|
Taft's environmental attorneys practice in all facets of environmental law, including 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 are regularly engaged in insurance disputes concerning environmental issues and agricultural issues involving CAFOs and CFOs. The purpose of this newsletter is to provide you with insights from our team that may be of interest to yours.
|
|
Surprising But Welcome: California Federal Court Finds That Botched Cleanup May Create CERCLA Liability for California's Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
In California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Jim Dobbas, Inc., et al, 2014 WL 4627248 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2014), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California held that DTSC's actions in approving work plans and directing a site cleanup constituted sufficient grounds for denying DTSC's motion to dismiss defendant Dobbas' counterclaim that DTSC was an "operator" under CERCLA Section 107(a)(2). The defendant argued that DTSC had botched the cleanup of the site over the course of 30 years, and therefore defendant was entitled to hold DTSC liable for response costs under CERCLA Sections 107 and 113. Furthermore, defendant asserted it was entitled to a declaratory judgment that DTSC was liable under CERCLA Section 113(g)(2) and 28 U.S.C. Section 2201. DTSC argued that it was protected by sovereign immunity in approving work plans and entering into agreements with contractors to complete the cleanup that defendants had declined to undertake. |
|
Indiana Challenges EPA Carbon Rules
Indiana and 11 other states have launched a preemptive strike on the EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan. The EPA proposed the Clean Power Plan on June 18, 2014, as part of a trio of proposed rules to limited carbon emissions from power plants. See 79 Fed. Reg. 34,830. The EPA's Clean Power Plan would require states to propose plans under § 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d), to limit carbon emissions from existing power plants within the state. If implemented, the Clean Power Plan will create significant obstacles and disincentives for the continued use of coal-fired generation. Indiana gets approximately 80% of its electricity from coal, and approximately 3,500 Hoosiers are employed in the coal sector, so Indiana has sought to block the proposed rule in the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. |
|
Frey v. EPA: Seventh Circuit Classifies When Citizens Can Challenge Remediation
In Frey v. EPA, 751 F.3d 461 (7th Cir. 2014) ("Frey III"), the Seventh Circuit ruled in favor of the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") in a dispute concerning the sufficiency of a remedial clean-up plan for polychlorinated biphenyl ("PCB") contaminated sites. The dispute arose from a citizen suit alleging that EPA failed to adhere to certain Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA") standards. Specifically, the citizen plaintiffs challenged the remedial actions outlined in a consent decree entered into by the defendants and various government entities, including EPA. As explained below, the Seventh Circuit ultimately affirmed the lower court's ruling against the citizen plaintiffs. |
|
The Purpose of Proposed Rule 37(e)
A new proposed Rule 37(e) on the failure to preserve electronically stored information ("ESI") was adopted by the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure at its meeting on May 29-30, 2014. The new rule differs from the proposed rule published for comment in August 2013, which generated 2,345 written comments. This article provides background on the new rule, sets forth its text, and discusses some of the highlights of the approved committee note. |
|
Indiana Ethanol Plants Escape Stricter Standards
On Sept. 2, 2014, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed a trial court's decision that the Indiana Department of Environmental Management ("IDEM") did not violate Indiana's State Implementation Plan ("SIP") by excluding fuel ethanol plants from the "chemical process plant" category. The court held that the state's revised interpretation of the definition of "chemical process plant" was reasonable and no formal amendment to the SIP need occur before issuing permits based on the new definition.
|
|
Taft's Environmental Law Newsletter 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."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Environmental Law
Insight Blog
We encourage you to visit
and subscribe to our blog,
Environmental Law Insight,
where additional articles
are published.
|
|
