California agencies are beginning to provide clarification and directives to guide regulatory compliance following local “shelter in place” orders to slow the spread of COVID-19 in the San Francisco Bay Area, and Governor Gavin Newsom’s state-wide “stay at home” order issued on March 19, 2020. While the State Department of Public Health is taking the lead in coordinating the state-level response, other regulatory agencies responsible for essential services and facilities have begun to issue their first formal directives related to environmental compliance and safety.

The emphasis of regulatory directives thus far are clear: all requirements related to critical infrastructure remain in effect, with special provisions for immediate notification if there are circumstances or current government directives that could impede timely compliance.

Continue Reading Update – California Agencies Issue Guidance for Regulatory Compliance As COVID-19 Containment Orders Go Into Effect

As the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak continues across the U.S., it is important for companies to proactively address the potential disruptions to their compliance programs. Environmental compliance is often a boots-on-the-ground activity; but what happens when those boots are at home, can’t travel as needed, or can’t observe operations at the plant level?  Unprecedented staffing and operational issues associated with the coronavirus pandemic have the potential to cause significant gaps in environmental compliance programs. Staying ahead of those gaps is key to weathering these compliance challenges. Below we discuss some recommended strategies to maintain compliance.

Continue Reading Environmental Compliance in the Wake of the Coronavirus

On January 27, EPA published a preliminary list of manufacturers that are potentially subject to a fee obligation under the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”). This is a follow-up notice to EPA’s designation of 20 additional substances as High Priority Substances in December, for which the agency will now go through a risk evaluation, including:

Continue Reading EPA Publishes Preliminary List of Manufacturers Subject to TSCA Risk Evaluation Fees

On January 3, 2018, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the User Fees for the Electronic Hazardous Waste Manifest System and Amendments to Manifest Regulations Final Rule (“User Fee Rule” or “Rule”) in the Federal Register (83 Federal Register 420).  While the User Fee Rule does not set e-Manifest user fees, it gives EPA authority to establish user fees and establishes the methodology for EPA to do so.  The Rule becomes effective June 30, 2018.

Continue Reading e-Manifest User Fee Rule Published

On October 25, 2017, EPA Region 6 announced a settlement with Macy’s department stores for alleged violations of hazardous waste regulations.  In the press release, EPA alleged that Macy’s generated thousands of pounds of hazardous waste between 2012 – 2015 and qualified as a small-quantity generator but failed to notify EPA and state authorities.  

On August 15, 2017, EPA issued non-binding guidance providing insight of EPA’s expectations for states to assume regulation authority over coal combustion residuals (CCRs).   Comments on this guidance are due September 14, 2017. Under the Water Infrastructure and Improvements for the Nation Act, states may develop their own CCR permit programs that are “at least as protective” as the federal CCR rule.  EPA must review these programs at least every 12 years.  Upon the submission of a program application by a state, EPA will have 180 days to act, which includes a period of public notice and comment.  States may choose not to submit such a program, and instead opt to remain under the federal scheme.
Continue Reading Environmental Protection Agency Issues Guidance on Approving State Permit Programs under the WIIN Act

A recent case decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that an entity involved only in post-closure activities at a site may still be considered an “operator” for purposes of 15A NCAC 13A .0109(h), making the entity subject to closure and post-closure standards for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.

Continue Reading NC Court of Appeals Finds Post-Closure Involvement Sufficient Grounds for “Operator” Liability under RCRA

As we previously reported, industry groups, including the American Chemistry Council, challenged the final Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule (“Final Rule”) in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on February 24, 2017.  The Final Rule was published in the Federal Register on November 28, 2016 (a discussion of the Final Rule and its potential impacts can be found here).  Since our previous post, some updates have occurred in the pending challenge.

Continue Reading Updates in Industry Challenge to Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule

On February 24, 2017, industry groups challenged the final Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule (“Final Rule”) in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.  The long-anticipated Final Rule was published in the Federal Register on November 28, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 85732).  Pursuant to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) section 7006, petitioners have ninety days from that date to challenge the rule in the D.C. Circuit.  Because the ninety-day deadline to challenge the rule expired on Monday, February 27, 2017, no more challenges may be filed.  A previous discussion of the Final Rule and its potential impacts can be found here.

Continue Reading Industry Challenges to Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule

On January 11, EPA proposed Superfund financial assurance regulations for the hardrock mining industry.  The proposal requires owners and operators of certain types of hardrock mines and mineral processing facilities to give financial assurances of their ability to pay for potential releases of hazardous substances from their facilities, including Superfund cleanup costs, health assessment costs and natural resource damages (NRD).

Continue Reading EPA’s Proposed Mining Assurance Rule