Tuesday, February 26, 2013

EPA Moving Forward With Lead-Abatement Regulation for Commercial Buildings

The United States E.P.A. is moving forward with preliminary rule-making activities for the regulation of lead-based paint hazards on and in public and commercial buildings (those built prior to 1978) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  The regulation of commercial structures will impact a number of real estate practitioners involved with pre-1978 buildings - including property owners and managers, construction and real estate contractors, and other industry professionals.

The EPA already has a Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP) Rule in place for pre-1978 residential properties and child-occupied facilities, which imposes stringent disclosure obligations on owners and property managers and requires renovations, repairs and painting to be performed by EPA-certified contractors with training in lead abatement practices.  This rule has added significant costs to the ownership and maintenance of older homes and has exposed property owners and contractors to significant civil penalties for failing to comply with the rule.

The EPA will be collecting information from the public and industry professionals regarding lead-based paint in commercial and public buildings until April 1, 2013.  Specifically EPA is seeking comments on the manufacture, sale and use of lead-based paint post-1978; use of lead-based paint in or on public and commercial properties; how often renovations were performed on public and commercial properties and the practices used in such renovations; estimates of the amount of dust created and possibly transported from the outside to the inside of the building; and the economic impact that the regulation would have on affected businesses and stakeholders - in particular small businesses.

The information gathering is designed to assist the EPA in determining whether renovations, repairs and painting activities in commercial and public buildings create lead-based paint hazards.  The EPA is required to either determine that no such risks exist or sign a proposed rule similar to the RRP rule for residential properties by July 1, 2015.

The EPA is planning to hold a public meeting regarding the potential commercial and public building rule on June 26, 2013.  Additional details regarding the public meeting will be available in the spring.

The full text of the request for information can be found here.  

 

Monday, February 18, 2013

Meth Busters

Image from the Indiana State Police Meth Suppression Section's website

A recent article in the Indiana Lawyer discusses the Indiana General Assembly's attempts to curb the state's growing methamphetamine problem.  Over the past ten years meth labs found by Indiana law enforcement have increased from 732 in 2002 to 1,726 in 2012.  In 2012, more than 10% of those meth labs were found in two of Indiana's 96 counties: Madison County (96 labs) and Vanderburgh County (81 labs).  The problem is so bad in Madison County that Rodney Cummings, the Madison County prosecutor, states that 35% of his docket is meth related.  

Six new bills addressing meth have been introduced during the 2013 session.  All six target ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, the main ingredients used in manufacturing meth.  Two of the bills would reduce the amount of medication containing these ingredients a person could purchase.  One such bill proposed by Sen. Carlin Yoder, a Republican from Middlebury, would limit each person to 61.2 grams of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine per year, increase criminal penalties for giving these ingredients to someone expressly for manufacturing meth, and prohibit any meth-related criminals from possessing these ingredients without a prescription for seven years.  The four other bills would make ephedrine and pseudoephedrine controlled substances that could only be purchased with a prescription.  In 2005, Oregon took such a step, which has led to a significant drop in meth labs.  Cummins believes that a similar result would occur in Indiana.  One such bill, proposed by Randy Head a Republican from Logansport, would make the two ingredients Schedule III controlled substances.  This bill, however, will not get a hearing this session.  I will continue to track the six proposed bills to see if the Assembly enacts any changes to Indiana's meth laws.    

With an increase in meth manufacturing comes an increase in meth lab explosions.  These explosions cause significant property damage, injuries, and even deaths.  I, along with fellow Monitoring Well authors, Brianna Schroeder and Sean Hirschten, and other attorneys at Plews Shadley Racher & Braun LLP, assist clients with cleaning up their properties after a tenant's meth lab explodes.  Often there is insurance coverage for these types of cleanups even if the policy contains an exclusion for illegal activities.  The firm also represents environmental consultants that clean up exploded meth labs.  If you are a property owner whose property has been damaged by a tenant's meth lab, please do not hesitate to contact our firm with any questions.  Also, for more information on Indiana's efforts to curb meth abuse, please refer to the Indiana State Police's and the State of Indiana's websites.     

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Wine is Good for You...and for Agri-Tourism

This post is less about environmental litigation and more about the environment of wine.  Indiana wine grapes, in particular.  The federal government (specifically the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau or "TTB") recently designated 2,000,000 acres in southern Indiana as a viticultural area, to be called the "Indiana Uplands."  An "American Viticultural Area," or "AVA" is a designated wine grape-growing region distinguished by its geographic features.  The borders of the recently-designated AVA in Indiana runs from the Morgan-Monroe County line near Bloomington south to the Ohio River, a distance of just over 100 miles.  The soil, climate, and topography in this swath of land are conducive for growing great wine grapes.

This AVA designation indicates the growing importance of agri-tourism in Indiana.  The designation also allows vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they want to purchase.  For a wine to be labeled with a viticultural area name, at least 85% of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the viticultural area represented. The wine must also meet the other conditions in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3) (discussing wine name and label requirements).

For more information on the recent designation of the Indiana Uplands, see the details of the TTB's determination in the Federal Register here.  The Hoosier Ag Today provides a bit more information about the economic impact of the designation in its top story today, located here.