National Environmental Policy and Law Center Inc.

“There were no such committees within the organization during fiscal year 2020.”

“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 except those required by irs regulations.”

“Other consultants: program service expenses 83,395. Management and general expenses 22,587. Fundraising expenses 20,677. Total expenses 126,659. Payroll processing fees: program service expenses 0. Management and general expenses 856. Fundraising expenses 0. Total expenses 856.”

“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 2020 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 court”

“(3) remanded the case to the district court to determine the number of "traceable" violations and to determine whether any adjustment to the penalty is warranted by this number. The parties have submitted additional briefing to the district court, and are awaiting the district court's revised opinion, after which the case will automatically go back before the same panel of the fifth circuit. (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. The company demonstrated compliance with all the requirements of the decree, and the decree has been terminated. (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). The defendants demonstrated compliance with all the requirements of the decree, and the decree has been terminated. (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 behal”

“Cross motions for summary judgment were filed in december 2020 and february 2021. (9) detroit renewable power (detroit, mi) (clean air act) notice letter sent january 29, 2019; on march 27, 2019, just before the expiration of the statutory 60-day notice period, the company announced that it was shutting down the solid waste incinerator that was the focus of the notice; nelc attorneys are now negotiating a consent decree that would ensure that the shutdown is permanent. (10) united states steel (pittsburg, pa) (clean air act) notice letter sent february 13, 2019, on behalf of pennenvironment and the clean air council; complaint filed april 25, 2019; the allegheny county health department moved for leave to intervene as a co-plaintiff on may 3, 2019; that motion was granted, and the county filed a complaint in intervention on june 17, 2019; mediation in december 2019 was unsuccessful; discovery is ongoing; plaintiffs have designated their experts and us steel has taken the depositions of those experts. Ii. Administrative law cases none filed in fy2020. Iii. Amicus curiae briefs (1) blackstone headwaters association v. Gallo builders (boston, ma) on march 3, 2020, nelc filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief with the first circuit court of appeals, on behalf of environment maine, environment massachusetts, and environment rhode island, asking that court to reverse its 1991 decision in north and south rivers watershed ass'n v. Town of scituate, which imposes a greater ban on clean water act citizen suits than is imposed by the language of the statute itself. The clean water act bars the imposition by federal courts of civil penalties for violations that have already been the subject of diligently prosecuted administrative penalties by the government. In its scituate opinion, however, the first circuit held that even administrative actions that impose no penalties bar all aspects of a citizen enforcement suit - even where the defendant remains out of compliance with the act and the citizen plaintiff seeks court-ordered pollution reduction. The nelc brief argues that the first circuit had wrongly substituted its own view of proper regulatory policy for the policies articulated by congress in the statute.”