Taft's Environmental Practice provides nationally recognized services in the areas of trial practice, Superfund defense and negotiation, enforcement defense, cost-recovery for plaintiffs and defendants, criminal environmental defense, environmental insurance and toxic tort litigation, mold and sick building litigation, lawsuits involving environmental problems discovered as a result of real property transfers or mergers and acquisitions, Brownfields redevelopment, defense of claims of occupational exposures, and administrative proceedings before state and federal agencies. Taft's environmental lawyers also regularly are engaged in insurance disputes concerning environmental issues and agricultural issues involving CAFOs and CFOs. As a Taft client, you can utilize the capital of 31 intensely motivated and focused attorneys in all facets of environmental law.
|
City Challenge to CAFO Permit Denied:
Not an "Affected Person"
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (the "TCEQ") recently rejected the City of Waco's challenge to a CAFO permit finding that the City did not have standing as an "affected person" under the Texas Water Code. O-Kee Dairy ("O-Kee") applied to the TCEQ seeking an amendment to its concentrated animal feeding operation ("CAFO") permit that would enlarge its cattle head-count, increase its retention control structure ("RCS") capacity, and increase the number of acres for land application of waste and wastewater. The amendment, if granted, would not only allow O-Kee to increase the size of its operation, but would also require O-Kee to conform to more stringent regulations recently set by the TCEQ in compliance with Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") standards.
» continue reading
|
|
Boiler MACT Air Emissions Rules: Costly, Complex, and Coming Soon
According to the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, the proposed Boiler and Industrial Process Heater hazardous air pollutant rules will cost the nation 300,000 jobs by the time they take effect, because compliance will be costly when it is possible at all. Ironically, the biomass power generation industry, highly touted as an alternative to fossil-fuel power, is concerned that the boiler MACT will simply shut down this fledgling industry. You have to wonder what EPA is thinking, but you also have to prepare. What is this regulatory nightmare?
» continue reading |
Indiana and Ohio Petition U.S. Supreme Court to Reverse Greenhouse Gases Nuisance Ruling
Indiana and Ohio joined 10 other states, industry groups, and the Obama Administration to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse a greenhouse gases nuisance ruling in Connecticut v. American Electric Power Company, which allowed states and private plaintiffs to sue coal-fired utilities for contributing to global warming through carbon dioxide emissions.
The petitioners argued that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit erred in not dismissing the plaintiffs' underlying public nuisance lawsuit against the utilities on the grounds that the regulation of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, is a political question best reserved for "politically accountable officials, not life-tenured judges." Long standing precedent has held that federal courts lack jurisdiction over political questions, which has its core in the separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of American government.
» continue reading
|
The Scope of an Environmental Professional's Negligence Clarified?
Imagine that you are an environmental professional who has been retained by a purchaser to perform environmental due diligence on an unremarkable piece of commercial property. You enter into a professional services contract to perform a limited Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in accordance with the applicable ASTM Standard. You complete your investigation finding no recognized environmental conditions, recommend no further investigation, and deliver the report to the client. Based on your Phase I, the client purchases the property and then turns around and sells the property to a new buyer. In doing so, the client gives your Phase I to the new buyer who relies on it and purchases the property. The new owner then discovers contamination and claims you are liable for the costs of remediation because you negligently prepared the Phase I. Can you be legally liable to the new owner even though she wasn't your client? Maybe.
» continue reading |
Federal Court Reins In Corps' Regulation of Wetlands
A federal District Court judge in Florida has issued an order prohibiting the Army Corps of Engineers from expanding the Corps' authority under the Clean Water Act without first going through the appropriate administrative procedures.
In New Hope Power Co. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2010WL3834991 (S.D. Fla. September 29, 2010), District Judge K. Michael Moore struck down the Corps' recent rulemaking that purported to expand the Corps' authority to regulate wetlands. Under the Clean Water Act ("CWA"), the Corps is charged with regulating the "navigable waters" of the United States, including wetlands. Although the Corps has issued rules, guidance, and a Wetlands Manual describing how it makes wetlands determinations, courts have had a notoriously difficult time determining what exactly is considered a wetland under the CWA.
» continue reading
|
U.S. EPA's Request for Aerospace Industry Data -
How to Protect Your Confidential Business Information
U.S. EPA intends to issue information collection requests to approximately 1,000 aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities concerning their business operations, use of hazardous air pollutant emissions control devices, and emissions during startup, shutdown, and malfunction. The aerospace manufacturing and rework source category includes any facility engaged in the manufacture or rework of commercial, civil, or military aerospace vehicles or components (with the exception of electronic components). This broadly includes any manufacturer who fabricates, processes, or assembles components of airplanes, helicopters, missiles, rockets, and space vehicles.
» continue reading |
Environmental Law Insight is used to inform our clients and friends of significant
new developments and current issues in environmental law. For more
information about Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, please visit
http://www.taftlaw.com.
These materials have been prepared by
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP for informational purposes only and
are not legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and
receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. No
person or organization should act upon this information without first
seeking professional counsel.
We cannot and do not represent you
until our client intake process is completed. Further, we reserve the
right to accept or decline representing any person or organization in
any matter. Accordingly, please do not send us any confidential
information about any matter until you receive a written statement from
us advising you that we represent you (an "engagement letter"). When
you receive an engagement letter from one of our attorneys, you will be
our client, and we may exchange confidential information freely. Again,
do not send us unsolicited confidential information until you speak
with one of our attorneys and get authorization to send that
information to us.
Some aspects of this Web site may allow you
to register for newsletters, events, functions, or seminars hosted by,
sponsored by, or associated with Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP.
The transmission or receipt of any information related to registration
for any event or service does not create an attorney-client
relationship.
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP's Web site and
associated materials may provide links to other websites that may be
useful or informative.These links to third party sites or information
are not intended, and should not be interpreted by readers, as
constituting or implying our endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation
of the third party information, products or services found there.
The following statement is required by many states, including Kentucky: "THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT."
|
|
|
|
October 2010 Issue
· City Challenge to CAFO Permit Denied · Boiler MACT Air Emissions Rules
· U.S. Supreme Court Petitioned to Reverse Greenhouse Gases Nuisance Ruling · The Scope of an Environmental Professional's Negligence Clarified? · Federal Court Reins in Corps' Regulation of Wetlands · U.S. EPA's Request for Aerospace Industry Data
|
|