APPLYING THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT'S (NEPA) FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENCE DOCTRINE TO THE NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN (NCP)

2005 ◽  
Vol 2005 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-110
Author(s):  
Jereme M. Altendorf
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
Environmental Issues ◽  
The United States ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Hazardous Substances ◽  
Functional Equivalence ◽  
Exact Nature ◽  
Contingency Plan

ABSTRACT NEPA is a policy and procedural statute that makes environmental protection a part of the mandate of every federal agency and department. NEPA was enacted to establish a framework for public review of the environmental impacts of actions carried out by the federal government. NEPA anticipates that most federal actions are planned in detail and are implemented over the course of months or years. This planning and implementation cycle, allows detailed analysis of specific project impacts. Environmental response actions taken by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the United States Coast Guard (CG) under the regulatory authorities established by the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) are also considered specific federal actions. However, the nature of these specific actions varies greatly depending on the exact nature of each incident; therefore traditional NEPA planning is neither possible nor appropriate. The NCP establishes a mechanism of continuous environmental assessment and review through the network of Regional Response Teams (RRT), local emergency area planning committees, Area Contingency Planning (ACP) Committees, and the availability of local area contingency plans to the public on a contingency basis for review or comment. Federal courts have allowed functional equivalence doctrine to apply exclusively to EPA because of their adherence to “substantive and procedural standards ensuring full and adequate consideration of environmental issues.” These decisions have held up the interpretation that NEPA compliance is unnecessary where the agency is independently required to consider environmental issues. The EPA and the CG share the responsibility of protecting public health, welfare, and environment from discharges or threats of discharges of oil and/or releases or threats of a releases of hazardous substances, pollutants and/or contaminants under the planning, preparedness, and response scheme established by the NCP and carried out by those working within the National Response System (NRS). For this reason any planning, preparedness, and response activities undertaken by EPA and CG personnel to mitigate accidental or intentional discharges of oil or releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and/or contaminants within the purview of the NCP should be interpreted as functionally equivalent to the requirements found within NEPA.

THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN, SUBPART J PRODUCT SCHEDULE (40 CFR 300.900)

2001 ◽  
Vol 2001 (2) ◽  
pp. 1479-1483 ◽  
Author(s):  
William J. Nichols
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
The United States ◽  
Hazardous Substances ◽  
Protection Agency ◽  
Contingency Plan ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
The U.S

ABSTRACT The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) manages the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan Final Rule, Subpart J Product Schedule (40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 300.900), which lists dispersants, surface-washing agents (SWAs), bioremediation agents, surface-collecting agents, and miscellaneous oil spill control agents that may be used in response to oil spills on land and on or near waters of the United States, depending on the product and its proper application. Over the last few years, alternative oil spill response methods have been gaining in acceptance and use in the field among first responders, industry, state and federal agencies, Congress, and the entire oil spill response community. EPA sets policy and guidance for the proper use and authority to use these products. Manufacturers and vendors of these products have become more aware of this acceptance evidenced by the frequency that EPA is contacted to provide information on the listing process and EPA policy regarding their use. The number of applications to add new products to the Subpart J Product Schedule has increased over the last year. Subpart J is very prescriptive and specific in directing manufacturers to perform the proper test within the proper protocols, yet many applications are rejected or need modification because of errors in testing procedures or data reporting. This paper will address the data needed to list a product under each category and will clarify issues related to the Product Schedule. It will also address the policies that EPA uses to enforce the Subpart J regulation. The author has managed the Product Schedule for over 3 years, and his experience and expertise regarding the issues surrounding alternative countermeasures will be covered as well. Dispersants, SWAs, chemical sorbents, and other technologies have sparked controversy and confusion in all regions and areas of the United States, and in some cases internationally. Many research efforts have added to the baseline knowledge we have about dispersants and bioremediation agents' toxicity, efficacy, and proper use, but conflicts still arise as that data is interpreted and applied in the field. The reader will have a better understanding of why and how alternative countermeasures are required to be listed and describe the authority to use them based on EPA policy.

MEXUSPAC: MEXICO/U.S. PACIFIC REGIONAL RESPONSE COORDINATION TEAM1

1995 ◽  
Vol 1995 (1) ◽  
pp. 959-960
Author(s):  
Daniel Whiting
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Mexico City ◽  
Marine Environment ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Hazardous Substances ◽  
Contingency Plan ◽  
Marine Safety ◽  
The U.S

ABSTRACT The Agreement of Cooperation Between the United States of America and the United Mexican States Regarding Pollution of the Marine Environment by Discharges of Hydrocarbons and other Hazardous Substances, signed in Mexico City in 1980, provides a framework for cooperation in response to pollution incidents that pose a threat to the waters of both countries. Under this agreement, MEXUSPAC organizes Mexican and U.S. response agencies to plan for and respond to pollution emergencies in the marine environment. The MEXUSPAC contingency plan designates the commandant of the Mexican Second Naval Zone and the chief of the U.S. Coast Guard 11th District Marine Safety Division as the MEXUSPAC Cochairmen, and defines on-scene commanders, joint operations centers, and communications protocols that would be needed to coordinate the response to pollution incidents affecting both countries.

TRANGUCH GASOLINE SITE CASE HISTORY

2003 ◽  
Vol 2003 (1) ◽  
pp. 637-642
Author(s):  
Stephen Jarvela ◽  
Kevin Boyd ◽  
Robert Gadinski
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Ground Water ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
Health Agency ◽  
The United States ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Army Corps ◽  
Toxic Substances ◽  
The Impact

ABSTRACT A team, consisting of the United States Environmental Protection Agency; Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection; Pennsylvania Department of Health; Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; United States Coast Guard and United States Army Corps of Engineers, has completed major steps to provide a safe and healthy environment for the residents of Laurel Gardens, Hazleton, PA. What started as a simple underground gasoline leak took on more serious dimensions when gasoline vapors were found in nearby homes. The investigation and mitigation expanded to include over 400 properties. The remediation consists of a ground water treatment system and a soil vapor extraction system. This paper and its presenters look at the critical aspects of this case as the investigation went from subsurface soil and ground water contamination impacting surface water to the contamination of indoor air. It examines the impact of preferential pathways that include sanitary and storm sewers as well as a 19th century abandoned coal mine. In addition to the technical aspects, this examination looks at the public health and community issues that have surrounded this case.

scholarly journals ESA Section 7: Pre-spill Planning Updates and Emergency Consultations

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
LCDR John LaMorte
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
National Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Hazardous Substances ◽  
Hazardous Substance ◽  
Response Team ◽  
National Marine Fisheries Service

ABSTRACT In 2001 the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (collectively referred to as Action Agencies) along with the Department of the Interior's (DOI) United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Department of Commerce (DOC) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively referred to as the Services) signed the 2001 Inter-agency Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)1. The purpose of this 2001 MOA was to “identify and incorporate plans and procedures to protect listed species and designated critical habitat during spill planning and response activities” (USCG, EPA, USFWS, and NMFS, 2001). The procedures outlined in the 2001 MOA are based on the need to meet legal requirements set forth in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) (Title 40 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 300 [40 CFR § 300]), the Clean Water Act of 1972, and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 [16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.]. The 2001 MOA established procedures to improve the conservation of listed species and the oil spill planning and response procedures delineated in the NCP. Streamlining this process is required by section 7(a)(1) of the ESA. (USCG, 2018). The MOA also coordinates the consultation requirements specified in the ESA regulations, 50 C.F.R. § 402, with pollution response responsibilities outlined in the NCP. It addresses three areas of oil spill response: 1) pre-spill planning activities; 2) spill response event activities; and 3) post-spill activities. (USCG, 2018). Though this document outlined procedures for how the Action Agencies and the Services were to comply with ESA Section 7, there still existed ambiguities and lack of national level guidance on how agencies were to comply with ESA Section 7. More specifically, these concerns pertained to pre-spill, emergency, and post-response operations. To alleviate the demand in the field for further ESA Section 7 guidance the National Response Team (NRT)2 established the NEC Subcommittee which quickly began developing guidance for federal agencies in order to assist these agencies maintain environmental compliance for oil and hazardous substance incident response operations. This paper will provide an update from the 2017 IOSC ESA presentation, discuss what products the NEC is currently developing and how previous NEC products have since been implemented.

Environmental Protection in the United States Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry: An Overview of Regulation of Wastewater Under the U.S. Clean Water Act

1988 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca W. Hanmer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
Clean Water Act ◽  
Paper Industry ◽  
Oxygen Demand ◽  
The United States ◽  
Pulp And Paper ◽  
Clean Water ◽  
Pulp Paper

The pulp, paper, and paperboard industry in the United States is the larqest industrial user of water with half of the facilities discharging wastewater directly to our Nation's waters. The major pollutants of concern have historically been the conventional pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS), and pH. Biological treatment systems are currently employed to reduce these pollutants. Sludges generated by these treatment systems have been categorized as nonhazardous and are generally landfilled. Under the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has promulgated all the reguired regulations for this industry. The national regulations are applied to individual pulp and paper mills through permits issued by EPA Regional or State staff. Permit limits can be written that are more restrictive than the national regulations to protect local water guality. In its current projects concerning the pulp and paper industry, EPA is focusing on the reduction of toxic pollutants. The Agency is conducting a joint EPA/industry program to study dioxin discharges at bleached kraft mills. The Agency will also undertake a comprehensive review of the pulp and paper regulations in 1988.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document