Should states opt to “just say no” to U.S. EPA’s Clean Power Plan proposal by either not submitting compliance plans or creating mechanisms that do not follow the agency’s building blocks? Peter Glaser in Troutman’s D.C. office discussed that question with E&E TV’s Monica Trauzzi this week. Peter posited that
A recent Sixth Circuit decision on permit shield protection reinforces the importance of full disclosure to the permitting agency. The Sixth Circuit found a coal company was shielded from Clean Water Act liability for discharges exceeding state water quality standards by a state NPDES general permit. This is the latest decision in a series of cases where courts have wrestled with the scope of protection afforded by the CWA’s permit shield provision. See 33 U.S.C. § 1342(k).
In a recent memo issued by EPA’s Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance (OECA), Assistant Administrator Cynthia Giles announced that four specific “enforcement tools” should be considered “in all civil enforcement cases and incorporated in civil and administrative settlements whenever appropriate.” OECA notes that these measures can be imposed via settlement through “injunctive relief, mitigation, or Supplemental Environmental Projects.”
In the February 2015 issue of Natural Gas Electricity, Partner Mack McGuffey offers a summary of the air-quality regulations that the Environmental Protection Agency plans to finalize in 2015. Anticipating the EPA will spend most of the year reviewing comments and making appropriate changes to the numerous proposals submitted in
On Wednesday, EPA announced a relatively unsurprising move with respect to its trio of rules designed to reduce power plant emissions of greenhouse gases—a delay. Instead of early June, EPA says to expect the final rules (all three of them) at the ambiguous time of “summer,” which theoretically could extend into September.
As reported by Law360, Troutman Sanders LLP and members of its Environmental and Natural Resources Practice Group assisted Safeway Inc. regarding its recent settlement of retail and pharmaceutical waste issues in California. The Alameda County District Attorney’s office, along with 43 other California jurisdictions, filed a Complaint and Stipulation of Final Judgment resolving the case for payments of penalties, investigative costs and Supplemental Environmental Projects valued at $9.87 M. Prosecutors alleged that Safeway and its approximately 500 grocery stores and pharmacies, as well as two distribution centers, had improperly disposed of hazardous and medical wastes under state laws regulating the disposal of these materials.
The tri-state water wars continue to divide the Southeast as litigation moves forward. In Georgia, two river basins supply water to metropolitan Atlanta—the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin which flows through Georgia, Florida, and Alabama and the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) River Basin which runs through Georgia and Alabama. Litigation is pending over water allocation for both the ACF and the ACT basins.
Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, and Mike Boots of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, joined together last week to compliment and promote Virginia’s stormwater nutrient trading program. All noted the multiple environmental and economic benefits of Virginia’s program and held it out as an example to be followed in other states. Brent Fults of Troutman Sanders client Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Land Trust (CBNLT) also spoke at the event and was recognized as a leading private investor building Virginia’s market based nutrient trading program.
EPA recently revised its Enforcement Response Policy for High Priority Violations of the Clean Air Act: Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Response to High Priority Violations (the “HPV Policy”). Although the new Policy is dated August 25, 2014, it was only recently released to the public. In addition to EPA, the HPV Policy also applies to state, local, territorial, and tribal environmental enforcement agencies and is designed to prioritize enforcement actions for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act. EPA describes the revisions as “substantial changes” and notes that the new policy “supersedes” a previous version of the HPV Policy issued in 1998. State/local agencies are directed to implement the changes beginning October 1, 2014.
On December 10, 2014, EPA finalized a number of changes to the federal hazardous waste management rules. Among other things, the new rules: