�鶹��Ƶ

�鶹��Ƶ is celebrating Earth Day (officially April 22) all week long by releasing an article a day exploring how the construction industry contributes to building a green future. You can help us get the word out by linking to these articles via social media during “Earth Week.” Today’s article (the second in �鶹��Ƶ’s five-day series) explores developments in green roads and how they fit within the existing environmental requirements.

By a vote of 36-22, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved legislation that would send the administration’s proposed rule redefining federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act back to the drawing board.

�鶹��Ƶ ‘Earth Week’ Article Series

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has finalized a rule to extend certifications for thousands of renovators under the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (LRRP) rule, effective April 16.

Most federal actions against businesses or individuals for failure to comply with the environmental laws are resolved through settlement agreements. On March 10, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a newly revised 2015 Update to its Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) Policy, thereby superseding prior Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) policies. According to EPA, a SEP “is an environmentally beneficial project or activity that is not required by law, but that a party agrees to undertake as part of the settlement of an enforcement action – usually in return for penalty mitigation.” As part of resolving either administrative or judicial enforcement actions, “the final settlement penalty will be lower for a violator who agrees to perform an acceptable SEP, compared to the violator who does not.”

The joint rulemaking redefining which waters are jurisdictional under federal Clean Water Act standards, proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), has left the agencies and moved to the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). This is the last stage in the federal rulemaking process where OIRA runs the final rule through interagency review one last time before allowing the rule to be published as final in the Federal Register.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Compliance has launched a new website that offers some insight into the agency’s future plans and direction for sharing compliance-related information and ensuring that regulated companies follow the law. Prominently featured is the Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database, which provides the ability for anyone with Internet access to download data to analyze violations at any of the 800,000 regulated facilities nationwide that are currently part of the system. Forthcoming regulations like the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule for stormwater discharge permits are expected to increase the scope of construction-site data that is uploaded to the system.

The regulated community can expect settlement negotiations stemming from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforcement actions to become more complex and costly in the near future. The enforcement chief at EPA headquarters has directed agency staff to incorporate advanced monitoring, electronic reporting and independent third party auditing into agreements to resolve alleged environmental violations. �鶹��Ƶ expects this to facilitate citizen oversight – and citizen enforcement – of environmental laws.

�鶹��Ƶ of America is accepting proposals for a limited number of speaking opportunities for its 2015 Contractors Environmental Conference on September 2-3, 2015, at the Westin Crystal City in Arlington, Virginia. We invite you to submit a proposal for a compelling educational presentation on environmental or sustainability issues geared towards construction professionals.

�鶹��Ƶ and its industry partners from the Waters Advocacy Coalition met with the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) to discuss the federal water quality standards (WQS) regulation proposed by EPA and its interaction with the proposed change in the definition of “Waters of the United States.” Both proposed rules attempt very significant changes to large portions of the Clean Water Act, and �鶹��Ƶ and its industry partners do not believe that the agencies are evaluating the true economic costs of either rule, nor are the costs of the changes in either rule being adequately taken into account by the other rule. Taken together, these two rules are likely to give EPA and the states more authority to impose more costly and onerous controls on construction project that may impact water quality or have other “unacceptable” consequences.