• Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

liskow_lewis_white_new

future-focused

  • Team
  • Practices
  • Insights
  • Perspectives
Blogs

Environmental Groups File Suit to Compel EPA to Review and Revise Oil and Gas Waste Regulations

05.12.16 | 2 minute read

On May 4, 2016, environmental groups sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), seeking to compel EPA to “fulfill long-delayed nondiscretionary duties” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by issuing revised regulations governing oil and gas wastes.  The complaint alleges that EPA’s regulations “are outdated, contain generic provisions that do not specifically address the modern oil and gas industry, and fail to adequately protect against potential harm to human health and the environment resulting from oil and gas wastes.”  According to the complaint, the harm allegedly includes the “potential carcinogenic effects of hydraulic fracturing flowback water” and the “increasing earthquakes” allegedly linked to injection wells used for oil and gas wastewater disposal.

The suit relies on RCRA Sections 2002(b) and 4002(b) (42 U.S.C. §§ 6912(b) and 6942(b)), which require EPA to review and, as necessary, revise RCRA regulations and guidelines for state solid waste management plans at least every three years.  The complaint alleges that EPA last conducted a review of its RCRA Subtitle D regulations for oil and gas wastes on July 6, 1988, “when it determined that it was necessary to revise the general Subtitle D regulations to promulgate ‘tailored’ regulations for oil and gas wastes.”  According to the complaint, EPA “has not completed these necessary revisions,” nor has it reviewed the Subtitle D regulations for oil and gas wastes since that time.  The complaint also alleges that EPA last reviewed its guidelines for state solid waste management plans in 1981, and since that time, “eleven successive three-year deadlines have passed with no further review or revision.”

The lawsuit is styled as Environmental Integrity Project, et al. v. McCarthy, Case No. 1:16-cv-00842-JDB, and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  The oil and gas industry will need to monitor this suit.  A similar lawsuit filed in 2012 in the same court resulted in a court opinion requiring EPA to review its RCRA Subtitle D regulations concerning coal ash.  See Appalachian Voices v. McCarthy, 989 F. Supp. 2d 30, 53-56 (D. D.C. 2013).  In that case, the parties eventually settled, and EPA agreed in a consent decree to finalize RCRA Subtitle D coal ash regulations by a certain date.

Primary Sidebar

Liskow & Lewis, APLC
Arrow Icon

future-focused

  • Baton Rouge
  • Houston
  • Lafayette
  • New Orleans
  • New York City
  • © 2026 Liskow & Lewis, APLC
  • Sitemap
  • Disclaimer
  • Employee Login
Site by
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept All”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit "Cookie Settings" to provide a controlled consent.
Cookie SettingsAccept All
Manage consent

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
CookieDurationDescription
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional11 monthsThe cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy11 monthsThe cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytics
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Others
Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.
SAVE & ACCEPT
  • Team
  • Practices
  • Insights
  • Perspectives
  • Offices
  • Pro Bono
  • About Us
  • Careers
  • DEI
  • The Energy Law Blog
  • Gulf Coast Business Law Blog
  • The Maritime Law Blog