable emissions limit specified in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(i)For an affected facility which commenced construction or reconstruction:
(A)11 ng/J (0.090 lb/MWh) gross energy output; or
(B)12 ng/J (0.097 lb/MWh) net energy output.
(ii)For an affected facility which commenced modification, the emission limits specified in paragraphs (c) or (d) of this section.
(2)During startup periods and shutdown periods, owners or operators of facilities subject to subpart UUUUU of part 63 of this chapter shall meet the work practice standards specified in Table 3 to subpart UUUUU of part 63 and use the relevant definitions in § 63.10042, and owners or operators of facilities subject to subpart DDDDD of part 63 shall meet the work practice standards specified in Table 3 to subpart DDDDD of part 63 and use the relevant definition used in § 63.7575. * * *
§ 60.43Da.Standards for sulfur dioxide (SO2).
(a)On and after the date on which the initial performance test is completed or required to be completed under § 60.8, whichever date comes first, no owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from any affected facility which combusts solid fuel or solid-derived fuel and for which construction, reconstruction, or modification commenced before or on February 28, 2005, except as provided under paragraphs (c), (d), (f) or (h) of this section, any gases that contain SO2 in excess of:
(1)520 ng/J (1.20 lb/MMBtu) heat input and 10 percent of the potential combustion concentration (90 percent reduction);
(2)30 percent of the potential combustion concentration (70 percent reduction), when emissions are less than 260 ng/J (0.60 lb/MMBtu) heat input;
(3)180 ng/J (1.4 lb/MWh) gross energy output; or
(4)65 ng/J (0.15 lb/MMBtu) heat input. * * *
(b)On and after the date on which the initial performance test is completed or required to be completed under § 60.8, whichever date comes first, no owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from any affected facility which combusts liquid or gaseous fuels (except for liquid or gaseous fuels derived from solid fuels and as provided under paragraphs (e) or (h) of this section) and for which construction, reconstruction, or modification commenced before or on February 28, 2005, any gases that contain SO2 in excess of:
(1)340 ng/J (0.80 lb/MMBtu) heat input and 10 percent of the potential combustion concentration (90 percent reduction); or
(2)100 percent of the potential combustion concentration (zero percent reduction) when emissions are less than 86 ng/J (0.20 lb/MMBtu) heat input.
(c)[Reserved by 77 FR 9450].
(d)Sulfur dioxide emissions are limited to 520 ng/J (1.20 lb/MMBtu) heat input from any affected facility which:
(1)Combusts 100 percent anthracite;
(2)Is classified as a resource recovery unit; or
(3)Is located in a noncontinental area and combusts solid fuel or solid-derived fuel.
(e)Sulfur dioxide emissions are limited to 340 ng/J (0.80 lb/MMBtu) heat input from any affected facility which is located in a noncontinental area and combusts liquid or gaseous fuels (excluding solid-derived fuels).
(f)The SO2 standards under this section do not apply to an owner or operator of an affected facility that is operated under an SO2 commercial demonstration permit issued by the Administrator in accordance with the provisions of § 60.47Da.
(g)Compliance with the emission limitation and percent reduction requirements under this section are both determined on a 30-day 238rolling average basis except as provided under paragraph (c) of this section. * * *
(i)Except as provided in paragraphs (j) and (k) of this section, on and after the date on which the initial performance test is completed or required to be completed under § 60.8, whichever date comes first, no owner or operator of an affected facility for which construction, reconstruction, or modification commenced after February 28, 2005, but before May 4, 2011, shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from that affected facility, any gases that contain SO2 in excess of the applicable emissions limit specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1)For an affected facility which commenced construction, any gases that contain SO2 in excess of either:
(i)180 ng/J (1.4 lb/MWh) gross energy output; or
(ii)5 percent of the potential combustion concentration (95 percent reduction).
(2)For an affected facility which commenced reconstruction, any gases that contain SO2 in excess of either:
(i)180 ng/J (1.4 lb/MWh) gross energy output;
(ii)65 ng/J (0.15 lb/MMBtu) heat input; or
(iii)5 percent of the potential combustion concentration (95 percent reduction).
(3)For an affected facility which commenced modification, any gases that contain SO2 in excess of either:
(iii)10 percent of the potential combustion concentration (90 percent reduction).
(j)On and after the date on which the initial performance test is completed or required to be completed under § 60.8, whichever date comes first, no owner or operator of an affected facility that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification commenced after February 28, 2005, and that burns 75 percent or more (by heat input) coal refuse on a 12-month rolling average basis, shall caused to be discharged into the atmosphere from that affected facility any gases that contain SO2 in excess of the applicable emission limitation specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1)For an affected facility for which construction commenced after February 28, 2005, any gases that contain SO2 in excess of either:
(i)180 ng/J (1.4 lb/MWh) gross energy output on a 30-day rolling average basis; or
(ii)6 percent of the potential combustion concentration (94 percent reduction) on a 30-day rolling average basis.
(2)For an affected facility for which reconstruction commenced after February 28, 2005, any gases that contain SO2 in excess of either:
(i)180 ng/J (1.4 lb/MWh) gross energy output on a 30-day rolling average basis;
(ii)65 ng/J (0.15 lb/MMBtu) heat input on a 30-day rolling average basis; or
(iii)6 percent of the potential combustion concentration (94 percent reduction) on a 30-day rolling average basis.
(3)For an affected facility for which modification commenced after February 28, 2005, any gases that contain SO2 in excess of either:
(iii)10 percent of the potential combustion concentration (90 percent reduction) on a 30-day rolling average basis.
(k)On and after the date on which the initial performance test is completed or required to be completed under § 60.8, whichever date comes first, no owner or operator of an affected facility located in a noncontinental area for which construction, reconstruction, or modification commenced after February 28, 2005, but before May 4, 2011, shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from that affected facility any gases that contain SO2 in excess of the applicable emissions limit specified in paragraphs (k)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1)For an affected facility that burns solid or solid-derived fuel, the owner or operator shall not cause to be discharged into the atmosphere any gases that contain SO2 in excess of 520 ng/J (1.2 lb/MMBtu) heat input.
(2)For an affected facility that burns other than solid or solid-derived fuel, the owner or operator shall not cause to be discharged into the atmosphere any gases that contain SO2 in excess of 230 ng/J (0.54 lb/MMBtu) heat input.
(l)Except as provided in paragraphs (j) and (m) of this section, on and after the date on which the initial performance test is completed or required to be completed under § 60.8, whichever date comes first, no 240owner or operator of an affected facility for which construction, reconstruction, or modification commenced after May 3, 2011, shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from that affected facility, any gases that contain SO2 in excess of the applicable emissions limit specified in paragraphs (l)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1)For an affected facility which commenced construction or reconstruction, any gases that contain SO2 in excess of either:
(i)130 ng/J (1.0 lb/MWh) gross energy output; or
(ii)140 ng/J (1.2 lb/MWh) net energy output; or
(iii)3 percent of the potential combustion concentration (97 percent reduction).
(2)For an affected facility which commenced modification, any gases that contain SO2 in excess of either:
(ii)10 percent of the potential combustion concentration (90 percent reduction).
(m)On and after the date on which the initial performance test is completed or required to be completed under § 60.8, whichever date comes first, no owner or operator of an affected facility located in a noncontinental area for which construction, reconstruction, or modification commenced after May 3, 2011, shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from that affected facility any gases that contain SO2 in excess of the applicable emissions limit specified in paragraphs (m)(1) and (2) of this section.
§ 60.44Da.Standards for nitrogen oxides (NOx).
(d)Except as provided in paragraph (h) of this section, on and after the date on which the initial performance test is completed or required to be completed under § 60.8, whichever date comes first, no owner or operator of an affected facility that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification after July 9, 1997, but before March 1, 2005, shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from that 241affected facility any gases that contain NOx (expressed as NO2) in excess of the applicable emissions limit specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section as determined on a 30-boiler operating day rolling average basis.
(1)For an affected facility which commenced construction, any gases that contain NOx in excess of 200 ng/J (1.6 lb/MWh) gross energy output.
(2)For an affected facility which commenced reconstruction, any gases that contain NOx in excess of 65 ng/J (0.15 lb/MMBtu) heat input.
(e)Except as provided in paragraphs (f) and (h) of this section, on and after the date on which the initial performance test is completed or required to be completed under § 60.8, whichever date comes first, no owner or operator of an affected facility that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification after February 28, 2005 but before May 4, 2011, shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from that affected facility any gases that contain NOx (expressed as NO2) in excess of the applicable emissions limit specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section as determined on a 30-boiler operating day rolling average basis.
(1)For an affected facility which commenced construction, any gases that contain NOx in excess of 130 ng/J (1.0 lb/MWh) gross energy output.
(2)For an affected facility which commenced reconstruction, any gases that contain NOx in excess of either:
(ii)47 ng/J (0.11 lb/MMBtu) heat input.
(3)For an affected facility which commenced modification, any gases that contain NOx in excess of either:
(ii)65 ng/J (0.15 lb/MMBtu) heat input.
(f)On and after the date on which the initial performance test is completed or required to be completed under § 60.8, whichever date comes first, the owner or operator of an IGCC electric utility steam generating unit subject to the provisions of this subpart and for which construction, reconstruction, or modification commenced after February 28, 2005 but before May 4, 2011, shall meet the requirements specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1)Except as provided for in paragraphs (f)(2) and (3) of this section, the owner or operator shall not cause to be discharged into 242the atmosphere any gases that contain NOx (expressed as NO2) in excess of 130 ng/J (1.0 lb/MWh) gross energy output.
(2)When burning liquid fuel exclusively or in combination with solid-derived fuel such that the liquid fuel contributes 50 percent or more of the total heat input to the combined cycle combustion turbine, the owner or operator shall not cause to be discharged into the atmosphere any gases that contain NOx (expressed as NO2) in excess of 190 ng/J (1.5 lb/MWh) gross energy output.
(3)In cases when during a 30-boiler operating day rolling average compliance period liquid fuel is burned in such a manner to meet the conditions in paragraph (f)(2) of this section for only a portion of the clock hours in the 30-day compliance period, the owner or operator shall not cause to be discharged into the atmosphere any gases that contain NOx (expressed as NO2) in excess of the computed weighted-average emissions limit based on the proportion of gross energy output (in MWh) generated during the compliance period for each of emissions limits in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section.
(g)Except as provided in paragraphs (h) of this section and § 60.45Da, on and after the date on which the initial performance test is completed or required to be completed under § 60.8, whichever date comes first, no owner or operator of an affected facility that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification after May 3, 2011, shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from that affected facility any gases that contain NOx (expressed as NO2) in excess of the applicable emissions limit specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1)For an affected facility which commenced construction or reconstruction, any gases that contain NOx in excess of either:
(i)88 ng/J (0.70 lb/MWh) gross energy output; or
(ii)95 ng/J (0.76 lb/MWh) net energy output.
(2)For an affected facility which commenced construction or reconstruction and that burns 75 percent or more coal refuse (by heat input) on a 12-month rolling average basis, any gases that contain NOx in excess of either:
(i)110 ng/J (0.85 lb/MWh) gross energy output; or
(ii)120 ng/J (0.92 lb/MWh) net energy output.
(3)For an affected facility which commenced modification, any gases that contain NOx in excess of 140 ng/J (1.1 lb/MWh) gross energy output. * * *
The Looming Superfund Nightmare
CDC and Texas Health Officials Warn About Illness Linked to Raw Milk from Texas Dairy
Opinion: Why we need an international agreement on marine plastic pollution
Finish Chapter 3.
Learn the regulatory trade 0ffs involved in the aggregation of sources into a bubble versus treating them as single sources.
Learn how mobile source regulation breaks from the shared federalism model.
Learn the role of tailoring rules.
Learn why the tailoring rule problem has been used to attack the regulation of GHGs as air pollutants.
I am dividing the class into groups of 4, based on the alphabet. When appropriate, I will make make group assignments as part of the class assignments. You still need to do the full assigned reading, but the groups will present their assigned topics and will have primary responsibility for material. This should make class discussions more interesting and effective. We will take 10 minutes at the beginning of class (be on time) for the groups to meet and discuss their presentations.
Groups A & B will work on Problem: Title V Permitting and Source Determination (pp. 245-60). A represents the company and B will take the position of an environment group that wants these sources aggregated.
Group C – take 10 minutes to tell us what is special about the regulation of MOBILE SOURCES, as compared to the regulation of stationary sources.
Groups D & E – What is the The Tailoring Rule and what legal problems does it post for GHG regulation? Look at the majority and the dissent in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014), as well as any relevant regs or statutes in the book.
Group F – What is issue with BACT for GHG regulation and how does the court resolve this? What does the dissent say about it, and what problems do you anticipate with coming up with standards for it?
Group Last Name
A Barro
A Bounds
A Buller
B Dows
B DuBos
B Dupree
C Falcon
C Knister
C Leger
C Lemoine
D Norfleet
D Pittman
E Ratnayaka
E Reinhardt
E Roy
E Sayers
F Stephens
F Thigpen
We will adjourn class on Thursday at 2:50 to allow you to attend the Energy Law Program described in the graphic below.
Read to Problem: Vernal Pools and Intermittent Streams, p. 314.
Look at the two systems for classifying wetlands on the EPA site: https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/wetlands-classification-and-types
Since we will have an abbreviated class, and we are starting a new law, we will do a general discussion of water and wetlands and pick up with problems next week.
Lemuel Shattuck – Report Of A General Plan For The Promotion Of General And Public Health Devised, Prepared And Recommended By The Commissioners Appointed Under A Resolve Of The Legislature Of Massachusetts, Relating To A Sanitary Survey Of The State. (1850)
The real beginning of the sanitation/clean water movement in the US.
William L. Andreen, The Evolution of Water Pollution Control in the United States—State, Local, and Federal Efforts, 1789–1972, Part I, 22 STAN. ENVTL. L.J. 145 (2003)
William L. Andreen, The Evolution of Water Pollution Control in the United States—State, Local, and Federal Efforts, 1789–1972, Part II, 22 STAN. ENVTL. L.J. 215 (2003).
The Mississippi Delta Cycle and the Fate of Coastal Wetlands in the Face of Sea Level Rise
What is a joule?
We are going to talk about deltas and Louisiana wetlands on Tuesday. This reading will carry over until Thursday. But take the opportunity over the weekend to read it, since it is dense going.
Read to B. POINT SOURCE, page 336.
This is dense reading. Rapanos is an important but crazy case, with no majority opinion.
Group assignments will follow.
State of Louisiana—Highlighting Low-Lying Areas Derived from USGS Digital Elevation Data (large file)
Got a gator on your property? You’ll have to cough up $50 to have it removed, under a new state policy
Environmental Justice Graphic Novel – Mayah’s Lot
Environmental Justice Graphic Novel – Mayah’s Lot – video
Turner RE. Doubt and the values of an ignorance-based world view for restoration: coastal Louisiana wetlands. Estuaries and Coasts. 2009;32(6):1054–68.
Professor Turner is a Boyd Professor at LSU and world famous wetlands scientist. Read this for class and try to get the sense of it, even if you do not understand all the science.
Sediment Diversions: Project Planning, Permitting and Implementation, Governor’s Commission Diversion Sub-Committee (July 23, 2014)
This is a review of CPRA’s proposed diversions.
Who is really going to benefit from restoration projects?
Finish discussion of Louisiana wetlands and restoration
Pictorial Account and Landscape Evolution of the Crevasses near Fort St. Philip, Louisiana
A DELTA FOR ALL: The Baird Team – A DELTA FOR ALL: The Baird Team PDF
Surging Seas Risk Map -New Orleans
Ratcheting up tensions amid crisis, Trump attacks San Juan mayor
NOAA videos on South LA
Windell’s Levee: Protecting a Coastal Community
Leaving Leeville: Losing a Coastal Community
The readings carry over from last Tuesday, before we started the wetlands saga.
Be sure to review the E&E article I emailed to you.
What is the basic structure of the CWA and its core regulatory programs? How is it different from the CAA?
Briefly tell us the constitutional and statutory basis for regulating wetlands. How clear and detailed is the statutory direction? Why does this lead to ambiguity?
How do you fit the vernal pools in our problem within 33 C.F.R. § 328.3. Definitions – the Waters of the United States Rule? Give us a clear set up to contrast with Rapanos.
What is the legal question in Rapanos and how does the Scalia opinion deal with it? How does it differ from 33 C.F.R. § 328.3. ?
Contrast the Kennedy opinion in Rapanos with the Scalia opinion. How does this opinion compare with 33 C.F.R. § 328.3.?
Contrast the dissent in Rapanos with the Scalia and Kennedy opinions. How does this opinion compare with 33 C.F.R. § 328.3.?
Notice of Intent to Sue for Violations of Clean Water Act & Notice of Imminent and Substantial Endangerment and Intent to Sue for Violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act by International Boundary and Water Commission and Veolia Water North America – West LLC
Read to C.Stormwater, page 370
This section does not break into groups very well. I want everyone to be prepared to be on call as we work through the fireworks problem and the 8 hypos under Additional Questions on page 356.
NOAA Tropical Weather Updates
Hurricane Model Plots
Category 1 Hurricane Ophelia: a Rare and Damaging Storm for Ireland
Carbon storage in the Mississippi River delta enhanced by environmental engineering
Another example of misleading reports about restoration on the Mississippi Delta – you can only get the article if you are using a computer on campus.
EPA withdraws Clean Power Plan
This is a developing story with lots of media coverage.
The E.P.A.’s Smoke and Mirrors on Climate
Unacceptable. Repealing the Clean Power Plan is a dangerous mistake; this admin is failing to protect us from climate pollution (thread)
California Burns – updated
The Napa Fire Is A Perfectly Normal Apocalypse
Read to p. 410, Capstone Problem
We will work through the problems. Groups assignments will be posted.
Tell us about storm water – why is it a pollution source, what can be in it, and how does it affect rivers and streams? Why does increasing the level of impermeable surface dramatically impact the watershed? Think about Baton Rouge in specific – how do drainage and flooding concerns further complicate storm water management?
Tell us about legal side of storm water management under the CWA. What are the legal tools? What is exempt from regulation? What is the conflict of interest that cities faces? What other legal issues are raised when you add in drainage concerns? What other tools do cities have to regulate land use that impacts storm water, beyond the CWA?
Problem: Water Quality Certification And Section 404 Permits – page 382. This deals with how far EPA can go in imposing land use restrictions as a condition for a 404 permit. What does your client want to do? What is the 401 certification and what is the state demanding? How do you answer the questions posed by the client in this problem?
Problem: Impaired Waterbodies And TMDLS – p. 390. You represent Timber Creek Alliance. What is a TMDL and how are they implemented? What is missing from them that makes most of the fail? (GAO report)
Problem: Impaired Waterbodies And TMDLS – p. 390. You represent Timber Creek County. What are the potential impacts of a TMDL on the duties of the county and on regulated industries within the country. Tell us about the Pronsolino v. Nastri case, the impact on the plaintiffs, and how the court resolved their challenge.
Problem: Water Quality Certification And Section 402 Permits – p. 403. You represent Timber Creek Vineyard, which wants to expand its business, but will need to build a wastewater treatment plant to do so. Can Timber Creek get a NPDES permit for the new facility? And would it streamline the permitting process to offset the pollutant discharges from the new facility with pollutant discharge reductions at the existing facility?
Hurricane Maria and Puerto Rico
Capstone Problem: Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Map of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Resource materials for you to use when working on the problem:
Am. Farm Bureau Fed’n v. U.S. E.P.A., 792 F.3d 281 (3d Cir. 2015), cert. denied sub nom. Am. Farm Bureau Fed’n v. E.P.A., 136 S. Ct. 1246, 194 L. Ed. 2d 176 (2016)
Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
Anything you can find on the WWW
Association of Pennsylvania Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (POTWs), representing the point source (POTW)
Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, representing the agricultural
Pennsylvania Municipal Authorities Association, representing municipalities that own separate storm sewer systems (MS4s);
Pennsylvania Chamber of Commerce, representing
industrial interests;
PennFuture, representing general environmental interests;
DEP, responsible for allocating nitrogen loadings to each
business sector.
Careers, Community, and Conservation (Jobs in Environmental Law Panel)
Urban storm run off drives fish kills in Puget Sound
Premature deaths from pollution – only visible from on campus
Why Has the E.P.A. Shifted on Toxic Chemicals? An Industry Insider Helps Call the Shots https://nyti.ms/2gW4h6S
China bans import of US solid waste
Finish group work from last class.
Chapter 5 to IV. Regulated Entities, 462.
EPA Information on RCRA
EPA Report on Hazardous Wastes
Look at all three graphs
Where does all that waste go?
Types of disposal wells
Checklist to Assist in Evaluating Whether Commercial Chemical Products are Solid and Hazardous Waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Record-Melting Fall Heat Wave Bakes Southern California
Read to C. TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES, 474.
Tell us about how you use the statutes and what the cases mean.
Group A – EPA
Utility Poles, Part I – p432
What are EPA’s views about whether the following circumstances would
involve a disposal of solid waste for purposes of RCRA: First, if precipitation
comes into contact with a structure owned by a company—for example, a
utility pole—and the precipitation absorbs a chemical from that structure, is
that precipitation a solid waste when it carries the chemical into the ground?
Second, if a structure owned by a company slowly and unavoidably sloughs
off small amounts of material—for example, wood flaking off of a utility
pole—and that material is impregnated with a chemical, are those small
amounts of material a solid waste?
Group B – EPA
Utility Poles, Part I – Part I- p432
I am also seeking EPA’s concurrence with AUA’s view that the following two circumstance do not involve solid waste: First, a company removes old utility poles containing wood impregnated with PCP and sells those poles to a thirdparty who uses the poles to produce wood chips for landscaping. AUA does not believe the poles are a solid waste because they are being reused. Second, a company maintains an outdoor facility for treating utility poles and purchases PCP in ten gallon drums for its operations. Full and partially empty drums of PCP remain on the platform with lids affixed and are used as the company has need for new utility poles. The drums may be left in place for extended periods of time of up to two years. AUA does not believe the full or partially empty drums of PCP are a solid waste because they will be used by the company.
Group C – EPA
Utility Poles, Part II – p453
Group D – EPA
I also seek EPA’s concurrence with AUA’s view that unused PCP that a company has decided not to use is not a hazardous waste so long as the company dilutes it with sufficient water so that the resulting mixture produces TCLP results of less than 100 mg/L of PCP.
PROBLEM: RESTORATION PAINTS – p. 466
PROBLEM: CHEMCO – p473
AFTER THE NAPA FIRES, A DISASTER-IN-WAITING: TOXIC ASH
Govt. scientist blocked from talking about climate and fire
Read to V. Capstone Problem: Enforcing RCRA at p. 501
I have created an Exam Info page which you can see under Pages on the right column of the site. I have posted the exam from the last time I taught environmental law. Different book, different course, so our exam may look a little different.
Citing The Bible, The EPA Just Changed Its Rules For Science Advisers (tip of the hat to Mr. Bounds)
(I am an AAAS member.)
ExxonMobil to spend $300 million on air pollution control in Baton Rouge, Texas to settle Clean Air Act violation
This is the time of year when I start making decisions about coverage so that we can get to all the important stuff. With that in mind, we are not going to take class time to work through the capstone problem. Review the RCRA Civil Penalty Policy starting on page 507, which we will discuss. Then read Chapter 6 to Liability, p. 566. We will run through the overview of CERCLA, and work the following problems next week.
ATSDR’s Substance Priority List
Cancer Cluster Investigations: Review of the Past and Proposals for the Future
Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment
Quick overview – Blockbuster Assessment: Humans Likely Responsible For Virtually All Global Warming Since 1950s
Perhaps the last honest climate report we will see from the federal government.
Impact of population growth and population ethics on climate change mitigation policy
This looks at some of the themes from our discussion last class about population control and migration.
WMO GREENHOUSE GAS BULLETIN No. 13 | 30 October 2017 The State of Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere Based on Global Observations through 2016
A 30 October report from the World Meteorological Organization warned that in 2016, globally averaged concentrations of carbon dioxide surged in 1 year from 400 to 403.3 parts per million, the highest level in 800,000 years
From our discussion from last class, these are examples of the traditional environmentalist view of role of wild nature in human life:
The main author of domesticated nature – managed forests in particular was Gifford Pinchot, who worked with Teddy Roosevelt to establish national parks:
First Forester: The Enduring Conservation Legacy of Gifford Pinchot
Citizen lawsuit provisions under RCRA – Defending RCRA Citizen Suits in the U.S.
Read to V. CLEANUP PROCESS, p. 610
The plan is to finish Chapter 6 next week. I will give you a CERCLA problem on Thursday that you can write, which we will discuss on the next Tuesday. We will also try to start NEPA on that Tuesday, but I want to make sure we have at least 2 days on NEPA.
EPA – National Contingency Plan
Introduction to CERCLA – Slides
New permit from La. regulators allows Noranda plant to continue releasing mercury in air
Letters: Wetlands’ water quality faces threat
Real progress for an LA environmental group
Finish reading the chapter – problem and group assignments will be posted later this morning.
CERCLA Problem Assignments
If there are any mistakes, let me know ASAP!
Experts Ponder Why Administration Released Tough Climate Report
Cory Booker Wants to Tackle the ‘Corporate Villainy’ Behind Environmental Injustice
Chapter 7 to III. Contents of an EIS (or an EA) – p. 680
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Practice Problem (optional)
We are going to use part of the Capstone Problem on 634. You are junior counsel at the EPA and you have been assigned the task of filing an amicus brief in the PowerTech case:
I am asking you to identify arguments that EPA can make in a brief we plan to file as amicus. The issue in the case is whether section 107 provides a cause of action to a PRP like Power-Tech that has been sued by a state, and entered into a consent decree to resolve that suit, thereby falling within the conditions addressed in sections 113(f)(1) and 113(f)(3)(B). I would like you to argue that Power-Tech is limited to seeking contribution under those provisions of section 113 and may not choose, instead, to assert a claim under section 107(a)(4)(B). You should also consider why EPA is interested in this case at all. (636)
This problem includes some close reading of the statutes and the Atlantic Research case, as well as making the policy argument for the EPA that supports their position. You can use up to 1000 words. You are limited to using your book as research material. To have the best exam experience, try to do this in 90 minutes. Single space your exercise and email it to me by noon on Sunday, 12 Nov. to give me time to mark them up by class, where I will return them.
Read to B. REFORMING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT LAWS? p. 718
Barro, DuBos, Long, Roy
PROBLEM: JAMES RIVER UTILITY LINE CROSSING, PART I
You are advising the Corps and Dominion. What position(s) would your client take on the basic question of whether an EIS should be prepared? What arguments would you use to advocate for that position? What legal risks, if any, do you perceive?
Bounds, Dupree, McBride, Sayers
You are advising the National Parks Conservation Association and Lower James Riverkeeper. What position(s) would your client take on the basic question of whether an EIS should be prepared? What arguments would you use to advocate for that position? What legal risks, if any, do you perceive?
Buller, Falcon, Norfleet, Stephens
PROBLEM: JAMES RIVER UTILITY LINE CROSSING, PART II
You represent the Corps in this problem. How do you defend the Corp’s decision to only analyze some of the available alternatives?
Cunningham, Knister, Pittman, Stewart
You represent the environmental groups, James River Alliance, and the National Parks Conservation Association. How do you attack the Corp’s decision to only analyze some of the available alternatives?
Downer, Leger, Ratnayaka, Thigpen
PROBLEM: NEPA, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND MINERAL LEASING
You are counsel to Secretary Zinke. While staying within the regs and cases, Secretary Zinke wants to downplay climate change as much as possible in the NEPA analysis for mineral leases. How do you defend his position?
Dows, Lemoine, Reinhardt, Wilson (MS. Wilson will not be with us)
You represent the Sierra Club. You see mineral leasing as the most significant threat to public lands, as well as a major issue in climate change. How do you attack DOI’s position limiting the consideration of climate change?
Endangered Species Act under attack
People v. Conagra Grocery Prod. Co., No. H040880, 2017 WL 5437485 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2017)
Appeals court upholds public nuisance claim that requires paint companies to pay to remove lead paint in homes built before 1950 in California. This will push a billion dollars and is the first big verdict against companies that made lead paint or pigment.
Protesters Jeer as Trump Team Promotes Coal at U.N. Climate Talks
Skim the rest of the book. I will do a brief overview of the endangered species act and we will talk about the future of NEPA in the face of climate change. This will not be exam material, but it is good general information.
The online class evaluations are now available, so you should do those.
Introduction to the Endangered Species Act – Fish and Wildlife Service