taftlaw | environmental practice | subscribe | contact us | forward
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.

Superfund Recycling Equity Act (SREA) Fee Shifting: PRP Group Liable for Third-Party Defendant's Attorneys' Fees

Tom Barnard
Thomas A. Barnard

tbarnard@taftlaw.com

(317) 713-3601

 

The Superfund Recycling Equity Act ("SREA") fee shifting provision puts PRP groups seeking contribution under CERCLA from generators of "recyclable material" at risk of paying the generators' attorneys' fees if the generator's defense succeeds. A federal district court recently ruled that a PRP group seeking contribution under CERCLA must pay the attorneys' fees incurred by a mining company targeted by the PRP group for contribution. Evansville Greenway and Remediation Trust v. Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co., Inc.., No. 07-00066 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 25, 2011), Dkt. 917.

 

 » continue reading

CERCLA's Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser Defense: New Guidelines From the Courts 

Frank Deveau
Frank J. Deveau

fdeveau@taftlaw.com 

(317) 713-3520

LinkedIn

 

After 30 years of CERCLA jurisprudence, most sophisticated purchasers know if they buy contaminated real estate, they may also acquire liability for remediating the property.  Until the CERCLA Brownfield amendments became effective in 2002, the only hope a purchaser had was to qualify as an "innocent landowner."  The problem, however, was if you found contamination while performing pre-purchase due diligence, you could not rely upon the innocent landowner defense.  To cure that problem Congress enacted the bona fide prospective purchaser defense ("BFPP"), which attempts to allow a prospective purchaser to insulate himself from CERCLA liability.  Unlike the innocent landowner defense, if a BFPP finds contamination while conducting due diligence, he can still be protected from liability even if he purchases the property - a significant advantage.

 

» continue reading

EPA Redefines "Solid Waste" to Incentivize Creative Fuel Technology: Garbage to Gold

Frank Deveau
Kim K. Burke

kburke@taftlaw.com

(513) 357-9369

 

Since the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6901, et seq.) first became law, consternation among the regulated community has grown as a principal purpose of RCRA, namely, to encourage discarded material reuse as fuel, appears to have been ignored in EPA's rulemaking.  Perhaps that discouraging trend is coming to an end.  On February 21, 2011, EPA released a pre-publication version of a proposed Final Rule amending the definition of "solid waste."  What is particularly encouraging about the Final Rule is that innovative technologies for creating fuels from materials that would have previously been characterized as a "solid waste" are excluded from the definition.  This opens the door to creative technologies to transform municipal garbage into useable fuels for utilities and industrial boilers.  

 

» continue reading
IDEM's Remediation Non Rule Policy, Tailoring Rule, and Other Updates   
 

Bill Wagner
William C. Wagner

wwagner@taftlaw.com 

(317) 713-3614 

LinkedIn

The Indiana Manufacturers Association's Patrick Bennett, Vice President of Energy, Environment, and Infrastructure, arranged for an informative meeting with IDEM's commissioners to provide an update on pending environmental laws, regulations, and non rule policies.  Participants included IDEM Commissioner Tom Easterly, IDEM Chief of Staff Kent Abernathy, and all of IDEM's Assistant Commissioners: Office of Legal Counsel David Joest, Office of Air Quality Keith Baugues, Office of Land Quality Bruce Palin and Peggy Dorsey, Office of Water Quality Bruno Pigott and Martha Clark Mettler, and Pollution Prevention and Technical Assistance Rick Bussingham.  Click below to read a summary of some of the highlights of the February 24, 2011 meeting.

 

» continue reading 

EPA's First "Group" Drinking Water Regulations 
 

Robert Bilott

Robert A. Bilott 

bilott@taftlaw.com

(513) 357-9638 


On February 2, 2011, U.S. EPA announced that it would move forward with efforts to regulate, as a single group, up to 16 carcinogenic volatile organic compounds in drinking water.  The VOCs would be the first group of drinking water contaminants to be addressed as a single group under the Agency's new "Drinking Water Strategy" announced in March of 2010.  Under this new regulatory strategy, EPA is attempting to address drinking water contaminants in groups, rather than the traditional method of individual contaminant regulation, in an effort to speed up the regulatory process, while encouraging development of more cost-effective and efficient treatment technologies that can address multiple contaminants at the same time.

 

» continue reading   

Indiana's Environmental Legal Action ("ELA") Statute of Limitations: 6 Years or 10?
 

Brad Sugarman
Bradley R. Sugarman

bsugarman@taftlaw.com 

(317) 713-3526 

Indiana's Environmental Legal Action ("ELA") statute creates a cause of action to recover costs paid to remediate environmental contamination. We have previously written an article regarding who may be liable under its provisions. And, we will save the discussion of what costs may be recovered for another day. This article focuses on when an ELA claim must be brought.

 

» continue reading

Property Owner Refuses Contamination Cleanup Offer: What Next?

 

Bill Wagner
William C. Wagner

wwagner@taftlaw.com 

(317) 713-3614 

LinkedIn

What do you do when a property owner sues you for contaminating his or her land, yet refuses to allow you access to clean up the contamination? Often you can work with the environmental agency to persuade the owner to allow the cleanup, but what if that option is closed? In Carlson v. Ameren Corporation, No. 10-01230 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 21, 2011), the defendant responded by filing a counterclaim against the owner pursuant to RCRA's citizen suit provision, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B).

 

» 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."

March 2011 Issue

· SREA Fee Shifting
· CERCLA's Bona Fide Prospective 
  Purchaser Defense
· EPA Redefines "Solid Waste"
· IDEM Updates
· EPA's First "Group" Drinking Water
  Regulations
· Indiana's ELA Statute of Limitations
· Property Owner Refuses
  Contamination Cleanup Offer






This email was sent to ksharpe@taftlaw.com by taft@taftlaw.com |  
Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe| Privacy Policy.
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP | 425 Walnut Street | Suite 1800 | Cincinnati | OH | 45202