Taft Environmental attorney Ann O’Connor McCready has been appointed vice chair of the American Bar Association’s Toxic Torts and Environmental Law Committee, part of the Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section (TIPS).
On July 27, 2016, the EPA issued the pre-publication version of its Final Rule on Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products. The EPA worked closely with the California Air Resources Board to ensure consistency with CARB’s existing requirements for composite wood products.
Under the Final Rule, in August 2017, composite wood products sold, supplied, manufactured or imported must be labeled to be compliant under the new Toxic Substances Control Act Title VI. The EPA is also setting procedures to establish eligibility for third-party certification and accreditation bodies.
I invite you to read more about the EPA rule in an article I recently published.
On July 25, U.S. District Judge Jon E. DeGuilio denied Old Republic Insurance Co.’s motion for summary judgment against Taft client Gary/Chicago International Airport Authority. The judge ruled that the absolute pollution exclusion in 16 policies that the insurer issued to the Authority can’t be enforced under Indiana law because it doesn’t list any specifically excluded pollutants or contaminants. Taft attorneys Frank Deveau and Melissa Gardner represented Gary/Chicago International Airport Authority in this win. Deveau is quoted in the Law360 article about the case titled “Insurer’s Pollution Exclusion Not Enforceable, Judge Says.” Read the article here. (Law360 subscription required)
Taft environmental partner Rob Bilott’s work against chemical pollutants in drinking water scored another victory yesterday. An Ohio federal jury awarded $5.1 million to cancer survivor, David Freeman, who says DuPont’s chemical dumping caused his cancer and found DuPont liable for actual malice. Also assisting in this most recent trial is Taft partner David Butler.
The following articles outline the latest victory in more detail:
- “DuPont Hit With $5.1M Verdict in 2nd Cancer Bellwether Trial,” Law360 (subscription required)
- “DuPont loses another ‘bellwether’ C8 lawsuit,” The Columbus Dispatch
A recent unanimous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. Inc., held that an approved jurisdictional determination by the U.S. Army Corps under the Clean Water Act was a final agency action subject to judicial review. Although the scope of the court’s decision will likely be litigated in the future, it appears to provide for the first time an avenue for real estate developers, farmers and other property owners to determine with certainty if they must obtain a permit under the Clean Water Act when working in wetlands and other waters.
I recently published an article with background on the issue and more details on the decision.
EPA recently published a wide-ranging series of proposed changes to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) regulations. While EPA does not believe that its proposed revisions will generally result in new or increased workload or information collection by authorized states or the regulated community, regulated entities should familiarize themselves with EPA’s proposed changes to determine any adverse or beneficial impact on their activities.
The proposed changes cover 15 topics in the following major categories:
• NPDES permit applications
• The water quality-based permitting process
• NPDES permit objection, documentation and process efficiencies
• The vessels exclusion
• The Clean Water Act Section 401 certification process
I recently published an article on some of the more significant changes proposed by EPA.
The below table, taken from the EPA’s May 18 proposed rule change, briefly summarizes EPA’s proposed NPDES topics for revision.
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals recently resolved a Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) dispute between two agricultural-chemical distributors, Drexel Chemical Company and Albaugh, Inc. The dispute involved Drexel’s ability to recover certain “data compensation” costs from Albaugh pursuant to a contract between the two. The court ruled that according to the parties’ contract, only “data compensation” costs that were actually paid during the contract’s term were recoverable. In contrast, costs incurred during the contract’s term but not paid until after the contract’s termination were not recoverable. Additionally, the court ruled that the contract’s generic description of recoverable “costs” was not specific enough under Tennessee law to include attorney’s fees and arbitration costs. The court’s ruling demonstrates the importance of carefully describing the scope of “data compensation” costs in any FIFRA data cost-sharing contract. The Drexel opinion is also notable for the 6th Circuit’s ruling regarding when a data compensation “offer to pay” is “irrevocable.” The 6th Circuit rejected Drexel’s argument that data compensation liability is irrevocable upon the mere submission of an offer to pay, thereby suggesting that an original data submitter must prove something more before establishing a right to data compensation. This ruling could have a potentially significant impact on future data compensation cases, particularly those involving companies who abandon their pesticide registrations after submitting offers to pay but before making any actual payment.
I recently published an article with more detail about this ruling, but in summary, the Drexel opinion underscores the importance of carefully delineating the scope of recoverable “data compensation” costs under FIFRA cost-sharing contracts. Because potentially millions of dollars in “data compensation” costs may be at issue, it is important for parties to expressly clarify in their cost-sharing contracts whether the submission of an offer to pay is sufficient to trigger a party’s payment obligations and whether arbitration costs and attorney’s fees are within the meaning of recoverable “data compensation” costs.
The EPA recently published proposed rule amendments that would subject site remediation activities performed under the Comprehensive Response and Compensation Liability Act (“CERCLA”) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (“NESHAP”). The EPA is also proposing to remove the applicability requirement that a remediation site must be co-located with a facility that is regulated by other NESHAPs in order to be subject to the site remediation rule.
The EPA predicts that 69 major source facilities performing remediation under CERCLA or RCRA may become subject to the Site Remediation Rule as a result of these proposed rule changes. According to the EPA, the types of facilities most likely to be affected by the rule changes include, but are not limited to, organic liquid storage terminals, petroleum refineries, chemical manufacturing facilities, government facilities such as military operations, and manufacturing facilities using organic materials.
The EPA is seeking comments on these potential changes by June 27, 2016.
I recently published an article with more detail on the proposed rule amendments and background on the current exemptions.
Rob Bilott will present at the Troubled Waters Drinking Water Conference in New York on May 23. The conference will focus on Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and lead in drinking water. It will explore the history with perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs), federal and state responses to the PFOA contamination in Hoosick Falls, groundwater concerns in other jurisdictions, public health advisories, lead sampling in homes and schools, measures underway to address both PFCs and lead in drinking water (regulatory, legislative, litigation) and how residents can limit their exposure to both contaminants going forward.
Injuries caused by asbestos may not manifest until many years after exposure. Given this long latency period, the Indiana Supreme Court and General Assembly have frequently grappled with how to appropriately ensure that asbestos plaintiffs get a day in court while also ensuring that manufacturers are not forced to defend stale claims. The ongoing dialogue between the court and legislature on this topic has charted a meandering course leaving litigants unsure of the value of their claims and defenses. Much to the chagrin of potential plaintiffs and defendants alike, limits on asbestos actions were invalidated, resurrected and then finally invalidated again in Myers v. Crouse-Hinds Div. of Cooper Indus., Inc.
There have been three reversals on the same point of law in less than 20 years by the Indiana Supreme Court, which normally is a model of stability. Although the court does not hesitate to change common law when the time is right, it does not usually chart the circular course it has taken with the asbestos statute of repose. I recently published an article discussing these cases and the impact on asbestos claims going forward.