National Environmental Policy and Law Center Inc.

“There were no such committees within the organization during fiscal year 2018.”

“The form 990 is prepared by an independent accounting firm and reviewed by staff prior to its filing. The board receives a copy of the form 990 to review and raise any questions with the organization's staff and accountants.”

“1. Any officer, director, department head or other senior management with substantial influence over the organization must disclose to the organization any financial interest, direct or indirect, that he/she would gain from any transaction, contract, or policy the organization is considering entering into or adopting. 2. In instances where any officer, director, or individual with substantial influence over the organization would obtain a direct or indirect financial interest from a transaction or contract entered into with the organization or from a policy adopted by the organization, the following procedures shall apply: (a) a meeting (either in person or via telephone) of the board of directors of the organization shall be convened; (b) the interested person will relate the nature of the proposed transaction, contract, or policy and shall disclose his/her financial interest to the board, and then shall absent himself/herself from the meeting; (c) the board shall undertake consideration and discussion of the proposed transaction, contract, or policy in the absence of the interested person; (d) the board shall obtain data concerning alternatives to entering into said contract or transaction, or adopting said policy and compare the alternatives to the proposed transaction, contract or policy; (e) the board shall vote to approve the proposed transaction, contract, or policy only after having arrived at a determination that such is fair in relation to the feasible alternatives and is in the best interests of the organization; (f) only a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the disinterested members of the board shall be sufficient to approve such an interested transaction, contract, or policy. The interested person shall not be present for or participate in the vote; (g) minutes shall be prepared and maintained concerning the board's review, discussion, and vote regarding the proposed transaction, contract, or policy. 3. The organization shall maintain a list of every transaction, contract, or policy from which any officer, director, or individual who exercises substantial influence over the corporation gains any financial benefit, whether direct or indirect.”

“The independent compensation committee will establish acceptable compensation packages after reviewing at least one of the following: 1) information about compensation paid by similarly situated tax-exempt organizations for similar services; 2) current compensation surveys compiled by independent firms;3) actual written offers from similarly situated organizations. The compensation committee maintains contemporaneous written documentation of the decision making process.”

“No documents available to the public.”

“I. Federal environmental "citizen suit" enforcement actions general description of cases: a number of federal environmental statutes authorize affected citizens to bring enforcement actions directly against parties who violate certain environmental standards. To bring such action, the citizen must first give a formal notice of the intent to bring such a lawsuit (detailing the alleged violations) to the violating party, the federal environmental protection agency ("epa"), and the appropriate state environmental agency, and usually cannot file suit thereafter until the expiration of a notice period (usually 60 days) prescribed by the statute. If the state or federal government files suit first against the alleged violator for the same violations, the citizen is barred from filing suit if the government diligently prosecutes its suit. The citizen lawsuit, when and if filed, is brought in the appropriate federal district court. Nelc represents individual citizens and non-profit organizations in such lawsuits. Public benefit: the public will benefit from a decrease in pollution and/or an increase in environmental or public health amenities. Fee sought: fees and costs are sought, as provided by statute, in appropriate cases. Cases filed or ongoing in fy 2018 cases were filed under the clean water act, 33 u.s.c. Section 1251, et seq., unless otherwise specified. (1) city of newport and earth tech, inc. (newport, ri) notice letter sent march 12, 2008; complaint filed july 16, 2008, on behalf of environment rhode island and four newport residents ("the citizen plaintiffs"). Earth tech had been a contract operator of the city's sewer and storm water systems, but ceased this work shortly after the complaint was filed. On april 15, 2010, the court dismissed earth tech (and its successor, aecom technical services, inc.) from the action in accordance with a settlement agreement between the plaintiffs and earth tech/aecom. Under the terms of that agreement, aecom paid: (a) $99,000 to the city to help fund a surface water quality monitoring program to address sewage overflows and/or storm water discharges; and (b) $180,000 to plaintiffs' attorneys ($130,000 to nelc and $50,000 to co-counsel) for all attorney fees, expert witness fees, and other court costs incurred through that date. On september 2, 2010, the court granted the (unopposed) motion by the united states and the state of rhode island to intervene in the case as co-plaintiffs. After extensive negotiations, all parties agreed to the wording of a consent decree, which was entered by the court on october 18, 2011. Under the decree, the city: (a) must implement a detailed set of remedial measures (including storm sewer separation; reduction of inflow and infiltration; treatment plant optimization; and sewer line upgrades) according to a specified schedule, with full compliance (with a preference for the elimination of all overflows) to be achieved by june 30, 2018; (b) must encourage low impact development as a means of meeting these requirements; (c) must comply with the rhode island stormwater design and installation standards manual, and give preference to low impact development as specified therein; (d) must install and operate a treatment system for storm water discharged from the city's storm water moat to easton's bay, and meet specified water quality targets with such discharge; (e) must purchase and distribute a minimum of 500 rain barrels for use as a means of collecting rain water for use in public and/or private buildings and dwellings, and conduct an educational campaign promoting the use of rain barrels to reduce storm water runoff; (f) created a citizen advisory board to track compliance with the consent decree; (g) paid a $170,000 civil penalty ($85,000 to the united states and $85,000 to the state of rhode island); and (h) paid $70,000 to citizen plaintiffs' attorneys ($52,698.38 to nelc and $17,301.62 to co-counsel) for attorney fees, expert witness fees, and other co”

“(3) arcelormittal (monessen, pa) (clean air act) notice letter sent august 4, 2015, on behalf of pennenvironment; complaint filed october 8, 2015; upon the joint motion of the parties, the case was stayed to allow time for settlement negotiations, and the parties, joined by epa and the pennsylvania department of environmental protection, negotiated a comprehensive settlement that was entered as a consent decree on february 2, 2018. The decree imposes a penalty of $1.8 million, $1.5 million of which was paid to the federal and state governments, and $300,000 of which was paid to establish a local clean vehicles project, administered by the community foundation of westmoreland county, designed to improve local air quality. The decree also required the defendant to bring its coal coke plant into compliance with the clean air act, and to pay stipulated penalties for future violations. Nelc received $277,276 under the decree for reasonable fees and costs. Nelc is monitoring compliance with the decree. (4) connecticut galvanizing corporation, highway safety corporation, and highway safety design and fabrication corporation (glastonbury, ct) notice letter sent october 21, 2015, on behalf of environment connecticut and toxics action center; complaint filed january 14, 2016; consent decree was negotiated by the parties in the summer of 2016, and entered by the u.s. District court on october 18, 2016. Under the terms of the decree, the defendants must: (a) install and operate a system to remove heavy metals from its storm water before it is discharged to local waters; (b) implement best management practices designed to keep heavy metals out of its storm water; (c) meet effluent discharge limits or pay stipulated penalties; (d) pay a $188,000 penalty ($40,000 to the u.s. Treasury, and $148,000 to the farmington river watershed ass'n for measures to restore and maintain the quality of local waters); (e) pay $180,000 in attorneys' fees and costs ($22,723 to co-counsel and $157,277 to nelc). Nelc is monitoring compliance with the decree. (5) pasadena refining system, inc. (pasadena, tx) (clean air act) notice letter sent december 22, 2016, on behalf of environment texas and sierra club; complaint filed march 2, 2017; the company filed a motion to dismiss on may 12, 2017, which was denied on january 11, 2018. Extensive settlement negotiations led to the entry of a comprehensive consent decree on september 14, 2018. Under the decree, the defendant was required to (a) make extensive upgrades at its refinery, (b) attain compliance with the clean air act; (c) pay stipulated penalties, which increase in severity with the number of violations, for future violations and for failure to meet project deadlines, (d) pay a $3.525 million penalty ($350,000 to the u.s. Treasury and $3,175,000 to fund a vehicle emissions reduction fund, to be administered by a non-profit corporation created by the houston-galveston area council, which will disburse grants to local school districts and governments for the purpose of reducing air pollution through the reduction of vehicle emissions), and (e) pay $547,000 in fees and costs ($164,710 to co-counsel and $382,290 to nelc). Nelc is monitoring compliance with the decree. (6) pilgrim's pride corporation (live oak, fl) notice letter sent december 30, 2016, on behalf of environment florida; second notice, adding sierra club as a prospective plaintiff, sent january 31, 2017; complaint filed on behalf of environment florida on march 9, 2017; amended complaint, adding sierra club as a plaintiff and adding subsequently available monitoring data, filed april 5, 2017; the company filed a motion to dismiss on may 11, 2017, which nelc attorneys opposed, and the parties entered into comprehensive settlement negotiations at the direction of the court. Under the resultant consent decree, entered on january 16, 2018, the defendant was directed to: (a) investigate alternatives to discharging wastes to the suwannee river and propos”

“Ii. Administrative law cases (1) challenge to cooling water intake rule (clean water act; endangered species act): in september 2014, under section 509(b) of the clean water act, nelc attorneys filed a petition in the first circuit court of appeals, on behalf of environment america and environment massachusetts, challenging the legal sufficiency of epa's august 2014 cooling water intake regulations for existing power plants and large manufacturing facilities. Petitions challenging the regulations were also filed in several other circuit courts by environmental and industry groups, respectively, and the cases were consolidated (by random selection) in the fourth circuit court of appeals. The environmental petitioners moved to have the cases transferred to the second circuit court of appeals, which had heard two previous cases reviewing earlier cooling water intake regulations. That motion, which was opposed by epa and the industry groups, was granted, and the consolidated cases were transferred to the second circuit. All parties then asked that court to hear endangered species act challenges to the rule as well as clean water act challenges, and the second circuit agreed. Briefing on the merits of the case was completed in several phases throughout 2016; the case was argued before the second circuit on september 14, 2017, and the court issued its opinion on july 23, 2018. The court rejected all challenges to epa's regulations, but clarified that (a) it expected epa and state permitting agencies to ensure that facilities utilize the "best technology available" to minimize the impingement and entrapment of aquatic species, as required by the clean water act, and (b) it expected the anticipated consultations between the fish and wildlife service and/or the national marine fisheries service and permitting agencies to result in appropriate measures necessary to protect endangered and threatened species. Further, in a response to a petition for rehearing filed by environmental petitioners on september 6, 2018, the court issued a revised opinion on september 27, 2018, adding the following stipulation: "if the epa determines, with the benefit of the services' expertise, that the terms of a permit fail to comply with the cwa or the esa, the epa must either coordinate with the [state permitting agency] to achieve such compliance or, failing that, federalize the permit and initiate formal consultation with the services pursuant to section 7 of the esa." iii. Amicus curiae briefs (1) briefs in support of epa's "clean water rule" on july 23, 2018, nelc attorneys filed two amici curiae briefs in the u.s. District court for north dakota in support of epa's "clean water rule," which clarifies the jurisdictional scope of the clean water act by identifying the waterways that are considered "waters of the united states" under the act. One of the briefs was filed on behalf of a coalition of small business owners and operators throughout the country, and the second was filed on behalf of a coalition of elected local officials throughout the country. Motions for summary judgment in the case - which consolidates several challenges by industry and certain states to the epa rule - are pending. Meanwhile, epa has announced its intent to rescind the clean water rule and narrow its scope.”