EPA Will Soon Issue the Latest Revision to the Risk Management Program (RMP) Chemical Release Rules
February 10, 2020 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelOn November 21, 2019, EPA released a pre-publication copy of its Reconsideration of the revised Risk Management Program (RMP) Rules. In an accompanying statement, the agency noted that it has taken steps to “modify and improve” the existing rule to remove burdensome, costly and unnecessary requirements while maintaining appropriate protection (against accidental chemical releases) and ensuring responders have access to all of the necessary safety information. This action was taken in response to EPA’s January 13, 2017 revisions that significantly expanded the chemical release prevention provisions the existing RMP rules in the wake of the disastrous chemical plant explosion in West, Texas. The Reconsideration will take effect upon its publication in the Federal Register.
Background
As recounted by the D. C. Circuit in its August 2018 decision in the case of Air Alliance Houston, et al. v. EPA, in 1990, the Congress amended the Clean Air Act to force the regulation of hazardous air pollutants (see 42 USC Section 7412). An initial list of these hazardous air pollutants was also published, at Section 7412 (b). Section 112(r) (codified at 42 USC Section 7412 (r)), authorized EPA to develop a regulatory program to prevent or minimize the consequences of a release of a listed chemical from a covered stationary source. EPA was directed to propose and promulgate release prevention, detection, and correction requirements applicable to stationary sources (such as plants) that store or manage these regulated substances in amounts determined to be above regulated threshold quantities. EPA promulgated these rules in 1996 (see 61 FR 31668). The rules, located at 40 CFR Part 68, contain several separate subparts devoted to hazard assessments, prevention programs, emergency response, accidental release prevention, the development and registration of a Risk Management Plan, and making certain information regarding the release publicly available. EPA notes that over 12.000 RMP plans have been filed with the agency.
In January 2017, in response to the catastrophe in West, EPA issued substantial amendments to these rules, covering accident prevention (expanding post-accident investigations, more rigorous safety audits, and enhanced safety training), revised emergency response requirements, and enhanced public information disclosure requirements. (See 82 FR 4594 (January 13, 2017).) However, the new administration at EPA, following the submission of several petitions for reconsideration of these revised rules, issued a “Delay Rule” on June 14, 2017, which would have extended the effective date of the January 2107 rules until February 19, 2019. On August 17, 2018, the Delay Rule was rejected and vacated by the D.C. Circuit in the aforementioned Air Alliance case (see 906 F. 3d 1049 (DC Circuit 2018)), which had the effect of making the hotly contested January 2017 RMP revisions immediately effective.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Is Solar the Next Focus of Construction Defect Suits?
June 28, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThere’s been a rapid growth in the sale of solar panels, and that’s lead some industry observers to wonder if manufacturers have been cutting back on quality. Current use of solar is six times what it was in 2008, with more than forty percent of that in the last year. The growth shows no sign of stopping, either. The Solar Energy Industry Association expects the amount of power generated by solar to increase by more than two-thirds in 2013.
With the oversupply, some fear that companies are relaxing their quality control. The New York Times found that there were widespread problems of defective units in solar cells, chiefly those manufactured in China. The Times article noted that at two solar plants in Spain, defect rates reached 34.5 percent.
Some industry observers disagree. The Insurance Journal quoted Andy Klump, the CEO of Clean Energy Associates, a Shanghai firm that provides quality assurance in the solar industry, who said that if a business had a 34 percent failure rate, “they would be out of business in a heartbeat.” Mr. Klump described the Times article as “not realistic.”
If the Times is right, Scott Turner, a construction insurance attorney, feels that the industry should ready itself for “a wave of large lawsuits.” Turner feels that “this litigation wave could make the battles over liability and insurance coverage for Chinese drywall seem like a small claims dispute.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Fraud Claims and Breach Of Warranty Claims Against Manufacturer
March 04, 2024 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent case touches upon two issues that are noteworthy when considering fraud claims and breach of warranty claims against a manufacturer. Below contains a discussion on these claims.
Independent Tort Doctrine
“Florida’s independent tort doctrine provides that a party may not recover in tort for a contract dispute unless the tort is independent of any breach of contract.” MidAmerica C2L Inc. v. Siemens Energy, Inc., 2024 WL 414620, *6 (M.D.Fla. 2024). This means tort allegations and claims MUST be separate and distinct from performance under the contract. Id. (citation omitted).
In MidAmerica C2L, a plaintiff sued a manufacturer relating to sophisticated equipment for a coal gasification plant. The parties entered into different agreements for the equipment and a license where the plaintiff could use the manufacturer’s patented technology for its coal gasification plants. A dispute arose and the plaintiff sued the manufacturer under various legal theories. The manufacturer moved for summary judgment.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Gardeners in the City of the Future: An Interview with Eric Baczuk
July 08, 2019 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessI had the pleasure of interviewing Eric Baczuk, Designer at Google. We discuss his views on the future urban experience and design. We also touch on Sidewalk Labs of which Eric was a founding team member.
What are you working on currently?
I lead a design team imagining future of communication and thinking about possibilities for what–if anything–might replace the smartphone in our daily lives. What could be the next affordance or device that could offer us a more seamless interface with the digital world?
Can you be more specific about the interfaces?
It’s really just imagining a future with digital interfaces that might be a bit more natural and more humane than what is currently available. In many ways, I think the phone has monopolized social life. You see people standing on the street, for example, waiting for the bus, and 99 percent will have their noses glued to their phones. I think it’s quite anti-social, and in some ways, prevents the friendly, serendipitous encounters that used to be so characteristic of urban living.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Ethical Limits on Preparing a Witness for Deposition or Trial
October 28, 2024 —
Stu Richeson - The Dispute ResolverIn this week’s blog post, we are going to take a brief look at ethical issues associated with preparing a witness for a deposition or to testify at trial. Most attorneys would agree that it is permissible to meet with a witness before the witness’s deposition to discuss what to expect. On the other hand, there is no question that advising a witness to provide false testimony would be improper. But what about the area in between those two extremes? For instance, can an attorney suggest to a witness how to phrase answers to anticipated questions that, while true, might not be the way the witness would have answered the question absent the attorney’s coaching?
A little over a year ago, the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued ABA Formal Opinion 508: The Ethics of Witness Preparation. The opinion provides certain examples of things that are and are not permissible in preparing a witness for a deposition or trial.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stu Richeson, PhelpsMr. Richeson may be contacted at
stuart.richeson@phelps.com
Never, Ever, Ever Assume! (Or, How a Stuck Shoe is Like a Construction Project Assumption)
October 21, 2019 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North CarolinaThis summer, I had the fortune of taking a trip to Europe. The first place I visited was Amsterdam. A lovely town with a lot of culture and more canals than you can shake a stick at. I was meeting family there, but had hours to kill ahead of time. So, I decided to take the train from the airport into the City Centre, leave my bags at the train station luggage locker, and begin exploring.
My plan took its first misstep when I attempted to board the train. Not being in a hurry, I let the other passengers get on first. Sure, I noticed the train conductor blowing his whistle while I stepped onto the train, but figured I was fine since I was already on the steps up. Until, that is, the door began to close, with me in the doorway, suitcase in the train, one foot inside, and one foot mid step up to the cabin. The door closed on my backpack (which was still on my back), but I managed to force it into the train compartment. My shoe, however, was not quite as lucky. Part of my shoe made it inside, and part was outside the door.
No worry– just look for the door release mechanism, right? Wrong! There was none. The train started up, with my shoe still halfway in and halfway out of the train. (Luckily my foot itself made it inside all in one piece). The conductor came along to scold me, and told me that he could *probably* rescue my shoe once we got to Central Station. In the meantime, I sat on a nearby jump seat, keeping tabs on my shoe and fuming that this was *not* the way I planned to start my vacation. Long story short– the train conductor was able to salvage my shoe, but not without a lot of commentary on how I should never have boarded the train after the whistle blew. Lesson learned.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLCMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
Congratulations to Associate Madeline Arcellana on Her Selection as a Top Rank Attorney in Southern Nevada!
July 18, 2022 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPBremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is proud to announce Senior Associate Madeline Arcellana was selected by Nevada Business Magazine as a Top Rank Attorney in Southern Nevada for her work in Civil Litigation, General Liability, and Personal Injury!
The lawyers selected to Nevada Business Magazine, Top Rank Attorneys list are at the top of their field and each nomination is put through an extensive verification process, resulting in the top attorneys in Nevada who are chosen by their peers. To view Nevada’s 2022 Top Rank Attorneys, please click
here.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes: The Colorado Court of Appeals’ Decision Protecting a Declarant’s Right to Arbitration in Construction Defect Cases
May 20, 2015 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationOn May 7th, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued its much anticipated ruling in Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominium Association, Inc. v. Metropolitan Homes, Inc., et al., 2015COA65 (Colo. App. May 7, 2015). By way of background, the Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominiums were developed by Metro Inverness, LLC, which also served as the declarant for its homeowners association. Metropolitan Homes was Metro Inverness’ manager and the general contractor on the project. Greg Krause and Peter Kudla served as declarant-appointed members of the Association’s board during the period of declarant control.
When it set up the Association, Metro Inverness included within the Association’s declaration a mandatory arbitration provision specifically for construction defect claims. This provision stated that it “shall not ever be amended without the written consent of Declarant and without regard to whether Declarant owns any portion of the Real Estate at the time of the amendment.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
