Source: http://eem.jacksonkelly.com/2010/03/index.html
Timestamp: 2017-03-27 22:19:50
Document Index: 574476562

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 9601', '§ 106', '§ 128', '§ 104', '§ 1321', '§ 300', '§ 60']

Energy and Environment Monitor: March 2010
U.S. EPA Proposes to Amend the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases by Adding Source Categories
The Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule currently requires suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial greenhouse gases, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions to submit annual reports to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”). On March 22, 2010, (“USEPA”) signed several proposed rules to amend the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule by adding source categories. These include:
·	Subpart A: General Provisions: Corporate Parent/NAICS Amendments
·	Subpart W: Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems
·	Subpart RR: Carbon Dioxide Injection and Geologic Sequestration
·	Subpart I: Electronics Manufacturing
·	Subpart L: Fluorinated Gas Production
·	Subpart DD: Imports and Exports of Equipment Precharged with Fluorinated GHGs or Containing Fluorinated GHGs in Closed-cell Foams
·	Subpart OOa: Use of Electric Transmission and Distribution Equipment
·	Subpart SS: Manufacture of Electric Transmission and Distribution Equipment
These amendments expand the applicability of the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. Two of these proposed rules are particularly interesting and include the Subpart W: Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems and Subpart RR: Carbon Dioxide Injection and Geologic Sequestration.
The proposed Subpart W Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems rule will require petroleum and natural gas facilities emitting more than 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2 equivalent per year to report their greenhouse gas emissions to USEPA. Facilities will be required to begin data collection January 1, 2011 and submit their first reports to USEPA on March 31, 2012 for their 2011 emissions. The definition of “facilities” differs from the remainder of the rule and for this subpart facilities will include: offshore petroleum and natural gas production, onshore natural gas production, onshore natural gas processing, gas transmission, underground natural gas storage, LNG storage and LNG import and export facilities, onshore production and natural gas distribution facilities. USEPA expects the estimated average cost to be $18,000 per facility for the first year and $8,000 in subsequent years. This proposal will be open for public comment for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. A public hearing will be held on this proposal on April 19, 2010 in Arlington, Virginia.
Proposed Subpart RR Carbon Dioxide Injection and Geologic Sequestration will require mandatory reporting of greenhouse gases from facilities that inject carbon dioxide underground for the purposes of geologic sequestration or enhanced oil recovery (“EOR”) adding this new source category to the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. According to USEPA, this “proposal is complementary to and builds on [US]EPA’s proposed rule for Federal Requirements under the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide Geologic Sequestration Wells;” however, it will not change any requirements for obtaining or complying with UIC permits. It will require a monitoring strategy for detecting potential emissions to the atmosphere and reporting of data to verify the total amount of CO2 sequestered. Long-term geologic sequestration facilities will also be required to: Develop and implement a USEPA approved site-specific monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) plan
Report the amount of CO2 geologically sequestered using a mass balance approach. However, these two additional provisions would not apply to EOR operations or geologic sequestration research and development projects unless the facility chooses to opt-in. USEPA estimates the annual cost of reporting for each facility to be $4,000. The first annual reports will be due March 31, 2012 to USEPA for 2011. This proposal will be open for public comment for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. A public hearing will be held on this proposal on April 19, 2010 in Arlington, Virginia.
The addition of new source categories to Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule is quite interesting and will require time to see the full effect of this rulemaking. This article was authored by Laura G. Swingle, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author see here.
Climate Change Headlines: 3/22/2010: Senate Climate Bill Compromises Frighten, Infuriate Some Enviro Groups
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/03/22/22greenwire-senate-climate-bill-compromises-frighten-infur-27214.html
3/23/2010: Global Warming Is Fact, and Denial Won't Change Climate Back
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/03/23/global-warming-is-fact-and-denial-wont-change-climate-back.html
3/23/2010: France backs down on carbon tax plan
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iqlWaYJZL-_4TxvZopu3B562kpOA
3/24/2010: Climate law won't hurt California economy, report says
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-climate24-2010mar24,0,4447193.story
3/24/2010: Scientist: Don't blame cows for climate change
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/science/03/24/meat.industry.global.warming/?hpt=Sbin
3/25/2010: ‘Green Fund’ for Climate Change Proposed by IMF Staff
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-25/-green-fund-for-climate-change-proposed-by-imf-staff-update1-.html
3/25/2010: ‘Cap and Trade’ Loses Its Standing as Energy Policy of Choice
3/26/2010: Desperation looks good fighting climate change: geoscientist Broecker
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/indepth/2010-03/27/c_13226605.htm
3/28/2010: The outsider: Climate change is a fight beyond governments
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-toi/all-that-matters/The-outsider-Climate-change-is-a-fight-beyond-governments/articleshow/5733698.cms
3/28/2010: UN to look at climate meat link
http://www.ethiopianreview.com/news/26277
Environmental Groups Seek EPA Takeover of Kentucky Water Program
Four environmental organizations have filed a formal petition asking the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) withdraw approval of Kentucky’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) program on the grounds that it inadequately controls discharges from coal mining operations. The Clean Water Act (“CWA”) vests in U.S. EPA the primary authority to regulate discharges into the nation’s water. The CWA also, however, permitted states to submit their NPDES programs to U.S. EPA for approval. Approval by U.S. EPA allows a state to regulate discharges to the waters within its boundaries, with EPA exercising minimal oversight authority. A petition seeking U.S. EPA’s withdrawal of delegation of a state program is a drastic step effectively requesting the agency to take over regulation of discharges into the state’s waters. The issues raised in the petition are summarized as follows. 1.	Toxicity testing. The petition cites to Whole Effluent Toxicity “WET” testing by EPA in West Virginia and Kentucky, claiming that all 8 of the sites sampled in Kentucky exhibited toxicity in excess of State standards. According to page 4 of the petition, EPA conducted the WET testing at sites with conductivity over 1000 uS/cm. It appears that about half the sites had conductivity values over 2,000. Toxicity appeared greater in Kentucky than in West Virginia from similar conductivity levels. The WET test report indicates that EPA took pH measurements at each site, but Table 1 of the report does not include those measurements. 2.	Selenium. The petition charges that Kentucky has effectively “exempted” the coal industry from the chronic water quality criterion of 5 ppb. The petition urges a requirement that core sampling be required for selenium bearing strata (as is required in certain seams and geographic areas in WV). The petition includes a map with USGS core sampling results across West Virginia and Kentucky as likely hot spots, and on page 15 discusses reported selenium concentrations at one site in eastern Kentucky. 3.	General Water Quality Standards Issues a.	Conductivity: the petition claims that Kentucky has failed to “enforce its narrative standard for conductivity.” It notes that the Kentucky standard provides that “total dissolved solids or specific conductance shall not be changed to the extent that the indigenous aquatic community is adversely affected.” The petition cites the EPA "Pond-Passmore" study as evidence of a strong correlation between benthic impacts and conductivity. That study, however, “double counted” sensitive mayfly species to the genus level. Recent work by WVDEP shows that conductivity is a poor indicator of benthic impacts when more conventional benthic matrices are used. b.	Iron: The petition claims that Kentucky has gutted the chronic criterion for iron by applying it only where there has been demonstrated c.	Aluminum: the petition claims that Kentucky has failed to adopt an aquatic life criterion despite the fact that coal mine effluent (not necessarily in-stream) concentrations frequently exceed EPA's recommended acute criterion of 750 ug/L and despite the fact that West Virginia has such a standard. 4.	The petition complains about the pace of 303(d) stream listing (the list of "impaired" streams) and the issuance of Total Maximum Daily Loads (“TMDL's”) to achieve water quality standards. 5. The petition contends that Kentucky must make someone hold NPDES permits at abandoned mine sites—both pre and post-SMCRA sites. In West Virginia, these same lawyers have secured rulings in federal court requiring WVDEP to hold NPDES permits where it is the trustee of the State's reclamation bond pool at post-SMCRA forfeiture sites. To view a copy of the petition, click here: http://wvgazette.com/static/coal%20tattoo/KYwaterpetition.pdf This article was authored by Chris M. Hunter, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author see here.
Posted on March 29, 2010 | Permalink
Competing Bills Setting Forth a Clean Energy Portfolio Standard Filed in Kentucky General Assembly: Part I; House Bill 408
On February 9, 2010, State Representatives Harry Moberly (D-Madison), Dennis Horlander (D-Jefferson), Mary Lou Marzian (D-Jefferson), and Jim Wayne (D-Jefferson) filed House Bill 408 in the Kentucky General Assembly. HB 408 purports to encourage greater energy efficiency, conservation, and the use of renewable resources in the Kentucky energy sector. State Representative Rocky Adkins (D-Sandy Hook) filed a competing Bill, House Bill 3, in the Kentucky General Assembly on March 2, 2010. Both Bills were referred to the House Natural Resources & Environment Committee. As of the writing of this article, only HB 3 has been posted for consideration by the Committee.
HB 408 would create new sections of KRS Chapter 278 to define renewable forms of energy that may be used to satisfy requirements of a renewable energy portfolio standard. However, while HB 3 focuses on low-carbon energy generation, HB 408 focuses on comprehensive low-income residential energy efficiency programs as the primary method to meet the benchmark requirements. HB 408 does not contain tax incentives or subsidies, but rather would allow electric suppliers to fully recover the costs of renewable energy and energy efficiency programs from their customers, subject to the Public Service Commission’s review and approval. HB 408 makes no provision for the use of nuclear power or for the use of coal with carbon capture and storage technology. In fact, certain language in the Bill can be interpreted to phase out the use of coal entirely within the next century.
The Bill would require the reduction of electricity use by at least 10.25% of all retail sales by 2020 through the use of efficiency programs. The Bill seeks to accomplish this by setting goals for annual and cumulative energy savings over time. As drafted, the Bill would require these annual and cumulative goals to increase by 2% annually in perpetuity. Additionally, at least 10% of the energy savings in any given year would have to be achieved through comprehensive low-income residential energy efficiency programs. The Bill would further require 12.5% of Kentucky’s electricity use to come from renewable resources by 2020 and at least 2% of Kentucky’s total electricity use to come from solar. Past 2020, the use of solar and other renewable resources is required to increase 1% annually over the previous year’s minimum requirement in perpetuity. An electric supplier will not be permitted to build new non-renewable facilities until the supplier is in compliance with these goals.
Beginning on January 1, 2013, HB 408 would require baseline and annual reports on the progress achieved in complying with the renewable energy portfolio standards or progress in complying with alternative requirements for comprehensive low-income residential energy efficiency programs from regulated retail electric service providers to the Public Service Commission. The Bill would require similar baseline and annual reports from city-owned or city-controlled electric generators to the Environment and Public Protection Cabinet.
HB 408 would also impose a number of additional reporting requirements. For example, the Bill would require retail electric providers and city-owned or city-controlled electric service providers to post the annual progress reports on their websites and require retail electric service providers to file renewable energy and energy efficiency implementation plans with the Public Service Commission by January 1, 2011, and biennially thereafter. Renewable energy and energy efficiency implementation plans would have to be filed with the Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet beginning September 1, 2018 and every fifth year thereafter. Public Service Commission would be required to file a summary report on the status and extent of implementation of renewable energy and energy efficiency programs with the Legislative Research Commission beginning September 1, 2018, and every fifth year thereafter. The Public Service Commission will have to produce, file, and present to a meeting of the Interim Joint Special Subcommittee on Energy a report describing the status of renewable energy in Kentucky, whether the renewable energy and energy programs have been cost-effective, the impact the programs have had on employment in Kentucky, and the impact of the programs on the cost of electricity in the state. In addition to the above requirements, HB 408 would require all retail electric suppliers to revise filed tariffs to incorporate the installation of load interrupters as a term of service for existing and new residential customers that utilize central air conditioning systems. Each retail electric supplier would have to report annually to the Public Service Commission and to residential customers regarding the number of days during the previous year for which load interruption was utilized in order to moderate peak demand, the duration of each load interruption, and the avoided costs attributable to the management of peak demand by load interruption.
This article was co-authored by Kevin McGuire and Mary Beth Naumann, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the authors see (McGuire) here and (Naumann) here. Posted on March 26, 2010 | Permalink
EPA Issues Final Rule on Renewable Fuel Standard 2
On February 3, 2010, EPA issued its final rule to implement the renewable fuel standards mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Some of the highlights of these new regulations are described below. RFS 2 as it is known requires 36 million gallons of renewable fuel by 2022 with separate obligations for advanced biofuels, biomass-based diesel and cellulosic biofuels. Eligible fuels are now defined by their lifecycle greenhouse gas ("GHG") profile. According to EPA, primary changes in the RFS program are as follows:
1.	Expansion of the applicable volumes of renewable fuel.
2.	Separation of the volume requirements into four separate categories of renewable fuel, with corresponding changes to the RIN and to the applicable standards.
3.	New definitions of renewable fuel, advanced biofuel, biomass-based diesel, and cellulosic biofuel.
4.	New requirement that renewable fuels meet certain lifecycle emission reduction thresholds.
5.	New definition of renewable biomass from which renewable fuels can be made, including certain land use restrictions.
6.	Expansion of the types of fuels that are subject to the standards to include diesel.
7.	Inclusion of specific types of waivers for different categories of renewable fuels and, in certain circumstances, EPA-generated credits for cellulosic biofuel.
Two of the most discussed issues to be addressed in the final rule were (a) whether EPA would change the definition of "obligated party" to place the obligation for obtaining RINs on blenders instead of refiners and importers and (b) whether EPA would grant a waiver for a 15% ethanol blend ("E-15"). As to the first issue, while EPA recognized the potential problems presented by placing the renewable volume obligation ("RVO") on refiners who did not act also as blenders, EPA noted its market would provide opportunities for parties in need of RINs to require them from parties who have excess RINs. As a result, a blender who obtains ethanol from which the RINs have not been separated will generate RINs upon blending and have no renewable volume obligation. Those RINs will be available for sale in the EPA established marketplace. As to the second issue, EPA did not grant a waiver for E-15 and consequently did not deal with the issue of dispenser pump labeling for different ethanol blends. Under RFS 2, the production or import of diesel will give rise to a renewable fuels obligation under RFS 2. As a result, the definition of "obligated party" is expanded to include those who produce motor vehicle, non-road, locomotive and marine diesel fuel. The calculation of RVOs follows the same format as the RFS I regulations with one exception. The standard for a particular year must be multiplied by the sum of gasoline and diesel volume produced or imported by the obligated party in that year.
The regulations establish renewable fuel requirements for years through 2022 and provide a separate requirement for cellulosic biofuel, biofuel-based diesel and advanced biofuel. See Table 1 below. By the year 2022, cellulosic biofuel and advanced biofuel will have essentially replaced ethanol produced from corn starch. The four RFS 2 RVOs for each obligated party will be calculated on the basis of gasoline and diesel fuel produced in the year in question.
EISA RENEWABLE FUEL VOLUME REQUIREMENTS
Cellulosic biofuel requirement
Biomass-based diesel requirement
Advanced biofuel requirement
Total renewable fuel requirement
A = To be determined by EPA through a future rulemaking, but not less than 1.0 billion gallons.
B = To be determined by EPA through a future rulemaking.
Any renewable fuel that meets the requirement for cellulosic biofuel or biomass-based diesel is valid for meeting the advanced biofuel requirement. Any renewable fuel that meets the requirement for advanced biofuel is valid for meeting the total renewable fuel requirement. While some RINs satisfy the requirements of more than one standard, they may not be used to meet more than one RVO in any given year. In regard to the requirement that renewable fuels meet certain lifecycle emission reduction thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions ("GHG"), ethanol derived from corn starch must achieve a 20% reduction in GHG's over the gasoline or diesel fuel it replaced. Advanced Biofuel, a renewable fuel other than ethanol derived from corn starch, must reduce GHG emissions by at least 50% over the gasoline or diesel it replaces. Cellulosic Biofuel is renewable fuel derived from cellulose, hemicellulose, or lignin which originate from renewable biomass. Cellulosic Biofuel must achieve a lifecycle GHG emission reduction of at least 60%. Biomass-Based Diesel includes both biodiesel and non-ester renewable diesel (including cellulosic diesel). Its lifecycle GHG emissions must be at least 50% less than the diesel fuel it replaces.
In the rulemaking, EPA announced the results of its current modeling regarding GHG reductions as follows:
·	Ethanol produced from corn starch at a new (or expanded capacity from an existing) natural gas-fired facility using advanced efficient technologies that we expect will be most typical of new production facilities complies with the 20% GHG emission reduction threshold.
·	Biobutanol from corn starch complies with the 20% GHG threshold. Ethanol produced from sugarcane complies with the applicable 50% GHG reduction threshold for the advanced fuel category.
·	Biodiesel from soy oil and renewable diesel from waste oils, fats, and greases complies with the 50% GHG threshold for the biomass-based diesel category.
·	Diesel produced from algal oils complies with the 50% GHG threshold for the biomass-based diesel category.
·	Cellulosic ethanol and cellulosic diesel (based on currently modeled pathways) comply with the 60% GHG reduction threshold applicable to cellulosic biofuels.
Posted on March 24, 2010 | Permalink
Climate Change Headlines: 3/15/2010: Weather bureau backs climate change verdict
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/15/2846524.htm?section=justin
3/15/2010: New legal panel to focus on climate change
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/15/2845759.htm
3/16/2010: Gallup: Environmental concerns hit 20-year low in U.S.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/03/gallup-environmental-concerns-hit-20-year-low-in-us/1
3/16/2010: China and India to Report their Global Warming Pollution Every 2 Years
3/17/2010: Brown’s Government Says Carbon Plants Will Add 100,000 Jobs
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-17/brown-s-government-says-carbon-plants-will-add-100-000-jobs.html
3/17/2010: UN climate envoy expects dual-track negotiations
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jgEChLfSlnFM9sVxr1mcG_iYxHvgD9EFPGC00
3/18/2010: US ambassador urges China cooperation on Iran
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jzzULJt2ZiW2IZR3KKuViEpbOAlQD9EGVOVG0
3/18/2010: Cancun Climate Talks Get Dim Prognosis for Success BusinessWeek
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-18/cancun-climate-talks-get-dim-prognosis-for-success-update1-.html
3/19/2010: Report: Global warming treaty monitoring needed
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/03/report-global-warming-treaty-monitoring-fixes-needed/1
3/20/2010: Even the Auto Industry Wants Climate Change ActionEnergy Collective (blog)http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/61420
Posted on March 23, 2010 | Permalink
USEPA Expected to Propose CCS Rule
On March 8, 2010, the Office of Management and Budget finished its regulatory review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (“USEPA”) proposed rulemaking for carbon dioxide injection and geologic sequestration reporting. Thus USEPA is soon expected to publish notice of the proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register.
According to www.regulations.gov, “the Agency is initiating this separate rulemaking to specifically address geologic sequestration (GS). The rule would outline new requirements for GHG reporting for CO2 injection, including GS sites. In addition to tracking CO2 emissions across CO2 capture and injection, this rule would allow EPA to collect data on efficacy of GS sites for long-term storage of CO2.”
Enviros Push for NEPA Review of Climate Impact of Powder River Basin Mining
Environmentalists are launching a new strategy to potentially limit the mining of coal in the Powder River Basin. According to a recent article titled Activists Target Coal Burning Projects Through NEPA GHG Mine Reviews, published in http://carboncontrolnews.com/, the strategy involves seeking consideration of greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts from coal combustion as part of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews for mines in the Powder River Basin. According to the article, Environmentalists at a March 9, 2010 meeting with White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) argued that Federal land management agencies should have to consider the climate impacts of burning coal as part of ongoing NEPA reviews for one dozen proposed coal mine expansions in Wyoming. Currently, NEPA requires federal agencies to review the environmental impacts of their decisions and issue either an environmental assessment or a more comprehensive environmental impact statement (such as the one performed on the Spruce mine of West Virginia). Agencies must also consider measures to mitigate the environmental impacts of a project, including less-harmful alternatives. Under current regulations, coal largely escapes NEPA scrutiny at power plants because most coal-fired power plants are not built on federal land and are permitted by states. Due to this lack of a federal role (or oversight) in the process, NEPA is rarely triggered for such facilities. Environmentalists, however, are pushing to have coal combustion GHG emissions considered in coal mine leasing EIS reviews by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). According to the environmentalists, the Federal land managers who approve these leases should consider the emissions because a 2009 executive order from the Obama administration (which calls on agencies to reduce the direct and indirect GHG emissions from their activities) mandates the consideration of emissions resulting from mined coal to be considered an “indirect” climate impact of coal mines under NEPA. The 2009 order preceded CEQ’s announcement that it would be developing specific guidance for GHG’s under NEPA. CEQ is currently taking comments on the proposed guidance until May 24, 2010. The proposed guidance says CEQ is seeking comment on “the appropriate means of assessing the GHG emissions and sequestration that are affected by Federal Land and resource management decisions.” According to the article in Carbon Control News, CEQ has recently said its guidance would not apply GHG considerations to land use projects, and notes that “[l]and management techniques, including changes in land use or land management strategies, lack any established federal protocol for assessing their effect on atmospheric carbon release and sequestration at a landscape scale.” As previously stated, the comment period is open until May 24, 2010, giving both sides sufficient time to express their opinion on the subject. This article was authored by Matthew S. Tyree, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author see here.
U.S. EPA Region III and WVDEP Sign Memorandum of Agreement for Voluntary Remediation Program
Following more than ten years of negotiations, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Region III and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) finally signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on February 24, 2010, for the West Virginia Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP). The MOA relates only to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et seq. (CERCLA, also known as Superfund) and applies only prospectively. Nonetheless, the signing of the MOA marks a significant milestone for the WVDEP and the remediation of sites that are contaminated or perceived to be contaminated in West Virginia. Absent exceptional circumstances, the MOA offers liability protection for anyone cleaning up contaminated properties in West Virginia under the VRP from actions brought by U.S. EPA under CERCLA. For a copy of the MOA, click here. In the MOA, U.S. EPA agrees generally to refrain from bringing an administrative or judicial enforcement action under CERCLA for sites that are being cleaned up under the VRP subject to four exceptions. The specific forbearance language is found in Section IV.B of the MOA and reads as follows: “U.S. EPA does not anticipate taking an administrative or judicial enforcement action under CERCLA §§ 106(a) or 107(a) against a person regarding a specific release at an eligible response site that is being addressed by that person in compliance with the VRP requirements.” This language -- “does not anticipate taking”-- is similar to language found in U.S. EPA’s MOAs with other states for their voluntary cleanup programs. The four exceptions to U.S. EPA’s forbearance are set forth in CERCLA § 128(b). They are: (1) West Virginia requests U.S. EPA’s assistance in the performance of a response action; (2) contamination has migrated or will migrate across a state line or onto federal property; (3) a release or threatened release may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or the environment and additional response actions are likely to be necessary to address, prevent, limit or mitigate the release or threatened release; and (4) information discovered after the approval or completion of a cleanup establishes that the contamination or conditions at the site present a threat requiring further remediation to protect public health or the environment. The applicability of the liability protection offered by the MOA is limited temporally and in scope. The MOA does not apply to sites that were cleaned up under the VRP before February 24, 2010, the effective date of the MOA. In addition, the MOA relates only to cleanups that satisfy CERCLA. It does not affect hazardous waste remediation at facilities subject to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C cleanup requirements or environmental cleanups pertaining to leaking underground storage tanks under RCRA Subtitle I. Nor does it affect cleanups of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act. While the MOA is not a “one cleanup program” agreement, it does document U.S. EPA’s recognition and approval of the VRP. For example, U.S. EPA Region III acknowledges in Section III.A of the MOA the “comprehensive” nature of the VRP. In particular, U.S. EPA Region III states its support for “the use of the WVDEP’s VRP 60 C.S.R. III comprehensive cleanup rules at properties where this approach is appropriate for achieving timely and protective cleanups.” (Emphasis added). Importantly, West Virginia and U.S. EPA Region III continue to discuss a separate memorandum of understanding for the VRP to address RCRA.	The MOA applies to contaminated or potentially contaminated properties, commonly called “brownfields,” that are “eligible response sites” as defined in CERCLA and that are cleaned up under the WVDEP’s oversight pursuant to the VRP. Because the MOA offers liability protection from CERCLA, it does not apply to “[a]ny site that is the subject of a federal enforcement or response action under CERCLA.” This includes “an administrative order, a judicial order, a permit, an injunction, a consent decree, a CERCLA general or special notice letter, or an information request letter under CERCLA § 104(e).” Other sites ineligible for the liability protection offered by the MOA include: (1) a facility that is listed or proposed for listing on the NPL; (2) a facility that is subject to a unilateral administrative order, court order, administrative order on consent or judicial consent decree that has been issued to or entered into by the parties, or a facility to which a permit has been issued, under RCRA, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1321, TSCA, or the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300f et seq.; (3) a facility that is subject to RCRA corrective action or to which a RCRA corrective action permit or order has been issued; (4) a land disposal unit with respect to which a RCRA Subtitle C closure notification has been submitted and closure requirements have been specified in a closure plan or permit; (5) a federal facility; (6) a portion of a facility at which there has been a release of PCBs; and (7) a portion of a facility, for which portion assistance for response activity has been obtained under RCRA Subtitle I from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund.	In addition, anyone seeking CERCLA liability protection under this MOA should be careful not to rely on the “deemed” approved language in West Virginia’s Voluntary Remediation and Redevelopment Rule at 60 CSR. § 60-3-10.3.c. Under the Rule, certain work plans or reports required to be submitted under the VRP are “deemed” approved if the WVDEP fails to approve or disaapprove the document within the time period specified in the Rule “unless such work plans or reports are determined to be materially inaccurate.” This language was inserted in West Virginia’s Voluntary Remediation and Redevelopment Rule, and agreed to by the WVDEP, to help achieve cleanups in a timely manner. The MOA, however, does not apply to any plan, report, or other document required to be submitted under the VRP that is “deemed” approved. Entities wishing to obtain CERCLA liability protection will need to have all of their plans, reports, or other documents required to be submitted under the VRP approved by the WVDEP.	This article was authored by Gale Lea Rubrecht, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author, see here.
Climate Change Headlines: 3/6/2010: Environmental rules, regulations enter into 2010
http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_14483541
3/6/2010: Three States Sue EPA Over Global Warming Ruling
3/8/2010: A Climate-Change Chameleon
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703936804575106994107831352.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopBucket
3/8/2010: Vietnam to get $790 mln climate change funding
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKHAN50817520100308
3/8/2010: Climate change science: the evidence is clear
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/08/2839760.htm?site=thedrum
3/9/2010: When Goods Get Traded, Who Pays for the CO2?
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1970662,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
3/9/2010: Post Carbon
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/08/AR2010030802308.html
3/10/2010: EPA Losing PR War on Climate Change
http://www.nacsonline.com/NACS/News/Daily/Pages/ND0310102.aspx
3/10/2010: China unsure on warming cause, to stick with CO2 cuts
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/developmental-issues/China-unsure-on-warming-cause-to-stick-with-CO2-cuts-/articleshow/5668223.cms
3/13/2010: NOAA director urges better explanations of climate
The Associated Presshttp://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5izQWR3jqOcjYYhQoCW_2NWYSAGtgD9ED90P80