In a recent January 2015 Memorandum to EPA’s Regional Enforcement Managers from Cynthia Giles, EPA Assistant Administrator for Enforcement, EPA is touting its Next Generation Compliance strategy as “an integrated strategy” intended to “bring together the best thinking from inside and outside EPA.”
Last week, on January 13, 2015, EPA issued its new “Definition of Solid Waste” Final Rule in the Federal Register at 80 Fed. Reg. 1694. This new rulemaking will have significant impacts regarding how secondary hazardous materials are recycled and exempted from the hazardous waste regulations. Unless challenged (and by all accounts it appears at least certain aspects may be litigated based on initial comments by various industrial sectors) the rule becomes effective on July 13, 2015, where EPA is the authorized implementing agency (Iowa, Alaska, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands). Because RCRA is a federally delegated program, other states will have to adopt the more stringent aspects of the rule discussed below.
On January 1, 2015, new OSHA regulations took effect that broaden the scope of work-related injuries that employers must now report to OSHA.
On September 9, 2014, Andrew Brought of Spencer Fane will be one of the panelists in the ABA’s Presentation Environmental Compliance Certifications: What Your Clients Need to Know Before They Sign.
On July 10, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy spoke to the Agricultural Business Council of Kansas City in an attempt to ease concerns over the Administration’s proposed rule to clarify the reach of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The proposed rule, issued jointly by EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, seeks to specify by regulation the scope of the CWA following the 2006 Supreme Court decision in Rapanos v. United States. The competing tests for CWA jurisdiction issued by the Court in Rapanos have complicated efforts to determine when smaller waters, wetlands, and ephemeral streams are subject to CWA jurisdiction and would require government permits before they can be impacted. In response to mounting criticism of the proposed rule from a number of stakeholders, McCarthy tried to reassure the audience, saying, “We don’t believe that we are expanding jurisdiction.”
In another “end run” around the state’s General Assembly, proponents of greater restrictions on oil and gas exploration in Colorado are again employing the initiative process, this time to authorize local governments to enact laws within their geographic boundaries more restrictive than state law, and even go so far as to potentially ban all exploration activity. Alongside a companion ballot language challenge allowing for more restrictive statewide setback requirements (the subject of a prior article, (Colorado Supreme Court Approves Ballot Measure Language Restricting Fracking), the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that two ballot initiatives permitting a state constitutional amendment allowing for more restrictive local control did not violate “the single subject rule.” Constitution, State of Colorado, Article V section 1(5.5) and section 1-40-106.5(1)(e), C.R.S. (2013).
In an “end run” effort around the state legislature, proponents of more restrictive oil and gas well setback requirements in Colorado are employing the initiative process to achieve more restrictive minimum setbacks than present state law permits. On June 30th, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that three potential ballot initiatives permitting a state constitutional amendment requiring the more restrictive setbacks did not violate “the single subject rule.” Constitution, State of Colorado, Article V section 1(5.5) and section 1-40-106.5(1)(e), C.R.S. (2013).
According to a new study in the journal, Science, an increase in the number of earthquakes in central Oklahoma likely arises from the use of underground injection wells to dispose of treated wastewater from oil and gas fracking operations. The study, funded in part by the U.S. Geological Survey (“USGS”)and the National Science Foundation (“NSF”), focused on Oklahoma earthquakes and injection well practices. The research was led by Cornell University and included researchers from the University of Colorado, Boulder.
Earlier today, June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court dealt a blow to EPA’s current approach to regulating greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) through its air permitting program for new or expanding stationary sources. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency. No. 12-1146, ___ U.S. ___, June 23, 1014. The Court said it left intact EPA’s ability to regulate 83 percent of such GHG emissions, compared to the 86 percent EPA championed under its approach. Nevertheless, in its ruling the Court undercut key foundations of EPA’s current GHG regulatory approach. This ruling will require EPA to re-think many aspects of its approach to GHGs and will give opponents increased leverage in the upcoming discussions.
The Ventura County Star reported on June 17th that the California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (the “Division”), has modified its proposed hydraulic fracturing regulations mandated by last year’s Senate Bill 4, requiring well operators to conduct real-time seismic monitoring. The modified regulations specify that they apply both to offshore and on shore oil drilling operations. Most drilling off the California coast, however, occurs in federal waters that are beyond the reach of state regulations.