EPA

Subscribe to EPA

This post was co-authored by Beth Ginsberg & Krista McIntyre.

The U.S. Department of Justice (U.S. DOJ) recently issued a memorandum stating that settlements, including consent decrees, entered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies can no longer include a Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP), unless the SEP is expressly authorized by Congress. Companies and individuals accused of violating environmental laws and permits, like Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act permits, commonly agree to perform SEPs to fund projects that go beyond compliance instead of paying a higher cash penalty to the U.S. Treasury. Going forward, companies, individuals, and local governments will no longer have SEPs as a settlement option.

To support this policy reversal after more than 30 years, U.S. DOJ cites to the Miscellaneous Receipts Act, which grants only Congress the authority to decide how to appropriate federal funds. The U.S. DOJ views SEPs as federal funds, and, in U.S. DOJ’s opinion, the EPA and other federal agencies lack the authority to divert those funds to third party recipients and to select the projects that should receive the funds. The power of the purse rests squarely with Congress. “[W]ith SEPs, money otherwise destined for the Treasury finds its way to another destination, not at the insistence of Congress, where the Constitution puts that authority, but instead at the insistence of an administrative agency, or a non-federal entity, or some combination thereof.”
Continue Reading Reversing 30-Year Policy, U.S. DOJ Says Settlements Can No Longer Include Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs)

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a draft Multisector General Permit (MSGP) under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program for stormwater discharges related to industrial activity. In Alaska, EPA has jurisdiction over NPDES permitting on federal property within Denali National Park, in federal waters (three miles or more offshore), and on certain …

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is poised to approve North Dakota’s application for primary enforcement authority over the underground injection of CO2 for geologic sequestration in that state.  Nearly four years after North Dakota became the first state to seek primacy from EPA over carbon sequestration wells – known as Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class VI wells – EPA just published the proposed rule to effect this delegation on Friday.  82 Fed. Reg. 22,949 (May 19, 2017).  The 60-day public comment period on the proposed delegation ends on July 18, 2017.
Continue Reading North Dakota’s UIC Class VI Primacy Wait is Almost Over

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)

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.

Widely anticipated on both sides of the aisle, on May 12, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) released final regulations to curb emissions of methane and volatile organic compounds (“VOC”) from additional new, modified, and reconstructed sources in the oil and gas industry.  The Final Rule, titled,  ‘Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources’ (“Final Rule”), amends the new source performance standards (“NSPS”) for the oil and natural gas source category.  This action follows EPA’s publication of proposed regulations in August 2015, and is extremely significant because it is the first instance of such regulation of VOC and methane emissions by the EPA.  In addition to yesterday’s announcement, the EPA is completing final Control Techniques Guidelines for reducing VOC emissions from existing oil and gas sources in ozone nonattainment areas, which are expected to be released later this spring.

Background: The Climate Action Plan

Over the past few years, the Obama Administration has taken an aggressive stance on climate change regulation, and the Final Rule is the Administration’s most recent action to specifically address methane and short-lived climate pollutants.  In June 2013, the Administration released the Climate Action Plan which directed the EPA and other federal agencies to develop a comprehensive regulatory scheme to reduce methane emissions.  In March 2014, as a follow-up to the Climate Action Plan, the Obama Administration issued the Climate Action Plan: Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions.Continue Reading EPA Issues Expansive, Costly New Source Performance Standards for Oil and Gas Sector

On May 4, 2016, a coalition of environmental organizations (“Plaintiffs”) filed suit against the U.S. Environmental Protection (“EPA”) in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to compel the EPA to promulgate revised regulations and guidelines for the disposal, storage, transportation, and handling of oil and gas wastes.  Environmental Integrity Project et al. v. Gina McCarthy (Case No. 1:16-cv-00842).  In the Complaint, Plaintiffs state that the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) requires the EPA to review and revise regulations for drilling wastes every three years.  42 U.S.C. § 6912(b).  According to Plaintiffs, the EPA last conducted a review of the regulations in 1988, but has since failed to update the regulations.  Further, the EPA has not updated the guidelines for state solid waste management plans as required under RCRA.

The environmental organizations are the Environmental Integrity Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthworks, Responsible Drilling Alliance, San Juan Citizens Alliance, West Virginia Surface Owners’ Rights Organization, and the Center for Health, Environment and Justice.
Continue Reading Environmentalists Sue EPA to Force Update of Drilling Waste Regulations

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

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has recently announced that it would take steps to finalize rules establishing financial responsibility requirements for hard rock mines under section 108(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”).

Section 108(b) gives the EPA the authority to require certain facilities to have some type of financial security mechanism in place – such as a bond or insurance policy – that can be used to pay for spills or cleanups should a mining or mineral processing company declare bankruptcy or be otherwise unable to conduct necessary response activities. CERCLA requires the financial responsibility to be consistent with the degree of risk associated with the production, transportation, treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous substances.

In 2009, 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 increase the likelihood of releases of hazardous substances.

The framework for the new regulations assigns financial responsibility amounts based on a facility’s characteristics (i.e., open pits, waste rock, tailings, heap leach, process ponds, water management, and operations, maintenance and monitoring). Natural resources damages and health assessment costs would be separate fixed amounts imposed on each facility. The financial responsibility requirements are intended to be separate and distinct from other federal closure and reclamation bonding requirements imposed under other statutes.
Continue Reading Miners and States take Notice, the EPA is Updating its CERCLA Financial Responsibility Requirements

On Wednesday, August 26, a coalition of environmental groups threatened to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) if the regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) are not updated to restrict the disposal of waste associated with oil and gas production.

The coalition specifically asked the EPA to review and revise the RCRA regulations pursuant to the statutory mandate found in sections 2002(b) and 4002(b) of RCRA. Under these sections, the EPA must review and revise RCRA regulations and guidelines “no less frequently than every three years.” (42 U.S.C. §§ 6912(b), 6942(b).)

RCRA was enacted in 1976 to govern the disposal of solid waste. Solid waste is broken down into (1) hazardous solid waste and (2) non-hazardous solid waste. The most notable provisions of RCRA are included in Subtitle C, which directs the EPA to establish controls on the management of hazardous wastes from their point of generation, through their transportation and treatment, storage and/or disposal.
Continue Reading Activists Threaten to Sue if EPA doesn’t Update RCRA Regs to Cover Oil & Gas Industry

On August 18, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released proposed regulations aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from oil and gas facilities. These first-ever proposed standards are a key part of a broader strategy, under the President’s Climate Action Plan, to cut methane emissions in the sector by 40% to 45% below 2012 levels in the next decade.

Building on its 2012 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for VOC emissions for the oil and natural gas industry, EPA’s proposed updates would require that the industry also reduce methane emissions. Sources already subject to the 2012 NSPS requirements for VOC reductions, which would also be covered by the proposed 2015 methane requirements, would not have to install additional controls, because the controls to reduce VOCs reduce both pollutants. Although the three-year-old mandates targeted VOCs at the sites, the approach cut methane emissions as a side benefit.

The new proposal would go further, requiring methane and VOC reductions from hydraulically fractured oil wells, too. And, the new plan would extend those emission-cutting requirements further downstream to natural gas transmission and processing equipment.
Continue Reading U.S. EPA Proposes New Rules to Curb Methane Emissions from Oil and Gas Sector

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.