Articles Posted in Environmental

Today, my colleague Jay Silberg and I published our client alert discussing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) decision to consider revisions to applicable security and accountability regulations in response to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) sting operation which identified certain regulatory weaknesses. If adopted, these revisions could significantly affect the ability to efficiently use and transfer certain radioactive sources and increase the cost of doing so. Our alert is titled Potential Revisions to NRC Regulations Could Significantly Affect the Oil & Gas Industry.

Photo:  Blake Burkhart, Radioactive (Taken Sep. 7, 2011) – Creative Commons

Something light for your Monday morning. On January 23, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma issued a ruling dismissing the plaintiff’s pro se complaint that the recycling practices of the Tulsa City-County Library Commission placed an “undue obstacle” on the plaintiff’s practice of “Environmentalism.” The case is Krause v. Tulsa City-County Library Commission. Plaintiff alleged that the Tulsa City-County Library Commission’s placement of “fake” recycling bins in the downtown Central Library mounted to a hindrance to his faith, and warrants the protections of the First Amendment because the exercise of his “secular and political choices,” being rooted in environmental advocacy, constitutes a religion. The District Court noted that the complaint contains no factual support for the plaintiff’s conclusory assertion that Environmentalism is religious, and not a secular practice or lifestyle. The District Court also notes that this claim is a matter of first impression in the Tenth Circuit, but that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, in the case of McDavid v. Cty. of Sacramento, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43711, at *7-8 (E.D. Cal. June 26, 2006), addressed an analogous claim, and held that veganism is not a religion:

All courts recognize some distinction between a religious belief and a non-religious lifestyle decision; courts will protect the former, but not the latter.

The complaint suffered from other defects, requiring its dismissal.

On January 11, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania decided the case of EQT Production Company v. Department of Environmental Protection of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and granted EQT Production Company’s (EQT) application for certain relief under the Declaratory Judgments Act, 42 PA. C.S. §§ 7531 et seq.,  with respect to the Department of Environmental Protection of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s (DEP) interpretation of certain penalty provisions under The Clean Streams Law, 35 P.S. §§ 691.1-.1001.

Continue Reading ›

On January 12, the Supreme Court of the State of Washington issued a unanimous ruling holding that both the Court of Appeals and the state’s Shorelines Hearing Board (Board) had erroneously interpreted the state’s Ocean Resources Management Act, Rev. Code of Wash. §§ 43.143.005 et seq. (ORMA), as having no application to applications submitted to the Board to expand two large oil terminals located on the shores of Grays Harbor. The case is Quinault Indian Nation, et al., v. Imperium Terminal Services, LLC, et al.

Continue Reading ›

On January 19, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the criminal conviction of Donald Blankenship, the former Chairman and CEO of Massey Energy Company (MEC), the operator of the Upper Big Branch Coal Mine in Montcoal, West Virginia. In April 2010, an accident at this mine resulted in the death of 29 miners, and Mr. Blankenship was indicted and convicted of conspiring to violate federal mine safety laws. He was sentenced to be imprisoned for one year and to pay a fine of $250,000, the maximum punishment that could be assessed pursuant to 30 U.S.C. § 820(d). The case is U.S. v. Donald L. Blankenship.

Continue Reading ›

On January 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the lower court and held that EPA’s 2008 promulgation of the “Water Transfers Rule” (Rule) published in the Federal Register at 73 FR 33697 on June 13, 2008, was entitled to Chevron deference, and reinstated the rule. The regulation is codified at 40 C.F.R. § 122.3(i), and provides that water transfers, as defined in the rule, do not require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits because they do not result in the addition of a pollutant. The case is Catskill Mountains Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Inc., et al, v. EPA.

Continue Reading ›

“The old order changeth, yielding place to new.” January 2017 has been a very active month, with several important environmental and federal administrative court rulings being issued, and many significant rules being proposed and finalized. Here’s a selection: Continue Reading ›

Today, our colleague Kevin Ashe posted his client alert on the California Environmental Protection Agency’s and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s recent release of an “Update to the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool,” better known as CalEnviroScreen Version 3.0. CalEnviroScreen is a software tool used to identify and direct resources to communities affected by pollution, based on environmental exposure and population data. As guidance for prior CalEnviroScreen versions made clear, however, the tool’s approach to “cumulative impacts” is very different from that of environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). While Version 3.0 omits a clear statement to that effect, lead agencies and project proponents should be confident that CEQA law has not changed and CalEnviroScreen remains the wrong tool for CEQA review of local projects and permitting decisions. The alert is titled CalEnviroScreen 3.0 – Still the Wrong Tool  for CEQA Review.

OSHA has just published a Final Rule restating its interpretation of the “continuing violations” theory. There are now two Circuit Court of Appeals rulings that disagree with this interpretation: AKM LLC dba Volks Contractors v. Secretary of Labor, et al. (Volks) and Delek Refining, Limited v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, et al. (Delek).

Continue Reading ›