PHILADELPHIA - Because a pipeline did not seek a federal permit that would have been a "pointless requirement," a federal judge has dismissed an environmental advocate's lawsuit against it.
On April 16, Judge Paul Diamond, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, granted Sunoco's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the lawsuit brought against it by the Delaware Riverkeeper Network.
The Riverkeeper filed a lawsuit against Sunoco Pipeline for not obtaining a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for its Mariner East II Pipeline Project (ME2), presuming Sunoco was violating the Clean Water Act.
The Clean Water Act (CWA) restores and maintains the nation's chemical, physical and biological quality, allowing citizens to bring suit against anyone who may be discharging a pollutant without a permit.
Under this act and using federal criteria, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is responsible for water quality regulation in the Commonwealth and the only entity with authority to issue project permits.
Sunoco and DEP had a series of pre-application meetings in March, May and August of 2015 before breaking ground. During these meetings, DEP guided Sunoco to file for an Erosion and Sediment Control (E&S) permit since it was exempt from the CWA’s NPDES permit requirements.
Congress enacted an exemption from NPDES requirements for oil and gas development stormwater discharges through the Energy Policy Act of 2005, in which pipeline construction is an included oil and gas activity. Following this act, DEP began requiring oil and gas pipeline builders to obtain the E&S permit with an implementation plan in 2006.
After conducting five public hearings and before construction on the pipeline began, DEP issued Sunoco three individual E&S permits, 17 water obstruction and encouragement permits for each county ME2 would pass through, and three joint permits for wetlands and stream impacts from the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
Delaware Riverkeeper Network’s summary judgment motion was denied on April 16 due to Sunoco’s adherence to all permits and regulations in question.
Regulatory authorities "advised that because only a nearly identical state permit was required, they would not issue a federal permit," Diamond wrote.
"Surely, Plaintiffs' allegation refutes itself. Even the byzantine regime of environmental regulation imposes neither such a pointless requirement nor a penalty for its 'violation.'"