Why U.S. targeted industries should focus on Clean Water Act compliance.
Strengthening clean water enforcement is a high priority of the Obama Administration. On Oct. 15, 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance published a roadmap for overhauling and intensifying Clean Water Act (CWA) enforcement. This action plan focuses on both EPA and state enforcement efforts and will lead to a significant rise in CWA enforcement. This suggests an urgent need for companies to review their CWA permit status, revisit their compliance programs, and take new steps to ensure that their operations are not flagged for enforcement.
CWA enforcement action plan highlights
Targeted enforcement. EPA plans to move away from its current policy of focusing enforcement on the largest facilities and those with significant non-compliance. Enforcement focus will shift to significant point source violations that adversely affect water quality. Facilities sited on impaired water bodies are in the enforcement crosshairs.
Strengthened oversight. While 46 states are authorized by EPA to run the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, EPA retains responsibility to ensure states protect water quality and consistently apply the law through vigorous enforcement. EPA will develop and publicize performance metrics to hold states accountable. If states underperform, EPA will disapprove permits. For example, EPA’s recent use of its CWA §404(c) power to deny, restrict, or prohibit actions under a CWA Section 404 permit previously issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to a coal mining operation is evidence of EPA’s new focus on impacts to impaired waters. In addition, EPA informed the Corps that it is targeting 79 pending, surface coal mining permit applications because they raise “potentially significant water quality and environmental issues.” Facilities in states with traditionally lax enforcement will either see stepped-up enforcement by the state or increased federal enforcement.
Improved accountability and transparency. EPA believes it lacks nationally consistent and complete information on facilities, permits, pollutant discharges, and compliance status of most NPDES-regulated facilities. To address this problem, EPA will implement electronic reporting across all regulated facilities. Initially, it will encourage voluntary submittal of electronic Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs), but will work to develop a rule requiring the practice.
CWA enforcement: the past as prelude
In 2008, Massey Energy Co. Inc. paid a $20 million civil penalty in addition to costly injunctive relief to settle the United States’ claim of wastewater discharge permit violations. In 2009, Patriot Coal Corp. paid a $6.5 million civil penalty in addition to substantial injunctive relief to settle a wastewater discharge permit violation case.
In the same vein, in 2009, Alaska Gold Co. and NovaGold Resources Inc. paid a civil penalty of $883,628 to settle alleged violations of a storm water discharge permit. In August 2009, Aggregate Industries – Northeast Region Inc. settled with the United States, agreeing to pay a $2.75 million civil penalty and implement a regional evaluation and compliance program, resolving numerous alleged CWA storm water violations at 23 of its facilities. To date, this is the largest civil penalty ever assessed to a nationwide ready-mixed concrete company for alleged CWA storm water violations.
Harvesting low-hanging fruit
EPA’s actions can be predicted by its statements and planning activity. During the 2008-2010 planning cycle, EPA stated that it would focus on three main areas of the storm water program, including ready-mixed concrete with crushed stone and sand and gravel operations. Clearly, these industries, and the others who fit into similar operational categories, should be on notice and take action to reduce their risks.
EPA will also look for “big ticket,” high-profile enforcement actions that are press-worthy and involve large civil penalties, costly injunctive relief, pollution mitigation, and expensive supplemental environmental projects. In addition to making a media splash, EPA believes that these types of enforcement actions reduce the rate of non-compliance.
EPA will also step up the number of inspections and expedite enforcement of CWA violations, focusing on clusters of facilities whose non-compliance is adversely impacting already impaired waters. If your sites are near impaired waters, you should be on notice of increased EPA enforcement risks.
Finally, EPA will focus on areas previously targeted under its National Priority program. One of EPA’s national priorities is the mineral processing and mining sector. While EPA intended to use the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as its tool for implementing this enforcement priority, in its most recent strategy summary, EPA indicated it will evaluate other tools, including the CWA, to address environmental risks.
From 2004 to 2007, EPA completed inspections at 20 phosphoric acid facilities, 25 other mineral processing facilities, and five mine sites. Familiarity with the sector as a result of these inspections, combined with EPA’s belief that the “mineral processing and mining sectors generate more wastes that are corrosive or contain toxic metals than any other industrial sector,” indicate that EPA continues to aim enforcement attention on this sector. We predict that information gleaned from previous RCRA inspections, coupled with EPA’s desire to use the CWA for this purpose, will lead to enhanced CWA enforcement in the industrial minerals industry in the near future.
Mitigating enforcement risks
Given the increased enforcement risks, target facilities should make every effort to assure compliance with permitting requirements and institute programs to remain in compliance.
Operators should engage in a permit compliance assessment, preferably under the direction of counsel, looking back over a minimum of the past five years, in order to gauge the risk of future enforcement action.
Concurrently, operators should evaluate training programs for employees, focusing on permit compliance, risk mitigation, and crisis management. Personnel should be trained on interacting with regulators who inspect facilities. Inspections by EPA or the state should be taken very seriously, and responses should be planned to mitigate enforcement exposure.
Finally, should your company face enforcement, it is critical to understand the extent of the liability and ways that it can be eliminated, managed, or reduced. These EPA actions require a strategic defense that addresses the potential liabilities and combines tough litigation, when needed, with cooperative agency negotiations and community and congressional assistance to produce sound financial resolutions, improve agency relations, and achieve the goals of environmental protection while protecting good jobs and company value.
Henry Chajet is a partner based at Patton Boggs LLP’s Washington, D.C., office. Chajet may be reached via phone at 202-457-6511 or via e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org. Scott Stewart is a partner in the firm’s Washington, D.C., office. He may be reached via phone at 202-457-6012 or via e-mail at email@example.com.
From our partners
MORE FROM Articles
SUBSCRIBE & FOLLOW
- California woman killed when gravel truck tips over on her car184 Views
- Northern White Sand considers building a rail unloading facility in Carlsbad162 Views
- Senate rejects amendment seeking to fund infrastructure by closing corporate tax loophole134 Views
- DRIVE Act aims to support Highway Trust Fund by limiting spending to roads and bridges126 Views
- Wisconsin sand hauling company to lay off workers due to decreased frac sand demand124 Views