ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT SECTION

Transcription

1 ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT SECTION Nat Douglas Deputy Chief Environmental Enforcement Section U.S. Department of Justice 1

2 Who we are: EES is one of 9 legal Sections within ENRD EES is the largest Section, with 150 trial attorneys assigned to Litigation Groups based upon the 10 EPA Regions 2

3 EES is responsible for civil enforcement of the federal environmental statutes. Primary statutes enforced by EES include: Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C to 1387 Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C to 7671q Oil Pollution Act (OPA), 33 U.S.C to 2762 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C to 6992k Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund), 42 U.S.C to 9675 Natural Resources Damages (NRD) 3

4 EES does not have independent authority to investigate and/or initiate a civil environmental case. Pub. L. No , 12, enacted Nov. 30, 1979; 93 Stat. 1048; 28 U.S.C. 509 note, provided that: The Attorney General may, with the concurrence of any agency or Department with primary enforcement responsibility for an environmental or natural resource law, investigate any violation, of an environmental or natural resource law of the United States, and bring such actions as are necessary to enforce such laws. This section does not affect the criminal law enforcement authority of the Attorney General. EES can only initiate an enforcement case based on a referral from another federal agency that has environmental enforcement authority. 4

5 EPA Department of Interior (Fish and Wildlife, Park Service, Office of Surface Mining (Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act)) Department of Agriculture (Forest Service) Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (Pipeline Safety Act) 5

6 Integrating Environmental Justice ( EJ ) Principles into EES s Enforcement Work: Department of Justice and ENRD are committed to Environmental Justice. For far too long in our nation s history, low income and minority communities have suffered unfairly from exposure to polluted skies, soil and water. We at the Department of Justice are committed to giving voice to those who have been voiceless, to applying our environmental laws in a way that furthers the greatest ideas of this nation, and to pursuing a future that is both prosperous and sustainable, and that all Americans may share. John C. Cruden Assistant Attorney General 6

7 Appointment of a Senior Litigator for Environmental Justice, who advises the Assistant Attorney General and ENRD managers and attorneys on EJ matters and serves as a bridge between ENRD and community/environmental groups. Establishment of the ENRD EJ Workgroup, which consists of representatives of all ENRD Sections and focuses on developing EJ strategies and developing training for ENRD attorneys. Provided EJ training for all EES attorneys, with an emphasis on conducting community outreach. 7

8 1. U.S. v. City of Fort Smith, Arkansas (W.D. Ark.) Violations: This case involved CWA violations involving sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) from the City s wastewater collection and treatment system. Millions of gallons of raw sewage were discharged from defective portions of the City s sewer system and flowed into the Arkansas River and other water bodies. Civil penalty: $300,000 Injunctive Relief: The City will conduct a comprehensive assessment of its sewer system to identify the causes of SSOs. The City expects to spend $200 million on upgrades and fixes to its sewer system. EJ: The City agreed to implement a program to help low income residents repair and replace defective private lateral sewer lines that connect to the City s sewer system. 8

9 9

10 Violations: This case also involved CWA violations related to sanitary sewer overflows from the City s wastewater collection and treatment system. Civil Penalty: $476,400 Injunctive Relief. City agreed to implement comprehensive injunctive relief to upgrade its sewer system. EJ (with extensive community involvement): The City, DOJ, EPA and the State of South Carolina agreed to work together in identifying and addressing potential environmental justice concerns. All agreed to conduct outreach to the community to help in identifying EJ concerns. The City compiled a list of 143 neighborhood environmental and civic groups. The City, with input from DOJ, EPA, and the State, created a survey and later conducted an agreed upon survey of members of these groups to learn about their experiences regarding SSOs, ideas for ways to reduce SSOs, and views on suggested SEP ideas. 51 responses were received in response to the survey. Based on the community outreach, the City agreed to spend $1 million on a SEP aimed at restoring segments of the banks of three streams to address past flooding in several areas with EJ concerns. 10

11 Violations: This CAA case involved three subsidiaries of the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, the world s largest fertilizer producer. Defendants modified equipment at several plants resulting in the release of excess sulfur dioxide into the environment. Civil Penalty: $1.3 million Injunctive Relief: Defendants agreed to install, upgrade and operate state-ofthe-art pollution reduction measures at the subject plants, as well as install emissions monitors at eight sulfuric acid plants in three states. Defendants are expected to spend approximately $50 million in implementing the injunctive relief. EJ: Defendants will implement a SEP, estimated to cost between $2.5 and $4 million, to install and operate equipment to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide and ammonia from a plant located near a community with environmental justice concerns. 11

12 This year, the DOJ Deputy Attorney General transferred responsibility for criminal worker safety matters to ENRD [Environmental Crimes Section]. Now ENRD and the U.S. Attorneys Offices will work with the Department of Labor offices, including the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to investigate and prosecute worker safety endangerment violations. While ENRD s worker safety endangerment enforcement work has primarily focused on criminal prosecutions, ENRD Assistant Attorney General John Cruden has established a goal for the Environmental Enforcement Section of enhancing civil enforcement of worker safety issues. To achieve its work safety enforcement goal, EES is now pursuing a worker safety initiative. Steps EES has taken to advance this initiative include the following: 12

13 Designated two attorneys to coordinate with other agencies and EES attorneys on worker safety issues. Initiated discussions with some EPA regional offices and OSHA regional offices to coordinate with those offices in identifying potential worker safety issues and developing cases for enforcement. Participated in training OSHA conducted for its inspectors. Reviewed all statutes enforced by EES to identify authority for pursuing worker safety claims. EES attorneys are now reviewing agency referrals, particularly EPA referrals, to identify potential worker safety concerns and, where appropriate, EES will work with the referring agency to investigate and develop any worker safety issues alongside other violations. 13

14 Violations: The complaint alleged defendant Chevron Puerto Rico LLC violated provisions of RCRA and the Puerto Rico Underground Storage Tank Regulations at about 100 Underground Storage Tank (UST) facilities (service/gas stations). Among other things, defendant failed to: (a) provide overfill protection equipment for USTs, (b) perform required annual inspections of automatic line leak detectors for pressurized piping at all USTs; (c) provide release detection for tanks and pressurized piping; and (d) maintain certain required compliance records. Civil Penalty: $600,000 Injunctive Relief: Defendant agreed to spend about $2 million to improve leak detection methods and operations at the service stations. Next Gen Compliance: Defendant agreed to install fully-automated leak detection systems on USTs at 155 of its service stations in Puerto Rico and continue operating them for at least 5 years. The systems are designed to detect releases before they enter the environment.

15 SEPs: Defendant agreed to spend about $3.5 million on two SEPs: (1) Install equipment for centralized monitoring at 155 Chevron-owned service stations with USTs; system will contain both audible and visible alarms on Veeder-Root panels (which alert station personnel of any alarm conditions); system will record and maintain alarm data as well as system testing data at a centralized location. (2) Install sensors under dispenser pans in all of its facilities and connect them to a centralized monitoring system. 15

16 Violations: The case involved CAA violations at a large refinery and chemical plant in Deer Park, Texas. Penalty: $2,600,000 Injunctive Relief: Shell will spend at least $115 million to control harmful air pollution from industrial flares and other processes. Next Gen: Shell will replace and repair tanks, as necessary, and will inspect tanks biweekly with an infrared camera to better identify integrity problems that may lead to leaks. As a SEP, Shell will spend $1 million on a state-of the-art open path air monitor for benzene levels on the fenceline of one of its plants, which is near a residential neighborhood and a school. Shell also agreed to make the monitoring data public through a website.

17 Using optical gas imaging thermal infrared (IR) cameras EPA/State inspectors observed VOC flash emissions from oil storage tanks at oil and gas well sites in the Denver-Julesburg Basin north of Denver. Led to information requests and analysis of causes. Consent Decree entered June 2, Covered > 3,400 tank batteries and associated well sites. Injunctive relief included: Engineering design analysis of all sites to: (a) determine the potential peak instantaneous flow rate of vapors; and (b) assure all vapor control systems are adequately sized to handle those vapors. Periodic inspections using IR cameras and third party verification of work completed. Continuous/real-time pressure monitoring of tanks. Implementation of alternative tank gauging system. 17

18 Transducer is located on a tank. Continuously (e.g., every 15 seconds) tracks and relays tank pressure. Pressure measurements below relief setting of PRV/thief hatch may show compliance. Pressure measurements at/close to relief setting of PRV/thief hatch may show a false negative. 18

19 Technologies are currently being developed and implemented to gauge and sample oil storage tanks for sales volumes and merchantability determinations without opening thief hatches ( auto gauging ). Tank vapor emissions include VOC, HAPs, and methane. Benefits of auto gauging include: Keeping oil field workers off walkways at the tops of tanks and from being exposed to vapors from open thief hatches. Reducing emissions of tank vapors to the atmosphere instead of being captured or controlled. More accurate sales measurements have also been reported. Vapor balancing further reduces emissions during tanker truck loading. Tanker trucks are filled in a closed system with vapors previously emitted from tanker trucks being routed to the tank battery s vapor control device. This system is now being implemented in the D-J Basin. 19

20 20