Spencer Fane LLP Logo

Kathleen M. (Kate) Whitby

Of Counsel

Spencer Fane attorney Kathleen Whitby

T 314.333.3929
F 314.862.4656
kwhitby@spencerfane.com

EPA and Other Government Agencies Scrutinize COVID-19 Marketing and Product Claims

If your business sells or distributes products or devices by claiming that the products work against or kill COVID-19, beware that such claims are subject to regulatory oversight by a variety of governmental agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Trade Commission, and the Food & Drug Administration. Unsuspecting companies in the sale and distribution of these products, such as disinfectants, sanitizers, or cleaners,[1] must ensure their labels and marketing claims satisfy regulatory requirements.

Ferrets, “Ipse Dixits,” and “Logical Fallacies”: Fifth Circuit Opinions Shine Light on Messy Citizen Suit Standing Precedents

Facility owners and operators with air permits will want to pay close attention to a recent Fifth Circuit ruling on a private citizen’s ability to seek penalties for/and defenses against alleged violations of the Clean Air Act.  Following a bench trial, an appeal, and another bench re-trial, this decade-old case has again gone up to the appeals court and had the trial court’s judgment vacated and remanded, this time to decide the Plaintiffs’ standing to bring the case in the first place and to judge the viability of two key affirmative defenses. Environment Texas Citizen Lobby, Inc. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 66 F.Supp.3d 875 (S.D. Tex. 2014), vacated and remanded, 824 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 2016), on remand, No. H-10-4969, 2017 WL 2331679 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 26, 2017), vacated and remanded, slip op. No. 17-20545, 2020 WL 4345337 (5th Cir. Jul. 29, 2020), as revised (Aug. 3, 2020).  According to the majority opinion, the panel gave both the lower court and the regulated community guidelines for when each CAA violation is “fairly traceable” to a plaintiff’s alleged injury to support standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. According to the concurrence, the Fifth Circuit’s standing precedents are “a mess” that are trending toward the unconstitutional elimination of “but-for” causation; a paradox that should be clarified by the full court en banc to stop a continuing loop of confusion.

U.S. Supreme Court Reinstates Wetland Permitting Under Nationwide Permit 12

In a one paragraph, unsigned order issued July 6, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated most uses of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Nationwide Permit 12 for pipeline and utility trenching and construction, dredge and fill, and maintenance, inspection, and repair activities in or adjacent to wetlands and other waters of the United States. The Court’s order carves out and continues to disallow use of NWP 12 for the Keystone XL pipeline (the actual target of plaintiffs’ lawsuit). For our earlier alerts on this fast-moving litigation see here, and here, and here.

Partial Vacation of Nationwide Permit 12 Stands as Ninth Circuit Denies Emergency Stay

The partial vacation of Nationwide Permit 12 (NWP 12) will remain in place for now as the Ninth Circuit today denied emergency motions for a partial stay pending appeal. In its May 28, 2020, Order (available here) the Ninth Circuit held that appellants “have not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits and probability of irreparable harm to warrant a stay pending appeal.”

Nationwide Permit 12 Restored for Most Non-Pipeline Uses by Trial Court, While the Ninth Circuit Expedites Briefing on Emergency Motion for Stay

This week the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana restored use of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Nationwide Permit 12 for some utility line construction and maintenance activities (primarily for non-pipeline projects) by restricting the scope of its earlier vacation of the permit, while the Ninth Circuit ruled on an initial round of briefings in the government’s request for an emergency stay.  The District Court’s April 15 decision has been the source of significant disruption because it not only blocked application of the popular nationwide permit to the Keystone XL pipeline (the subject of the litigation), but also barred any and all other uses of the permit.  See our earlier alert here.

Landowners Can Seek a Cleaner Cleanup in State Court

US Supreme Court Says Superfund Statute Allows Landowners to Seek Additional Remediation in State Court, but Delays Additional Work

On April 20, 2020, the United States Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision allowing 98 private landowners in Montana to pursue a restoration damages claim against Atlantic Richfield Co. (as successor to the Anaconda Copper Mining Co.) based on Montana common law nuisance, trespass, and strict liability claims. Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian, et al, slip op., 590 U.S. ___ (April 20, 2020). After giving with one hand however, Chief Justice Roberts (writing for the Court) took with the other, and held that on remand, if the landowners persuade a Montana jury of their entitlement to restoration damages, absent EPA’s consent, they still may not use that right until after EPA’s approved cleanup is completed and the site is delisted from the NPL.

EPA Issues Interim Guidance for Managing COVID-19 Impacts at Superfund, RCRA, and Other Remediation Projects

Following on the March 19 internal memorandum from the Office of Land and Emergency Management (available here), and the March 26 COVID-19 Enforcement Discretion Policy from the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (see here for the Policy and Spencer Fane’s earlier alert), EPA today (April 10) issued guidance on field decisions for parties managing cleanups under CERCLA, RCRA, and other remediation programs. EPA’s interim guidance is available here.

When a Phase I ESA is Not Enough to Claim the Superfund BFPP Defense

On March 30, 2020, the federal district court for the Southern District of Indiana weighed in on what it really takes for a property owner to claim the bona fide prospective purchaser (BFPP) defense to Superfund liability based on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). And in so doing, the court gave additional support to those of us who pay attention to not just whether a Phase I ESA report does or does not find a Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) at a property, but also when and how the environmental professional (EP) reached his or her conclusions.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources Struggles to Secure Hazardous Waste Program Funding

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources faces a potential funding shortfall for Missouri’s Hazardous Waste Program following the General Assembly’s March 4 disapproval of a stopgap funding measure. On that date, the Missouri House of Representatives adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 38 disapproving an increase in Hazardous Waste Program fees previously passed by the Missouri Hazardous Waste Management Commission. The Missouri Senate had passed SCR 38 on February 24. Accordingly, the fee increases will not take effect.

Army Corps Seeks to Accelerate Wetlands Permitting with New Mitigation Bank Guidance

Mitigation bank credits may become more readily available to builders, developers and other permittees following new guidance issued in late February.  The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued Regulatory Guidance Letter 19-01, developed in collaboration with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, on February 22, 2019. (Available here)

A Phase I ESA Gone Awry Leads to Millions in Cleanup Liabilities — a Cautionary Tale for Property Transactions

Lenders, borrowers, purchasers, sellers, and even contractors sometimes get annoyed with environmental lawyers when we insist on reviewing Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) draft reports, looking at the underlying regulatory files, checking title reports, real property records, and contract terms, counting days to make sure that the Phase I report is not stale or expired at closing, and documenting which parties do, should, or do not have reliance rights under that report.   

Congress Enacts Redevelopment-Friendly Changes to the Superfund Law, and Tenants and State and Local Governments Gain Clarity on How to Avoid Cleanup Liability

On March 23, 2018, the President signed into law the BUILD Act of 2018, which significantly clarifies the potential scope of cleanup liability for tenants and state and local governments under the federal Superfund law.  Now, a tenant at an industrial or manufacturing site can, under appropriate circumstances, claim the “bona fide prospective purchaser” (BFPP) defense to Superfund liability and escape what would otherwise be strict, joint, and several owner/operator liability when leasing previously-contaminated property. 

Want immediate judicial review of a Corps of Engineers’ wetlands jurisdictional determination? Pick a property within the Eighth Circuit (Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska)

On April 10, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit gave a northwestern Minnesota peat mining operation something the company wanted very much — judicial review of a wetlands jurisdictional decision issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Hawkes Co., Inc., et. al v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, slip op. No. 13-3067 (8th Cir. April 10, 2015). In so doing, the Eighth Circuit built on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA, 132 S. Ct. 1367 (2012), which had made Clean Water Act administrative orders subject to court scrutiny, and continued the Eighth Circuit’s focus on curtailing what it sees as government agency overreaching, as recently expressed in Iowa League of Cities v. EPA, 711 F.3d 844, 868 (8th Cir. 2013).

2005 Phase I ESA Will No Longer Satisfy All Appropriate Inquiries Under EPA Proposed Rule

On June 17, 2014, EPA issued a proposed rule in the Federal Register, 79 Fed. Reg. 34480, proposing to amend the standards and practices for satisfying All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) under CERCLA. In particular, EPA is proposing to remove references to the 2005 Phase I ESA Standard ASTM E1527-05 as satisfying AAI.

CERCLA Will Not Save a Toxic Tort Claim which is Barred by a State Statute of Repose

Earlier today, June 9, 2014, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, et al., slip op. No. 13–339 (U.S., 6-9-2014). Reversing the Fourth Circuit, the Supreme Court held that the Superfund law’s preemption of state statutes of limitation for personal injury or property damage claims does not apply to state statutes of repose. Not every state has such a statute on the books, but for those that do, this may provide an additional shield for defendants, and an additional hurdle for plaintiffs.