Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Pennsylvania Environmental Council Issue New Proposal to Reform Pennsylvania Laws on Natural Gas Drilling

6a01053612a560970b015432394530970c.jpg

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) and the Pennsylvania Environmental Foundation (PEC) have submitted a legislative proposal to the Corbett administration and state lawmakers "designed to help ensure safe and responsible Marcellus Shale drilling and gas extraction in Pennsylvania." The proposal sets forth detailed amendments to the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Act  to confer additional authority to regulate and manage deep shale and unconventional drilling techniques that were not contemplated when the law was enacted.  The proposal was provided to Governor Corbett’s Marcellus Shale Commission and members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly.

The proposed amendments are based on the findings of a PEC report issued last year called “Developing the Marcellus Shale” which outline a series of environmental policy and planning recommendations for unconventional shale gas development.  The PEC/CBF press release states: "These amendments are aimed at restoring public confidence in the industry’s ability and commitment to responsible drilling and environmental compliance. The proposal includes 50 specific amendments to the Act which reform the permit process to allow for greater stakeholder input and set clear environmental protection standards for the hydraulic fracturing process and the infrastructure that should be required for shale gas extraction."

The organizations propose to split the gas well drilling permit process into two phases that require enhanced collection and review of site-specific data prior to approval. The proposal also calls for a number of tighter restrictions in the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Act.

A copy of the press release can be found here. A PDF of the complete, detailed legislative proposal is here.

Energy Department To Revamp Hydraulic Fracturing Rules for Natural Gas Extraction

The New York Times reports that the Department of Energy, acting on orders from President Obama, has established an expert panel to revise safety and environmental standards for hydraulic fracturing (so-called "fracking"). Hydraulic fracturing involves high-pressure injection of fluids into underground shale formations to break open natural gas pockets as a technique for extraction of natural gas from deep wells. The Obama Administration's new energy policy, announced on March 30, 2011 at Georgetown University, significantly relies on increased natural gas production. Steven Chu, Energy Secretary, has requested the expert panel to issue immediate recommendations within 90 days, and a more comprehensive set of safety and environmental standards within three months.  The expert panel chairman is John Deutch, a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency and deputy defense secretary, and current director of Cheniere Energy, which operates a natural gas terminal and pipelines.

Hydraulic fracturing pours millions of gallons of toxic chemicals into the ground and into wastewater treatment systems, which in some cases are not designed to treat all of the contaminants. The New York Times article refers to "numerous documented cases" in which fracking fluids leaked into aquifers and contaminated drinking water.

Other members of the panel include former PADEP secretary Kathleen McGinty; Stephen Holditch, chairman of the department of petroleum engineering at Texas A&M University; Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund; Susan Tierney, former assistant secretary of energy for policy and Massachusetts secretary of environmental affairs; Daniel Yergin, chairman of I. H. S. Cambridge Energy Research Associates and author of “The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power,” and Mark Zoback, a Stanford geophysics professor.

EPA Proposes Finding Northampton County PA Coal Power Plant Causes SO2 Air Pollution Violations in NJ

Portland Coal Power Plant

Portland Coal Power Plant

UPDATE

: On October 31, 2011 the EPA Issued its final response to the New Jersey Petition, finding that the coal-fired Portland Generating Station in Upper Mount Bethel Township, PA is emitting air pollutants in violation of the interstate transport provisions of the Clean Air Act. EPA found that the plant's SO2 emissions significantly contribute to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in New Jersey. The EPA is establishing emission limitations and compliance schedules to ensure that the plant will eliminate its significant contribution to SO2 pollution in New Jersey. See

our post of November 4, 2011

.

The U.S. EPA is proposing to formally find that the coal-fired Portland Generating Station in Upper Mount Bethel Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania, is causing interstate air pollution in violation of the federal Clean Air Act.  It also proposes to impose emission limitations to force substantial reductions of sulfur dioxide emissions from the plant.

In its "Response to Petition from New Jersey Regarding SO2 Emissions from the Portland Generating Station", EPA proposes to issue a finding that emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) from the Portland Plant significantly contribute to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in New Jersey. This finding is proposed in response to a petition submitted by the State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) on September 17, 2010. EPA is also proposing emission limitations and compliance schedules to significantly reduce SO2 emissions from the plant.

According to the NJDEP petition and the proposed EPA finding,emissions from the Portland plant are causing SO2 concentrations far in excess of the NAAQS of 196 micrograms/m3.  EPA states that these violations require an

81 percent reduction

in emissions from the Portland plant to reduce SO2 concentrations below the NAAQS.

EPA will receive comments on this proposed finding, which must be received on or before May 27, 2011. Submit comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0081, online at 

http://www.regulations.gov

, by email to: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0081, or mail to: EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0081, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC  20460.

A public hearing will be held on April 27, 2011, in the Pequest Trout Hatchery and Natural Resources Education Center located in Oxford, Warren County, New Jersey 07863.

Appeals Court Rejects Attempt to Void Zoning Hearings Due to Environmental Advisory Council Involvement

UPDATE: May 5, 2011  In an order issued today, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied HYK Construction Company, Inc.'s petition for allowance of appeal of the Commonwealth Court's ruling. 

In an important decision for Pennsylvania's Environmental Advisory Councils (EACs), Pennsylvania's Commonwealth Court rejected a developer's attempt to void conditional use zoning hearings before a Board of Supervisors due to the involvement of the Township's EAC .

The November 19, 2010 decision in HYK Construction Company v. Smithfield Township (2047 CD 2009), involved an application to construct and operate a concrete batch plant. The EAC participated in the hearings, along with some 75 neighbors and residents.  The developer objected to the EAC's involvement, claiming that it showed that the township was biased and had a conflict of interest. After the Supervisors denied the developer's objections and allowed the EAC to participate, the developer filed a lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas against the Township and the EAC.  The lawsuit sought an injunction to disqualify the Supervisors, prevent the EAC from participating, and to order the matter heard by an independent hearing examiner.  The EAC and Township argued that there was no conflict in the EAC's role in the hearings and that the Common Pleas Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.  The Common Pleas Court held that it had jurisdiction and granted relief to the developer. 

On appeal, the Commonwealth Court reversed the lower court's decision and ordered the developer's lawsuit dismissed. The Commonwealth Court determined that the Court of Common Pleas lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The Court decided that such claims of bias and conflict had to be raised as part of the zoning proceedings and could not be the subject of a separate lawsuit. In addition, it held that it was improper for the lower court to hear the case without including all of the other parties to the conditional use hearing, and in a "clear violation of the Appllants' due process rights",  the lower court had improperly conducted a private, off-the-record investigation to determine bias. With respect to the EAC involvement, the Court stated that: "While EAC is funded by the Township and was granted party status by the Board, EAC is a separate and distinct entity from the Board. The requisite walls of division are in place to overcome any appearance of impropriety."

Finally, the Court rebuked the developer for its attempt to avoid the ordinary hearing and review process of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code:  "We believe HYK's equity action represents an improper attempt to circumvent the mandatory statutory review process. To allow equity jurisdiction to usurp the power of the Board would create infinite challenges to interlocutory determinations and defeat or, at the very least, disrupt the Commonwealth's structure for review of zoning decisions by local boards and governing bodies. If the courts became involved every time a party makes an allegation of bias, the courts — rather than the Board — would be reviewing conditional use applications... [W]e can find no justification for the trial court's exercise of equity jurisdiction in this matter."

NOTE: Charles W. Elliott represented the Smithfield Township Environmental Advisory Council in this case.

Buyer Beware: Real Estate Developer "Resale Fees" Coming to Pennsylvania?

Update: The Pennsylvania General Assembly responded to this problem by enacting the Private Transfer Fee Obligation Act, 68 Pa. C.S. §8101, P.L. 40, No. 8, effective June 24, 2011.  The Act prohibits the fees described below. Buyers who are confronted with instruments that purport to impose such transfer fees should consult with counsel. The Act is reproduced here.

Home buyers should be on the alert for a new type of cost to buy real estate: the "resale fee", "that allows the developer to collect 1 percent of the sales price from the seller every time the property changes hands — for the next 99 years." 

You should read the illuminating story in the New York Times which describes the practice (also called "private transfer fee") and its pitfalls. 

Listen to the sales pitch, in a press release issued by Freehold Capital Partners:

"Freehold Capital Partners...is pleased to announce that it has partnered with a major developer on a real estate project in Pennsylvania. The project's estimated final improved value is $250,000,000.00. By working with Freehold to structure a one percent Capital Recovery Fee, the project developer can spread development costs over time, and, in consequence, reduce the initial sales price. The fee runs for the expected useful life of the improvements, and then expires. According to Ph.D. land economist Dr. Tom McPeak, "a lower initial price will result in lower acquisition costs, reduced carrying costs, and reallocation of the savings," thus making homeownership more affordable. (See "The Economics of Private Transfer Fee Covenants"). Buyers who buy for less can then sell for less, passing on the savings to future owners."

Proponents sometimes attempt to gain acceptance of the fee by claiming that a portion of the fee will be allocated to "community benefits".  The press release continues: "A portion of the future income stream created by Freehold is allocated to non-profits that benefit the community. Through this program, long-term funding is created for clean air, clean water, green space, literacy, affordable housing and similar endeavors that help build better communities and enhance the quality of life in and around our projects."

Finally, the press release assures us that imposing this fee on every sale for 99 years is a matter of fairness to the first time buyer: "A Capital Recovery Fee represents an attractive alternative to the traditional practice of putting 100% of the burden for long-term improvements (such as roads, water lines, lift stations, etc.) onto the shoulders of first time buyers." 

Of course, the "traditional practice" has worked well since the beginning of modern real estate development. Moreover, it did not burden real estate buyers with the risk that when it comes time to sell their homes the one percent additional fee will be a cost that will force them to reduce their sale price to compete with sellers whose properties are not subject to the fee. 

The fees are sometimes buried in the fine print of closing documents or, even worse, hidden in a lengthy "covenants and conditions" document that is not presented at closing and requires no signature, but whose terms "run with the land" and bind all owners of the property. Unpaid fees would almost certainly result in liens on the property. 

Even worse, companies advocating these resale fees are pitching Wall Street to "securitize" these fees, in a manner similar to the subprime loan securitization debacle which helped bring the U.S. economy to its knees. 

The Department of Housing and Urban Development recently determined that the fees violated its regulations and that HUD would not insure mortgages on properties that included them. The Federal Housing Finance Agency is considering a proposal to prohibit the transfer fees on all mortgages financed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks. The FHFA proposal is now open for public comment until October 15, 2010. Although seventeen states have prohibited or restricted the practice, at the time of this post Pennsylvania has not yet acted. 

Buyers of real estate should ensure that they are advised by competent counsel who can identify these problems.  The closing documents should be carefully reviewed. Recorded declarations of covenants and conditions, although they may not be closing documents, can nevertheless bind owners of the property. It is important that buyers understand these covenants and conditions and be advised of their consequences. 

Rising Currents: Re-Visioning New York City Through the Lens of Climate Change

"Rising Currents", a current exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art presents a dazzling synthesis of environmental science, art, architecture and visionary design. The work, by five interdisciplinary teams of design and architectural firms, re-visions the urban landscape of New York City to confront a world altered by rising sea levels and storm surges induced by climate change.

The exhibit space dramatically presents a series of design ideas expressed through display boards, multimedia, physical models, and computerized data visualizations.

The design work is supported by a foundation of detailed scientific analysis, documented in Guy Nordenson's remarkable book, On the Water|Palisade Bay (a product of beautiful design in its own right - kudos to Lizzie Hodges). The teams used the tools of science - fluid dynamic modeling, geographic information systems, quantitative analysis of dynamic systems - to inform environmentally and socially sustainable landscape and infrastructural designs.

The resulting design strategies seek to offer protection to the urbanized spaces of Lower Manhattan and Palisade Bay from rising seas and increased storm intensity and frequency. In some cases, they do so by inviting the water to enter and to accommodate its presence through softened infrastructure and landscapes which "rethink the thresholds of water, land, and city". The design objectives include construction "of an archipelago of islands and reefs along the shallow shoals of the New York–New Jersey Upper Bay to dampen powerful storm currents as well as encourage the development of new estuarial habitats","revitalize the waterfront by designing a broad, porous, 'fingered' coastline which combines tidal marshes, parks, and piers for recreation and community development."

The visualization of these new spaces forces the viewer to re-evaluate the relationship between "natural" forces and human activity which now so dramatically influences them. This is an exhibit for the scientist, the artist, and the concerned citizen in each of us. A detailed exhibition blog provides more information. The exhibit runs through October 11, 2010.

(Exhibition photography © 2010 Armen Elliott Photography, www.armenphotography.com).

EPA Issues Final Rule "Tailoring" Permit Requirements for Greenhouse Gas Emissions

On May 13, 2010 EPA took one more regulatory action to address climate change and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, by issuing its final rule setting thresholds for GHG emissions that define when permits are required under the major EPA programs for stationary sources. These include the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and title V Operating Permit programs.

First Step (January 2, 2011–June 30, 2011). In the first step of this three-step rule, for the first 18 months, only sources currently subject to the PSD permitting program (i.e., those that are newly-constructed or modified in a way that significantly increases emissions of a pollutant other than GHGs) would be subject to permitting requirements for their GHG emissions under PSD. Projects with GHG increases of 75,000 tpy or more of total GHG, on a CO2e basis, would need to determine the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for their GHG emissions. Similarly for the operating permit program, only sources currently subject to the program (i.e., newly constructed or existing major sources for a pollutant other than GHGs) would be subject to title V requirements for GHG.

Second Step (July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2013). Next, PSD permit requirements will cover for the first time new construction projects that emit GHG emissions of at least 100,000 tpy even if they do not exceed the permitting thresholds for any other pollutant. Modifications at existing facilities that increase GHG emissions by at least 75,000 tpy will be subject to permitting requirements, even if they do not significantly increase emissions of any other pollutant.  Similarly, operating permit requirements will apply to sources based on their GHG emissions even if they would not apply based on emissions of any other pollutant. Facilities that emit at least 100,000 tpy CO2e will be subject to title V permit requirements.  First-time Title V permittees are likely to be solid waste landfills and industrial manufacturers.

Third Step.  EPA commits to another rulemaking, to begin in 2011 and conclude no later than July 1, 2012. That action will take comment on an additional step for phasing in GHG permitting, and may discuss whether certain smaller sources can be permanently excluded from permitting. EPA also plans to explore a range of opportunities to reduce permit burdens and to streamline permitting actions.

A copy of the EPA fact sheet is available at: http://www.epa.gov/nsr/documents/20100413fs.pdf

A copy of the final rule (515 pp.) is available at: http://www.epa.gov/nsr/documents/20100413final.pdf

Water, water, everywhere. Stormwater floods my property!

Stormwater is inundating my yard and getting into my basement.  Can I hold anyone responsible?

With the assistance of other professionals, lawyers experienced in handling stormwater management and other environmental matters can generally ascertain what the problem is, what causes it, and how it can be solved. While the immutable forces of gravity and weather are of course to "blame," typically some human activity is materially contributing to the problem. If so, those responsible may be held legally liable.

Judicial opinions often say that "water must flow as it is wont to flow," because it is "descendible by its very nature." The owner of higher ground has an easement in lower land for the discharge of all waters that naturally rise in or flow or fall upon the higher ground. Not only is an owner of higher land under no liability for damages to an owner of lower land caused by water which flows naturally from one level to another, but he can improve his land by regrading it or erecting buildings thereon, without legal responsibility for any consequent diversion of surface waters from his property to that of adjoining owners. This is the general rule.

But all general rules have exceptions. In determining whether some person can be held legally accountable, a careful factual investigation and legal analysis are usually required. For example, a property owner may be diverting stormwater from its natural channel onto another's land, unnecessarily increasing the volume and/or velocity of stormwater, or creating an artificial channel which collects and discharges stormwater in greatly increased quantities. These activities can give rise to liability. In such instances, it is necessary to evaluate whether a "legal injury" has occurred. Soil erosion or property damage resulting from flooding or increased stormwater constitutes a legal injury, as does interference with the right of a property owner "to reasonably use and enjoy his property" caused by stormwater.

How long the problem has existed, the frequency of the problem, and the amount of rainfall necessary to trigger it, are important factors. Also important is whether any new development on higher land has materially increased impervious coverage (e.g., parking lots, roof tops, new streets).  It is possible that stormwater management systems have been constructed on higher land, which are exacerbating rather than alleviating the problem.

The question may also arise whether a local government is responsible. This raises additional questions and may depend on legislative "immunity" from liability. If a municipality is making street improvements or engaging in some other public works project after which a stormwater problem appears, there may very well be a basis for liability. On the other hand, if all a municipality has done is approve new land developments with stormwater management systems which prove inadequate, typically there is no liability on the part of the municipality. Under these circumstances, the municipality may be holding funds of the developer which can be used to correct or improve these systems.

Property owners experiencing stormwater problems are well-advised to contact counsel experienced in environmental matters. 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Coal & Gas Industries Attack EPA's Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding

In a predictable legal free-for-all, industry groups joined the state of Texas and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce late last week in filing challenges to EPA's "endangerment" finding for greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean AIr Act, while sixteen states and several environmental groups joined the fray by seeking to intervene in the industry challenges. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear the cases.  All of the various petitions for review will almost certainly be consolidated. Background:  On December 7, 2009, the EPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:

  • Endangerment Finding: The Administrator found that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)--in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.
  • Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator found that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare.

These findings do not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities  See EPA's background materials supporting its greenhouse gas endangerment findings under section 202 of the Clean Air Act.

The industry challengers include Ohio Coal Association, the Utility Air Regulatory Group, the Portland Cement Association, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, along with a coalition that includes the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the American Petroleum Institute, the Corn Refiners Association, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, and the Western States Petroleum Association. Ten other petitions were filed by the American Iron and Steel Institute, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Mining Association, Peabody Energy, the Southeastern Legal Foundation on behalf of 13 House Republicans and business associations, and the so-called "Coalition for Responsible Regulation".

The state and environmental groups seeking to intervene to support EPA's endangerment finding include a coalition of 16 states and New York City, and groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club and the National Wildlife Federation.

In a statement reported by the New York Times, Environmental Defense Fund Texas regional director Jim Marston said: "The lawsuit filed by Governor Perry is asking the Environmental Protection Agency to ignore the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. vs. Massachusetts. Their action invokes memories of a sad time in Texas history from the '50s, when Texas politicians sought to nullify decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Not only is it legally unsound, it puts Texas on the side of the 1950s economy, against the clean energy economy of the future."

LANTA and City of Easton Begin Environmental Review for Intermodal Transit Center

LANTA (Lehigh and Northampton Transportation Authority) has commenced the environmental review process for its proposed Intermodal Transit Center to be located on South Third Street in the City of Easton.  At a public meeting on February 18, 2010, project representatives made a public presentation of the project and began to receive public comments. The project's purpose is "to provide a protected, off-street transfer center and terminal for transit and intercity bus passengers with access to parking, expand public parking and support the economic revitalization of center city Easton".  The project is expected to include commercial buildings along South Third Street built with minimal setback from the sidewalk, in conformance with current urban design standards in the downtown, a transit center for LANTA and inter-city bus transportation, a parking garage intended to replace the existing Easton parking garage and a 20-vehicle surface parking lot. An environmental assessment will be conducted under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which will include a traffic study, noise analysis, environmental site assessment, review of impact on historic resources, and floodplain analysis.  LANTA has placed on Google Docs a downloadable copy of the LANTA Powerpoint presentation for the project. The Environmental Assessment is expected to be completed in May 2010, followed by the required public notice, comment period and public hearing.

PADEP/EQB Propose Overhaul of State NPDES Program Requirements

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) and the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) have proposed a complete reorganization and overhaul of the current Pennsylvania program regulations for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, monitoring and compliance.  As the public notice says, "The primary goal of the proposed rulemaking was to rebuild the regulation from scratch." The new proposed requirements are set forth ina proposed rulemaking published in the February 13, 2010 Pennsylvania Bulletin. The proposed rules can be found online at http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol40/40-7/276.html.  Public comments on this proposal may be submitted to the Environmental Quality Board at any one of the following addresses: U.S. Mail: EQB, P.O. Box 8477, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8477; Electronically: RegComments@state.pa.us; Street Address: 16th Floor, Rachel Carson State Office Building, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101-2301.  Comments must be received by the Environmental Quality Board by March 15, 2010.

PADEP Proposes More Stringent Air Pollution Standards/NSR Rules for Fine Particulates

On February 6, 2010 The Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board (EQB) published a formal notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Pennsylvania's New Source Review (NSR) rules to incorporate current federal requirements for fine particulate matter, so-called "PM 2.5".  Recent federal revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for PM2.5 have made the standard much more stringent, reducing the primary and secondary 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 from 65 micrograms/cubic meter to 35 micrograms per cubic meter. As a result of this change, Bucks County, Lehigh County and Northampton County (among others) have been designated as non-attainment for the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5.These changes will affect new major stationary sources and major modifications to such sources which emit fine particulate matter.

The proposed rulemaking was published for public comment in the Pennsylvania Bulletin of February 6, 2010. Comments on this proposal may be submitted to the Environmental Quality Board at any one of the following addresses: U.S. Mail: EQB, P.O. Box 8477, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8477; Electronically: RegComments@state.pa.us; Street Address: 16th Floor, Rachel Carson State Office Building, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101-2301.  Comments must be received by the Environmental Quality Board by April 12, 2010.

Chrin Brothers Landfill Appeals PADEP Fine for Air and Waste Violations

PA Coat of Arms UPDATE:  Chrin Brothers has agreed to withdraw its appeal and to pay a fine of $114,000 and undertake new measures to minimize odors and air pollution problems. See our September 20, 2011 post.

Chrin Brothers, Inc. has appealed the December 28, 2009 fine of $187,500 imposed by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) for air pollution and waste management violations at its landfill. See our post of December 28, 2009 for more details on the landfill facility and the PADEP fine. As we noted in our post, appeals of PADEP civil penalty assessments are filed with the Environmental Hearing Board ("EHB"). 

Detailed information about the Chrin Landfill appeal can be followed at the EHB website case information page and the docket sheet for the appeal. Standard scheduling orders have been issued in the case.

National Park Service to Evaluate 500kV Transmission Line to Cross Appalachian Trail and Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area

SECOND UPDATEThe National Park Service has now published the Final Environmental Statement on the project. See our September 1, 2012 post for updated information.

UPDATE:  The National Park Service has published its Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed action. It concludes that the preferred environmental alternative is the "no action" alternative. The public comment period on the DEIS is open until January 31, 2012.

 The National Park Service is deciding whether to allow the construction of a new 500 kV electric transmission line to cross the Appalachian National Scenic Trail and the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area.  Today (January 21, 2010) it issued its Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a construction and right-of-way permit requested from the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River, and the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, in connection with the Susquehanna to Roseland 500kV Transmission Line. 

You can view the Federal Register notice here. The public participation and public scoping process under the National Environmental Policy Act commences with the Federal Register publication today. The public can comment on the project's purpose, need, objectives, preliminary alternatives, mitigation and other issues by submitting comments through the NPS project website at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/dewa/.

The project proposes to expand upon an existing right-of-way which contains a single 230,000 volt (230kV) electric transmission line by replacing the existing towers with new, taller tower structures and adding an additional 500,000 volt (500kV) transmission line. The request would necessitate widening the existing ROW and constructing new access roads. The expanded line and new towers will impact three units of the National Park Service: the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area; the Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River and National Recreation Water Trail; and the Appalachian National Scenic Trail (AT). The NPS is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the permit request.

Additional information, including the NPS internal scoping meeting report, is available from the National Park Service Planning, Environment and Public Comment page for the project.

Green Maps® Go Mobile: "What's Green Near You?"

GreenMap®,the global award-winning community & environmental mapmaking system, is launching its new mobile platform for smartphones, PDAs and other hand-held devices, making its Open Green Map system available to mobile phone users on-the-go.

The Lehigh Valley's first Green Map - the Environmental Features of the City of Easton, Pennsylvania is now available for mobile users. The Green Map was created through a partnership between Easton's Environmental Advisory Council and Lafayette College's Mapping Urban Ecology course.  Mobile smartphone users can now access the Open Green Map system and by entering their location will see a list of "green" and community sites nearby. Each site references more detailed information and is linked to Google Maps. 

Now in its 15th year, Green Map System has engaged communities worldwide in mapping green living, nature and cultural resources with a unique system of mapping icons and adaptable tools.  The system promotes inclusive participation in sustainable community development with perspective-changing Green Maps that chart local natural, cultural and social resources.

From Green Map: "Open Green Map creates an interactive space for everyone to share their insights, images and impacts about local green sites of all kinds. Open Green Map connects the booming 'go local,' green development and ecotourism movements, empowering widespread participation in critical local environment, climate and equity issues worldwide. Based on open source and familiar mapping technologies like Google Map, Open Green Maps are always available, easily updated, expanded and explored in online, mobile and custom formats, to celebrate sustainability and social resources without barriers."

Among its honors, Green Map System is a recipient of the US National Sustainability Award in New Communications Tools, listed among the 100 United Nations Best Practices, a Technology Benefiting Humanity Laureate, and a Stockholm Challenge finalist.         

EPA Announces New Proposed NAAQS (Air Quality) Standards for Ozone

The United States Environmental Protection Agency today announced a set of new proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone, also known as "smog". Ground-level ozone is linked to various serious health problems, ranging from aggravation of asthma to increased risk of premature death in people with heart or lung disease. EPA is proposing to replace the standards set in 2008 by the Bush administration. Those standards were roundly criticized as inadequate to protect human health as required by the Clean Air Act. EPA's press statement states: "EPA is stepping up to protect Americans from one of the most persistent and widespread pollutants we face. Smog in the air we breathe poses a very serious health threat, especially to children and individuals suffering from asthma and lung disease. It dirties our air, clouds our cities, and drives up health care costs across the country." The new primary standard, developed to protect public health, is proposed to be a level between 0.060 and 0.070 parts per million (ppm) measured over eight hours. The current eight-hour primary standard is 0.075 parts per million (ppm). EPA is also proposing to set a separate “secondary” standard to protect the environment, especially plants and trees. This seasonal standard is designed to protect plants and trees from damage due to ozone exposure,

EPA will receive public comments on the proposed rule for a period of sixty days from the date the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register.  We'll update this post with a link to the Federal Register notice when it is published.

FIRST UPDATE:  EPA has announced public hearings on this ozone NAAQS rulemaking. See the public notice for details of the EPA hearings scheduled for Arlington, Virginia and Houston,Texas on February 2, 2010 and in Sacramento, California on Feburary 4, 2010.

SECOND UPDATE: January 19, 2009: EPA today published the Federal Register notice on the proposed rule to revise the NAAQS for ozone. A copy of the proposed rulemaking is available online at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-340.htm. Written comments to EPA are due by March 22, 2010. Comments may be submitted electronically to http://www.regulations.gov (follow the on-line instructions) and via e-mail to: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov

NRDC Offers Updated Pennsylvania Renewable Energy Projects Mapping & Profile

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has posted (December 5) new and updated information on Pennsylvania renewable energy projects. See NRDC Switchboard.  In its web-page "Renewable Energy for America - Harvesting the Benefits of Homegrown, Renewable Energy", NRDC provides an interactive mapping tool showing the location, developer and energy production of existing and proposed renewable energy projects throughout the United States.NRDC sums up Pennsylvania's renewable energy status: "Though Pennsylvania has one of the nation's largest coal-mining industries and second-largest nuclear industry, parts of the state are in the national vanguard of clean, green energy use." In its Pennsylvania Renewable Energy Profile, NRDC offers details about Pennsylvania's existing renewal energy facilities and potential future expansion, including wind energy, solar power, biomass fuels and cellulosic ethanol, and biogas (methane) production.  

Funding and economic incentives for Pennsylvania renewable energy projects. Perhaps most importantly, the Pennsylvania profile also includes information about project funding sources and economic incentives for renewable energy projects in the state. For example, businesses, non-profits, universities, and municipalities can apply to the Pennsylvania Energy Development Authority (PEDA) for assistance with capital costs on a variety of advanced energy projects, including solar energy, wind, biogas and biomass. Awards are made once a year. 

The Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency lists federal, state and local government incentives for renewable energy projects in Pennsylvania. The database includes project grant and loan application details, including eligibility criteria, loan and grant terms, application guidelines and other information useful to applicants.  Many of these Pennsylvania programs are administered through the Department of Community and Economic Development. You can download the Pennsylvania DCED Alternative and Clean Energy Program Guidelines by clicking the link below: 

Download Alternative And Clean Energy Guidelines (Nov. 2009)

EPA Releases 2009 Environmental Compliance Enforcement Action Record

EPA has released its 2009 Compliance Enforcement Actionsrecord. EPA's site also includes an interactive mapping tool which allows the public to search and identify federal environmental enforcement actions in any geographic area.  The site allows searches by environmental media (air, water, land and cross-media) and by location. Significant enforcement actions taken by EPA in 2009 in the Lehigh Valley included a multi-facility enforcement action against several Lehigh County municipal sewage facilities for sewer overflow violations. Also noteworthy was the criminal prosecution of Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Co., Phillipsburg, NJ in the longest federal trial in environmental crimes history. The corporation and four managers were convicted of engaging in an eight-year conspiracy to pollute the air and Delaware River in violation of the federal Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, expose its employees to dangerous conditions, and impede and obstruct federal regulatory and criminal investigations.In 2009 (FY), EPA concluded civil and criminal enforcement actions requiring polluters to invest an estimated $5.4 billion to reduce pollution, clean up contaminated land and water, achieve compliance and fund environmentally beneficial projects. Civil and criminal defendants committed to reduce pollution by approximately 570 million pounds annually once all required controls are fully implemented.

EPA's top Clean Air Act enforcement actions during FY 2009 reduced approximately 230 million pounds of sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) per year when all the required pollution controls are in place, resulting in estimated health benefits of between $4 billion to $9.8 billion. See more on civil enforcement.

In FY 2009, EPA opened 387 new environmental crime cases, the largest number of criminal case initiations in five years. EPA also launched the Fugitive Web Sitein fiscal year 2009, which assisted in the capture or surrender of five fugitives. See more on criminal enforcement.

EPA obtained $371 million from settlements with responsible parties to reimburse EPA for its past expenditures for cleaning up Superfund sites. This is the highest cost recovered ever for the Superfund program. See more on the Superfund program.

In FY 2009, EPA concluded 51 enforcement actions against federal agencies and federal facility contractors for alleged violations of environmental laws. These actions will prevent more than 13 million pounds of pollutants from being released into the environment. See more on federal facilities.

In addition, this year EPA began major initiatives to remediate pollution of the Chesapeake Bayand provide information about enforcement of the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Actand the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

PADEP Grants Chrin Landfill 10-Year Permit Renewal; Imposes Fine and New Conditions

Chrin landfill  The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) granted Chrin Brothers landfill in Williams Township, Pennsylvania a 10-year renewal of its municipal waste landfill permit, according to an Express-Times (Easton, PA) newspaper article linked here.  While granting the landfill a renewal of its operating permit, DEP also imposed a $187,500 fine for prior violations for off-site odors, nuisance minimization problems and insufficient landfill gas management. PADEP also imposed additional permit conditions, including the requirement to install temporary capping measures that will cover about 60 percent of the landfill within two years. The PADEP facility eFACTS file on the landfill can be viewed by clicking here. The file includes permit information, history of inspections and violations, and other pertinent data.  

The PADEP's decision renewing the permit and imposing the fine and additional conditions can be appealed to the Pa. Environmental Hearing Board.

UPDATE:  Chrin Brothers, Inc. has appealed the PADEP fine to the Pa. Environmental Hearing Board.   For more information, see our post of January 31, 2010.

Pa. Supreme Court Gives Victory to Mercury-Emitting Coal Power Plants; Invalidates State DEP Mercury Emission Limits

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court handed a victory this week to coal-fired electric generating facilities when it invalidated Pennsylvania's regulations limiting their emission of mercury.  In its December 23, 2009 decision, the Court found that the Pa. regulations could not stand after the legal basis for the rule - a federal EPA decision which provided for state regulation of mercury emissions from oil and coal-fired electric generating units - was invalidated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.Background. In 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued a final "Delisting Rule" which removed oil- and coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs) from the list of mercury pollution sources regulated under the hazardous air pollutants provisions of section 112 of the Clean Air Act. (70 Fed. Reg. 15994-01 (03/29/2005)). However, the EPA did not abolish regulation of mercury emissions from oil- and coal-fired EGUs. Rather, it shifted the responsibility for the mechanics of the regulation to the states. To accomplish this shifting to the states, the EPA promulgated the Clean Air Mercury Rule (“CAMR”). 70 Fed. Reg. 28606 (5/18/2005). CAMR was predicated on the Delisting Rule and it established a mercury emission budget for each state and required each state to develop a program to regulate the mercury emissions from oil- and coal-fired EGUs.  Pennsylvania opted to develop a mercury regulation program that would keep emissions within the mercury budget set by the EPA and developed the PA Mercury Rule as the Pa. state response to CAMR. The PA Mercury Rule required, among other things, coal fired power plants to reduce their mercury emissions by 80% by January 2010.

EPA's decision to delist coal-fired electric generating stations from section 112's list of mercury sources was challenged in federal court. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately invalidated that delisting decision because EPA failed to follow the required delisting procedures. New Jersey v. Environmental Protection Agency, 517 F.3d 574 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The effect of that D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision was that EGUs remained listed as mercury sources under federal law, Section 112. The court also found that once the Delisting Rule was declared invalid, CAMR no longer had a legal basis and it vacated CAMR as well.

Because under the Pa. Air Pollution Control Act, DEP generally cannot regulate hazardous air pollutants which are federally regulated under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, and the very basis for the Pa. Mercury Rule was EPA's delisting decision, the Pa. Supreme Court held that once the EPA delisting decision was invalidated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Pennsylvania state rule could not stand. 

Case: PPL Generation, LLC, et al., v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, No, 7 MAP 2009 (Pa. Supreme Court, December 23, 2009