EPA Enforcement Falls Victim to COVID-19

Mar 30, 2020

Reading Time : 3 min

The policy essentially divides compliance monitoring and reporting from operational requirements, giving greater amnesty to noncompliance with the former category, while articulating a willingness to take into account the COVID-19 pandemic among the factors it considers when determining if enforcement is appropriate for the latter category. Under this division, broad protection is afforded for noncompliance with compliance monitoring, integrity testing, sampling, laboratory analysis, training, reporting, and certification, even for those under administrative settlement agreements. Although companies should still “make every effort to comply with their environmental compliance obligations,” EPA “does not expect to assess penalties” if it is “not reasonably practicable” to meet these obligations due to the crisis, provided companies are able to document the context for the noncompliance.

On the operational side, the policy extends its forgiveness to RCRA generators or those who operate animal feeding operations and are not able to transfer waste or animals (respectively) off site in a timely manner due to transportation disruptions due solely to the pandemic and thus would otherwise face additional obligations. For example, the Agency will not consider large-quantity RCRA generators who cannot transfer waste within 90 days solely due to the COVID-19 disruption to be treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. For operational issues—such as the failure of a pollution control system or other equipment resulting in exceedances of permit limits, other unauthorized releases and any noncompliance that could result in an acute risk or imminent threat to human health or the environment—regulated entities are not guaranteed a pass on enforcement, and should still notify the appropriate implementing authority as quickly as possible. 

The Agency takes a different approach with respect to key infrastructure. Operators of public water systems are deemed to have a “heightened responsibility” in the context of the pandemic and are obligated to continue normal operations and maintenance, including required sampling, to protect drinking water supplies. Similarly, where a facility is considered “critical infrastructure” under guidance issued by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency,2 the EPA “may consider a more tailored short-term No Action Assurance, with conditions to protect the public, if EPA determines it is in the national interest.”

As should be clear, the policy provides much-needed relief to companies who have transitioned to remote workforces with limited staff present at operating facilities. In order to benefit from the enforcement discretion, facilities must:

  1. Minimize the “effects and duration” of noncompliance
  2. Identify the specific nature and dates of noncompliance
  3. Identify how COVID-19 caused the noncompliance and actions taken in response, including best efforts to comply and steps taken to come into compliance at the earliest opportunity
  4. Return to compliance as soon as possible
  5. Document all information, actions and conditions identified above.

Given the statute of limitations on enforcement decisions, it is a best practice to maintain this documentation for five years following the last date of noncompliance. Appropriately, EPA will offer no reprieve for criminal violations of environmental law and the Criminal Investigation Division can be expected to diligently pursue enforcement against those who seek to benefit from compliance forgiveness without legitimate COVID-19 exigencies.

Overall, the policy strikes a balance to provide leeway for companies to focus on the health and safety of their employees and business partners during this period of significant disruption, while continuing to keep up with obligations that avoid or minimize threat to public health or the environment.


1 Memorandum from Susan Parker Bodine, U.S. Envtl. Protection Agency, to All Governmental and Private Sector Partners (Mar. 26, 2020), https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-03/documents/oecamemooncovid19implications.pdf.

2 CISA, Guidance on the Essential Critical Infrastructure Workforce (updated Mar. 28, 2020), https://www.cisa.gov/publication/guidance-essential-critical-infrastructure-workforce.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

August 07, 2024

*Thank you to JaKell Larson, 2024 Akin Summer Associate, for her valuable collaboration on this article.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 31, 2024

Interstate oil, liquid and refined products pipelines regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) will soon be able to raise their transportation rates (provided they were set using FERC’s popular Index rate methodology) in the wake of a significant new decision by the District of Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit) in Liquid Energy Pipeline Association v. FERC (LEPA).

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 29, 2024

On Wednesday, July 24, 2024, the U.S. House of Representative Committee on Energy and Commerce held a Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security hearing to review the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Request. Members of the Subcommittee had the opportunity to hear testimony from all five Commissioners, including FERC Chairman Willie Phillips and Commissioner Mark Christie, as well as the three recently confirmed commissioners, David Rosner, Lindsay See and Judy Chang. In addition to their prepared remarks, the five commissioners answered questions on FERC’s mandate to provide affordable and reliable electricity and natural gas services nationwide, while also ensuring it fulfills its primary mission of maintaining just and reasonable rates.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 29, 2024

On July 9, 2024, the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) erred in ordering refunds for certain bilateral spot market transactions in the Western Energy Coordinating Council (WECC) region that exceeded the $1,000/megawatt-hour (MWh) “soft” price cap for such sales.1 Finding FERC failed to conduct a “Mobile-Sierra public-interest analysis” before “altering” those contracts by ordering refunds, the court vacated FERC’s orders and remanded the case to FERC for further proceedings.2

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2024

On June 28, 2024, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which for 40 years required court deference to reasonable agency interpretations of federal statutes in certain circumstances, even when the reviewing court would read the statute differently. The Court ended “Chevron deference” and held that courts “must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.” In doing so, the Court upended a longstanding principle of administrative law that is likely to make agency decisions more susceptible to challenge in the courts.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 3, 2024

We are pleased to share a recording of Akin and ICF’s recently presented “Powering Progress: Decoding FERC Order No. 1920” webinar, along with the program materials.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 12, 2024

Join projects & energy transition partner Ben Reiter at Infocast's Transmission & Interconnection Summit, where he will moderate the “Dealing with the Impacts of Increased Interconnection Request Requirements and Costs” panel.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 4, 2024

Join projects & energy transition partners Hayden Harms and Vanessa Wilson at Infocast's RNG & SAF Capital Markets Summit, where Hayden will moderate the "Investor Perspectives: Private Equity, Infrastructure Funds, & Strategies" panel, and Vanessa will moderate the "Opportunities in Other Biogas/Fuels Markets" panel.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.