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

January 15, 2025

We are pleased to share a recording of Akin’s recently presented webinar, “Drilling Down: What Oil & Gas Companies Can Expect from Federal Agencies During Trump’s Second Administration.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

January 9, 2025

On January 6, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a Final Rule to amend its regulations governing the maximum civil monetary penalties assessable for violations of statutes, rules and orders within FERC’s jurisdiction. The Final Rule is a result of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, which requires each federal agency to issue an annual inflation adjustment by January 15 for each civil monetary penalty provided by law within the agency’s jurisdiction. The adjustments in the Final Rule represent an increase of approximately 2.6% for each covered maximum penalty. FERC’s adjusted maximum penalty amounts, which will apply at the time of assessment of a civil penalty regardless of the date on which the violation occurred, are set forth here and will become effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

January 9, 2025

Join projects & energy transition partners Ike Emehelu and Shariff Barakat as well as climate change partner Ken Markowitz at Infocast's Projects & Money, where Ike will moderate the "The State of Project Finance – View from the C-Suite" panel, and Shariff will moderate the "Capital Markets & Other Capital Sources for Project Finance & Investment" panel. Ken will moderate the “Carbon Markets Forecast for 2025” panel.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

January 8, 2025

On December 16, 2024, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty proposing to assess staggering civil penalties against American Efficient, LLC and its affiliates (collectively, American Efficient) in connection with an alleged scheme to manipulate the capacity markets operated by PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) and the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO).1 The Order directs American Efficient to show cause as to why it should not be required to pay a civil penalty of $722 million and disgorge $253 million.2

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

December 5, 2024

On November 27, 2024, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued Venture Global CP2 LNG, LLC, an order that sets aside, in part, the Commission’s prior authorization of the CP2 LNG Terminal and CP Express Pipeline Project (collectively, the CP2 Project) under sections 3 and 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). 

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

December 5, 2024

On November 27, 2024, in Venture Global, CP2 LNG, LLC,1 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC or Commission) explicitly overruled precedent set in Northern Natural Gas Co.,2 a 2021 decision in which FERC made an affirmative finding that an interstate natural gas pipeline project it was certificating under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) would not make a “significant” contribution to global climate change. Northern Natural is the only FERC decision in which a so-called significance determination was made with respect to greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) arising from a FERC-regulated natural gas infrastructure project. In Venture Global, FERC rejected arguments that it needed to follow Northern Natural and assess the significance of GHG emissions in all NGA certificate proceedings to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA requires federal agencies, including FERC, that perform “major federal actions,” which include issuing NGA section 7 certificates, to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) if the action will “significantly affect[] the quality of the human environment.”3 FERC has been under pressure to fully explain why it has chosen not to apply Northern Natural’s significance analysis in subsequent cases, and that issue is currently before FERC on remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) in Healthy Gulf et al. v. FERC, which reviewed FERC’s approval of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal under NGA section 3.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

December 4, 2024

On November 21, 2024, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) issued Order No. 1920-A1 addressing requests for rehearing and clarification of FERC’s landmark final rule on transmission planning and cost allocation issued in May 2024. While the Commission largely affirmed the final rule, the order grants rehearing of some of the more controversial aspects of Order No. 1920.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

November 26, 2024

We are pleased to share a recording of Akin’s recently presented webinar, “Post-Election Outlook for the Energy Sector.”

...

Read More

© 2025 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.