Tagged: USEPA

On September 12, 2011

On August 16, 2011, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued its final rule on chemical reporting which will apply to the next reporting period running from February 1, 2012 through June 30, 2012. Adopted pursuant to section 8(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the rule increases the type and amount of information USEPA will collect on commercial chemicals from chemical manufacturers, including importers, allowing USEPA to better identify and publish information on the manufacturing, processing, and use of commercial chemical substances and mixtures on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory).

U.S. EPA Issues New Rule to Curb Interstate Air Pollution

On July 15, 2011

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on July 7 finalized a new rule aimed at reducing interstate air pollution across the eastern half of the country. The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) requires reductions in power plant emissions in 27 states that cause or contribute to ozone and/or fine particulate pollution in other states.

Supreme Court Closes Door on Global Warming Suits Based on Federal Common Law

On June 30, 2011

Reversing the Second Circuit, the Supreme Court on June 20, 2011 held, in American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut, that the Clean Air Act, along with EPA regulatory action that it authorizes, displaces any federal common-law right to seek abatement of emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from power plants. The Court’s decision means that for the foreseeable future, the debate over the proper scope of federal GHG regulation will take place in the executive and legislative branches and not the courts. It also leaves unanswered the question whether traditional state common-law remedies still have a role to play in GHG regulation.

Six New Jersey Communities Will Share $3.4 Million in EPA Brownfield Grants

On June 20, 2011

The EPA has announced that six different New Jersey communities will receive a total of $3.4 million under the agency’s brownfield grant program in FY 2011. The grants will fund assessment and cleanup efforts at contaminated sites so that the sites can be returned to productive use. The grant program, part of EPA’s larger brownfield efforts, will award some $76 million in grants this year, and has awarded over $800 million since its inception. New Jersey’s grants will fund activities at thirteen sites or areas in Newark, Jersey City, Trenton, Elizabeth, Mantua Township, and Maurice River Township.

Vapor Intrusion: Opportunity for Comment with EPA

by Camille V. Otero

On April 26, 2011

Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency published a notice for “Public Comment on the Development of Final Guidance for Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway From Contaminated Groundwater and Soils (Subsurface Vapor Intrusion Guidance)” in the Federal Register. The draft of the Subsurface Vapor Intrusion Guidance was initially released for comment during 2002 and the EPA is planning on issuing final guidance by November 20, 2012.

Paper Companies That “Created, Mobilized and Profited From” PCBs Must Bear 100% of Cleanup Costs in Fox River CERCLA Case, But May Not Be Liable for PCBs in Waste Paper Sold to Recyclers

On March 21, 2011

The other shoe dropped on February 28 in the closely watched CERCLA case involving PCB contamination of the Fox River in Wisconsin. District Judge William C. Griesbach, who had previously ruled that the paper companies that made and discharged PCBs to the river could not seek contribution from recycling mills that unknowingly bought PCB-laden waste paper, called “broke,” and also discharged PCBs, held that those companies must reimburse those comparatively innocent companies for 100% of the costs they have incurred for most of the polluted river. But he held that it was too early to say whether the paper companies knew, and did, enough, to make them liable for “arranging for” disposal of the PCBs that ended up in the recycling mills’ discharges to an upstream stretch of the river.

Muddied Waters – EPA’s Stormwater Rules for Construction Projects

Posted in Development/Redevelopment / Environmental and Green Issues

On November 1, 2010

Roman lawyers were timed by water clocks which they realized could be slowed by the addition of dirt or sand and thereby gaining more time to argue. Hence lawyers are often cited for “muddying the waters.” In the case challenging the US Environmental Protection Agency’s stormwater rules for construction sites, it is the court that has muddied the waters. By holding the suit in abeyance, but keeping the problematic standard in place, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has managed to confuse all of the parties.

United States v. Washington State Department of Transportation – Rains, Drains, and CERCLA Claims

Posted in Construction / Environmental and Green Issues

On July 27, 2010

Judge Robert J. Bryan of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington recently issued two opinions in United States v. Washington State Department of Transportation that could have significant implications on the scope and extent of liability under the Comprehensive, Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. §9601 et seq., particularly at urban river sites and harbors. Both decisions examine the liability of the Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) at the Commencement Bay/Nearshore Tidelands Superfund Site.

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

On July 8, 2010

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