Category: Environmental and Green Issues

After 15 Years, EPA Wants to Reinstate the Superfund “Polluter Pays” Taxes

On June 21, 2010, EPA sent a letter to Congress supporting the reinstatement of the Superfund tax which expired on December 31, 1995. EPA believes that the tax will provide a “stable, dedicated source of revenue . . . and increase the pace of Superfund cleanup.” According to EPA, it would also ensure that the parties who manufactured or sold the substances that are being cleaned-up at hazardous waste sites – and not the taxpayers – would bear the cost of cleanup when responsible parties cannot be identified. EPA states that the taxes are needed to ensure that the “polluter pays” for the Superfund program.

This Rule will K(NOx)ck Your SOx Off – EPA Proposes New Clean Air Rule

On July 6, 2010, the USEPA proposed a new interstate transport of ozone and fine particulate rule for power plants. The goal of the rule is to achieve by 2014 a 72% reduction of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and a 54% reduction of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) from 2005 levels. The tri state area, like most of the states east of the Mississippi, is covered by this rule for both fine particulates and ozone. The sulfur and nitrogen oxides are fine particulates in the air.

Don’t Paint Yourself in a Corner, Get Certified Now – Dealing with EPA’s Lead Paint Rule

A long time in coming, but certainly below the radar screen, is the implementation of the EPA rule issued in 2008 requiring contractors engaged in renovations to be certified in handling lead based paint that may be present in homes, child care facilities and schools built before 1978. Certainly many of the buildings built before that time may well have lead based paint in them since it was not specifically prohibited until that date. However, many manufacturers moved long before 1978 to remove lead from their paint.

Site Remediation Process – NJ to Develop Remedial Priority System

New Jersey is pressing forward with its efforts to privatize the site remediation process. Since adoption of the Site Remediation Reform Act (SRRA) in May 2009, there has been a steady stream of new regulations, new guidance documents and revised forms. Because of these changes, practitioners must constantly check the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s website.

The Fox River Cleanup Snares Insurers, Passaic River PRPs Should Take Note

On June 8, 2010, in Westport Insurance Co. v. Appleton Papers, Inc., the Wisconsin Court of Appeals for the First District held that two insurers, namely Munich Re Ag and Westport Insurance Co., are liable each for $5 million dollars to compensate Appleton Papers, Inc. (Appleton) for cleaning up the sediment contamination in the Fox River. The Fox River is undergoing a cleanup pursuant to oversight by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA Announces Award of Brownfields Grants

On April 19, EPA announced awards of a total of nearly $80 million in grants to communities across the country to support the assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment of brownfield sites. Twelve of the grants, totalling $2.3 million, will go to New Jersey communities, including Camden, Jersey City, Newark, and Trenton.

Remember (the) Maine!: Supreme Court Raises Bar in FERC Proceedings for Non-Parties Who Challenge Electric Rates Set by Contract

The Federal Power Act (FPA), which gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) jurisdiction over interstate electricity sales, requires that all wholesale electricity rates be “just and reasonable,” including rates set by contracts between suppliers and purchasers. In its latest decision in this area, in NRG Power Marketing, LLC v. Maine Public Utilities Commission, No. 08-674, 558 U.S. — (January 13, 2010), the Supreme Court, by an 8-1 vote, extended a doctrine first developed more than fifty years ago and made it extremely difficult for those who were not parties to the contract — even states — to challenge contractually set rates in FERC proceedings.

Assembly Bill Would Bar New Jersey Agencies From Exceeding Federal Standards in Rulemaking

A bill introduced on March 8, 2010, by Assemblyman John J. Burchizelli, and voted out of the Assembly Regulatory Oversight and Gaming Committee would prohibit all State agencies from adopting — or even proposing — regulatory standards tighter than those imposed by the federal government, unless such action is specifically authorized by State law. The measure, Assembly Bill No. 2486, would greatly affect environmental regulation, where federal law often sets nationally applicable requirements, but does not preempt State requirements that go beyond the federal “floor.” The bill does not define the key term “specifically authorized by State law.” It would not apply to regulations in effect on the date of its enactment, or to the readoption of such regulations in the future.

How Dirty Is Dirty? Court of Appeals Says Even Minimally Contaminated Sites Can Qualify for New York Redevelopment Incentives

The tables were turned in a case decided by the New York Court of Appeals on February 18. In a reversal of their usual roles, an upstate developer argued that its properties were contaminated, while the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) argued that the sites did not require remediation. The court agreed with the developer, and the result could mean significant tax credits for potential redevelopers of contaminated sites throughout the state.