Regulation

Subscribe to Regulation via RSS

Following up on last week’s post about Oregon legislative proposals, here are some of the mineral-related bills currently pending in the Washington State Legislature:

Oil and Gas

SB 5462 and HB 1611 – These two almost identical bills are follow-ups to the Oil Transportation Safety Act that was enacted in Washington two years ago. Among other things, SB 5462 and HB 1611 would (i) require that railroads transporting crude oil and petroleum products demonstrate financial ability to pay for a “worst case spill”; (ii) obligate refineries to account for different types of crude oil in their emergency planning and training; (iii) impose a public notice requirement if a refinery proposes to export more than 10% of its annual production; (iv) allow the Department of Ecology to share confidential information regarding oil transportation with elected local officials responsible for emergency response agencies; (v) levy oil spill response and administration taxes on crude oil and petroleum products delivered via pipeline to bulk oil terminals; and (vi) give the state’s Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) jurisdiction over crude oil pipelines that are at least five miles (rather than the current 15 miles) long. 
Continue Reading Oil Transportation and Suction Dredge Mining Legislative Topics in Washington Too

The Oregon Legislature’s 2017 session officially kicked off last week. A variety of mineral-related bills have been introduced.  Here are some of the ones to follow:

Mining

SB 3 – SB 3 is primarily focused on suction dredge mining.  It would build on the 2013 enactment of a moratorium, currently in effect until 2021, on the use of motorized equipment engaged in small-scale precious metal mining of placer deposits (i) within and upstream of spawning habitat for salmon and bull trout, and (ii) 100 yards upland from such areas if water quality could be impacted.  SB 3 would wrap Pacific lamprey spawning habitat into the moratorium, but would eliminate the prohibition on upland use of such equipment starting in 2019.  Instead, the use of such equipment, regardless of the size of the operation, within 100 yards upland of any river’s ordinary high water line would be subject to the Department of Geology and Mineral Industries’ (“DOGAMI”) existing exploration and operating permit programs, including the associated reclamation requirements.  Starting in 2021, suction dredge mining would be permanently prohibited in a wide variety of locations unless the mining concerned a federal mining claim and the prohibition would violate federal law.  In those areas where suction dredge mining was allowed, it would require a removal-fill permit issued by the Department of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”) rather than the Department of State Lands.  SB 3 would also provide that the surface mining exclusion certificate required under ORS 517.753 only applies to commercial sand, gravel, and crushed stone operations.
Continue Reading Mineral-Related Bills Pending Before Oregon Legislature

On January 23, and for the first time in nearly 40 years, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued new rules governing the way in which metal/non-metal mine operators must conduct their regular workplace examinations. A Final Rule on “Examinations of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal Mines” was published in the Federal Register…

Last week the EPA officially published its proposal to impose over $7 billion of financial assurance requirements on the owners and operators of currently active or idle hardrock mines and mineral processing facilities. 82 Fed. Reg. 3388 (Jan. 11, 2017).  These proposed requirements are intended to cover estimated response costs, natural resource damages, and health assessment costs for which an owner or operator could be liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) should a hazardous substance release occur.  The EPA estimates that 221 hardrock mining facilities would be subject to these proposed requirements, which would be in addition to financial assurance already required by other federal or state agencies for things such as closure and reclamation.  The deadline for submitting comments on the EPA’s proposal is March 13, 2017.Capture
Continue Reading EPA Proposes to Require $7+ Billion of Financial Assurances from U.S. Hardrock Mining Industry Under CERCLA Section 108(b)

The Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (“PHMSA”) issued a General Policy Statement for civil penalties (“Penalty Framework”) on October 17, 2016.  The Penalty Framework allows a respondent in a PHMSA enforcement case to request a proposed civil penalty calculation related to its case, and provides a penalty range with corresponding factors used in calculating the penalty amount.  Prior to publishing the Penalty Framework, the PHMSA only provided its civil penalty framework upon request.

In imposing a civil penalty, the PHMSA must consider five factors:

(1) The nature, circumstances and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment;

(2) The degree of the respondent’s culpability;

(3) The respondent’s history of prior offenses;

(4) Any good faith by the respondent in attempting to achieve compliance; and

(5) The effect on the respondent’s ability to continue in business.

49 U.S.C. § 60122.Continue Reading In Effort to Increase Both Transparency and Safety, PHMSA Releases Civil Penalty Framework

As we discussed earlier, environmental activists have asked the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to update its oil and gas drilling waste disposal rules under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”).  The groups sought to force the EPA’s hand by suing the EPA in an attempt to get a court order requiring the EPA to update its regulations.

Under RCRA, non-hazardous solid waste, which includes oil and gas production waste, is governed by Subtitle D. Subtitle D focuses on state and local governments as the primary regulating entities for the management of non-hazardous solid waste. It establishes minimum federal technical standards and guidelines for state solid waste regulations.  The EPA is required to review and approve state Subtitle D waste disposal programs to ensure that they meet the minimum standards.

Section 2002(b) of RCRA requires the EPA to review and, if necessary, revise at least once every three years the Subtitle D regulations. The activists have asked the EPA to revise its Subtitle D regulations and set clear requirements to govern the storage and disposal of oil and gas waste amid a “patchwork of [state] requirements with varying protections.”
Continue Reading Industry Groups Push Back Against Environmental Activists in Suit Over Oil & Gas Waste Disposal Regs.

Ready or not, California’s new Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”) is here and mine operators should be vigilant in monitoring and actively participating in developments under the law. Previously, the use of groundwater was largely unregulated.  Now local agencies are in the driver’s seat when it comes to addressing a very complex problem: managing groundwater to ensure sustainability.

Earlier this week, environmental consultant Bob Anderson, of Geosyntec and Stoel Rives attorneys Wes Miliband and Tom Henry hosted a webinar about the implications of SGMA for mine operators.  You can view a recording of the webinar here.  Below are a few key take away points for operators as they tackle SGMA.

The Compliance Timeline is Aggressive

SGMA requires the formation of local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (“GSAs”) that must assess conditions in their local water basins and adopt locally-based groundwater sustainability plans (“GSPs”). GSAs have already started to form and will be developed by June 30, 2017.  Operators should investigate the proposed GSAs affecting their sites.  The Department of Water Resources has developed a useful interactive map showing the proposed GSAs.  Operators and the general public have the opportunity to be involved in the formation of GSAs and preparation of GSPs.
Continue Reading Why California’s New Groundwater Management Law is a Game Changer for Mine Operators

The Alaska DNR is requesting public comments on its mining regulations for establishing and maintaining mining claims – 11 AAC Chapter 86. These regulations (as well as related regulations at 11 AAC 82 and 11 AAC 88) establish or address many of the requirements for locating claims on state lands, performing assessment work, paying rent,…

In one of the most sweeping proposals since the creation of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (“PHMSA”), the agency has announced proposed regulations to update requirements relating to gas gathering and transmission lines.  We find that there are four main areas our readers definitely should be aware of.

First, the proposed regulations would add new assessment and repair criteria for gas pipelines.  Most notably, the proposal will subject thousands of miles of pipelines built before 1970 to verification and testing requirements. These older pipelines had previously been exempt from such requirements.  This new requirement would mean that operators of older pipelines will need to make safety assessments on pipelines which were largely unregulated.  This may be challenging and costly for operators given the lack of records and age of many of these pipelines.

Second, the proposal also expands the agency’s definition of a “gathering line” that is subject to the new safety standards, potentially embracing pipelines previously classified as unregulated production lines. This is an expansive extension of federal authority into oil and gas production areas that have previously been regulated by individual state agencies and state law.
Continue Reading Proposed Rules Coming Down the Pipeline for Gas Gathering and Transmission Lines

On January 29, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to finalize the long-awaited “financial assurance” regulations under section 108(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”).  The hard rock mining industry is first in line to be subject to  the new requirements.

The D.C. Circuit’s order is the result of a case brought by several environmental groups against the EPA seeking to force the EPA to put into effect the so-called “financial assurance regulations.”

In enacting CERCLA in 1980, Congress directed the EPA to ensure that companies remain financially capable of cleaning up contaminated sites. These financial assurance rules were intended to prevent companies from creating toxic sites and then becoming financially unable to clean them up, often causing the cleanup to be delayed for years.

In the intervening thirty years since CERCLA took effect, the EPA made little progress toward promulgating any financial assurance regulations, that is, until a court ruling in 2009 (brought by many of the same groups) ordered them to start. Pursuant to the 2009 ruling, the EPA published a notice in the Federal Register designating the hard rock mining industry as its priority for the development of financial responsibility requirements.  In making this determination, the EPA cited a heightened “risk” associated with hard rock mining which increases the likelihood of releases of hazardous substances.
Continue Reading Financial Assurance Requirements are on the Horizon for Hard Rock Miners

About the Mineral Law Blog

Learn More

Here Stoel Rives shares insight and analysis about key mineral law developments. Drawing on a very active natural resources practice, we aim to keep readers informed about the legal aspects of news that impacts exploration and development of all things mineral.