Articles, Alerts & Perspectives

FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas

(By Joseph Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Matthew Wood and Gina Falaschi)

On June 11, 2022, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) published a substantive revision to its technical guidance document (TGD) Radioactivity Monitoring at Solid Waste Processing and Disposal Facilities (Guidance), TGD No. 250-3100-001 (June 11, 2022), in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, 52 Pa. Bull. 3374 (June 11, 2022). PADEP updated the Guidance, which was immediately effective, to assist unconventional oil and gas operators in complying with the obligation under 25 Pa. Code § 78a.58(d) to prepare an action plan specifying procedures for monitoring for and responding to radioactive material produced by the treatment processes (and other procedures). The Guidance does not cover waste from conventional oil and gas operations.

The Guidance applies to all solid waste processing or disposal facilities, including underground injection control wells, as defined in the Guidance, and well sites where fluids or drill cuttings generated by the development, drilling, stimulation, operation, or plugging of an oil or gas well are processed on-site. Facilities that are not required to monitor radiation, but do so voluntarily, are also subject to the Guidance.

PADEP originally published a draft version of the Guidance in the Pennsylvania Bulletin in October 2019. See 49 Pa. Bull. 6197 (Oct. 19, 2019). The final Guidance follows PADEP’s July 2021 announcement that all Pennsylvania landfills, including those accepting unconventional oil and gas waste, would be required to conduct quarterly testing of leachate for radiological contamination prior to the liquid being treated on-site or being sent to an off-site wastewater treatment facility. …

FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas

(By Joseph Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Matthew Wood and Gina Falaschi)

On May 26, 2022, Penn State announced that a health study commissioned by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to examine the environmental and human health impacts of spreading conventional oil and gas produced water (OGPW) as a dust suppressant concluded the practice is ineffective for that purpose and poses dangers to the environment and human health. See News Release, Tim Schley & Ashley J. WennersHerron, Penn State Coll. of Eng’g, “Oil and Gas Brine Control Dust ‘No Better’ than Rainwater, Researchers Find” (May 26, 2022). The announcement coincided with PADEP’s finalization of the study. See William Burgos et al., Penn State Univ., “Evaluation of Environmental Impacts from Dust Suppressants Used on Gravel Roads” (May 26, 2022) (Study).

Historically, road spreading OGPW was authorized in Pennsylvania, but PADEP placed a moratorium on the practice in response to a 2018 legal challenge and subsequent decision by the Environmental Hearing Board. See Lawson v. PADEP, EHB Docket No. 2017-051-B (May 17, 2018). In accordance with Pennsylvania solid waste laws, using OGPW on roads for dust control could continue if conventional operators demonstrated the chemical makeup of the wastewater was similar to commercially available dust suppressants.

The Study assessed the effectiveness and environmental impacts associated with various dust suppressants used on dirt and gravel roadways, which included testing synthetic rainwater, calcium chloride (CaCl2) brine, soybean oil, and OGPW from three conventional oil and gas operations.

PADEP presented the study results at the July 25, 2022, Oil and Gas Technical Advisory Board meeting. …

FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas

(By Joseph Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Matthew Wood and Gina Falaschi)

On September 16, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that Pennsylvania state legislators and municipalities lacked standing to challenge the Delaware River Basin Commission’s (DRBC) regulation banning hydraulic fracturing for natural gas within the basin. Yaw v. DRBC, 49 F.4th 302 (3d Cir. 2022), aff’g No. 2:21-cv-00119, 2021 WL 2400765 (E.D. Pa. June 11, 2021); see Vol. XXXVIII, No. 3 (2021) of this Newsletter. The court held that the appellants failed to meet the standing requirements of Article III of the U.S. Constitution because: (1) in the case of the state senator appellants, individual members of the state legislature lack standing to assert the interests of the legislature as a whole; and (2) in the case of the municipality appellants, their alleged injuries were “conjectural” or “hypothetical,” as opposed to “actual” or “imminent.” The court also held that none of the appellants had standing as trustees of Pennsylvania’s public natural resources under the Environmental Rights Amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution because the DRBC’s ban has not cognizably harmed the trust.

The five-member DRBC is governed by a compact between the federal government and four states that draw water from the Delaware River: Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and New York, represented by a member of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and each state’s governor, respectively. See Delaware River Basin Compact, Pub. L. No. 87-328, 75 Stat. 688. …

FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Mining

(By Joseph Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Gina Falaschi and Christina Puhnaty)

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has upheld a preliminary injunction of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) rule granted by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. On July 8, 2022, the commonwealth court granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state from participating in RGGI pending resolution of the case. See Vol. 39, No. 3 (2022) of this Newsletter. Governor Tom Wolf appealed the injunction to the supreme court. On August 31, 2022, the supreme court denied the state’s emergency request to reinstate the automatic supersedeas, thereby maintaining the preliminary injunction while litigation on the merits proceeds before the commonwealth court later this year. See Ziadeh v. Pa. Legis. Reference Bureau, No. 79 MAP 2022 (Pa. Aug. 31, 2022).

As previously reported in Vol. 39, No. 2 (2022) of this Newsletter, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s (PADEP) CO2 Budget Trading Program rule, or RGGI rule, which links the state’s cap-and-trade program to RGGI, was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin in April 2022. See 52 Pa. Bull. 2471 (Apr. 23, 2022). RGGI is the country’s first regional, market-based cap-and-trade program designed to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel-fired electric power generators with a capacity of 25 megawatts or greater that send more than 10% of their annual gross generation to the electric grid.

On April 25, 2022, owners of coal-fired power plants and other stakeholders filed a petition for review and an application for special relief in the form of a temporary injunction, and a group of state lawmakers filed a challenge as well. …

FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Mining

(By Joseph Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Gina Falaschi and Christina Puhnaty)

As reported in Vol. 55, No. 3 (2022) of the Water Law Newsletter, the Pennsylvania House and Senate Environmental Resources and Energy standing committees (Standing Committees) and the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) recently disapproved a proposed rulemaking to change the water quality criterion for manganese in Pennsylvania. The future of the rulemaking is now uncertain.

Proposed Changes to Manganese Water Quality Criterion 

The proposed manganese rule would add a numeric water quality criterion for manganese of 0.3mg/L to Table 5 at 25 Pa. Code § 93.8c, which is intended to “protect human health from the neurotoxicological effects of manganese.” Executive Summary at 1, “Final-Form Rulemaking: Water Quality Standards and Implementation—Manganese” (Aug. 9, 2022). Section 93.8c establishes human health and aquatic life criteria for toxic substances, meaning the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) would be regulating manganese as a toxic substance. The existing criterion of 1.0 mg/L, which was established in 25 Pa. Code § 93.7 as a water quality criterion, would be deleted. The 0.3 mg/L criterion would apply to all surface waters in the commonwealth. PADEP identified the parties affected by the manganese rule to be “[a]ll persons, groups, or entities with proposed or existing point source discharges of manganese into surface waters of the Commonwealth.” Executive Summary at 3.

PADEP also specifically identified “[p]ersons who discharge wastewater containing manganese from mining activities” as affected parties, and expects that mining operators would need to perform additional treatment to meet this criterion.  …

FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Mining

(By Joseph Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Gina Falaschi and Christina Puhnaty)

In late July 2022, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) published its Non-Regulatory Agenda, which outlines the agency’s upcoming plans related to its documents, manuals, and technical guidance. The Non-Regulatory Agenda outlines the agency’s intent to rescind its Engineering Manual for Mining Operations, TGD No. 563-0300-101 (Jan. 1, 1999), by the end of this year. The agenda also notes PADEP’s intent to revise several other technical guidance documents (TGDs) related to coal mining activities in the commonwealth. The TGDs identified by PADEP to be revised in early 2023 are:

• Surface Water Protection – Underground Bituminous Coal Mining Operations, TGD No. 563-2000-655 (Oct. 8, 2005);
• Financial Assurance and Bond Adjustments for Mine Sites with Post-Mining Discharges, TGD No. 563-2504-450 (Dec. 15, 2007) (draft);
• Increased Operation and Maintenance Costs of Re-placement Water Supplies (on All Coal and Surface Noncoal Sites), TGD No. 562-4000-102 (Dec. 2, 2006);
• Water Supply Replacement and Permitting, TGD No. 563-2112-605 (Dec. 31, 1998); and
• Water Supply Replacement and Compliance, TGD No. 562-4000-101 (Oct. 18, 1999).

Draft revisions will be published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin and should be available online at https://www.depgreenport. state.pa.us/elibrary/GetFolder?FolderID=4556. The public will have an opportunity to comment on these draft revisions for a period of at least 30 days.

Copyright © 2022, The Foundation for Natural Resources and Energy Law, Westminster, Colorado

FNREL Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Mining

(By Joseph Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Gina Falaschi and Christina Puhnaty)

On November 12, 2022, the Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board (EQB) published amendments to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s (PADEP) regulations in 25 Pa. Code chs. 121 and 129 for all major stationary sources of nitrogen oxides (NOx) or volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, which is commonly known as the RACT III rule. See 52 Pa. Bull. 6960 (Nov. 12, 2022). The rule requires major sources of either or both of these air pollutants in existence on or before August 3, 2018, to meet reasonably available control technology (RACT) emission limits and requirements by January 1, 2023. See also Vol. 39, No. 1 (2022) of this Newsletter (Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas report).

These regulations are being promulgated to address federal Clean Air Act (CAA) RACT requirements to meet the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in the commonwealth. The CAA requires a reevaluation of RACT when new ozone NAAQS are promulgated. RACT is required in nonattainment areas, including the Ozone Transport Region, which includes Pennsylvania. The RACT III rulemaking establishes presumptive RACT requirements and emission limits for specific source categories of affected facilities. The RACT III rulemaking also imposes additional requirements for all major sources of NOx and/or VOCs, not just those subject to the presumptive RACT requirements and limitations.

RACT III applies to all major sources of VOCs and NOx. Because the commonwealth is in the Northeast Ozone Transport Region, the major source threshold is 50 tons per year (tpy) of VOCs and 100 tpy of NOx. …

FNREL Water Law Newsletter

(By Lisa Bruderly and Christina Puhnaty)

In early September 2022, the Pennsylvania House and Senate Environmental Resources and Energy standing committees (Standing Committees) and the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) disapproved the proposed rulemaking to change the water quality criterion for manganese in Pennsylvania. The future of the rulemaking is now uncertain.

Proposed Changes to Manganese Water Quality Criterion

The proposed manganese rule would add a numeric water quality criterion for manganese of 0.3 mg/L to Table 5 at 25 Pa. Code § 93.8c, which is intended to “protect human health from the neurotoxicological effects of manganese.” Executive Summary at 1, “Final-Form Rulemaking: Water Quality Standards and Implementation—Manganese” (Aug. 9, 2022). Section 93.8c establishes human health and aquatic life criteria for toxic substances, meaning the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) would be regulating manganese as a toxic substance. The existing criterion of 1.0 mg/L, which was established in 25 Pa. Code § 93.7 as a water quality criterion, would be deleted. The 0.3 mg/L criterion would apply to all surface waters in the commonwealth. PADEP identified the parties affected by the manganese rule to be “[a]ll persons, groups, or entities with proposed or existing point source discharges of manganese into surface waters of the Commonwealth.” Executive Summary at 3.

PADEP also specifically identified “[p]ersons who discharge wastewater containing manganese from mining activities” as affected parties, and expects that mining operators would need to perform additional treatment to meet this criterion. Id. Final amendments to treatment systems would be implemented through PADEP’s permitting process and other approval actions. Consulting and engineering firm Tetra Tech estimated the overall cost to the mining industry to achieve compliance with the 0.3 mg/L criterion “could range between $44–$88 million in annual costs (that is, for active treatment systems using chemical addition for manganese removal) and upwards of $200 million in capital costs.” Comment and Response Document at 213, “Water Quality Standard for Manganese and Implementation” (Aug. …

Pittsburgh Business Times

In March, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) released a proposed rule entitled Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors. If finalized, this rule would become some of the first mandatory Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) reporting requirements for U.S. companies, requiring the disclosure of climate-related risk information in registration statements and periodic reports.

This proposed regulation has significant consequences not just for public companies, but private companies as well. Babst Calland Environmental Attorney Gina N. Falaschi explains the implications of the proposed rules, should they take effect.

What requirements could the rules introduce?

Under the SEC proposal, public companies would be required to disclose the oversight and governance of climate-related risk by their board and management; how any climate-related risk has a material effect on business and consolidated financial statements; the process for identifying, assessing and managing climate-related risks and how to integrate those processes into the company’s overall risk management; whether the company has adopted a transition plan to deal with climate-related risks and how to measure any physical or transitional risks to its operations; the effect of severe weather events and related natural conditions; and information regarding any publicly set climate-related targets or goals.

The SEC’s proposal also requires the disclosure of certain greenhouse gas emissions. These emissions are divided into three categories based on the Greenhouse Gas Protocol definitions. Scope 1 emissions are the direct greenhouse gas emissions that occur from sources that a company owns or controls, such as emissions from manufacturing activities and vehicles. Scope 2 emissions are the indirect greenhouse gas emissions that occur from the generation of energy that a company buys and consumes in its operations. Scope 3 emissions are the result of assets not owned or controlled by a company that the company indirectly impacts in its value chain, both upstream and downstream, from the company’s operations, such as the purchased goods and services, waste generation, business travel, downstream transportation, distribution and use of products sold, and the end-of-life treatment of products sold. …

Smart Business

(By SBN Staff featuring Gina Falaschi)

In March, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) released a proposed rule entitled Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors. If finalized, this rule would become some of the first mandatory Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) reporting requirements for U.S. companies, requiring the disclosure of climate-related risk information in registration statements and periodic reports.

This proposed regulation has significant consequences not just for public companies, but private companies as well.

Smart Business spoke with Gina N. Falaschi, an associate at Babst Calland, about the implications of the proposed rule, should it take effect.

What requirements could the rule introduce?

Under the SEC proposal, public companies would be required to make a number of disclosures related to their climate-related risks and impact. Those include disclosures regarding the oversight and governance of climate-related risk by their board and management, how any climate-related risk has a material effect on business and consolidated financial statements, and information regarding any publicly set climate-related targets or goals.

The SEC’s proposal also requires the disclosure of certain greenhouse gas emissions, which are divided into three categories. Scope 1 emissions are the direct greenhouse gas emissions that occur from sources that a company owns or controls. Scope 2 emissions are the indirect greenhouse gas emissions that occur from the generation of energy that a company buys and consumes in its operations. Scope 3 emissions are the result of assets not owned or controlled by a company that the company indirectly impacts in its value chain, both upstream and downstream from the company’s operations. Scope 3 emissions would have to be disclosed only if considered ‘material.’

What do companies need to do to prepare? …

The American College of Environmental Lawyers (ACOEL)

(By Donald C. Bluedorn II)

On November 3, 2022, Pennsylvania Governor Wolf signed House Bill 1059, which amends the Commonwealth’s Tax Reform Code and, among other things, establishes the Pennsylvania Economic Development for a Growing Economy (“PA EDGE”) program, consisting of tax credits for four economic areas.  https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/billinfo.cfm?sYear=2021&sInd=0&body=H&type=B&bn=1059.

Much of the publicity around the bill has focused on the tax credits available to promote a “hydrogen hub” and the use of hydrogen-based technologies.  Indeed, the bill provides for tax credits up to $50 million per year, or a total of $1 billion over a 20-year period.

In explaining his support for House Bill 1059, Governor Wolf started by noting his belief in the importance of the role of hydrogen in addressing the effects of climate change.  “In its most recent report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change notes that ‘hydrogen is a promising energy carrier for a decarbonized world,’ and highlights hydrogen’s potential to ‘provide low-carbon heat for industrial processes or be utilized for direct reduction of iron ore.’”  https://www.governor.pa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/20221103-1059.pdf.

The Governor then went on to note his belief that the use of hydrogen must be tied responsibly to the reduction of emissions and the consideration of Environmental Justice.

That said, I recognize that in order for hydrogen to play a meaningful role in reducing emissions, we must ensure that hydrogen used is truly “clean” through stringent emissions standards. We must also commit to strong and equitable community protections to prevent impacts to already overburdened communities and to guide benefits to communities that need them.

Perhaps the most controversial provisions of the bill, or at least those that drew the most attention in much of the press, were the provisions that also authorized a tax credit for the use of natural gas in the manufacturing of petrochemicals or fertilizers. …

Legal Intelligencer

(by Alex Farone and Janet Meub)

Navigating the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) in the COVID era, including the pandemic-related amendments, has felt like a minefield for many employers. Now that the surge of COVID-related uses of FMLA leave has largely passed, a new aspect of statutory compliance is emerging as a hot-button issue: treatment of remote workers under the FMLA.

The FMLA provides eligible employees with up to 12 weeks of protected, unpaid leave per year for qualifying family or medical reasons. In order to be eligible for FMLA coverage, four elements must be met:

1. The employer is a covered employer under the Act, meaning it has at least 50 employees for at least 20 weeks in the current or previous year;
2. The employee must have worked for the employer for at least 12 months, not necessarily consecutively;
3. The employee must have worked at least 1250 hours in the last 12-month period; and
4. The employee must be employed at a worksite where the employer employs at least 50 employees within a 75-mile radius.

Many employers do not pay much consideration to the last element, also known as the “50/75 Rule,” likely because the first element requires 50 employees and in the majority of instances those 50 employees are by default going to work within a 75-mile of the employer’s office. However, in the COVID era and beyond, more and more employees are permitted to work remotely on a full-time basis, and employers are hiring remote employees all over the country, regardless of the location of the employer’s physical office or operations.

The FMLA itself does not address remote workers, but the Department of Labor’s regulations specify that an employee’s personal residence is not a worksite for employees who work at home by telecommuting. …