Clean Water Advocates and Industrial Sector Battle Over Connecticut's Industrial Stormwater Permit

Posted on March 23, 2009 by Gregory Sharp

By Gregory A. Sharp

Murtha Cullina LLP

March 23, 2009

 

The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) has proposed to revise and renew its General Permit for the Discharge of Stormwater Associated with Industrial Activity. The renewal has prompted environmental groups to seek enhanced notice and public participation requirements and has provoked the regulated community to seek an overhaul of the structure of the General Permit.

 

The previous General Permit was adopted in 2002, modified in 2003, and expired on September 30, 2007. It was unilaterally extended on October 1, 2007 and October 1, 2008 through March 31, 2008 without change by DEP to provide ongoing coverage to approximately 1,500 registrants. Companies in Connecticut with industrial SIC codes are required to register if they have a discharge of stormwater through a conveyance to waters of the United States, and are not otherwise exempt.

 

Connecticut’s Industrial Stormwater scheme historically was a one-size-fits-all general permit. It allowed eligible companies to authorize their stormwater discharges by filing a registration form, similar to the Notice of Intent in the federal program. The filing of the registration, along with a fee, conferred coverage under the permit, subject to its terms, unless the Commissioner requested an individual permit application.

 

The 2002 permit required the preparation and certification by a P.E. or C.H.H.M. of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (“SWPPP”), adherence to generic best management practices (“BMPs”), annual monitoring of stormwater discharges from qualifying storm events for an expansive list of chemical and physical parameters, including whole effluent toxicity, and a set of Target Values for the parameters based on the 80th percentile of the monitoring data collected in previous years.

 

Historically, the permit had not been particularly controversial, had been relatively easy for DEP to administer, and enabled the agency to develop a significant stormwater data base which it could sort by SIC Code and use to prioritize enforcement. Significant enforcement cases over the past 10 years focused on non-stormwater discharges, such as those from vehicle washing, which commingled with stormwater, or in some cases, discharged directly through stormwater systems.

 

During the summer of 2008, DEP announced that it would be revising the permit. It sought to update its 80th percentile Target Values to reflect the monitoring data acquired since the prior permit was adopted in 2002, and it proposed Action Levels at the 95th percentile of prior monitoring results which would require follow-up action by registrants to investigate the source of the exceedances and modify their BMPs and SWPPPs.

 

Two events conspired to radically change DEP’s approach to the General Permit renewal. On September 27, 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) adopted its Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Associated with Industrial Activity (73 FR 56372), and on October 8, 2008, the Connecticut Fund for the Environment and the Connecticut Soundkeeper, Inc. intervened in the DEP proceedings convened to renew the permit, and several industrial stakeholder organizations quickly joined the fray.

 

The environmental groups sought significant changes to the permit scheme arising from federal appellate decisions interpreting the Clean Water Act to require the opportunity for public notice and comment not only on the General Permit and its terms, but also on the individual discharger’s Notice of Intent and its proposed pollution control measures.

 

The leading case relied upon by the environmental intervenors is Environmental Defense Center, Inc. et al. vs. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency et al., 344 F. 3d 832 (9th Cir., 2003). In that case, environmental groups challenged the EPA’s Phase II regulations for municipal storm and sanitary sewers (“MS4s). The regulations authorized the use of general permits and required the use of BMPs identified in an NOI filed by the MS4 in seeking authorization under the general permit. Consistent with its prior practice, EPA did not require NOIs to be subject to public notice or public hearings.

 

The environmental petitioners challenged the rule, because it did not require EPA to review the content of the MS4 dischargers’ Notices of Intent and the substance of the stormwater controls adopted by the dischargers, and it did not contain requirements for public participation in the NPDES permitting process.

 

The Ninth Circuit remanded the rule on both counts. As to the review of the discharger’s individually proposed pollution control measures, the court, relying on Section 402 (p) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p), held “stormwater management programs that are designed by regulated parties must, in every instance, be subject to meaningful review by an appropriate regulating entity to ensure that each such program reduces the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable.” Id. at 856.

 

As to the public participation aspects, the court held that, because it was the NOIs and accompanying documents, not the general permit itself, that contain the substantive information on pollution control measures to reduce discharges to the maximum extent practicable, if the Rule does not make NOIs available to the public or provide for public hearings on NOIs, the Rule violates the intent of the Act, as embodied in 33 U.S.C. § 1342 (a)(1) and (j).

 

Using this precedent the environmental groups in Connecticut challenged the DEP’s past practice of not publishing notice of registrations for the Industrial Stormwater Permit and not providing for public review of the site-specific SWPPPs mandated by the General Permit. In the most recent draft of the General Permit, the agency has agreed to publish notice on its website of registrations received each month, and provide a means by which the public can review the SWPPPs.

 

On the industry side, trade associations advocated for a Connecticut General Permit that would emulate the federal Multi-Sector permit. The advantage of the federal approach to industry was that EPA designated 29 industrial sectors and tailored its generic control measures and monitoring requirements to each sector. Although the EPA permit requires quarterly monitoring for sector specific “Benchmark” pollutants, the number of parameters measured is far less than Connecticut’s prior permit and does not include toxicity. The Benchmark concept incorporated in the permit requires those dischargers for which the average of four quarters of monitoring data exceed the Benchmark concentration to investigate the reasons for the exceedance and modify their control measures and SWPPP. For certain sectors, EPA also adopted enforceable effluent limitations.

 

On February 4, 2009, DEP issued a new proposed draft which adopts ten sectors modeled on the federal permit with semi-annual monitoring. The previously proposed “Action Levels” have become “Benchmarks” to track the federal language. DEP’s proposal retains the broad spectrum of parameters to be included in the monitoring program, including toxicity, but makes some sector specific adjustments. The toxicity monitoring requirement carries with it no Benchmark. The draft also adds annual monitoring for parameters for which receiving waters have been designated impaired or subject to Total Maximum Daily Load restrictions.

 

The Benchmark values for Copper, Lead and Zinc are based on Connecticut’s Water Quality Standards. The Benchmarks for remaining parameters (pH, O&G, COD, TSS, TPh, TKN, and NO3), are based on the 50th percentile of the previously acquired monitoring data. Industry has objected to the Benchmarks set at the 50th percentile as arbitrary (not water-quality based), overly stringent, and impossible for many sites to achieve.

 

The DEP is still taking comments, and expects to go to notice on a new proposal in April. In the meantime, the DEP has published notice that it intends to extend the 2002 General Permit once again until September 30, 2010, but it will require re-registration and a pro-rated fee of $300 for the October 1, 2007 to September 10, 2010 time period.

Clean Water Advocates and Industrial Sector Battle Over Connecticut's Industrial Stormwater Permit

Posted on March 23, 2009 by Gregory Sharp

By Gregory A. Sharp

Murtha Cullina LLP

March 23, 2009

 

The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) has proposed to revise and renew its General Permit for the Discharge of Stormwater Associated with Industrial Activity. The renewal has prompted environmental groups to seek enhanced notice and public participation requirements and has provoked the regulated community to seek an overhaul of the structure of the General Permit.

 

The previous General Permit was adopted in 2002, modified in 2003, and expired on September 30, 2007. It was unilaterally extended on October 1, 2007 and October 1, 2008 through March 31, 2008 without change by DEP to provide ongoing coverage to approximately 1,500 registrants. Companies in Connecticut with industrial SIC codes are required to register if they have a discharge of stormwater through a conveyance to waters of the United States, and are not otherwise exempt.

 

Connecticut’s Industrial Stormwater scheme historically was a one-size-fits-all general permit. It allowed eligible companies to authorize their stormwater discharges by filing a registration form, similar to the Notice of Intent in the federal program. The filing of the registration, along with a fee, conferred coverage under the permit, subject to its terms, unless the Commissioner requested an individual permit application.

 

The 2002 permit required the preparation and certification by a P.E. or C.H.H.M. of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (“SWPPP”), adherence to generic best management practices (“BMPs”), annual monitoring of stormwater discharges from qualifying storm events for an expansive list of chemical and physical parameters, including whole effluent toxicity, and a set of Target Values for the parameters based on the 80th percentile of the monitoring data collected in previous years.

 

Historically, the permit had not been particularly controversial, had been relatively easy for DEP to administer, and enabled the agency to develop a significant stormwater data base which it could sort by SIC Code and use to prioritize enforcement. Significant enforcement cases over the past 10 years focused on non-stormwater discharges, such as those from vehicle washing, which commingled with stormwater, or in some cases, discharged directly through stormwater systems.

 

During the summer of 2008, DEP announced that it would be revising the permit. It sought to update its 80th percentile Target Values to reflect the monitoring data acquired since the prior permit was adopted in 2002, and it proposed Action Levels at the 95th percentile of prior monitoring results which would require follow-up action by registrants to investigate the source of the exceedances and modify their BMPs and SWPPPs.

 

Two events conspired to radically change DEP’s approach to the General Permit renewal. On September 27, 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) adopted its Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Associated with Industrial Activity (73 FR 56372), and on October 8, 2008, the Connecticut Fund for the Environment and the Connecticut Soundkeeper, Inc. intervened in the DEP proceedings convened to renew the permit, and several industrial stakeholder organizations quickly joined the fray.

 

The environmental groups sought significant changes to the permit scheme arising from federal appellate decisions interpreting the Clean Water Act to require the opportunity for public notice and comment not only on the General Permit and its terms, but also on the individual discharger’s Notice of Intent and its proposed pollution control measures.

 

The leading case relied upon by the environmental intervenors is Environmental Defense Center, Inc. et al. vs. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency et al., 344 F. 3d 832 (9th Cir., 2003). In that case, environmental groups challenged the EPA’s Phase II regulations for municipal storm and sanitary sewers (“MS4s). The regulations authorized the use of general permits and required the use of BMPs identified in an NOI filed by the MS4 in seeking authorization under the general permit. Consistent with its prior practice, EPA did not require NOIs to be subject to public notice or public hearings.

 

The environmental petitioners challenged the rule, because it did not require EPA to review the content of the MS4 dischargers’ Notices of Intent and the substance of the stormwater controls adopted by the dischargers, and it did not contain requirements for public participation in the NPDES permitting process.

 

The Ninth Circuit remanded the rule on both counts. As to the review of the discharger’s individually proposed pollution control measures, the court, relying on Section 402 (p) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p), held “stormwater management programs that are designed by regulated parties must, in every instance, be subject to meaningful review by an appropriate regulating entity to ensure that each such program reduces the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable.” Id. at 856.

 

As to the public participation aspects, the court held that, because it was the NOIs and accompanying documents, not the general permit itself, that contain the substantive information on pollution control measures to reduce discharges to the maximum extent practicable, if the Rule does not make NOIs available to the public or provide for public hearings on NOIs, the Rule violates the intent of the Act, as embodied in 33 U.S.C. § 1342 (a)(1) and (j).

 

Using this precedent the environmental groups in Connecticut challenged the DEP’s past practice of not publishing notice of registrations for the Industrial Stormwater Permit and not providing for public review of the site-specific SWPPPs mandated by the General Permit. In the most recent draft of the General Permit, the agency has agreed to publish notice on its website of registrations received each month, and provide a means by which the public can review the SWPPPs.

 

On the industry side, trade associations advocated for a Connecticut General Permit that would emulate the federal Multi-Sector permit. The advantage of the federal approach to industry was that EPA designated 29 industrial sectors and tailored its generic control measures and monitoring requirements to each sector. Although the EPA permit requires quarterly monitoring for sector specific “Benchmark” pollutants, the number of parameters measured is far less than Connecticut’s prior permit and does not include toxicity. The Benchmark concept incorporated in the permit requires those dischargers for which the average of four quarters of monitoring data exceed the Benchmark concentration to investigate the reasons for the exceedance and modify their control measures and SWPPP. For certain sectors, EPA also adopted enforceable effluent limitations.

 

On February 4, 2009, DEP issued a new proposed draft which adopts ten sectors modeled on the federal permit with semi-annual monitoring. The previously proposed “Action Levels” have become “Benchmarks” to track the federal language. DEP’s proposal retains the broad spectrum of parameters to be included in the monitoring program, including toxicity, but makes some sector specific adjustments. The toxicity monitoring requirement carries with it no Benchmark. The draft also adds annual monitoring for parameters for which receiving waters have been designated impaired or subject to Total Maximum Daily Load restrictions.

 

The Benchmark values for Copper, Lead and Zinc are based on Connecticut’s Water Quality Standards. The Benchmarks for remaining parameters (pH, O&G, COD, TSS, TPh, TKN, and NO3), are based on the 50th percentile of the previously acquired monitoring data. Industry has objected to the Benchmarks set at the 50th percentile as arbitrary (not water-quality based), overly stringent, and impossible for many sites to achieve.

 

The DEP is still taking comments, and expects to go to notice on a new proposal in April. In the meantime, the DEP has published notice that it intends to extend the 2002 General Permit once again until September 30, 2010, but it will require re-registration and a pro-rated fee of $300 for the October 1, 2007 to September 10, 2010 time period.

Clean Water Advocates and Industrial Sector Battle Over Connecticut's Industrial Stormwater Permit

Posted on March 23, 2009 by Gregory Sharp

By Gregory A. Sharp

Murtha Cullina LLP

March 23, 2009

 

The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) has proposed to revise and renew its General Permit for the Discharge of Stormwater Associated with Industrial Activity. The renewal has prompted environmental groups to seek enhanced notice and public participation requirements and has provoked the regulated community to seek an overhaul of the structure of the General Permit.

 

The previous General Permit was adopted in 2002, modified in 2003, and expired on September 30, 2007. It was unilaterally extended on October 1, 2007 and October 1, 2008 through March 31, 2008 without change by DEP to provide ongoing coverage to approximately 1,500 registrants. Companies in Connecticut with industrial SIC codes are required to register if they have a discharge of stormwater through a conveyance to waters of the United States, and are not otherwise exempt.

 

Connecticut’s Industrial Stormwater scheme historically was a one-size-fits-all general permit. It allowed eligible companies to authorize their stormwater discharges by filing a registration form, similar to the Notice of Intent in the federal program. The filing of the registration, along with a fee, conferred coverage under the permit, subject to its terms, unless the Commissioner requested an individual permit application.

 

The 2002 permit required the preparation and certification by a P.E. or C.H.H.M. of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (“SWPPP”), adherence to generic best management practices (“BMPs”), annual monitoring of stormwater discharges from qualifying storm events for an expansive list of chemical and physical parameters, including whole effluent toxicity, and a set of Target Values for the parameters based on the 80th percentile of the monitoring data collected in previous years.

 

Historically, the permit had not been particularly controversial, had been relatively easy for DEP to administer, and enabled the agency to develop a significant stormwater data base which it could sort by SIC Code and use to prioritize enforcement. Significant enforcement cases over the past 10 years focused on non-stormwater discharges, such as those from vehicle washing, which commingled with stormwater, or in some cases, discharged directly through stormwater systems.

 

During the summer of 2008, DEP announced that it would be revising the permit. It sought to update its 80th percentile Target Values to reflect the monitoring data acquired since the prior permit was adopted in 2002, and it proposed Action Levels at the 95th percentile of prior monitoring results which would require follow-up action by registrants to investigate the source of the exceedances and modify their BMPs and SWPPPs.

 

Two events conspired to radically change DEP’s approach to the General Permit renewal. On September 27, 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) adopted its Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Associated with Industrial Activity (73 FR 56372), and on October 8, 2008, the Connecticut Fund for the Environment and the Connecticut Soundkeeper, Inc. intervened in the DEP proceedings convened to renew the permit, and several industrial stakeholder organizations quickly joined the fray.

 

The environmental groups sought significant changes to the permit scheme arising from federal appellate decisions interpreting the Clean Water Act to require the opportunity for public notice and comment not only on the General Permit and its terms, but also on the individual discharger’s Notice of Intent and its proposed pollution control measures.

 

The leading case relied upon by the environmental intervenors is Environmental Defense Center, Inc. et al. vs. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency et al., 344 F. 3d 832 (9th Cir., 2003). In that case, environmental groups challenged the EPA’s Phase II regulations for municipal storm and sanitary sewers (“MS4s). The regulations authorized the use of general permits and required the use of BMPs identified in an NOI filed by the MS4 in seeking authorization under the general permit. Consistent with its prior practice, EPA did not require NOIs to be subject to public notice or public hearings.

 

The environmental petitioners challenged the rule, because it did not require EPA to review the content of the MS4 dischargers’ Notices of Intent and the substance of the stormwater controls adopted by the dischargers, and it did not contain requirements for public participation in the NPDES permitting process.

 

The Ninth Circuit remanded the rule on both counts. As to the review of the discharger’s individually proposed pollution control measures, the court, relying on Section 402 (p) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p), held “stormwater management programs that are designed by regulated parties must, in every instance, be subject to meaningful review by an appropriate regulating entity to ensure that each such program reduces the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable.” Id. at 856.

 

As to the public participation aspects, the court held that, because it was the NOIs and accompanying documents, not the general permit itself, that contain the substantive information on pollution control measures to reduce discharges to the maximum extent practicable, if the Rule does not make NOIs available to the public or provide for public hearings on NOIs, the Rule violates the intent of the Act, as embodied in 33 U.S.C. § 1342 (a)(1) and (j).

 

Using this precedent the environmental groups in Connecticut challenged the DEP’s past practice of not publishing notice of registrations for the Industrial Stormwater Permit and not providing for public review of the site-specific SWPPPs mandated by the General Permit. In the most recent draft of the General Permit, the agency has agreed to publish notice on its website of registrations received each month, and provide a means by which the public can review the SWPPPs.

 

On the industry side, trade associations advocated for a Connecticut General Permit that would emulate the federal Multi-Sector permit. The advantage of the federal approach to industry was that EPA designated 29 industrial sectors and tailored its generic control measures and monitoring requirements to each sector. Although the EPA permit requires quarterly monitoring for sector specific “Benchmark” pollutants, the number of parameters measured is far less than Connecticut’s prior permit and does not include toxicity. The Benchmark concept incorporated in the permit requires those dischargers for which the average of four quarters of monitoring data exceed the Benchmark concentration to investigate the reasons for the exceedance and modify their control measures and SWPPP. For certain sectors, EPA also adopted enforceable effluent limitations.

 

On February 4, 2009, DEP issued a new proposed draft which adopts ten sectors modeled on the federal permit with semi-annual monitoring. The previously proposed “Action Levels” have become “Benchmarks” to track the federal language. DEP’s proposal retains the broad spectrum of parameters to be included in the monitoring program, including toxicity, but makes some sector specific adjustments. The toxicity monitoring requirement carries with it no Benchmark. The draft also adds annual monitoring for parameters for which receiving waters have been designated impaired or subject to Total Maximum Daily Load restrictions.

 

The Benchmark values for Copper, Lead and Zinc are based on Connecticut’s Water Quality Standards. The Benchmarks for remaining parameters (pH, O&G, COD, TSS, TPh, TKN, and NO3), are based on the 50th percentile of the previously acquired monitoring data. Industry has objected to the Benchmarks set at the 50th percentile as arbitrary (not water-quality based), overly stringent, and impossible for many sites to achieve.

 

The DEP is still taking comments, and expects to go to notice on a new proposal in April. In the meantime, the DEP has published notice that it intends to extend the 2002 General Permit once again until September 30, 2010, but it will require re-registration and a pro-rated fee of $300 for the October 1, 2007 to September 10, 2010 time period.

New Requirements for Siting and Permitting in Connecticut

Posted on March 13, 2009 by Earl Phillips

As of January 1, 2009, a party seeking to develop or expand certain facilities in Connecticut that require approval by the state Siting Council or the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) must comply with significantly expanded public participation requirements before applying for or receiving approval from the Siting Council or DEP.

The new requirements arise from Public Act 08-94, An Act Concerning Environmental Justice Communities and the Storage of Asbestos-Containing Material (the "Act"), enacted in May 2008.  The Act applies to certain proposed new or expanded facilities — including but not limited to a "major source" of air pollution under the federal Clean Air Act, certain electric generating facilities with a capacity of more than 10 megawatts, a sewage treatment plant with a capacity of more than 50 million gallons/day, and certain types of waste management facilities — that are located in an "environmental justice community."  An "environmental justice community" is defined as either a U.S. census block group for which 30 percent or more of the population consists of low-income persons (income below 200 percent of the federal poverty level), or a Connecticut "distressed municipality," as defined by other state statutes relating to economic development.

 

In general, the Act requires a subject party to take three main steps:

  1. Before filing an application for a "new or expanded" permit with DEP or an application for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need with the Siting Council, the party must now file and receive approval of a "meaningful public participation plan" from DEP or the Siting Council.  "Meaningful public participation" means that community residents and other potentially affected persons are sought out and provided an opportunity to participate in and influence the regulatory agency's decision.  The "meaningful public participation plan" must include an informal public meeting to be held for community residents. The plan must also contain measures to facilitate public participation.  The Act specifies in great detail measures that may or must be taken, including sign posting, newspaper ads, Web page notices, and written notification to neighborhood and environmental groups and to local and state elected officials.
  2. The party must hold an informal public meeting and offer "clear, accurate and complete" information about the proposed facility or facility expansion and its potential environmental and health impacts.  The DEP or the Siting Council may not take any action on the party's permit, certificate, or approval earlier than 60 days after the informal public meeting.
  3. The party must also consult with the chief elected official(s) of the town(s) in which the facility is to be located to evaluate the need for a "community environmental benefits agreement," which is defined as a written agreement by which the property owner or developer commits to the municipality to provide "financial resources" to mitigate, in whole or in part, "impacts reasonably related to the facility, including, but not limited to, impacts on the environment, traffic, parking and noise."  The municipality must provide community residents an opportunity to be heard concerning the need for and terms of such an agreement.

Where a facility must comply with the Act for both Siting Council and DEP approvals, the Act allows DEP to waive the requirement for an additional informal public meeting if one has already been held for purposes of the Siting Council approval.

DEP estimates that some or all of about 69 municipalities in the state qualify as an "environmental justice community."  DEP is now working with the Department of Economics and Community Development (DECD) to identify these areas more specifically.  DEP has also drafted template and guidance documents and will discuss these at a public workshop on Tuesday, January 13, 2009, 10:00 to 12:00 noon at DEP offices in Hartford.

In summary, the Act has the potential to alter significantly the timing, cost, and outcome of DEP and Siting Council applications for affected facilities.

Robinson & Cole is currently advising a number of clients regarding the Act and its potential impacts on facility development in Connecticut.  We stand ready to apply our experience and insights to your operations and strategic planning.  If you would like to discuss these issues and how they may impact your business, or if you would like a copy of the draft DEP implementation documents, please contact any of the following attorneys in our Environmental and Utilities Practice Group:

Earl Phillips, (860) 275-8220, ephillips@rc.com  
Ken Baldwin, (860) 275-8345, kbaldwin@rc.com
Brian Freeman, (860) 275-8310, bfreeman@rc.com
Pamela Elkow, (203) 462-7548, pelkow@rc.com

Another RICE Crop: EPA Proposes Additional Rules for Stationary Reciprocating

Posted on March 13, 2009 by Earl Phillips

On February 25, 2009, EPA proposed a new set of rules and rule revisions applicable to a broad universe of existing stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE). These engines are typically used for a variety of purposes at commercial and industrial facilities, such as providing back-up electricity and powering fire pumps. The proposed rule for existing engines would supplement (and in certain instances, modify) the 2004 and 2008 rules for new engines. Collectively, these rules address "hazardous air pollutants" (HAPs) and are formally known as the RICE National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs).

 

Like the 2004 and 2008 rules, the proposed rules are dense and complex. They would apply to engines in three basic categories of stationary RICE: 

  • Existing smaller (<500 horsepower) engines at "major sources" of HAPs (i.e., facilities with potential emissions of at least 10 tons/year of an individual HAP or 25 tons/year of any combination of HAPs)
  • Certain new or reconstructed engines at "major sources"
  • Existing engines at "area sources" (i.e., non-major sources)

The definition of "existing" and "new or reconstructed" varies depending on such factors as the design type, power rating, fuel type, and usage of a particular engine. Similarly, such factors also would determine whether and how the engine would be subject to various proposed numeric emission limits or other requirements regarding fuels, emission controls, periodic emission testing, operating and maintenance practices, and associated recordkeeping and reporting.

Notably, EPA is proposing that RICE sources would not have the benefit of the "startup, shutdown, and malfunction" exemption that traditionally has been part of numerous NESHAP regulations, including the existing RICE NESHAP. (The legal status of this exemption is currently uncertain, following a December 2008 court ruling that struck it down.) However, EPA is also "co-proposing" an alternative limited exemption for certain engines that use catalytic controls: such engines would be subject to more relaxed emission limits during startup and malfunction, but not shutdown.

Public comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before the later of May 4, 2009, or 30 days after EPA holds a public hearing on the proposal.

The scope and complexity of the proposed rules present significant challenges in determining if and how the rules would apply to any individual engine. From our experience in counseling clients regarding the 2004 and 2008 rules, we stand ready to assist with the regulatory analysis, or with preparing public comments to EPA about the proposed rules and revisions. If you would like to discuss the proposed rules, please contact any of these attorneys in our Environmental and Utilities Practice Group:

Earl W. Phillips, Jr.
ephillips@rc.com
(860) 275-8220 

Christopher Foster
cfoster@rc.com
(617) 557-5908

Brian C. Freeman
bfreeman@rc.com
(860) 275-8310

Kirstin M. Etela
ketela@rc.com
(203) 462-7534

EPA CAFO RULE - RIGHTING ITS COURSE??

Posted on March 12, 2009 by Brian Rosenthal

Has the EPA gone far enough to overcome the successful Waterkeeper Alliance challenge to its CAFO Rule? 

 

In 2005, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held EPA’s 2003 CAFO Rule exceeded its authority. The challenged rule required certain concentrated animal feeding operators to apply for an NPDES water permit or prove none was needed. The court held that having only a potential to discharge was not enough to require a permit. In 2008, the EPA revised its CAFO Rule, announced on November 20, 2008 at 73 Fed. Reg. 70,418 as “Revised National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulation and Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations in Response to the Waterkeeper Decision”-did it do enough to survive a challenge?

 

Now, only parties that discharge or propose to discharge must apply for an NPDES permit. In addition, a voluntary option is included for unpermitted CAFO’s to self certify that they do not meet the permitting standard. Agricultural stormwater continues to be exempt if litter is applied in compliance with a nutrient management plan. The states are just beginning to address how to implement the CAFO Rule.   

 

One head’s up is, a CAFO that proposes to discharge must apply for a permit as soon as it proposes to discharge. If it does not, it could have an unpermitted discharge and also be in violation of another requirement to seek permit coverage at the proposal date.  In other words, an unpermitted discharge could result in two violations. 

 

A proposal to discharge is based on either design, construction, operation or maintenance such that a discharge will occur. The certification procedure is now self-implementing with a certification statement being submitted by the farmer or operator. It is not subject to public comment or agency review. Obtaining a no discharge certification shifts the burden of proof to the agency on whether a proposal to discharge that should have been permitted occurred. In other words, if a party does not properly certify and has a discharge, it has the burden of proving that it did not propose to discharge in any enforcement action, which could lead to a double violation along with the unpermitted discharge. 

 

The EPA as part of the CAFO Rule has committed to work with the states and various states have begun sessions regarding the CAFO Rule and their state programs. Farmers and operators, however, fear unintended recordkeeping violations and EPA inspections upon registration.  Of course, to the extent they fall within the Rule, farmers or operators must apply.

Stay tuned for additional implementation issues and enforceability questions as the CAFO Rule becomes subjected to further scrutiny, in the consolidated challenge to it pending in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Native American Water Rights in Oklahoma

Posted on March 9, 2009 by Linda C. Martin

The ownership of the Illinois River and its watershed in Oklahoma is currently at issue in Federal Court in the Northern District of Oklahoma in a case brought against the poultry industry. State of Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-329-GFK (PJC). 

In this case, the Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma sued several poultry companies for polluting the Illinois River and its watershed in Eastern Oklahoma as a result of the disposal of  poultry litter in the watershed. The suit alleges claims under CERCLA, RCRA and nuisance, among other things. The poultry companies assert that the State has no standing to sue because, in this geographic area, under applicable treaties the natural resources (including the water in the Illinois River) are owned exclusively by the Cherokee Nation and not the State of Oklahoma. The defendants’ argument relies heavily on Choctaw Nation v. Oklahoma, 397 U.S. 620 (1970), which held that under various treaties, the Cherokee, Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations own fee title to the land, minerals, sand and gravel in and under the bed of the Arkansas River in Eastern Oklahoma. 

 

The Attorney General asserts that the State of Oklahoma is the exclusive owner of the stream water, not the Cherokee Nation, and relies on the laws and authorities which prescribe the rights and privileges of a new state. The State also claims under other cited authorities that even if it does not hold exclusive ownership of the water in the Illinois River, neither does the Cherokee Nation. The Cherokee Nation is not a party and has not filed a motion to intervene in the case.

 

Because of treaty similarities, a decision on this issue by the Tulsa Federal Court could well determine the ownership rights of all the Five Civilized Tribes, not just the Cherokees, as to water in any stream or river within or abutting the boundaries of the lands included within their original treaty grants. Thus, it could affect the ownership of stream water in approximately half of the State of Oklahoma. It could further have a significant impact on both development of the Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan now in progress, and the issue of who has the right to sell water to both in‑state and out‑of‑state purchasers (i.e., Texas).

Priscilla Summers v. Earth Island Institute Supreme Court Decision

Posted on March 4, 2009 by Theodore Garrett

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that environmentalists' lacked standing to challenge a Forest Service regulation limiting public involvement in timber sales decisions. Priscilla Summers v. Earth Island Institute, et al.,__U.S.__(No. 07-463, March 3, 2009). The decision found that respondents’ argument that they have standing because they suffered procedural injuryi.e., they have been denied the ability to file comments on some Forest Service actionsfails because such a deprivation without some concrete interest affected thereby is insufficient to create Article III standing. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, stated "Accepting an intention to visit the National Forests as adequate to confer standing to challenge any Government action affecting any portion of those forests would be tantamount to eliminating the requirement of concrete, particularized injury in fact."  The following is a link to the Court's opinion: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-463.pdf