On June 1, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a final rule clarifying substantive authorities and procedural requirements for water quality certifications under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). EPA’s August 2019 notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) (summarized in our previous post) articulated the Agency’s first-ever statutory interpretation of section 401 since its enactment nearly 50 years ago, and proposed sweeping substantive and procedural changes to its section 401 regulations in conformance with its interpretation. EPA’s final rule largely adopts the regulations in its NOPR, but makes important changes in adopting new regulations that preserve authority of states and Native American tribes exercising “Treatment as a State” (TAS) authorization to ensure that discharges from federally licensed and permitted activities meet state and tribal water quality requirements.

Today, June 1, 2020 marks the opening of the window to submit data for the four-year reporting period under the Chemical Data Reporting Rule (CDR Rule) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The CDR Rule requires manufacturers (including importers) of substances listed on the TSCA Chemical Inventory to submit data to EPA every four years. Companies subject to the CDR Rule should be aware of several developments that affect reporting requirements and procedures this reporting period.

The question of how to regulate temperature in water bodies is one that states in the Northwest have struggled with for years. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) addressed that question on May 18, 2020, when it released a draft Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) to achieve water quality standards for temperature in certain reaches of the Columbia and Lower Snake Rivers in Oregon and Washington. This new TMDL comes a few months after a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Columbia Riverkeeper v. Wheeler, requiring the agency to take the lead after Oregon and Washington failed to submit their own TMDL. Comments on the draft TMDL are due by the end of July 21, 2020.

On May 26, 2020, the Ninth Circuit issued two related decisions in City of Oakland and County of San Mateo brought by California cities and counties against major oil and gas companies. Exclusively citing state law relating to, among other things, nuisance, negligence, and trespass, the California municipalities allege that the companies’ fossil fuel activities have substantially contributed to climate change and, in doing so, impermissibly caused public harm. The municipalities accordingly demand the companies reimburse their costs reacting to and preparing for the effects of climate change. At issue before the Ninth Circuit was whether these claims triggered the jurisdiction of federal courts. Answering this question in the negative, the court determined that the cases must proceed at the state level.

The new hazardous waste pharmaceutical management standards established by EPA’s Management Standards for Hazardous Waste Pharmaceuticals and Amendment to the P075 Listing for Nicotine (“Rule”) are already effective in some states. Other states must adopt the rule by July 1, 2021 or, if a statutory amendment is required prior to the state’s adoption, by July 1, 2022. Based on this, all “healthcare facilities”[1] and “reverse distributors,”[2] as defined by the Rule, will ultimately be required to comply with the Rule (as adopted in each state).

Amid the ongoing public health pandemic, EPA has issued two fact sheets suggesting it may conclude that a federal drinking water standard for perchlorate is not warranted. In a June 2019 blog post we reported that EPA asked the public whether it should set a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for perchlorate. Setting an MCL for this substance could affect both public water systems and other regulated entities. But EPA’s preliminary move last week appears to suggest that EPA is preparing to conclude that an MCL may not be warranted for perchlorate.

Authors
Mitchell Guc, Associate, Pepper Hamilton
Todd Fracassi, Partner, Pepper Hamilton
Randy Brogdon, Partner, Troutman Sanders

On May 13, nine state attorneys general filed a complaint against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) challenging EPA’s COVID-19 enforcement discretion policy, which we discussed in previous articles here and here. The plaintiff states are New York, California, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont and Virginia.

Yesterday, the U.S. District Court for Montana amended its April 15, 2020, order vacating Nationwide Permit (NWP) 12, which authorizes minimal impacts from “utility line activities” to jurisdictional waters. As we previously reported, despite the case centering on the Keystone XL Pipeline, the court’s April 15 order vacated NWP 12 nationwide for all activities (including broadband, electric, water and sewer) until the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) consults with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (Services) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In yesterday’s order, the court amended the vacatur’s applicability by limiting it to the construction of new oil and gas pipelines. Under the amended order, the Corps may continue to authorize the use of NWP 12 for construction of new utility lines for broadband, electric, water, and sewer, as well as “maintenance, inspection, and repair activities” on existing utility lines, including existing pipelines.

On May 5, 2020, the Illinois Attorney General filed a complaint against a developer and its contractors responsible for demolishing the smokestack of a former coal-fired power plant in Chicago. The suit provides a good reminder that careful planning for the control of fugitive dust emissions is critical during decommissioning activities—and that state legal offices and regulators will keep their eyes on potential environmental issues at coal-fired plants until the last brick comes down.

On April 20, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Montana Supreme Court’s decision in Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian, limiting restoration damages claims beyond Environmental Protection Agency-approved cleanups at Superfund sites, while affirming the right of private parties to seek other kinds of damages under state law. The majority decision, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, turns on a plain-text interpretation of the definition of “potentially responsible parties” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Over a dissent by Justice Neil Gorsuch joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court found that the affected landowners are potentially responsible parties and, therefore, restricted from challenging EPA-approved remediation plans.