Synergy Environmental and Waterloo Hydrogeologic to provide a training seminar: Applied Groundwater Modeling with Visual MODFLOW Flex In April 2019

Synergy Environmental, Inc.
Brian Loughnane, PG

February 26, 2019

Synergy Environmental will be the partnering with Waterloo Hydrogeologic to provide an intensive 3-day on-site training for its premier modeling software, Visual MODFLOW Flex. The course will be held at Synergy’s Royersford PA office during April 9 – 11, 2019.  

For over 25 years Waterloo Hydrogeologic has specialized in assessing, developing and managing the world’s water resources using the most powerful and cost-effective software technologies available today. Waterloo Hydrogeologic’s environmental software is active in almost every country in the world.

Course Description

Continue Reading

A Phase I ESA Gone Awry Leads to Millions in Cleanup Liabilities — a Cautionary Tale for Property Transactions

Spencer Fane LLP
Kathleen M. (Kate) Whitby

January 29, 2919

Lenders, borrowers, purchasers, sellers, and even contractors sometimes get annoyed with environmental lawyers when we insist on reviewing Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) draft reports, looking at the underlying regulatory files, checking title reports, real property records, and contract terms, counting days to make sure that the Phase I report is not stale or expired at closing, and documenting which parties do, should, or do not have reliance rights under that report.

A pair of court cases currently making their way through the New York federal district court system illustrate why environmental lawyers fuss so much over the “i’s” and “t’s” of Phase I ESA processes.

Continue Reading

What to Expect in Environmental Regulation for 2019

McGuireWoods LLP
Michael H. Brady, Charles D. Case, David A. Franchina, Megan S. Haines, Amanda Kitchen Short, John M. Lain, Samuel O. Lumpkin, Dale G. Mullen, Heather Nixon Stevenson, Dana P. Palmer , W. Dixon Snukals, James A. Thornhill and Darin K. Waylett

February 4, 2019

Deregulation was one of the primary promises of President Trump’s campaign, and in 2018, the administration continued to roll back environmental regulation. The recent shutdown of the federal government has slowed deregulation, while at the same time affecting funding and implementation of programs. While it is difficult to estimate the impact of the recent shutdown, and the possibility of another, on environmental regulation, expect 2019 to continue the trend of federal deregulation, as well as judicial challenges to such deregulation. Meanwhile, certain states, like California, will continue implementing a comprehensive environmental regulatory agenda, while others may focus on clean energy, such as Maryland with its Clean Energy Jobs Act.

The following are some of the more material areas to track in 2019.

Continue Reading

EPA’s 2018 Environmental Enforcement Results Released

Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
J. Tom Boer, Samuel L. Brown, Todd S. Mikolop and Alexandra Hamilton

February 12, 2019

Last week, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its annual enforcement results for the 2018 fiscal year (ranging from October 1, 2017, to September 30, 2018). The report, prepared by EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), highlights the results of the agency’s civil and criminal enforcement of the nation’s federal environmental laws over the past year. The 2018 results mark the first full fiscal year of enforcement results, including inspections and compliance evaluations, under the Trump administration. A statement in the report from Susan Bodine, the Assistant Administrator for OECA, summarizes EPA’s enforcement priorities, explaining “[i]n fiscal year 2018, we continued our focus on expediting site cleanup, deterring noncompliance, and returning facilities to compliance with the law, while respecting the cooperative federalism structure of our nation’s environmental laws.”

Continue Reading

Which State’s Law Applies to Your Legacy Environmental Liability Claim?

Barnes & Thornburg LLP
John Fischer

January 30, 2019

It is a situation we have seen time and again, including in several recent matters: a policyholder headquartered in State A is pursued by the regulators in State B for investigating and cleaning up contamination at the policyholder’s facility located in State B. In the same circumstances and under the same policy language, the law of State A would require the carrier to cover the cost of the investigation and remediation, but the law of State B would not.

This drastic difference in outcome is common due to the sometimes vast differences in coverage law from state to state. The threshold question of which state’s law applies often makes all the difference between coverage and no coverage for contamination at a site that is in a different state from the state where the policyholder is based.

Continue Reading