The confused state of the useful product defenseBy Jeffrey M. PollockEnvironmental and Natural Resources Law, January 2004CERCLA section 107(a)(3) provides that a person is liable for the disposal of a hazardous substance. Specifically, any person who "arranged for disposal . . . of hazardous substances owned by such person" is covered by the broad grasp of CERCLA liability.
Environmental insurance successBy Raymond T. ReottEnvironmental and Natural Resources Law, January 2004Experienced practitioners representing industrial entities know that the comprehensive general liability ("CGL") insurance policies purchased by those entities often can be used to provide coverage for various types of environmental claims.
The use of TMDLs to regulate nonpoint sources of water pollutionBy Jorge MihalopoulosEnvironmental and Natural Resources Law, January 2004A nonpoint source of water pollution is generally understood to be pollution in the form of runoff from farming, ranching, forestry and land development activities.
The tide rises once again: Definition of wetlands revisitedBy James K. WestonMineral Law, December 2003A recent Virginia case, Treacy v. Newdunn Associates, analyzed once again the definition of "navigable waters" under the Clean Water Act.
Fees, fees and more fees: The price of permits has just gotten pricierBy Claire A. ManningEnvironmental and Natural Resources Law, August 2003In an attempt to resolve the state's current budget crisis, the Governor and Illinois' 93rd General Assembly passed whopping fee increases, many of them on environmental fees and permits, substantially increasing the cost of doing business in this state.
Legislative update: Environmental legislation from the 93rd General AssemblyBy Claire A. Manning & Kevin B. HynesEnvironmental and Natural Resources Law, August 2003While the 93rd General Assembly was plagued with perhaps the most significant budget crisis in Illinois' history, it nonetheless found time to pass several serious pieces of environmental legislation, amending the Environmental Protection Act both procedurally and substantively.
Recent Clean Air Act developmentsBy Eric E. BoydEnvironmental and Natural Resources Law, June 2003After two and a half years of litigation, the U.S. EPA recently issued Guidance on the Definition of Federally Permitted Releases for Certain Air Emissions.
Superfund liability changesBy Raymond T. ReottEnvironmental and Natural Resources Law, June 2003Last year saw a major revision of the federal Superfund Program with several important changes in the liability standards. Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, P.L. 107 118 (2002).
The Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) revised ruleBy Michael R. BermanEnvironmental and Natural Resources Law, February 2003On December 16, 2002, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) announced a final rule that will require all large Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) to obtain permits that will ensure they protect America's waters from wastewater and manure.
LUST in the LegislatureBy Kyle RomingerEnvironmental and Natural Resources Law, February 2003Among the legislation signed into law in 2002 were two Public Acts amending the Illinois Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Program.
The pros & cons of environmental auditingBy David B. WilcoxenEnvironmental and Natural Resources Law, February 2003Do you counsel a large company or public organization that maintains numerous facilities engaged in a variety of industrial, commercial, and research operations?
U.S. EPA underground storage tank program: The new millenium, MTBE, and the futureBy Thomas J. KenneyEnvironmental and Natural Resources Law, February 2003When Congress amended the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA)2 in 1984, it created the statutory authority for the federal regulation of underground storage tanks (USTs).
City of Springfield v. Hashman: 4th District says close enough is good enoughBy Gene Schmittgens & Anna Chesser SmithEnvironmental and Natural Resources Law, December 2002In City of Springfield v. Hashman, 774 N.E.2d 427, 266 Ill.Dec. 321 (July 29, 2002), the appellate court for the Fourth District enjoined the development of a 22.408-acre parcel of land located outside the limits of the City of Springfield but within 200 feet of Lake Springfield, the primary water supply of the City and Sangamon County.
Clerk’s Office On-Line: Illinois Pollution Control Board’s “COOL”By Claire A. Manning & Richard R. McGillEnvironmental and Natural Resources Law, December 2002Ever since its introduction at the Illinois Pollution Control Board's 25th anniversary in Chicago in 1995, the Board's Web site has become a widely-used resource.
Enviro-Science e-Print Service offers help in environmental researchEnvironmental and Natural Resources Law, December 2002The Enviro-Science e-Print Service is a multi-agency project of DOE's Environmental Management Science Program (EMSP), the U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, content partners, and sponsors.
“Up the ladder” or “up the creek”? Environmental counsel and the strange new world of Sarbanes-OxleyBy Phillip R. Van NessEnvironmental and Natural Resources Law, December 2002In an earlier edition of this newsletter, we advised readers that the environmental practitioner may find himself/herself entangled in the attorney regulatory rules to be promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in response to the so-called Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Public Law No. 107-204) (the Act).
The confusing rules of natural resource damage assessmentsBy Christine A. PickerEnvironmental and Natural Resources Law, November 2002The natural resource damage assessment rules provide for the conduct of natural resource damage assessments under CERCLA and the Clean Water Act. 43 C.F.R. part 11.
Electronic waste: A growing problemBy Raymond T. ReottEnvironmental and Natural Resources Law, November 2002In the early 1970s, as businesses installed scrubbers and other air pollution control devices to meet Clean Air Act requirements and water treatment facilities to meet new Clean Water Act requirements, the result was to shift captured contaminants from air emissions and water discharges to landfills.
Novel settlement: A new trend?By Raymond T. ReottEnvironmental and Natural Resources Law, November 2002In an election year, the historic practice in Illinois was for environmental enforcement to increase and for penalty demands in negotiated settlements to rise proportionately.
A quick look at enforcement provisions of the Illinois Environmental Protection ActBy Lisle A. StalterEnvironmental and Natural Resources Law, November 2002The purpose of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act is "to establish a unified, statewide program supplemented by private remedies, to restore, protect and enhance the quality of the environment, and to assure the adverse effects upon the environment are fully considered and borne by those who cause them," 415 ILCS 5/2(b).
Donaldson v. CIPS: a case of pennywise, pound foolish?By James K. Weston, Sr.Environmental and Natural Resources Law, October 2002The Illinois Supreme Court recently decided the case of Zachary Donaldson, et al., v. Central Illinois Public Service Company, et al., Docket No. 89679, opinion filed February 22, 2002.
In this issueEnvironmental and Natural Resources Law, October 2002This month's newsletter covers current developments in the courts, in Congress and in the Illinois Statehouse.