The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently published a final rule in the Federal Register finding that the State of Illinois failed to submit a State Implementation Plan ("SIP") to satisfy the attainment and maintenance interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act with respect to the 2006 24-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards ("NAAQS") for fine particulate matter (24-hour PM2.5).
Under the Clean Air Act, states are required to submit SIPs that satisfy the requirements of the Clean Air Act related to interstate transport of pollution. A state must address its significant contribution to nonattainment and its interference with maintenance of a NAAQS in any neighboring state. The Clean Air Act requires that states submit SIPs to meet the applicable requirements of the CAA within 3 years after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may provide.
On September 21, 2006, EPA promulgated a final rule establishing new standards for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. At present, 29 states (including Illinois) or territories have not yet submitted complete SIPs to satisfy the nonattainment and maintenance transport requirements.
In its final rule, EPA made a finding of failure to submit these SIPs which creates a 2-year deadline for the promulgation of a Federal Implementation Plan by EPA unless, prior to that deadline, a state makes a submission to meet these two requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA approves such submission.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Free Seminar: What should manufacturers do when receiving a notice of violation from EPA?
I would like to announce my next speaking engagement. On July 15th at noon, I will be speaking on "What should manufacturers do when receiving a notice of an environmental violation from EPA?" at the Morris Graduate School of Management, 1000 E Woodfield Road, #100, Schaumburg, IL 60173.
To get more information or to RSVP, please click here. I hope to see you there!
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
To get more information or to RSVP, please click here. I hope to see you there!
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Illinois Appellate Court Rules That Employers Must Protect Family of Employees From Asbestos Dangers
In Simpkins v. CSX Corp., No. 5-07-0346, the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District, recently ruled that employers owe the immediate families of their employees a duty to protect against take-home asbestos exposure.
The Plaintiff alleged in her complaint that she contracted mesothelioma cancer due to exposure to asbestos brought home on her husband's body and work clothes (commonly referred to as "take-home" asbestos exposure). The complaint named numerous defendants, including asbestos manufacturers and former employers. The three counts of the complaint here at issue named only CSX (as a successor to the B&O Railroad) and the Dow Chemical Company, where the husband worked from 1964 through the end of the marriage in 1965. Count VII of the complaint alleged that both former employers negligently failed to take precautions to protect the family from take-home asbestos exposure, count VIII alleged that both defendants were strictly liable for engaging in an ultrahazardous activity, and count IX alleged willful and
wanton conduct on the part of both employers.
The trial court granted CSX's motion to dismiss, which argued that an employer does not owe any duty to the families of its employees. On appeal, the Appellate Court disagreed and reversed the the trial court's decision. The Appellate Court held that "ordinary principles of Illinois negligence law" supported the conclusion that employers owed a duty to protect family members of employees in take-home asbestos cases. The Court ruled:
(1) That the harm to be prevented was reasonably foreseeable: "We believe that it takes little imagination to presume that when an employee who is exposed to asbestos brings home his work clothes, members of his family are likely to be exposed as well."
(2) That the likelihood of serious or fatal injury to anyone foreseeably exposed to asbestos is substantial enough to warrant the imposition of a duty on employers.
(3) That "the burden of guarding against take-home asbestos exposure is not unduly burdensome when compared to the nature of the risk to be protected against."
(4) That the consequences of placing the burden on employers are acceptable if the scope of liability is limited to immediate family members.
According to the opinion, this is the first time that an Illinois appellate court ruled on the issue of liability for take-home asbestos exposure. CSX is likely to appeal this decision to the Illinois Supreme Court.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
The Plaintiff alleged in her complaint that she contracted mesothelioma cancer due to exposure to asbestos brought home on her husband's body and work clothes (commonly referred to as "take-home" asbestos exposure). The complaint named numerous defendants, including asbestos manufacturers and former employers. The three counts of the complaint here at issue named only CSX (as a successor to the B&O Railroad) and the Dow Chemical Company, where the husband worked from 1964 through the end of the marriage in 1965. Count VII of the complaint alleged that both former employers negligently failed to take precautions to protect the family from take-home asbestos exposure, count VIII alleged that both defendants were strictly liable for engaging in an ultrahazardous activity, and count IX alleged willful and
wanton conduct on the part of both employers.
The trial court granted CSX's motion to dismiss, which argued that an employer does not owe any duty to the families of its employees. On appeal, the Appellate Court disagreed and reversed the the trial court's decision. The Appellate Court held that "ordinary principles of Illinois negligence law" supported the conclusion that employers owed a duty to protect family members of employees in take-home asbestos cases. The Court ruled:
(1) That the harm to be prevented was reasonably foreseeable: "We believe that it takes little imagination to presume that when an employee who is exposed to asbestos brings home his work clothes, members of his family are likely to be exposed as well."
(2) That the likelihood of serious or fatal injury to anyone foreseeably exposed to asbestos is substantial enough to warrant the imposition of a duty on employers.
(3) That "the burden of guarding against take-home asbestos exposure is not unduly burdensome when compared to the nature of the risk to be protected against."
(4) That the consequences of placing the burden on employers are acceptable if the scope of liability is limited to immediate family members.
According to the opinion, this is the first time that an Illinois appellate court ruled on the issue of liability for take-home asbestos exposure. CSX is likely to appeal this decision to the Illinois Supreme Court.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
2010 American Solar Challenge
I have uploaded photos (via our Facebook page) and video (via our You Tube Channel) from the finish line at the 2010 American Solar Challenge. The solar cars raced 1,200 miles from Broken Arrow, OK to Naperville, IL.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Owner of Apartment Building to Pay $43,000 Penalty For Failing to Follow Asbestos Requirements During Renovation
The Illinois Pollution Control Board recently accepted the parties' settlement in People v. Al-Algonquin Apartments, LLC, Case No. PCB 09-39, which concerned a residential apartment building at 1605 East 50th Street in Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.
The State alleged that the owners of the building violated the Illinois Environmental Protection Act by: (1) failing to adequately wet and keep wet all regulated asbestos-containing material (RACM) removed during renovation operations until such asbestos-containing waste materials were collected and contained in leak-tight wrapping in preparation for disposal, (2) failing to provide notice of a renovation activity, (3) failing to have a trained foreman or representative present during the disturbance of regulated asbestos containing materials, (4) failing to maintain adequate containment of RACM, thereby causing and allowing the release of asbestos fibers into the environment, and (5) failing to deposit all asbestos-containing waste material within a site permitted to accept such waste as soon as practicable.
Under the terms of the settlement, the owners do not affirmatively admit the alleged violations but agree to pay, jointly and severally, a civil penalty of $43,000.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
The State alleged that the owners of the building violated the Illinois Environmental Protection Act by: (1) failing to adequately wet and keep wet all regulated asbestos-containing material (RACM) removed during renovation operations until such asbestos-containing waste materials were collected and contained in leak-tight wrapping in preparation for disposal, (2) failing to provide notice of a renovation activity, (3) failing to have a trained foreman or representative present during the disturbance of regulated asbestos containing materials, (4) failing to maintain adequate containment of RACM, thereby causing and allowing the release of asbestos fibers into the environment, and (5) failing to deposit all asbestos-containing waste material within a site permitted to accept such waste as soon as practicable.
Under the terms of the settlement, the owners do not affirmatively admit the alleged violations but agree to pay, jointly and severally, a civil penalty of $43,000.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Asian Carp Found Above Electric Barrier System
On June 23rd, the Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee announced that that one Bighead Asian carp was found in Lake Calumet along the Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS). This is the first physical specimen that has been found in the CAWS above the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer’s Electric Barrier System that was designed to keep Asian carp out of the Great Lakes.
The Bighead carp was found in Lake Calumet which sits between T. J. O’Brien Lock and Dam and Lake Michigan. The find was made in the northwest corner of the lake near Harborside Golf Course, approximately six miles downstream of Lake Michigan by a commercial fisherman contracted by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources during routine sampling efforts in the area. The fish was measured to be 34.6 inches long and weighed 19.6 pounds.
Despite this finding, the Army Corps of Engineers stated that it has no intention to close the shipping locks on Chicago's waterways. The Corps is unlikely to change this intention, unless more Asian carp are found above the Electric Barrier System.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
The Bighead carp was found in Lake Calumet which sits between T. J. O’Brien Lock and Dam and Lake Michigan. The find was made in the northwest corner of the lake near Harborside Golf Course, approximately six miles downstream of Lake Michigan by a commercial fisherman contracted by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources during routine sampling efforts in the area. The fish was measured to be 34.6 inches long and weighed 19.6 pounds.
Despite this finding, the Army Corps of Engineers stated that it has no intention to close the shipping locks on Chicago's waterways. The Corps is unlikely to change this intention, unless more Asian carp are found above the Electric Barrier System.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
EPA Provides Additional Time to Obtain Training and Certifications to Comply with New Lead Rules
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently issued enforcement guidance regarding its Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule. Under the rule, contractors performing renovation, repair and painting projects that disturb lead-based paint in homes, child care facilities, and schools built before 1978 must be certified and must follow specific work practices to prevent lead contamination. The rule was supposed to become effective in April 2010.
In the enforcement guidance, EPA announced additional time to allow contractors to comply with the training requirements of the new rule:
--Until October 1, 2010, EPA will not take enforcement action for violations of the rule's firm certification requirement.
--For violations of the rule's renovation worker certification requirement, EPA will not enforce against individual renovation workers if the person has applied to enroll in, or has enrolled in, by not later than September 30, 2010, a certified renovator class to train contractors in practices necessary for compliance with the rule. Renovators must complete the training by December 31, 2010.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
In the enforcement guidance, EPA announced additional time to allow contractors to comply with the training requirements of the new rule:
--Until October 1, 2010, EPA will not take enforcement action for violations of the rule's firm certification requirement.
--For violations of the rule's renovation worker certification requirement, EPA will not enforce against individual renovation workers if the person has applied to enroll in, or has enrolled in, by not later than September 30, 2010, a certified renovator class to train contractors in practices necessary for compliance with the rule. Renovators must complete the training by December 31, 2010.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
