To: Bodine, From: Smith, Brooks M. Sent: Wed 2/23/20?8 3:43:23 PM Subject: RE: report language CWA report I clearly need a metadata crash-course. Clean version attached. Besti Brooks Brooks M. Smith troutrnan sanders Direct: 804.697.1414 brooks.smith@troutman.com From: Bodine, Susan [mailtozbodinesusan@epa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 10:30 AM To: Smith, Brooks M. Subject: RE: report language The document lists Michael Kafka as the author. From: Smith, Brooks M. Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 10:21 AM To: Bodine, Susan Subject: report language Just so you don?t think We lost my mind on CWA, and RCRA basics, here?s the version that i worked on and that reflects the latest thinking on possible report language. to welcome your input on substance and strategy for addressing the issue in this manner. Best! Brooks Brooks M. Smith Direct: 804.697.1414 sanders too: Haxall Point, Suite 3500 Richmond, VA 23219 troutmancom This e-mail message (and any attachments) from Troutman Sanders LLP may contain legally privileged and con?dential information solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you received this message in error, please delete the message and notify the sender. Any unauthorized reading, distribution, copying, or other use of this message (and attachments) is strictly prohibited. This e-mail message (and any attachments) from Troutman Sanders LLP may contain legally privileged and con?dential information solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you received this message in error, please delete the message and notify the sender. Any unauthorized reading, distribution, copying, or other use of this message (and attachments) is strictly prohibited. Proposed Congressional report language: Since its enactment in 19 72, the Clean Water Act WA) has regulated impacts to navigable surface waters only, and Congress specifically rejected amendments that would have extended regulatory jurisdiction to groundwater. Congress intent has always been that the regulation of groundwater pollution was to be left to the WA ?s nonpoint source programs and other federal and state laws. For instance, releases ?om solid waste units are to be regulated at a federal level by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act yet, recent court decisions have imposed WA liability based on a theory of hydrological connection between groundwater and surface water. To rectify this situation, the Committee directs the Administrator to promulgate a rule re?ecting Congress intent and clarifying that groundwater releases from solid waste units are regulated under RCRA and are not considered point sources under the WA, and (2) releases of pollutants to and through groundwater into navigable waters via a hydrological or traceable connection to groundwater are not subject to regulation as point sources under the CWA. Potential regulatory approach: - Explain there is no overlap between RCRA and the CWA and that the new rule is intended to harmonize the two statutes with respect to releases to groundwater from CCR units. - Explain that CCR units are not point sources, thus the new rule is not excluding a source otherwise regulated. 40 CPR. 257 .50 (Scope and purpose)?releases to groundwater from CCR units are exclusively regulated under the CCR rule. - 40 CPR. Part 122 (EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System)?if you are subject to the CCR rule for impacts to groundwater from CCR unit releases, you are not subject to this part for such releases, irrespective of any hydrological connection (direct or otherwise) or traceability to surface waters (but outfall where conveyance adds pollutants to navigable waters continues to be subject to Part 122). To: Bodine, From: Smith, Brooks M. Sent: Wed 2/2t/2038 3:21 :t7 PM Subject: report language CWA report Eanuuadepdf Just so you don?t think We lost my mind on CWA, U10 and RCRA basics, here?s the version that i worked on and that re?ects the iatest thinking on possible report language. i?d welcome your input on substance and strategy for addressing the issue in this manner. Best! Brooks Brooks M. Smith Direct: 804.697.1414 brooks.smith@troutman.com treatment sanders tOOt Haxall Point, Suite t500 Richmond, VA 23219 troutrrian corn This e-maii message (and any attachments) from Troutman Sanders LLP may contain iegaliy privileged and con?dential information solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you received this message in error, piease delete the message and notify the sender. Any unauthorized reading, distribution, copying, or other use of this message (and attachments) is strictly prohibited. Proposed Congressional report language: Since its enactment in 19 72, the Clean Water Act WA) has regulated impacts to navigable surface waters only, and Congress specifically rejected amendments that would have extended regulatory jurisdiction to groundwater. Congress intent has always been that the regulation of groundwater pollution was to be left to the WA ?s nonpoint source programs and other federal and state laws. For instance, releases ?om solid waste units are to be regulated at a federal level by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act yet, recent court decisions have imposed WA liability based on a theory of hydrological connection between groundwater and surface water. To rectify this situation, the Committee directs the Administrator to promulgate a rule re?ecting Congress intent and clarifying that groundwater releases from solid waste units are regulated under RCRA and are not considered point sources under the WA, and (2) releases of pollutants to and through groundwater into navigable waters via a hydrological or traceable connection to groundwater are not subject to regulation as point sources under the CWA. Potential regulatory approach: - Explain there is no overlap between RCRA and the CWA and that the new rule is intended to harmonize the two statutes with respect to releases to groundwater from CCR units. - Explain that CCR units are not point sources, thus the new rule is not excluding a source otherwise regulated. 40 CPR. 257 .50 (Scope and purpose)?releases to groundwater from CCR units are exclusively regulated under the CCR rule. - 40 CPR. Part 122 (EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System)?if you are subject to the CCR rule for impacts to groundwater from CCR unit releases, you are not subject to this part for such releases, irrespective of any hydrological connection (direct or otherwise) or traceability to surface waters (but outfall where conveyance adds pollutants to navigable waters continues to be subject to Part 122). To: Dravis, Trayior, Mark From: Brown, Samuel L. Sent: Mon 12/4/2037 1:26:55 AM Subject: Logistics ELI Conference: EPA Policy Goals, Regulatory Reform, and Enforcement: What {)oes the Future i-lold? Polio and Enforcement Panei Qverview Hi Samantha, Patrick, and Mark, I am looking forward to seeing you tomorrow afternoon, Monday, December 4. A reminder that our panei discussion is 3:002m-4z309m. If possibie, piease try and be there by 2:45pm so we can go over a few logistical items. The event is at the Hunton Williams DC office at 2200 Avenue, NW (on Washington Circle). When you arrive, take the eievator up to the 9th Floor. If you have any questions tomorrow. please feel free to call or text my cell at 1 Ex gamma. 3 Thank you again for your participation in this event! Sam From: Brown, Samuel L. Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 8:33 PM To: {)ravis, Samantha; 'Traylor, Patrick'; 'lViark Ryan' Subject: EU Conference EPA Policy Goals, Regulatory Reform, and Enforcement: What Does the Future Hold? Hi Samantha, Patrick, and Mark, Thank you again for agreeing to participate in the ELI and ALI-CLE conference on the Clean Water Act in Washington DC. on Monday, December 4 from 3:00pm 4:30pm. Attached is an overview of howl am thinking to structure our panel. The attachment includes representative moderated questions that 1 would suggest that i tee up for discussion. Again, the thought is no slide decks, just moderated discussion and then with the audience. I welcome your input and suggestions, in particular on the moderated questions. iweicome any subject matter that you would like to highlight or discuss. Samantha/Patrick, i understand there may be subject matter that is sensitive that you would like to not discuss, so 1 can tailor the conversation around any concerns that you may have. 1 think it makes sense to have a short call to touch base. Does Wednesday or Friday this week work for you? Samantha/Patrick, if you have schedulers 1 am happy to work with them to get 30 minutes on your caiendars. Thanks so much and talk to you soon! Sam Samuel Brown Senior Attorney slbrown@hunton.com 415.975.3714 415.975.3775 vCard Hunton Williams LLP 50 California Street Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 94105 huntoncom To: Dravis, Traylor, Mark From: Brown, Samuel L. Sent: Mon 11/13/2017 5:37:11 AM Subject: RE: ELI Conference EPA Policy Goals, Regulatory Reform, and Enforcement: What Goes the Future Hold? Polls and Enforcement Panel Qverview Hi Samantha, Patrick, and Mark, I am foliowing up on the email below. Does sometime this week work for you for a 30 minute call to touch base on the panel? l?il be in Georgia most of this week for work, so on EST. Thanks Sam From: Brown, Samuel L. Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 8:33 PM To: Dravis, Samantha; 'Traylor, Patrick?; 'lViark Ryan' Subject: ELI Conference EPA Policy Goals, Regulatory Reform, and Enforcement: What Does the Future Hold? Hi Samantha, Patrick, and Mark, Thank you again for agreeing to participate in the ELI and ALT-CLE conference on the Clean Water Act in Washington DC. on Monday, December 4 from 3:00pm 4:30pm. Attached is an overview of howl am thinking to structure our panel. The attachment includes representative moderated questions that I would suggest that i tee up for discussion. Again, the thought is no slide decks, just moderated discussion and then with the audience. I welcome your input and suggestions, in particular on the moderated questions. i welcome any subject matter that you would like to highlight or discuss. Samantha/Patrick, i understand there may be subject matter that is sensitive that you would like to not discuss, so 1 can tailor the conversation around any concerns that you may have. lthink it makes sense to have a short call to touch base. Does Wednesday or Friday this week work for you? Samantha/Patrick, if you have schedulers 1 am happy to work with them to get 30 minutes on your calendars. Thanks so much and talk to you soon! Sam Samuel Brown Senior Attorney slbrown@hunton.com 415.975.3714 415.975.3775 VCard Hunton Williams LLP 50 California Street Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 94105 hunton.com Nov. 5, 2017 (DRAFT) EPA Policy Goals, Regulatory Reform, and Enforcement: What Does the Future Hold? Ciean Water Act: Law and Regulation 2017 3:00pm 4:30pm, Monday, December 4 Washington, DC. 1. Panel Description. As the Trump Administration?s EPA settles into 1200 Avenue it brings a new perspective, a shift in policy focus, and a different way of doing business. This panel wiil draw on current and former EPA personnel to explore poiicy and enforcement priorities in the context of the Clean Water Act and the chailenges it may face. Issues to be explored include the substantive issues beyond the ?waters of the United States? rulemaking that are a priority for the Agency, any changes in the focus of enforcement priorities, and any shifts in the way the Agency is organized and functions, among other issues. 2. Moderator Panelists. (1. Moderator: Samuei Brown, Senior Attorney, Hunton Wiliiams, LLP, San Francisco, CA Samantha Dravis, Senior Counsel and Associate Administrator, Of?ce of Poiicy, US. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Patrick Trayior, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, US. Environmentai Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Mark A. Ryan, Ryan Kuehler PLLC, former EPA attorney, Winthrop, WA 3. Panei Format (90 minutes). a. b. d. C. S. Brown (10 minutes): introduce paneiists and frame the topics of the panel. Moderated Questions on EPA Poiicy and Operational Priorities (15 minutes). Moderated Questions on EPA Substantive Priorities for the Office of Water (15 minutes). Moderated Questions on EPA Enforcement Priorities (30 minutes). Questions from Audience (20 minutes). 4. Representative Moderator Questions. a. Moderated Questions on EPA Poiicy and Operational Priorities (15 minutes) i. How does the Of?ce of Poiicy fit within organizational structure? ii. What is the role and of the Of?ce of Policy? Administrator Pruitt has described the Agency?s key principles to include (1) the importance of process; (2) adherence to the rule of law; and (3) the applicability of cooperative federalism. Can you explain what each of those principles means and how they will be incorporated into the Agency?s work, generally, and in the context of the CWA programs? iv. in October, Administrator Pruitt signed a memorandum on ?sue and settle,? can you explain the intent and likely impact of this memorandum? v. Will the October memorandum likely result in EPA litigating more challenges (and reaching a decision on the merits), as opposed to a settlement and a consent decree? vi. There has been talk of re-organization of the Agency consolidation of EPA Regions, placement of enforcement back into the program of?ces, etc); will there be any re-organization of the Agency? Moderated Questions on EPA Substantive Priorities for the Office of Water (15 minutes). i. Looking past WOTUS, what are the Agency?s substantive priorities for the Of?ce of Water? What other rulemaking will the public likely see from the Of?ce of Water in the next year and over the course of the next 3 years? ii. There have been public statements related to the Of?ce of Water conducting rulemaking related to the CWA 404 permitting program (separate from the WOTUS rulemaking), what is the Agency looking to address as part of any 404 permitting rulemaking? There is signi?cant Circuit Court litigation related to what EPA has described as the ?direct hydrologic connection? theory of CWA liability. Does EPA intend to provide additional guidance, conduct rulemaking, or otherwise further address this issue? iv. President Trump has emphasized infrastructure as a priority; will this EPA prioritize water-related infrastructure and, if yes, what are its plans for doing so? Moderated Questions on EPA Enforcement Priorities (30 minutes). i. What are CWA enforcement priorities? ii. What enforcement metrics will OECA examine to determine if the program is a ?success?? Does OECA envision the States taking a bigger role in enforcement? if yes, what types of cases will EPA focus its enforcement efforts? iv. Does OECA intend to shift focus from the current CWA National Enforcement Initiatives El) that were ?nalized in the prior Administration? v. How does OECA view the future of the very mature NET focused 2 on municipal combined and sanitary sewer systems? Will it stiil be a priority? vi. is ?Next Generation Compliance? still a priority for vii. Does OECA intend to continue to push for ?mitigation? to be part of consent decrees? if existing CWA consent decrees do not align with Administrator Pruitt?s key principles of (1) process; (2) ruie of law; and (3) cooperative federalism, does OECA envision entertaining modi?cations of those consent decrees? ED_001667A_00005476 ED_001667A_00005476 ED_001667A_00005476 ED_001667A_00005477 ED_001667A_00008303 ED_001667A_00008303 ED_001667A_00008342 ED_001667A_00008510 ED_001667A_00008510 ED_001667A_00008115