U.S. EPA – Next Generation Enforcement – Already Here With More Coming Soon

10 June 2015 Manufacturing Industry Advisor Blog

The 2016 budget focus for the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) is on continued implementation of its “Next Generation” enforcement initiative, and this could mean big costs for manufacturers who choose to adapt their environmental compliance practices accordingly and big penalties for those who do not. Under this initiative, U.S. EPA intends to make a significant shift toward electronic reporting for most required environmental compliance reports, as well as dramatically increase the quality of this reporting—most significantly through the use of continuous, real-time monitoring for manufacturing and other regulated facilities. This increase in the quantity and quality of electronic data could easily lead to increased enforcement.

In general, U.S. EPA’s Next Generation enforcement initiative intends to boost environmental compliance by requiring, among other things, facilities to report electronically all emissions and discharge data, such as air pollutant emissions and wastewater discharges. The agency is also seeking to require advanced monitoring for these emissions, including the installation of small “fence line” (i.e., property boundary) monitors for air emissions and in-water monitors for wastewater and storm water discharges. These devices would allow U.S. EPA to obtain real-time environmental monitoring of a facility on a continuous or near-continuous basis, exponentially increasing the amount of data available for enforcement purposes and giving U.S. EPA the ability to use “big data” approaches to targeting enforcement efforts. Additional information regarding U.S. EPA’s Next Generation enforcement initiative can be found here.

Significantly, U.S. EPA is implementing the Next Generation enforcement initiative through both rulemaking efforts and enforcement actions and settlements. For example, in recent months the agency has required settling defendants to install fence-line monitoring for air quality to assure continuous compliance with ambient air quality standards. Data from this real-time monitoring was recently used as a basis for a U.S. EPA-Region 5 Notice of Violation. Additional detail regarding U.S. EPA’s use of such Next Generation tools in the settlement context is available here.

Manufacturing facilities need to be cognizant of U.S. EPA’s movement toward Next Generation enforcement and its emphasis on continuous monitoring and continuous compliance. Because both U.S. EPA and state environmental agencies previously required only a periodic demonstration of compliance with applicable environmental standards (e.g., air or water quality standards) for many environmental regulatory programs, regulated facilities need to adapt their auditing and internal compliance programs to assure continuous, and not just periodic, compliance. In addition, more so than ever, environmental monitoring protocols and methods need to be employed that assure the accuracy of reported data.

Facilities also need to watch the potential use of drones by regulators for compliance purposes, as the technology exists but is not yet being deployed. While many legal issues surround the use of drones, initiatives like U.S. EPA’s Next Generation enforcement effort suggest the use of drones for compliance and enforcement may not be far off.

Overall, U.S. EPA’s shift toward advanced reporting and enforcement methods dictates that manufacturing and other regulated facilities react accordingly. Given the proliferation of data that is sure to occur as a result of this shift, regulated facilities will want to ensure that they have taken the necessary steps to not only be in compliance with all applicable environmental laws, but also to provide data to U.S. EPA and state environmental agencies that consistently and accurately documents this compliance.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

California Statute Offers Dramatic Change to Independent Contractor, Franchise-Franchisee Relationships
20 September 2019
Legal News: Distribution & Franchise
AI Ouch! AI Job Interview Law Starting in 2020!
20 September 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
RCE PTA Carve-Out Resumes After Interference
18 September 2019
PharmaPatents
The Ninth Circuit Expected to Rule that Doctors Can Be Wrong in the Winter v. Gardens False Claims Act Case
18 September 2019
Legal News: Government Enforcement Defense & Investigations
Lacktman, Ferrante Cited in mHealth Intelligence About Ryan Haight Act
19 September 2019
mHealth Intelligence
Vernaglia Comments on AHA v Azar Decision
18 September 2019
MedPage Today
Tinnen Discusses How Viewpoint Diversity Helps Businesses Thrive
18 September 2019
InsideTrack
Lach Comments on Launch of New Group
16 September 2019
BizTimes Milwaukee
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.