See Recent Blog Posts or search the archive.
Grant Konvalinka & Harrison, P.C., congratulates David Higney – Environmental for his Best Lawyers® selection.
GKH environmental and litigation attorney David Higney is a panel leader for discussion regarding "Emerging Contaminants" .
Grant, Konvalinka & Harrison is proud to share the recognition by CHAMBERS USA of one of the firm members.
EPA proposes a new rule to redefine hazardous waste aerosol cans as “Universal Wastes,” a classification the agency believes can enhance recycling if it applies the lower standard to discarded aerosol cans.
In early January 2018, in case you were not aware, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) proposed the Southside Chattanooga Lead Site to be added to the Superfund Program’s National Priorities List (“NPL”). Superfund, as established by Congress in 1980, investigates and cleans up sites in the United States that have been contaminated by hazardous waste and identified by the EPA as a candidate for cleanup because the site poses a risk to human health and/or the environment. When a site is on the NPL, it undergoes a comprehensive evaluation to determine the nature and extent of contamination, an estimation of current and future risks, an analysis of cleanup alternatives, and the design and construction of the selected cleanup plan. Sites placed on the NPL are eligible to receive federal funding for long-term cleanup. EPA deletes sites from the NPL once all response actions are complete and all cleanup goals have been achieved.
As an update to my July 16, 2014 and January 20, 2015 articles, on January 20, 2015, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in Hobart on 1/20 (S.Ct. Case # 14-575;http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012... at p.3). Thus, the 6thCircuit Court of Appeals ruling in Hobart relative to CERCLA contribution and cost-recovery governs.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday (1/14), in LWD PRP Group v. Alcan Corp., et al., Case No. 14-5730, to resuscitate affirmative defense arguments against claims being made by a conglomeration of 58 settling corporations that had negotiated a Consent Decree with the United States EPA. The panel relied heavily on a decision six months ago in Hobart Corp., et al. v. Waste Management of Ohio, Nos. 3273/3276 (6th Cir.). Holding the settling parties' claims are time barred due to the expiration of the CERCLA statute of limitation for contribution claims, under the circumstances presented, the LWD PRP Group panel held the settlement's effective date is the appropriate triggering event when calculating the applicable statute of limitations. Rejecting the settling parties' arguments that the completion of a removal action should be the limitations period's trigger, the LWD PRP Group panel noted no distinction with Hobart and no power to reverse a precedential opinion of the Court. The opinion reverses the United States District Court (W.D. Ky.) that had denied defendants' motions to dismiss the settling-PRP group's contribution claims against hundreds of other companies, state agencies, municipalities and universities.
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday (7/14) in Hobart Corp. et al. v. Waste Management of Ohio (Case Nos. 13-3273/3276), in CERCLA, 42 USC §9601 et seq., cases where a potentially responsible party (PRP) has entered into an administrative settlement with the government, thus meeting a statutory trigger for filing a contribution action, the PRP can bring only a contribution action pursuant to CERCLA § 113(f)(3)(B) and cannot bring a CERCLA § 107(a)(4)(B) cost-recovery action. The appellate court's opinion is consistent with a position previously advanced by this law firm and Squire Sanders resulting in our client's Motion to Dismiss being granted on the issue. Tennessee v. Roane Holdings Ltd., 835F.Supp.2d 527, 538-541 (E.D. Tenn. 2011); 75 ERC (BNA) 1109 (CERCLA §113(f) constitutes third-party plaintiff's exclusive remedy such that its action and claims made pursuant to CERCLA §107 cannot be maintained). For more information about this development, or to discuss environmental matters and federal court litigation, please contact David Higney.
Chattanooga (October 25, 2012) -- Chattanooga attorney David Higney again is listed as one of the leading environmental law counselors by The International Who's Who of Environmental Lawyers 2012. In 2011, Mr. Higney was the only attorney not located in Nashville and one of only four environmental attorneys in Tennessee to be honored and, again in 2012, of the four Tennessee lawyers selected Mr. Higney is the only Tennessee environmental attorney selected outside of Nashville.
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Justice, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation and the Office of the Tennessee Attorney General announced today a comprehensive Clean Water Act settlement with the city of Chattanooga, Tenn. Chattanooga has agreed to pay a $476,400 civil penalty and make improvements to its sewer systems, estimated by the city at $250 million, to eliminate unauthorized overflows of untreated raw sewage. Chattanooga also has agreed to implement a green infrastructure plan and perform an $800,000 stream restoration project.
Grant Konvalinka & Harrison, P.C., serves clients in Tennessee cities such as Chattanooga, Cleveland, East Ridge, Red Bank, Jasper, Collegedale, Athens, Decatur, Altamont, McMinnville, Manchester, Dunlap, Winchester, Fayetteville, Soddy-Daisy, Etowah, Dayton, Charleston, Tullahoma, Fort Oglethorpe, Dalton, Chatsworth, Calhoun, Summerville, Lafayette, Ringgold, Chattanooga Valley, Chickamauga, Tunnel Hill and Trenton.
Counties: Hamilton County, Bradley County, McMinn County, Sequatchie County, Grundy County, Franklin County, Coffee County, Warren County, Dade County, Catoosa County.