Source: https://thelawreviews.co.uk/edition/the-environment-and-climate-change-law-review-edition-2/1153441/united-states
Timestamp: 2018-06-25 06:28:24
Document Index: 79872135

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 400', 'art 116', 'art 263', 'art 171', 'art 264', 'art 279', 'art 302', 'art 300', 'art 50', 'art 60', 'art 80', 'art 73', 'art 790', 'art 747', 'art 261', 'arts 264', 'art 280', 'art 257', 'arts 257', 'art 11']

United States - The Environment and Climate Change Law Review - Edition 2 - The Law Reviews
US environmental law had its impetus with Earth Day in 1970, when millions of people demonstrated in favour of environmental reform. EPA was created in 1970, and the Clean Air Act was passed that year. Those events were followed by the enactment of the Clean Water Act in 1972, the Solid Waste Disposal Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act in 1976, and the Superfund Law in 1980. A complex and lengthy set of implementing regulations have been promulgated by EPA over the years, set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations, the printed version of which is more than 3 feet wide. During the 2016 presidential campaign, the President-elect, Donald Trump, promised to scale back government regulation and criticised the Obama administration’s Climate Action Plan. In the fall of 2017, EPA announced an intent to repeal the Clean Power Plan and to narrow the definition of waters of the United States subject to federal regulation. A more business-friendly climate, including support for oil and gas production on publicly owned lands, can be expected. The full scope of environmental policies the new administration will pursue remains to be seen, but a change in federal direction and priorities is clearly evident. In the meantime, various state and local government entities are actively pursuing their own climate change and other environmental programmes and plans, given their dim expectations for progress at the federal level.
The principal sources of environmental law are statutes enacted by the US Congress and signed by the President, as well as common law that addresses personal injuries and related matters. Federal statutes that address air quality, water quality, chemicals, and solid and hazardous waste are discussed below. Numerous other US laws, such as those involving endangered species, marine mammal protection, noise control, surface mining control, oil pollution, and coastal zone management, are beyond the scope of this chapter, as are laws of individual states that in some cases have developed more stringent environmental programmes.
With respect to treaty obligations, the United States is a signatory to the 1987 Montreal Protocol to phase out chlorofluorocarbons, and the 2016 Kigali Agreement concerning the use of hydrofluorocarbons, chemicals with high climate-change potential. The United States is also a signatory to the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, which is discussed below.
US national environmental laws are principally implemented by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA headquarters in Washington, DC focuses on the development of regulations and national policy. The 10 EPA regional offices focus on implementation and enforcement. Other agencies, such as the US Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior address environmental issues in the context of managing federal lands. The US Army Corps of Engineers has responsibilities with respect to activities in waters of the United States. The US Department of Justice represents EPA and other federal agencies in lawsuits seeking to enforce or challenge agency regulations. In addition, states may be delegated authority to implement and enforce federal environmental laws within their respective states, upon EPA approval of the state’s programme. State environmental programmes are in general not pre-empted, and in some cases states have developed their own programmes that are more stringent than federal programmes.
Environmental enforcement is accomplished through federal and state administrative civil and judicial actions as well as citizen suits. The operation of manufacturing facilities generally requires one or more permits, and companies are subject to civil and possible criminal liability if they operate without a required permit or violate the terms of their permits. In addition, there are a number of air, water and waste requirements established by regulation or statute, the violation of which is enforceable. In enforcement proceedings, the government may seek to require compliance and to recover penalties. In criminal suits, the government typically focuses on conduct that undermines the integrity of the law, such as submitting false information to the government, or egregious conduct that creates significant injury to the public or the environment. The major US environmental statutes also give citizens the right to sue to seek compliance by regulated entities if federal enforcement is lacking.
The environmental laws discussed below provide that EPA actions, such as the promulgation of regulations and the issuance of permits, are subject to judicial review in the US federal courts. They also allow citizens to bring lawsuits to compel compliance with regulatory requirements and to compel EPA to perform a non-discretionary duty. I will not dwell on those provisions in discussing the individual statutory programmes.
The air, water and waste statutes discussed below require companies to submit permit applications containing information concerning operations and discharges to EPA or a delegated state agency. Companies are also generally required by their permits to monitor their compliance and submit regular reports to regulatory agencies. Such environmental information is considered information available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, and EPA’s regulations and similar state laws.
The US Securities and Exchange Commission has adopted rules and policies to require companies to disclose environmental liabilities to the extent necessary to make financial statements not misleading.2 For example, the SEC requires disclosure of certain costs of complying with environmental laws, of environmental litigation, and of risk factors that make an investment risky. Climate change must also be considered when preparing disclosures.
Several federal environmental statutes protect employees from discrimination or retaliation for reporting violations of environmental laws. These statutes include the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Clean Water Act and Superfund.3
The regulatory framework of several key environmental programmes is summarised below. Please refer to the statutes and regulations themselves for a more complete and detailed understanding of these programmes.
The CAA, enacted in 1970, was the first modern federal environmental control statute.4 It established a federal and state partnership for the development and implementation of air quality regulation. The CAA was amended significantly in 1977 and again in 1990.
EPA adopts national air quality standards (NAAQS) pursuant to Section 109 of the Act.5 These standards are designed to protect public health and welfare. Standards have been established for six pollutants: sulphur dioxide, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone and lead.6
The NAAQS are implemented through state implementation plans (SIPs).7 The SIPs are regulations setting forth specific emission limitations designed to attain and maintain the NAAQS. The plans are developed by the states and submitted to EPA for approval. Once approved, the SIPs are enforceable by both the states and the federal government.
In 1977 Congress added a new Part D to the CAA, addressing problems of continuing non-attainment of the NAAQS. It required emission limits based on ‘reasonably available control technology’ (RACT) for all existing major sources.8 The 1977 amendments also required, for new sources in non-attainment areas, pre-construction permits based on attainment of the ‘lowest achievable emission rate’ (LAER).9 The 1977 amendments required pre-construction review and permits for major new sources in attainment areas, which are to achieve limits based on the ‘best available control technology’ (BACT).10 In addition, SIPs in attainment areas must assure that maximum allowable ‘increments’ (or increases in the concentration of pollutants) shall not be exceeded.11
In 1990 Congress enacted CAA amendments that revised the provisions for areas not attaining the national ambient air quality standards, strengthened automotive tailpipe and fuel requirements, expanded the number of hazardous air pollutants regulated, added requirements for the electric utility industry to control acid rain, and established an important program of operating permits for existing facilities.12
In ozone non-attainment areas, ‘major sources’ of criteria pollutants are required to apply all reasonably available control technologies (RACT).13 Sources in ‘serious’ PM10 areas must apply best available control measures.14
Major new sources of VOCs and NOx in ozone non-attainment areas must have emission offsets, which vary according to the area’s classification.15 In addition, special rules apply in serious, severe and extreme ozone non-attainment areas.
In ozone non-attainment areas, SIPs must include motor vehicle emissions control inspection and maintenance programmes of varying stringency depending upon the area’s classification.16 In carbon dioxide non-attainment areas classified as serious, SIPs must require oxygenated gasoline in certain areas if necessary to attain the NAAQS by the attainment deadline.17 In some cases, states may be required to institute transportation control measures to offset growth or bring emissions within projected levels.
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act authorises EPA to promulgate standards of performance for new stationary sources.18 These standards are to require the degree of emission limitation achievable by ‘the best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any non-air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.’19 EPA has established standards of performance for a number of industry categories, including steam generating units, incinerators, petroleum refineries, steel plants, kraft pulp mills, automotive surface coating, synthetic organic chemicals plants and natural gas processing plants.20
Section 202 of the Clean Air Act authorises EPA to establish motor vehicle emission standards.21 The Act also authorises EPA to regulate fuels. Pursuant to Section 211 of the Act, EPA has promulgated two sets of standards that limit the lead content of fuels. These standards are designed to prevent interference with catalytic emission control devices and to protect public health.22
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 require more stringent tailpipe standards to control exhaust pollutants from cars and trucks, improvements in the controls of evaporative emissions from vehicles, and the installation of equipment on vehicles to control refuelling emissions. The amendments contain a new standard to control CO emissions at cold temperatures, and require the installation of self-diagnostic equipment on vehicles to monitor the functions of critical emission control equipment. The amendments also establish a new programme requiring the sale of ‘reformulated gasoline’ in the nine worst ozone, non-attainment areas in order to reduce emission of VOCs and other pollutants.
The Clean Air Act authorises EPA to set health-based standards for hazardous air pollutants.23 The 1990 amendments identify a list of 189 hazardous pollutants and direct EPA to establish standards based on the use of the ‘maximum achievable control technology’ (MACT). The list includes chemicals and metals used in many industrial processes. Standards for new sources must require a degree of reduction that is not ‘less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source.’24
The 1990 amendments direct EPA to establish a programme to reduce the adverse effects of acidic deposition. The Act mandates a national emissions cap of 8.95 million tons per year on emissions of sulphur dioxide from electric utility power plants, to be achieved in two phases. As a result of these stringent new limitations, total annual sulphur dioxide emissions will be reduced by 10 million tons below 1980 levels. Title IV also requires that certain coal-fired electric utility boilers reduce their emissions of nitrogen oxides through installation of ‘low NOx’ burner technologies or their equivalent.
The acid rain programme contains a trading system with a fixed number of fully marketable allowances.25 Existing utility sources were granted allowances based on their historic fuel use and the emission limitations applicable in 1985. Utility units may not emit sulphur dioxide in quantities exceeding the number of allowances they hold for a given year.
The 1990 amendments to the Act added a new Title V to establish an operating programme.26 The Title V permit programme is designed to be administered by the states if EPA approves a state programme. EPA may veto any permit that it believes does not comply with the applicable CAA requirements. In general, each operating permit will contain enforceable emission limitations, a schedule for compliance, and monitoring, and reporting requirements. Sources subject to the Title V permit requirements include any ‘major source’ as defined in Sections 112 or 302 or Part D of Title I, any source subject to standards or regulations under Section 111 or Section 112, or any source required to have a permit under Part C or Part D of Title I. Under Section 502(b)(6) of the Act, each state permit programme must provide for public notice of, and an opportunity for public comment and a hearing on, all permit applications. Failure to obtain a permit is subject to civil penalties and possible criminal sanctions.27
The Clean Air Act is enforceable by the United States, and most of the Act’s regulatory programmes are also enforceable by states with comparable programmes that have been approved by EPA. EPA has the authority to issue compliance orders and to seek administrative penalties. The federal government may also seek injunctive relief and civil as well as criminal penalties in federal district courts.28 Citizens may also bring suits seeking compliance and penalties.29
Discharges of process wastewater and stormwater are regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA or the Act) through a federal and state programme of facility permits and regulatory standards.30 As enacted in 1972, the CWA established a permit programme and a deadline for technology-based limits on discharges of pollutants to be achieved by direct industrial dischargers and municipal treatment works as well as any more stringent water-quality-based standards imposed by states.
In 1977 Congress enacted revisions to the Act that required achievement of ‘best-available technology’ (BAT) limitations for toxic pollutants and best conventional pollutant control technology’ limitations for conventional pollutants such as suspended solids, biological oxygen demanding (BOD), faecal coliform, and pH.31 In addition, ‘new-source’ direct dischargers are subject to standards of performance for new sources (NSPS).32 These technology-based requirements are defined by EPA in extensive ‘effluent guidelines’ regulations that are set forth in 40 C.F.R. Part 400 et seq.
‘Indirect dischargers’ to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) must comply with pre-treatment standards for pollutants that would interfere with or pass through the POTWs.33 The new source and pre-treatment standards are generally identical to BAT limits for existing direct dischargers. Indirect dischargers are not required to obtain a NPDES permit, and instead the EPA pre-treatment standards themselves are enforceable against indirect dischargers.
The CWA is applicable to a ‘discharge of pollutants’ into ‘waters of the United States’ from a ‘point source’ (a discrete conveyance such as a pipe or ditch). The meaning of ‘waters of the United States’ continues to be debated. In Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), a 4-4-1 split decision, the plurality opinion by Justice Scalia opined that waters of the United States include wetlands only if they have a surface connection to traditional water bodies, namely oceans, streams and lakes. In a separate opinion, Justice Kennedy expressed the view that wetlands are covered by the statute if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of traditional navigable waters. In the Obama administration, the government took the position that a water body falls within the jurisdiction of the CWA if it satisfies the test in either the plurality opinion in Rapanos or Justice Kennedy’s separate opinion in Rapanos. As a result of this confusion, the scope of the Clean Water Act continues to generate controversy. After Rapanos, new EPA regulations defining ‘waters of the United States’ have been challenged in court and, as of this writing, the lawsuits have not been decided. Moreover, in the fall of 2017 the Trump EPA announced an intent to adopt a revised definition of ‘waters of the United States’ consistent with the views of Justice Scalia in the Rapanos case, which action is expected to trigger another series of lawsuits. In addition to the regulation of point sources, states may receive federal grants to monitor and develop projects to address non-point sources of pollution, from rainfall or snowmelt runoff, which are largely unregulated.
Section 404 of the CWA gives the Corps the authority to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material to waters of the United States.34 Activities that may require Section 404 authorisation include land-clearing, construction of dams, and certain farming activities. Preparation of an environmental impact statement in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and other statutes such as the Endangered Species Act may be triggered by a permit application, and compensatory mitigation may be required.35 The statute contains exemptions for certain activities including normal farming and ranching and the maintenance of dykes, dams, irrigation and drainage ditches.
Dischargers to waters of the United States must obtain and comply with a permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) programme pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA.36 Permits must be obtained from EPA or from a state that has an EPA-approved permit programme. NPDES permits contain effluent limitations that apply the technology and water-quality-based requirements of the Act, schedules of compliance and requirements for regular discharge monitoring and self-reporting of monitoring results to the appropriate regulatory authorities.
Water quality standards are adopted by the states and submitted to EPA for approval.37 These standards must take into account the uses of a body of water, such as public water supply; propagation of fish and wildlife; recreation; and agricultural, industrial, and other purposes, although in practice EPA has pressed the states to require all streams to meet standards for fishing and swimming and to include an anti-degradation policy to protect existing uses and high quality waters. EPA’s criteria for reviewing state standards are set forth in 40 C.F.R. Sections 131.5 to 131.6.
Total maximum daily loads (TMDLs)(i.e., the maximum amount of a given pollutant that may be discharged to a water body from all sources in a day) are a key tool to achieve water quality standards. Section 303(d) of the Act provides that the states shall identify waters that fail to achieve water quality standards, determine the TMDL needed to achieve water quality standards, and allocate these loads among dischargers in permits and water quality plans.38 States are proceeding to develop TMDLs and implement them in NPDES permits.
Under Section 311 of the CWA, EPA has published regulations (40 C.F.R. Part 116) that determine the quantities of oil and hazardous substances the discharge of which may be harmful to the public health or welfare, known as ‘reportable quantities’.39 Section 311 does not cover discharges that are in compliance with or otherwise subject to an NPDES permit. A party that discharges a reportable quantity of a listed substance must notify the authorities, is subject to fines, and the federal government is authorised to arrange for the removal of oil or a hazardous substance and to assess the responsible party with the costs of removal.
Section 309(a)(3) of the Act authorises EPA to issue an administrative order whenever it finds that a person is in violation of enumerated provisions of the Act or a permit implementing these provisions.40 EPA may also sue for civil penalties for any violation of an NPDES permit, an EPA order, or the Act.41 Section 309(c) of the CWA authorises EPA to seek criminal penalties against responsible persons for wilful or negligent violations and for knowingly making any false statement or report.42
The definition of a ‘chemical substance’ under Section 3(a)(A) of TSCA is broad and includes any organic or inorganic substance or any combination of such substances, including synthetic organic compounds, raw agricultural commodities, microorganisms, ores and minerals.43 Food, food additives, drugs, cosmetics and medical devices, which are regulated under other laws such as the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, are exempt from TSCA. Also, substances manufactured solely for export from the United States are exempt under Section 12(a) of TSCA, but the exporter must provide notice to EPA if the chemical is regulated under certain provisions of TSCA.44
Section 2(b) of TSCA authorises EPA to take action where chemicals present an unreasonable risk of injury.45 EPA may take action unless the chemicals in question are regulated under another federal statute.
Section 4 of TSCA authorises EPA to promulgate regulations requiring manufacturers, importers and processors to test chemical substances that may present an unreasonable risk to health or the environment, or if there are insufficient data on the manufacture, use or disposal of the chemical, or if the chemical is produced in substantial quantities and there may be substantial human exposure or environmental release.46 EPA has also negotiated consent agreements with companies and trade groups to provide test data on chemicals.47 Pre-manufacture Notice. Under Section 5 of TSCA, a pre-manufacture notice must be submitted to EPA at least 90 days before the start of production or import of a new chemical or an existing chemical used for a significant new use. Existing chemicals are those currently or previously manufactured or processed in the United States and are listed on the TSCA inventory that EPA maintains. A new chemical is any chemical not on the TSCA inventory. Manufacturers and importers must submit specific information in their notice to EPA, including chemical identity, impurities, production volumes, processing methods, intended uses, worker exposure and test data.48 There are exemptions for new chemicals manufactured or imported in small quantities, and for test marketing of a new chemical.49
After a pre-manufacture notice is received, EPA has 90 days to review the company’s notice, and can extend its review to 180 days for good cause. If EPA does not act within the review period, the company may begin to manufacture or import the substance. If EPA concludes that a chemical is hazardous or there is an unreasonable risk or unanswered safety questions, under TSCA Section 5(e) EPA may issue an order to prevent or limit manufacture of the chemical. Alternatively, EPA and the company submitting the pre-manufacture notice may negotiate a consent order providing for various control measures including use limits, labelling requirements, protective equipment for workers, and limits on releases to the environment.
Section 5(f) of TSCA allows EPA to take action if the agency determines that activities involving a new chemical present an unreasonable risk to health or the environment. In that event, EPA can publish a rule that limits or delays the manufacture, use or disposal of the chemical.50
For a chemical on the TSCA inventory, EPA can issue a ‘significant new use rule’, known as a SNUR, requiring that any company wishing to manufacture or process the chemical give EPA 90 days’ prior notice. EPA may take regulatory action, upon receiving a SNUR notice, to control the proposed activity. Subsequent manufacturers or importers must observe such SNUR restrictions or submit their own SNUR notice to EPA at least 90 days before initiating activities inconsistent with the EPA restrictions.
EPA is authorised under TSCA Section 6 to impose restrictions based on a finding that the manufacture, processing, distribution, use or disposal of a chemical or mixture presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.51 The restrictions may include banning the substance or mixture, prohibiting or limiting certain uses, or labelling and other hazard notification requirements, taking into account a chemical’s harm and the economic and social costs of the restriction. In addition, EPA may publish a regulation that is effective immediately if there is an imminent hazard.52
EPA may under Section 7 of TSCA file a suit in federal district court if the agency concludes that the substance or mixture presents an imminent hazard, namely an imminent and unreasonable risk of serious or widespread injury to health or the environment.53 In such an action, the court can issue an order providing injunctive relief, including public notice of risks and a recall of the chemical or product.
Section 8 of TSCA authorises EPA to promulgate rules that require recordkeeping and reporting of information concerning the health and environmental effects of chemicals or mixtures.54 Section 8(c) of TSCA requires manufacturers, processors and distributors to maintain records of significant alleged adverse reactions to health or the environment.55 Section 8(d) of TSCA also authorises EPA to require the submission of health and safety studies.56 Any manufacturer, importer or distributor who obtains information indicating that a chemical presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment is required by Section 8(e) of TSCA to report the risk information to EPA within 15 days.57
EPA and US Customs regulations require importers to certify at the port of entry into the United States either that the substance is regulated by and complies with TSCA or that it is exempt or not subject to TSCA.58
Sections 15, 16 and 17 of TSCA provide for penalties for violations of TSCA and EPA’s implementing regulations. EPA may also bring a lawsuit under Section 17 of TSCA to prevent violations or to compel actions required by the statute or to seize and condemn chemicals and articles containing chemicals that have been manufactured or distributed in violation of TSCA.
In June 2016 President Obama signed into law significant amendments to TSCA, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, Public Law No. 114-182. The 2016 amendments clarify EPA’s review authority for new and existing chemicals and the expected pace and prioritisation of regulatory efforts. The new law, includes improvements such as:
a mandatory requirement for EPA to evaluate existing chemicals with clear and enforceable deadlines;
b new risk-based safety standard;
c increased public transparency for chemical information; and
d consistent source of funding for EPA to carry out the responsibilities under the new law.
One year later, on 22 June 2017, EPA announced a number of implementation activities that have enabled EPA to meet its first-year statutory responsibilities. EPA has completed the following implementation activities as of that date:
a a rule to establish EPA’s process and criteria for identifying high-priority chemicals for risk evaluation and low priority chemicals for which risk evaluation is not needed;
b a rule to establish EPA’s process for evaluating high priority chemicals to determine whether or not they present an unreasonable risk to health or the environment;
c a rule to require industry reporting of chemicals manufactured or processed in the US over the past 10 years;
d scope documents for the initial 10 chemicals for risk evaluation under the amended law, including how the evaluation will be conducted; and
e guidance for external parties interested in submitting draft risk evaluations for EPA consideration.
With respect to review of existing chemicals, Section 4 of the 2016 Act directs EPA to first determine whether an unreasonable risk to human health and the environment exists, without consideration of costs. If an unreasonable risk is found, EPA is then to evaluate various regulatory options including consideration of costs and benefits. Section 6 of the 2016 Act directs EPA to prioritise existing chemicals as ‘high priority’ or ‘low priority’. EPA must give priority to known human carcinogens, chemicals with high acute and chronic toxicity, and certain persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals. EPA must ban, phase out or impose restrictions on any high priority chemical that poses an unreasonable risk.
The review of new chemicals is changed under the 2016 Act. Under Section 5 of the 2016 Act, EPA is required to review and affirmatively approve new chemicals and significant new uses before they are introduced into commerce. EPA must determine whether or not the chemical is likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment under the conditions of use. If EPA makes a finding of unreasonable risk, EPA must take regulatory action. The new term ‘condition of use’ is defined as the circumstances under which a chemical is manufactured, processed, distributed in commerce, used or disposed of. The 2016 Act may thus have an increased impact on downstream users.
Companies will wish to review the chemicals they use, process or distribute and be prepared to participate in EPA’s implementation of this new law. More information on EPA’s progress to date and a full list of all the TSCA implementation activities can be found online.59
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)60 provides for federal regulation of pesticide distribution, sale, and use. All pesticides distributed or sold in the United States must be registered (licensed) by EPA. Before EPA may register a pesticide under FIFRA, the applicant must show, among other things, that using the pesticide according to specifications ‘will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment’. EPA may takes enforcement actions against the distribution or sale of unregistered pesticides, registered pesticides whose composition differs from that in the product’s registration, and registered pesticides that are misbranded or adulterated. EPA may also stop the sale of or seize pesticide products that do not meet FIFRA requirements.
RCRA was originally enacted in 1976. In 1984, Congress amended RCRA extensively to authorise the regulation of underground tanks, the clean up of contaminated areas of industrial sites not covered by the original law, and increased restrictions on the disposal of wastes on land.
Subtitle C of RCRA regulates ‘solid waste’ that is ‘hazardous’. Under RCRA, solid waste is any garbage, refuse, sludge, or other discarded material, including solid, liquid, or gaseous material that is contained.61 EPA’s regulation defining the term solid waste includes secondary materials that are incinerated for energy recovery and disposed of on the ground.62 The definitions distinguish between types of materials (sludges, by-products) and types of activities (reclamation, reuse and disposal). The definition excludes industrial wastewater discharges subject to the Clean Water Act permit programme,63 and recycled materials, such as secondary materials that are returned to the original process and reused.64
Once a waste is determined to be solid waste, it is considered ‘hazardous’ if the waste exhibits one of four characteristics (ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity or toxicity) as determined in tests for these kinds of waste.65 The toxicity characteristic is determined by the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure designed to simulate the leaching that would occur at a municipal landfill.66 Waste is also deemed hazardous if it is specifically listed by EPA as hazardous.67 The Agency has also listed non-specified sources (F-listed), specific industrial processes (K-listed), and discarded commercial chemical products and pesticides (P and U wastes).68 Household waste, agricultural waste used for fertilizers and mining waste is exempt.69 EPA has decided not to regulate oil and gas industry exploration and production wastes, and mineral extraction and beneficiation and certain mineral processing. Under EPA’s mixture rule, any solid waste that is mixed with a listed hazardous waste remains a hazardous waste.70 In addition, any waste resulting from the treatment, storage or disposal of any listed waste is a hazardous waste.71
Generators of hazardous waste must notify EPA of the initiation of hazardous waste activities, obtain an EPA identification number, and properly store hazardous wastes. Wastes must be properly labelled and must be in proper containers for shipment pursuant to Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements.72 Generators must use a manifest to track hazardous waste shipments,73 and maintain records and submit biennial reports that summarise their waste generation activities.
Generators may accumulate wastes on site for 90 days without being subject to all of the requirements for treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. They must, however, label the waste as hazardous and note the date when accumulation begins.74 Generators that produce no more than 100 kilograms of hazardous waste per month are exempt.75
Transporters of hazardous waste must comply with the EPA regulations in 40 C.F.R. Part 263, which require that they obtain EPA identification numbers, use proper containers, and implement the hazardous waste manifest system by ensuring that the manifest accompanies the waste to its next point of delivery.76 If a discharge of hazardous waste occurs during transport, the shipper must provide notice to the EPA National Response Center and must take appropriate action to protect human health and the environment, including clean up of the discharge.77
Transporters are also extensively regulated by the US Department of Transportation under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA), 49 U.S.C. Section 1801 et seq. The DOT regulations applicable to transportation of hazardous waste are contained in 49 C.F.R. Part 171.
Unless otherwise exempt, all facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous wastes must obtain a permit.78 Treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) are subject to several types of operating and design standards: general facility standards, closure and postclosure care standards, and unit-specific standards. These standards are contained in 40 C.F.R. Part 264. The general standards require that each TSDF obtain an identification number, obtain or conduct waste analyses, implement security measures, schedule regular inspections, and provide personnel training.79 Each TSDF must have a closure plan that includes procedures for removing contaminated soil, cleaning equipment and performing necessary sampling and analysis.80
Each TSDF must demonstrate its financial ability to meet closure and postclosure obligations as well as third-party liability.81 There are several means to demonstrate financial ability, including self-insurance, insurance policies, surety bonds, and parent company guarantees.82
EPA has established specific standards for containers, tanks, land disposal facilities, miscellaneous units, incinerators, furnaces and boilers. Permitted tank systems used to manage hazardous waste must have secondary containment systems and leak detection.83 Incinerators must demonstrate an ability to meet a destruction efficiency of 99.99 per cent of the principal organic hazardous constituent identified in the permit.84 Landfills generally must have double liners, a leachate collection system, and groundwater monitoring.85 Surface impoundments, including lagoons and ponds, are subject to similar requirements.86 In 1984 Congress directed that waste not be disposed of on land unless it is treated to meet standards promulgated by EPA.87
EPA has authority under RCRA Section 7003 to require persons to take action necessary to address an ‘imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment’.88 As revised in 1984, Section 3004(u) of RCRA also allows EPA to require corrective action for releases from solid waste management units for any person seeking a RCRA permit after 1984, regardless of when the waste was placed in the unit.89 Section 3004(v) authorises EPA to require corrective action beyond the boundary of a TSDF where necessary to protect human health and the environment.90
In 1984 Congress established a comprehensive programme for regulating underground storage tanks (USTs) containing petroleum products and hazardous substances under CERCLA but excluding hazardous wastes under RCRA.91 Owners of USTs are required to construct them to maintain structural integrity, to install leak detection systems, to report releases of regulated substances, to take corrective action for releases, and to demonstrate financial responsibility.92 The statute contains several exemptions, including tanks used to store heating oil for consumptive use on the premises where stored, and storage tanks in an underground area such as a basement that are above the surface of the floor.93
For non-hazardous waste, states are directed to develop solid waste management plans and to eliminate the open dumping of solid waste.94 Landfills that do not meet EPA design criteria and engage in practices that constitute open dumping are banned.95 Medical waste is regulated under Subtitle J of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. Section 6992 et seq., which requires record keeping and manifesting. EPA has promulgated regulations applicable to generators, transporters and processors of used oil. 40 C.F.R. part 279, subparts C, E and F. EPA has also published detailed regulations for the use and disposal of sewage sludge.96
Unlike most federal environmental statutes, which contain regulatory programmes designed to prevent future pollution, the Superfund law, also known as CERCLA, addresses releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances as a result of past waste disposal.97
Section 101(14) of CERCLA defines a ‘hazardous substance’ as a substance falling within six categories regulated under other environmental statutes. EPA has codified the list of CERCLA hazardous substances in 40 C.F.R. Part 302. This list is quite lengthy, and includes natural substances as well as man-made chemicals.
CERCLA gives the government two basic enforcement tools. EPA may seek to have responsible parties perform remedial action voluntarily or order them to perform remediation under Section 106 of the Act.98 Alternatively, EPA may arrange to have the necessary remedial action performed by an outside contractor and then seek cost reimbursement from responsible parties.99
The statute provides that where there is a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance from a facility which causes the incurrence of response costs, responsible parties are liable to the government for all costs of removal or remedial action incurred by the United States government or a state and damages for injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural resources.100 The terms ‘removal action’ and ‘remedial action’ are defined broadly in the Act.101 The government may not undertake response action as to naturally occurring substances, or for exposure within residential buildings or business or community structures.102 Courts have held that claims for lost property values, and loss of income or profits are not recoverable response costs under CERCLA. See Wehner v. Syntex Corp., 681 F. Supp. 651, 653 (N.D.Cal. 1987). Similarly, the courts have held that CERCLA does not authorise parties to bring suits for recovery of personal injuries.103
The third category of ‘arranger’ or ‘generator’ liability has been most frequently applied to manufacturing companies. A company is liable as an arranger if it takes intentional steps to dispose of a hazardous substance.104
The liability established by Section 107 is subject to the following defences: (1) an act of God, (2) an act of war, and (3) an act or omission of a third party.105 Defendants have rarely relied upon the first two defences. The third defence applies to damage caused solely by an act or omission of a third party ‘other than an employee or agent of the defendant, or than one whose act or omission occurs in connection with a contractual relationship, existing directly or indirectly with the defendant’.
Section 107(b) of CERCLA provides an affirmative defence to current owners of contaminated property if the release and the damages were wholly caused by an act or omission of a third party other than one whose act or omission occurred in connection with a contractual relation with the defendant. The statute also excludes innocent landowners from the definition of ‘contractual relationship.’106 This provision allows a defendant to avoid liability if it can show that the property was acquired after the disposal took place and the defendant ‘did not know and had no reason to know’ that hazardous substances had been disposed of on the property.
Although the statute as enacted in 1980 was silent on the issue, the courts have held, based on general tort law principles, that if two or more defendants cause an indivisible harm, ‘each is subject to liability for the entire harm’.107 Subsequent judicial decisions have adopted the approach in Chem-Dyne and have held that the statute imposes strict, joint and several liability to the government (see e.g., United States v. Monsanto, 858 F.2d 160 (4th Cir. 1988)). The courts have also held that liable parties at a multiparty Superfund site may avoid joint and several liability if a court finds a ‘reasonable basis’ to apportion their liability.108
CERCLA provides a right of contribution. Section 113(f) of the Act, added in 1986, expressly provides that ‘[a]ny person may seek contribution from any other person who is liable or potentially liable under Section 9607(a). . . .’ 42 U.S.C. Section 9613(f)(1). Section 113(f)(2) provides contribution protection for parties who have settled their CERCLA liability with the United States or a state. In addition, companies may be able to recover clean up costs from their insurance carriers. The terms of such insurance policies have changed over time, and the obligations of carriers to indemnify for Superfund losses will depend on the language of applicable policies.
Section 113(f)(1) of CERCLA states that in resolving contribution claims, the courts may ‘allocate response costs among liable parties using such equitable factors as the court determines are appropriate’. Judicial decisions and commentators have focused on the amount of hazardous waste involved, the degree of toxicity of the waste, the degree of involvement by the parties, the degree of care exercised by the parties, and the degree of cooperation with government officials (see e.g., United States v. A&F Materials, 578 F. Supp. 1249, 1256 (S.D. Ill. 1984)).
Since the passage of CERCLA in 1980, EPA has identified thousands of inactive hazardous waste disposal sites as potential sites for CERCLA remediation. These sites are screened, and priority sites for action are listed on the National Priorities List. Once EPA determines that remedial measures may be necessary, the agency undertakes various steps to study the site further, to select a remedy, and to design and implement the remedy.
Section 105 of CERCLA provides for the establishment of a national contingency plan (NCP).109 The plan sets forth the organisational structure, procedures and standards for responding to releases of hazardous substances under CERCLA. The NCP is set forth in 40 C.F.R. Part 300. Sites included on the NPL become eligible for government financed remedial action.110
In order to select and implement a remedial action, EPA must go through several steps, including a remedial investigation and feasibility study. The remedial investigation (RI) is a process to determine the nature and extent of the problem at a site.111 The feasibility study (FS) develops and evaluates appropriate remedial alternatives using nine criteria including overall protection of human health and the environment, compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements, long-term effectiveness and permanence, reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment, implementability, cost, and state and community acceptance.112
Once the RI/FS is completed, EPA reviews the proposed remedial alternatives and selects a remedy after circulating a draft and considering public comments. The agency’s final remedy is embodied in a document called a record of decision (ROD). The ROD must document all the facts, analyses and policy determinations considered in the selection of the remedy.113
Responsible parties may settle with the government by paying appropriate response costs or by agreeing to perform the remedy. Agreements to perform the remedy must be embodied in a consent decree.114 CERCLA provides that a party who has entered into an administrative or judicially approved settlement with the government ‘shall not be liable for claims for contribution regarding matters addressed in the settlement’.115
The government may also undertake to perform the clean-up actions required and then bring an action in federal court under Section 107(a) of CERCLA seeking to recover its response costs at a site. CERCLA provides that judicial review of any issues concerning the adequacy of any response action taken by EPA shall be based on the administrative record.116
CERCLA authorises the government to recover damages to natural resources. A claim for damage to natural resources must be brought by the designated trustees for natural resources acting on behalf of the public.117 The designated federal trustees are the Secretaries of Interior, Commerce, Defense, Agriculture and Energy.118 The states have generally also designated one or more trustees for state resources.
The elements of liability for natural resources damages are the same as those under Section 107(a) of CERCLA. In addition, the trustee must show that there has been an ‘injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural resources resulting from’ a release of hazardous substances.119 Section 107(f) of CERCLA bars the recovery where the damages and the release causing the damages occurred wholly before 11 December 1980, the date CERCLA was enacted.120 Section 101(16) of CERCLA defines natural resources to mean ‘land, fish, wildlife, biota, air, water, ground water, drinking water supplies, and other such resources’ belonging to the United States or a state.121
The statute does not explicate how to measure natural resource damages. The Department of the Interior promulgated regulations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 9651(c) for the assessment of natural resource damages.122 The trustees are not bound to use the Interior Department’s damage assessment regulations, and increasingly use a habitat equivalency analysis to assess damages.
The Clean Air Act as enacted in 1970 and revised in 1990 does not specifically address the issue of climate change from greenhouse gases. However, in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the US Supreme Court held that greenhouse gases (GHG) fit within the Act’s definition of an air pollutant that EPA may regulate. Subsequently, in December 2009 EPA issued a finding that six classes of GHGs endanger public health and welfare by causing global climate change, and that the GHGs emitted from new motor vehicles contribute to GHG pollution. Subsequently, in May 2010 EPA promulgated GHG emission standards for light duty motor vehicles in model years 2012–2016.
EPA also determined that the Clean Air Act required major stationary sources of greenhouse gases to obtain construction and operating permits. To reduce regulatory burdens, in December 2010 EPA issued Timing and Tailoring Rules (PSD and Title V permitting). The Tailoring Rule focuses on the largest greenhouse gas emitters: power plants, refineries, and cement production facilities.
a develop new rules to cut carbon pollution;
b prepare the united states for the impacts of climate change by helping state and local governments strengthen roads, bridges and shorelines from severe weather; and
c lead international efforts by galvanising international action to significantly reduce emissions, prepare for climate impacts and drive progress through the international negotiations.
Pursuant to these objectives, on 13 May 2010, EPA set greenhouse gas emissions thresholds to define when permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities. This final rule ‘tailors’ the requirements of these Clean Air Act permitting programmes to limit covered facilities to the nation’s largest greenhouse gas emitters: power plants, refineries and cement production facilities.
On 3 August 2015, the EPA issued the Clean Power Plan, which was designed to cut pollution from the power sector by 32 per cent below 2005 levels, while also cutting smog- and soot-forming emissions by 20 per cent. The final Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants is a state-based programme under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act for existing sources with EPA establishing guidelines and states then designing programs that fit in those guidelines to get the needed reductions in CO2. EPA also published a proposed Federal Plan for the Clean Power Plan that serves as a model rule for those states that are developing their own Clean Power Plan state plans. Finally, EPA promulgated final standards of performance to address CO2 emissions from new, modified and reconstructed power plants. These Clean Power Plan regulations were stayed by the US Supreme Court and are being challenged in the US Court of Appeals in Washington, DC. However, President Trump and EPA have announced an intent to repeal the Clean Power Plan, and as of the fall of 2017 EPA has not yet decided what if anything will replace it. Final action to repeal or replace the Clean Power Plan will likely trigger litigation, and the validity of such actions will ultimately be decided by the federal courts.
Oil and Natural Gas Air Pollution Standards. On 12 May 2016, EPA issued three final rules that together will curb emissions of methane, smog-forming volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and toxic air pollutants such as benzene from new, reconstructed and modified oil and natural gas sources, while providing greater certainty about Clean Air Act permitting requirements for the industry. EPA estimates that the rules will reduce methane emissions by 510,000 short tons of methane in 2025, the equivalent of reducing 11 million metric tons of CO2. However, on 12 June 2017, the Trump EPA proposed a two-year stay of the fugitive emissions, pneumatic pump and professional engineer certification requirements in the rule while the agency reconsiders them.
EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration were taking coordinated steps to enable the production of a new generation of clean vehicles – from the smallest cars to the largest trucks – through reduced greenhouse gas emissions and improved fuel use. Together, the enacted and proposed standards were expected by EPA to save more than six billion barrels of oil through 2025 and reduce more than 3,100 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions. However, since the election, EPA has announced that it is reconsidering the current fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks.
Two decades after creation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, parties have reached a general political consensus in support of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. As part of the December 2015 Paris Agreement, countries submitted nationally determined contributions for GHG mitigation. The governments agreed to a long-term goal of keeping the increase in global average temperature to well below 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with the best available science. The agreement traces the way to achieving this target. The agreement went into effect in November 2016. The Paris Agreement, with its emphasis on consensus-building, allows for voluntary and nationally determined targets. The specific climate goals are thus politically encouraged, rather than legally binding. On 1 June 2017, President Trump announced that the United States would cease participation in the 2015 Paris Agreement. Under the terms of the Paris Agreement, the earliest the United States may withdraw is 4 November 2020, four years after the Agreement came into effect in the United States. In the meantime, a number of states and local government entities are proceeding with their own agendas and plans to address climate change.
The relationship between energy and the environment intersects air and water quality programmes and ranges from the impacts of hydraulic fracturing to climate change to permits for energy projects such as pipelines. During the presidential campaign, president-elect Trump promised to end the ‘war on coal’, the use of which has been in decline largely due to low-cost natural gas. He also criticised the Obama administration’s Climate Action Plan, the Clean Power Plan and the Paris Agreement on climate change. However, Trump’s energy plan also promised to ‘conserve our natural habitats, reserves and resources’.123 It remains to be seen to what extent the new administration will follow through on promises to scale back environmental regulation, but significant changes are already evident. It can be expected that efforts to roll back environmental regulations will be supported in some quarters and face resistance in others. The ensuing debate will engage the US Congress, the federal courts and the states.
1 Theodore L Garrett is senior counsel at Covington & Burling LLP.
2 See Regulation S-K, 17 C.F.R. Section 229, and 47 Fed. Reg. 11380 (1982).
3 See 42 U.S.C. Section 7622(a)(the Clean Air Act).
4 42 U.S.C. Section 7401 et seq.
5 42 U.S.C. Section 7409.
6 40 C.F.R. Part 50.
7 42 U.S.C. Section 7410.
8 42 U.S.C. Section 7502.
9 42 U.S.C. Section 7503.
10 42 U.S.C. Section 7475(a).
11 42 U.S.C. Section 7473.
12 42 U.S.C. Section 7401-7642.
13 42 U.S.C. Section 7502(c)(1).
14 42 U.S.C. Section 7513a(b)(1)(B).
15 42 U.S.C. Section 7511a(a)(4).
16 42 U.S.C. Section 7511a(a)(2)(B).
17 42 U.S.C. Section 7512a(b)(3).
18 42 U.S.C. Section 7411.
19 42 U.S.C. Section 7411(a)(1).
20 See 40 C.F.R. Part 60.
21 42 U.S.C. Sections 7521, 7525.
22 42 U.S.C. Section 7545; 40 C.F.R. Part 80.
23 42 U.S.C. Section 7412.
24 CAA Section 112(d)(3).
25 40 C.F.R. Part 73.
26 42 U.S.C. Sections 7661 et al.
27 CAA Section 502(b)(5)(E).
28 42 U.S.C. Sections 7413, 7420.
29 42 U.S.C. Section 7604.
30 33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.
31 33 U.S.C. Section 1311(b).
32 33 U.S.C. Section 1316.
33 33 U.S.C. Section1317(b).
34 33 U.S.C. Section 1344.
35 33 C.F.R. Sections 325.2, 332.1(f).
36 33 U.S.C. Section 1342.
37 33 U.S.C. Section 1313(c)(2).
38 33 U.S.C. Section 1313(d).
39 33 U.S.C. Section 1321(b)(4).
40 33 U.S.C. Section1319(a)(3).
41 33 U.S.C. Section 1319(d) and (g).
42 33 U.S.C. Section1319(c).
43 15 U.S.C. Section 2602(3)(a)(A).
44 15 U.S.C. Sections 2611, 2613.
45 15 U.S.C. Section 2601(b)(1) and (2).
46 15 U.S.C. Section 2603(a), (b).
47 40 C.F.R. Part 790, subpart D.
48 15 U.S.C. Section 2604(d)(1); 40 C.F.R. Section 720.50.
49 40 C.F.R. Sections 720.36.40, 720.50, 720.78.
50 40 C.F.R. Part 747, Part B.
51 15 U.S.C. Section 2605(a).
52 15 U.S.C. Section 2605(d).
53 15 U.S.C. Section 2606(a)(1).
54 15 U.S.C. Section 2607(a). See 40 C.F.R. Section 712.20.
55 15 U.S.C. Section 2607(c). See 40 C.F.R. Section 717.17.
56 15 U.S.C. Section 2607(d). See 40 C.F.R. Section 716.120.
57 15 U.S.C. Section 2607(e). See 56 Fed. Reg. 4128 (1991).
58 40 C.F.R. Section 707.20(b).
59 https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/frank-r-lautenberg-chemical-safety-21st-century-act-5.
60 7 U.S.C. Section 136.
61 42 U.S.C. Section 6903(27).
62 40 C.F.R. Sections 261.2, 261.4.
63 40 C.F.R. Section 261.4(a)(1).
64 Id. Sections 261.2(e), 261.4(a)(8).
65 40 C.F.R. Sections 261.21–.24.
66 40 C.F.R. Part 261, App. II.
67 42 U.S.C. Section 6921(b).
68 40 C.F.R. Sections 261.31, 261.32, and 261.33.
69 40 C.F.R. Sections 261.4(b)(1), (2), and 42 U.S.C. Section 6921(b)(2), (3).
70 40 C.F.R. Section 261.3(a)(2)(iv).
71 45 Fed. Reg. 33096 (1980).
72 40 C.F.R. Sections 262.30–.33.
73 40 C.F.R. Sections 262.20–.23.
74 40 C.F.R. Section 262.34(a).
75 40 C.F.R. Section 261.5(b), (g).
76 40 C.F.R. Section 263.20.
77 40 C.F.R. Sections 263.30–.31.
78 42 U.S.C. Section 6925.
79 40 C.F.R. Sections 265.11–.16.
80 40 C.F.R. Sections 264.112 and 265.112.
81 40 C.F.R. Parts 264, 265, subpart H.
82 40 C.F.R. Sections 264.143–.145, 265.143–.145.
83 40 C.F.R. Sections 264.191–.196 and 265.191–.196.
84 40 C.F.R. Sections 264.343–.347.
85 40 C.F.R. Sections 264.301 and 265.301.
86 40 C.F.R. Sections 264.220 and 266.220.
87 42 U.S.C. Section 6924(d), (e)(1), (g)(5).
88 42 U.S.C. Section 6973.
89 42 U.S.C. Section 6924(u).
90 42 U.S.C. Section 6924(v).
91 42 U.S.C. Section 6991.
92 42 U.S.C. Section 6991(b); 40 C.F.R. part 280.
93 42 U.S.C. Section 6991(1).
94 42 U.S.C. Section 6943.
95 40 C.F.R. Part 257, 42 U.S.C. Section 6945(a).
96 40 C.F.R. Parts 257, 403, and 503.
97 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. Section 9601 et seq. (CERCLA or Superfund).
98 42 U.S.C. Section 9606.
99 42 U.S.C. Section 9607(a).
100 42 U.S.C. Section 9607(a).
101 42 U.S.C. Section 9601(23) and (24).
102 42 U.S.C. Section 9604(a)(3).
103 Brewer v. Ravan, 711 F. Supp. 784 (D.N.J. 1989).
104 Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States, 556 U.S. 599 (2009).
105 42 U.S.C. Section 9607(b).
106 42 U.S.C. 9601(35)(A).
107 United States v. Chem-Dyne Corp., 572 F. Supp. 802, 810 (S.D. Ohio 1983).
108 Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States, 556 U.S. 599 (2009).
109 42 U.S.C. Section 9605.
110 42 U.S.C. Section 9604(a).
111 40 C.F.R. Section 300.430(d).
112 40 C.F.R. Section 300.430(e).
113 40 C.F.R. Section 300.430(f)(5).
114 See 42 U.S.C. Section 9622(d)(1)(A).
115 42 U.S.C. Sections 9613(f)(2), 9622(h)(4).
116 42 U.S.C. Section 9613(j).
117 42 U.S.C. Section 9607(f)(1).
118 See 52 Fed. Reg. 2023 (1987).
119 42 U.S.C. Section 9607(a)(4)(C).
120 42 U.S.C. Section 9607(f)(1).
121 42 U.S.C. Section 9601(16).
122 56 Fed. Reg. 19756 (1991). 43 C.F.R. Part 11.
123 www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/energy.