Companies and facilities that experience an accidental release have a new regulation to consider for releases of regulated substances or extremely hazardous substances. On February 21, 2020, the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) issued its new final rule governing reporting of accidental releases subject to the Board’s investigatory jurisdiction. The new rule requires the owner or operator of a stationary source to report to the CSB any accidental release resulting in a fatality, serious injury (defined as resulting in death or inpatient hospitalization), or substantial property damages (defined as damage of $1,000,000 or more). A copy of the rule in today’s Federal Register is available here.
Clean Air Act
New “Serious” Classification for Nonattainment For Ozone
On December 16, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a final rule to reclassify the Denver Metro/North Front Range ozone nonattainment area from Moderate to Serious nonattainment under the Clean Air Act. The area covered embraces all of Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, Douglas, and Jefferson counties as well as the southern portions of Larimer and Weld counties.
On September 5, 2018, EPA issued a draft guidance document announcing a shift of the term “adjacent” in the context of the Clean Air Act’s New Source Review (NSR) and title V operating permit programs which may benefit industrial air sources. This interpretation would focus EPA’s attention on physical proximity of facilities when making source determinations, rejecting EPA’s past practice of considering “functional interrelatedness.”
Recently, EPA issued an Interim OECA Guidance on EPA and state roles on managing enforcement and compliance assistance. See, Interim OECA Guidance on Enhancing Regional—State Planning and Communication on Compliance Assurance Work in Authorized States. While EPA is seeking to emphasize cooperative federalism in modifying the emphasis of the 1986 revised policy on state/EPA enforcement agreements, as provided in the first footnote of the Guidance, the policy issued on January 22, 2018, appears to make the states the primary enforcer of environmental laws and provides a secondary role for EPA in that regard.
A high-ranking Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforcement official in the Trump Administration recently cited a 1994 memorandum by Earl Devaney, then Director of EPA’s Office of Criminal Enforcement, as presenting guiding principles to select cases for criminal enforcement of environmental violations. The January 12, 1994, memorandum, “Exercise of Enforcement Discretion,” is often referred to as the “Devaney Memorandum,” and it is available at this link: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/exercise.pdf. This may signal that criminal enforcement of environmental laws under the Trump Administration will be limited to situations in which there has been significant actual or threatened environmental harm and truly culpable conduct.
In January 2017, both EPA and OSHA increased civil penalties for new enforcement cases. While the increases became effective just days before the new Administration took office, the increases are a result of Congressional action in 2015 to annually adjust civil penalties for inflation by January 15 of each new calendar year.
Businesses that store and use flammable and toxic chemicals that are regulated under EPA’s Risk Management Plan (RMP) Program at 40 CFR Part 68 need to be aware of recent actions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency aimed at curtailing chemical accidents and releases through new proposed regulations and also enforcement. Facilities potentially subject to EPA’s initiatives include chemical plants and refineries, POTWs that use chlorine as a disinfectant, as well as those companies that use and store bulk anhydrous ammonia as an industrial refrigerant (dairy operations, food and pharmaceutical manufacturing, cold storage warehousing) or as fertilizer (agricultural cooperatives, fertilizer distribution).
Beginning October 1, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will target its enforcement efforts in seven different focused areas, including three areas designed to protect water quality, two initiatives aimed at reducing toxic air pollutants and reducing air pollution, an initiative to reduce accidental chemical releases from industrial facilities, and an enforcement initiative geared at energy extraction activities.
Businesses and companies seeking to qualify for penalty mitigation and relief by submitting voluntary self-disclosures under EPA’s Audit Policy need to be aware of significant changes and modifications that took effect in December 2015.
On June 29, 2015, the United States Supreme Court announced its decision in Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, holding that EPA unreasonably interpreted a provision of the Clean Air Act regarding the regulation of power plants under the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) (also referred to as the Utility MACT).