Expanded Access to Environmental Information – The New Era of Transparency and Its Risks and Opportunities

Posted on March 11, 2013 by Dean Calland

Over the past several years, EPA has created or upgraded a number of new informational tools that enable the public to gain access to environmental data.  This is part of the agency’s efforts to increase “transparency” regarding private and public sector environmental compliance and enforcement efforts.  As expressed in a recent press release, EPA believes that “transparency and access to information at all levels help to drive improvements in environmental performance.” 

A couple of very recent examples are worth noting.  Earlier this year, EPA announced the creation of new interactive state dashboards and comparative maps.  These online tools are components of EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) website, and contain air, water and hazardous waste data for the previous five years.  According to EPA, such information includes “the number of completed inspections, types of violations found, enforcement actions taken, and penalties assessed by state.”  Users of the site can customize their searches to view just state activity, EPA activity, or both.  

A second example is EPA’s program to increase the transparency of chemical information under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  Just last month, EPA released the 2012 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) information for more than 7,600 chemicals.  The data can be used to identify important trends and analyses, such as determining the number of workers exposed to a particular chemical, the top 20 chemicals used in children’s products, the top 20 chemicals used in consumer products and the top industrial sectors that processed and used reportable chemicals.  EPA modified the CDR rule (formerly known as the Inventory Update Reporting rule) in 2011 to require that manufacturers and importers submit CDR information electronically.  Accordingly, the CDR information is added to the agency database and made publicly available much faster than ever before.  Stakeholders such as the American Chemistry Council and the Environmental Defense Fund applauded the recent changes to the CDR rule to increase the amount of information available to the public and thereby improve public understanding and confidence.

With appropriate controls, greater transparency is laudable for a variety of readily apparent reasons, and there is little doubt that federal and state agencies will increase both the number of tools available to the public and the usability of these tools to interpret data in the coming years.  Environmental stakeholders should evaluate these new tools and determine the risks and opportunities presented by them. 

For example, industry practitioners are quite familiar with the increasing scrutiny that has been placed on corporate decision-making in recent years by major investors and shareholders regarding such matters as the impact of the corporation’s activities on issues like greenhouse gas emissions and sustainability.  Some of these entities are using the new information tools and others like them to identify trends and determine how the corporation “measures up” against industry norms and political or governmental expectations.  Similarly, corporations are finding that their outside financial auditors are reviewing environmental databases to “check on” the environmental and safety disclosures that the companies are putting forth during the audit period.  Indeed, company management and counsel have sometimes been surprised by their auditors’ independently-gathered information that one or more of the company’s plants are listed on EPA or state databases as “non-compliant” with environmental requirements. 

In the same way, increased access to environmental and safety information brings with it new opportunities to gather meaningful information that can be extremely useful in preparing business plans for future activities and for claims and litigation related to environmental exposures.  Manufacturers and suppliers of environmental products and services, plaintiffs’ counsel, expert witnesses, environmental groups, public and governmental relations firms and insurance companies are just a small subset of the universe of interested parties for whom easier access to environmental and safety information can be helpful.  And now such data can be gathered more quickly and at a fraction of the costs that would have been required in the past.  Environmental stakeholders would do well to monitor the development of these transparency tools and to assess the risks and opportunities that they present.

FOUR CENTURIES OF FUEL FORAGING IN PENNSYLVANIA

Posted on October 4, 2012 by Joseph Manko

For four centuries Pennsylvania has been at the epicenter of America’s search for growth-sustaining fuel, but not without paying an environmental price.  In the 18th century, Pennsylvania’s (literally “Penn’s Woods”) abundant forests supplied wood to fuel America’s expansive westward development.  In denuding its forests, however, Pennsylvania experienced enhanced erosion and sedimentation and other environmental detriments.

In the 19th century, 1859 specifically, oil was discovered in Oil City. Pennsylvania (and America) turned its attention from wood to oil.  Although primary oil production shifted eventually to the Gulf states, nevertheless, Pennsylvania, as an oil producer, enjoyed the benefits and suffered the environmental detriments created by laissez faire, unregulated drilling and transportation of petroleum.

By the 20th century, coal was king in Pennsylvania.  The residual impacts from coal mining, especially strip mining, remain to this day in the form of scarred landscapes, acid mine drainage and air emissions, albeit the impacts are now monitored amid a focus on environmental enforcement efforts.

In the 21st century coal remains a force in energy production in Pennsylvania, but again nature has put the state in the national discussion over domestic fuel protection as it has become a national leader in developing the natural gas entrapped in the Marcellus Shale underlying large portions of southwest, north central and northeastern Pennsylvania.  Natural gas extracted from the Marcellus Shale has become Pennsylvania’s (and increasingly, America’s) fuel of choice for the 21st century.  Will the environmental legacy be different this time?

In February, 2012, Pennsylvania enacted The Oil and Gas Act Amendments of 2012, known as Act 13, in an attempt to adapt Pennsylvania’s longstanding Oil and Gas Act to issues unique to the technique used to fracture layers of shale and release natural gas, commonly known as “fracking.”  The Amendments raise a number of new legal issues:

1.    By offering shale gas fees to host municipalities who are willing to accept them, the Act preempts accepting municipalities from enacting zoning ordinances to regulate fracking.  A recent Commonwealth Court decision held such preemption unconstitutional.  An appeal by the State is pending before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.  Briefs have been filed and oral argument is scheduled for October 17 in Pittsburgh.

2.    Despite mandatory setback distances from wells, required by the Amendments, instances of citizens claiming that or suing because their water supply was contaminated as a result of the recovery of shale gas, either through leakage, spillage, or other events will need to be resolved.

3.    Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection has differed with EPA and the Delaware River Basin Commission regarding how much authority these agencies should have to regulate operations associated with Marcellus Shale gas production. 

4.    In a victory for the shale gas industry, the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania invalidated a 2009 U.S. Forest Services Agreement with environmental groups that would have required the preparation of a NEPA environmental assessment prior to drilling in U.S. forests. 

5.    Some property owners who have leased their subsurface drilling rights for Marcellus Shale gas recovery have found themselves unable to refinance their mortgages.  Although the property owners argue that their land has become more valuable because of the potential recovery of fees from the Marcellus Shale gas recovery, some banks have refused to refinance claiming that the fracking lowers the value of the property because of the potential of pollution and/or the location of drilling rigs and other heavy equipment on the property, thereby making foreclosure more difficult. 

6.    Pennsylvania’s Public Utility Commission (PUC) is the collector under Act 13 of the “impact fees” from natural gas well operators – which have to date exceeded $200 million and will be distributed in large part to “accepting” host municipalities.  In accordance with Act 13, the PUC has also begun issuing advisory opinions on the legality of local zoning ordinances.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision on the Commonwealth Court’s invalidation of the preemption issue could affect how the PUC approaches these matters going forward. 

While the sources of fuel and the techniques for obtaining it have changed much over the centuries in Pennsylvania, fuel production from forests, coal mines, oil rigs and fracking wells share a common legacy, initially attracting often environmentally insensitive wild catters, raising issues of local control versus the need for statewide uniformity, and creating the risk of potentially permanent environmental impacts if state-of-the-art environmental protections are not implemented.  In sum, notwithstanding changes in preferred fuel sources over the past four centuries, the issues, impacts and challenges remain similar; the need to balance energy production and environmental protection, or, as they say – “the more things change, the more they remain the same”.  Rather than be resigned to repeating history, however, the Commonwealth should rise to the challenge and use its acquired knowledge to inform our discussion as to how to utilize its resources, including natural gas, to provide energy solutions going forward.