A residential home builder, Garden Homes, has agreed to resolve alleged stormwater violations with the EPA and U.S. Department of Justice, according to a June 8, 2015, Federal Register Notice. The settlement involves a civil penalty of $225,000 and a Supplemental Environmental Project valued at $780,000 involving the acquisition of 108 acres of land for preservation.
On June 2, 2015, the U.S. EPA and DOJ announced a $3 million dollar settlement with Millard Refrigerated Services, a company specializing in refrigeration and distribution services to retail, food service, and food distribution companies. The settlement resolves alleged violations of the EPA’s Risk Management Program, the Clean Air Act’s General Duty Clause, and CERCLA and EPCRA release reporting requirements stemming from three releases of the industrial refrigerant anhydrous ammonia from the facility’s Mobile Marine Terminal in Alabama. Among the release incidents was an August 2010 release involving hospitalization and medical treatment of individuals who were offsite working on decontaminating ships in response to the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Lone Pine orders have become an increasingly common case management tool employed by trial courts to help streamline proceedings for defendants and the court while maintaining equity for the plaintiffs. Lone Pine orders are most often used in cases involving complex issues and multiple plaintiffs, but are becoming more widely employed in a greater variety of cases.
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).
On March 10, 2015, EPA issued a new revised 2015 Update to its Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) Policy, thereby superseding prior SEP policies.
In a recent Midwest Real Estate News guest column, Spencer Fane Partner Andrew Brought shared his knowledge and insight on Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) with readers. The article outlines the role and common misconceptions of environmental site assessments in property transactions and provides 10 important facts on ESAs as well as their impact on buyers and sellers involved in real estate transactions.
In a recent January 2015 Memorandum to EPA’s Regional Enforcement Managers from Cynthia Giles, EPA Assistant Administrator for Enforcement, EPA is touting its Next Generation Compliance strategy as “an integrated strategy” intended to “bring together the best thinking from inside and outside EPA.”
Last week, on January 13, 2015, EPA issued its new “Definition of Solid Waste” Final Rule in the Federal Register at 80 Fed. Reg. 1694. This new rulemaking will have significant impacts regarding how secondary hazardous materials are recycled and exempted from the hazardous waste regulations. Unless challenged (and by all accounts it appears at least certain aspects may be litigated based on initial comments by various industrial sectors) the rule becomes effective on July 13, 2015, where EPA is the authorized implementing agency (Iowa, Alaska, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands). Because RCRA is a federally delegated program, other states will have to adopt the more stringent aspects of the rule discussed below.
On September 9, 2014, Andrew Brought of Spencer Fane will be one of the panelists in the ABA’s Presentation Environmental Compliance Certifications: What Your Clients Need to Know Before They Sign.
Earlier today, June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court dealt a blow to EPA’s current approach to regulating greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) through its air permitting program for new or expanding stationary sources. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency. No. 12-1146, ___ U.S. ___, June 23, 1014. The Court said it left intact EPA’s ability to regulate 83 percent of such GHG emissions, compared to the 86 percent EPA championed under its approach. Nevertheless, in its ruling the Court undercut key foundations of EPA’s current GHG regulatory approach. This ruling will require EPA to re-think many aspects of its approach to GHGs and will give opponents increased leverage in the upcoming discussions.