On January 8, 2020, the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee heard testimony from representatives of Wyoming and Maryland in an effort to evaluate the effectiveness of programs under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) designed to reduce nonpoint source (“NPS”) pollution.

NPS pollution, unlike point source pollution that can typically be traced to an industrial or sewage treatment facility, is created by land runoff that results from rainfall or snowmelt. As the water moves over and through the ground, it picks up sediment and other pollutants that are eventually deposited into nearby waterways. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, NPS “pollutants have harmful effects on drinking water supplies, recreation, fisheries, and wildlife.”

EPA’s New Source Review (NSR) reform efforts have been in full swing over the past month or so as the Agency released two final guidance documents, issued a pre-publication version of a proposed rule, took final action to end a years-old reconsideration of a 2007 rulemaking, and released its Fall Unified Agenda detailing dates for a number of upcoming NSR-related actions. While these actions may not have immediate consequences for many regulated sources, they are evidence that EPA continues to pursue its NSR reform agenda. 

Somewhat like a soccer game, time on the dispute between Florida and Georgia over the waters of the Apalachicola Chattahoochee Flint (ACF) basin seems to be kept on the field. It is difficult to know from the stands exactly where the game stands notwithstanding the score.  But the report issued by Special Master Hon. Paul J. Kelly, Jr. on December 11, 2019, plainly tipped the balance in Georgia’s favor when Special Master Kelly stated that he did not recommend that “the Supreme Court grant Florida’s request for a decree equitably apportioning the waters of the ACF Basin because the evidence has not shown harm to Florida caused by Georgia; the evidence has shown that Georgia’s water use is reasonable; and the evidence has not shown that the benefits of apportionment would substantially outweigh the potential harms.”  Rep’t of Sp. Mast. at 81.

On December 9, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to revisit the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit’s decision in Hoopa Valley Tribe v. FERC, 913 F.3d 1099 (2019), allowing the lower court’s ruling to stand.

The key holding of the D.C. Circuit’s opinion, which concerned the ongoing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) relicensing of the Klamath Hydroelectric Project, is that the States of California and Oregon waived their authorities under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. § 1341, by failing to rule on the applicant’s submitted request for water quality certification within one year.  The D.C. Circuit held that the plain language of CWA section 401 establishes a maximum period of one year for states to act on a request for water quality certification.  Accordingly, the court further held that FERC erred in concluding that the “withdrawal-and-resubmittal” of the water quality certification application on an annual basis resets the one-year statutory time period for state action under section 401.

On November 22, 2019, the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) agreed to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the operation of the federally owned and operated Chief Joseph Dam, the second-largest hydropower producing dam in the United States, as part of a settlement with the Columbia Riverkeeper. The settlement resolves litigation (previously addressed on this blog) brought by the Columbia Riverkeeper, which claimed that the Corps’ dam operations had long been discharging oil, grease, and heated water into the Columbia River without a permit.

Sections 301(a) and 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) prohibit anyone, including a federal agency, from discharging “pollutants” through a “point source” into a “water of the United States” except as authorized by a NPDES permit. Section 505 of the CWA provides any citizen, including a citizen group like Columbia Riverkeeper, the ability to bring a civil action against any person, including the United States, that is violating an effluent standard or limitation. As detailed by its complaint, the Columbia Riverkeeper alleged that the Corps has been in violation of CWA standards by allowing oils and grease to accumulate in sumps that drain into the river and utilizing hydro-carbon based lubricants on generation equipment that become discharged with cooling water without a NPDES permit.

Under the Obama Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a rule on January 13, 2017 amending parts of the Clean Air Act’s (CAA) Risk Management Plan (RMP) program, which regulates facilities that use hazardous substances.  Among other things, the Obama Administration’s 2017 RMP Rule implemented new requirements related to technology and alternatives analyses, third-party audits, disclosure requirements, and incident investigations.  Similarly to other areas of environmental law, the Trump Administration expressed its intention to repeal these requirements shortly after entering office.  After issuing a May 30, 2018 proposed rule and considering nearly 77,360 submitted comments, the EPA recently made good on its intention by releasing the pre-publication version of final RMP Reconsideration Rule that, among other things, repeals the Obama Administration regulations.

The final rule incorporates most of the substantive provisions in the proposed rule.  In addition to repealing much of the 2017 RMP Rule, the RMP Reconsideration Rule modifies the requirements related to local emergency coordination and compliance dates for some provisions.  The Reconsideration Rule will become immediately effective upon its publication in the Federal Register, which should occur soon.  Parties are also expected to challenge the RMP Reconsideration Rule in court, potentially resulting in the delay of the rule’s effective date or its reversal.  One potential challenger is a contingent of fourteen state attorney generals that submitted negative comments on the proposed rule.  More recently, the states submitted another comment listing chemical incidents that have occurred since the proposed rule, which they argue further evidences the need to keep the 2017 RMP Rule.

On November 15, EPA posted its pre-publication version of the Final Rule re-classifying aerosol cans as “universal waste” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which finalizes EPA’s March 16, 2018 proposal (83 Fed. Reg. 11,654).  As discussed in our prior blog post regarding the proposal, many aerosol cans have historically been classified as hazardous waste because of their ignitability, and thus often are subject to stringent regulations related to handling, transportation, and disposal.

Universal waste is a sub-category of RCRA regulated hazardous waste that allows certain widely generated products, such as batteries, certain pesticides, and lamps, to qualify for less stringent regulation than the traditional hazardous waste regime.  The Final Rule is intended by EPA to ease regulatory burdens on retail stores and others that discard hazardous waste aerosol cans by providing an optional pathway for streamlined waste management treatment; promote the collection and recycling of these cans; and encourage the development of municipal and commercial programs to reduce the quantity of aerosol cans going to municipal solid waste landfills or combustors. 

On November 13, 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officially opened the public comment period for its proposed revisions to its Lead and Copper Rule under the Safe Water Drinking Act. The EPA will receive comments on the proposal until January 13, 2020. A copy of proposal can be found…

On November, 4, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Andrew Wheeler announced the latest proposal to amend the Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) rule. Since its original promulgation in April 2015, the CCR rule has been the subject of extensive litigation and numerous rounds of proposed and final revisions. Many of the revisions have sought to address decisions made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (D.C. Circuit) and concerns raised by both industry and environmental groups. This latest round of proposed changes—entitled “A Holistic Approach to Closure Part A: Deadline to Initiate Closure”—includes the following three categories of proposed amendments to the CCR Rule.

EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ new rule repealing the 2015 “Clean Water Rule,” will be published in the Federal Register tomorrow.

The “repeal rule” will take effect December 20, 2019, providing nationwide consistency regarding the jurisdiction of Waters of the U.S. and ending the current…