Photo of Viktoriia De Las Casas

Viktoriia assists clients in complying with environmental laws and regulations, including permitting and strategizing on implementation of environmental requirements. She also represents them in litigation matters and advises on various aspects of environmental due diligence. Her practice encompasses all of the major environmental statutes, including the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, Clean Air Act, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, and corresponding regulations.

EPA’s first major action under its February 2019 comprehensive Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Action Plan (previously discussed in detail here) is out. On September 25, EPA sent a request for public input on whether EPA should add “certain PFAS chemicals” to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). EPA issues advance notices of proposed rulemaking to get a sense of public reaction before it initiates an important regulatory change, typically before it has conducted significant research or expended agency resources.
Continue Reading

FERC’s consideration of indirect environmental impacts of the projects it certifies has been heavily debated as the concerns over climate change increase.  Both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Natural Gas Act (NGA) require that FERC consider how an interstate natural gas pipeline directly and indirectly affects the human environment.  Although consideration of direct impacts may be a less controversial topic, FERC’s approach with respect to indirect impacts[1] has proven to be more complex.  It is particularly relevant in light of the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ’s) June 2019 proposed guidance, directing how federal agencies should assess project-related greenhouse gas emissions, discussed in detail here and here.  The guidance suggest that FERC should employ a “rule of reason” when considering impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and if FERC lacks adequate information about these emissions, it does not need to quantify them.  This recommended approach, however, seems to conflict with how the D.C. Circuit interpreted FERC’s duty in analyzing greenhouse gas and other indirect emissions in its earlier June 2019 decision Birckhead v. FERC, USCA Case No. 18-1218 (D.C. Cir. 2019). 
Continue Reading

On June 26, 2019, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking requesting comment on a proposed Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for perchlorate under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Perchlorate is both a man-made and naturally-occurring chemical, most commonly found in industrial operations associated with the use or manufacture of rocket fuel, missiles and fireworks. Perchlorate inhibits the uptake of iodide to the thyroid and has been detected in certain public water supply systems, primarily in the western United States. In its Notice, EPA proposes an MCL of 56 µg/L, but at the same time requests public comment on whether the MCL should be set at a higher or lower standard, or whether the agency should re-evaluate its decision to regulate perchlorate based on updated data. This rule, if finalized, could affect thousands of public water systems that would be required to comply with the new standard, as well as state and tribal agencies responsible for drinking water regulatory development and enforcement.
Continue Reading

On April 12, 2019, the Fifth Circuit issued its opinion in Southwestern Elec. Power Co. v. EPA, ordering EPA to reconsider parts of its 2015 Effluents Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (“2015 ELG Rule”). The opinion resolves a challenge brought by environmental groups regarding the rule’s effluent limitation guidelines for “legacy” wastewater and for combustion residual leachate from landfills or settling ponds.

Continue Reading

On April 15, 2019, EPA issued its long-awaited Interpretative Statement addressing the Clean Water Act’s applicability to releases of pollutants from point sources into groundwater that subsequently migrate to jurisdictional surface waters. The question this interpretation addresses stems from the 2018 federal circuit split previously discussed here. On February 19, 2019, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in one of the cases that contributed to the split, County of Maui v. Hawai’i Wildlife Fund. The United States filed its amicus brief in that case, urging the highest court to review County of Maui, but not a similar ruling from the Fourth Circuit. As the question was being reviewed by the federal courts, EPA requested public comment on this issue and received over 50,000 comments. EPA is addressing some of these comments in the Interpretative Statement.
Continue Reading

On March 8, 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of the Army, and Army Corps of Engineers petitioned the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th and 9th Circuits to voluntarily dismiss their appeals of the Suspension rule. This is yet another development in the litigation surrounding the 2015 Waters of the United States Rule (WOTUS). Our previous blog posts on this topic can be accessed here.
Continue Reading