The Washington Post confirms what many feared: The BP spill will, in fact, be the worst spill + environmental disaster in the nation’s history. U.S. Geological Survey Director Dr. Marcia McNutt says the results are preliminary, but two teams using different methods determined the spill is somewhere between 17 and 39 million gallons, far bigger than 11 million gallons that spilled in the Exxon Valdez disaster. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/27/AR2010052701957.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the AP reports the Obama Administration just fired the head of the U.S. Minerals Management Service. Elizabeth “Liz” Birnbaum had run the service in the Interior Department since July 2009.

Well that’s a start, but, too little too late?

And looking at the impact on the ecology, not to mention the impact on industry in the Gulf, and perhaps all the way to the Outer Banks, NC, just breaks my heart.

Maybe not anymore.

Based on recent research, EPA is proposing a rule that would remove saccharin and its salts from the agency’s lists of hazardous wastes, hazardous constituents and hazardous substances because it is no longer considered a potential hazard to human health.

In the 1990s, the National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer re-evaluated the available scientific data and information on saccharin and determined that saccharin and its salts are not, in fact, potential human carcinogens.

The proposed rule is open for public comment for 60 days, and if it goes through, saccharin might just make its way back into your diet cola. 

For more information: www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/wastetypes/wasteid/saccharin/index.htm

Under the so-called “work product” doctrine, documents prepared in anticipation of litigation are usually privileged and cannot be seen by the opposing party.  However, documents that are prepared for some business purpose other than anticipation of litigation are not covered, and can be seen by the opposing party. 

The Georgia Court of Appeals recently issued a decision regarding this distinction, which decision may make certain internal investigations discoverable in certain situations.

In the case of Alta Refrigeration, Inc. v. AmeriCold Logistics, LLC, 301 Ga. App. 738 (2010), the Court ruled that an internal accident investigation was not privileged, and was therefore discoverable by the opposing party. The Court held that because under company policy, an investigative team had to be appointed within 48 hours of the incident to comply with OSHA regulations, and a report had to be issued at the conclusion of the investigation, the investigative report was not primarily prepared in anticipation of litigation but for the business purpose of compliance with regulations, and therefore was not privileged.

…

This means that what was previously privileged – or at least required a strong showing of necessity before a party had to produce it to the other side – might now be open and discoverable. So, companies are well advised to think before they act in response to certain issues, and to speak to counsel about how their response protocols might want to be modified.

The TRI is a publicly available database that contains information on toxic chemical releases and waste management activities reported annually by certain industries and federal facilities. The database currently has information from 22,000 industrial facilities on nearly 650 chemicals and chemical groups.

EPA has concluded, based on a review of available studies, that the proposed chemicals could cause cancer in humans.  The proposal is part of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s ongoing efforts to provide communities with more information about chemicals and releases in their area, as well as to provide the government with information for research and potential development of regulations.

Four of the proposed, additional chemicals fall into the category of polycyclic aromatic compounds. This category includes chemicals that are likely to remain in the environment for a very long time, and because the chemicals are not readily destroyed such chemicals may build up in body tissue, as well.

For more information, visit http://www.epa.gov/tri.

What? I actually told someone *not* to buy organic?

Well, the truth is, it’s pretty darn expensive to go 100% organic.

Where should you spend the cash and which foods are fine to buy conventional? Read more at: http://www.womenetics.com/expert-blogs/-living-green/.

Specifically, the rule affects paid renovators who work in pre-1978 housing or child-occupied facilities, including renovation contractors, maintenance workers in multi-family housing, and other specialty trades such as painters, electricians, plumbers, window installers, and carpenters. The certification is required under EPA’s Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program.

The rule requires workers to be trained to use lead-safe work practices, requires renovation firms to be EPA-certified, and requires contractors to provide an EPA lead pamphlet to owners and tenants and post signage regarding the renovation work (such informational requirements are already in effect). Renovation is broadly defined as any activity that disturbs painted surfaces and includes most repair, remodeling, and maintenance activities, including window replacement.

The rule does not apply to minor maintenance or repair activities where less than six square feet of lead-based paint is disturbed in a room or where less than 20 square feet of lead-based paint is disturbed on the exterior.

The rule also includes record-keeping requirements and fees.

For more information, please contact Andy Thompson at Smith, Gambrell & Russell (www.sgrlaw.com).

For EPA’s Compliance Guide regarding the lead paint rule, click here.

Sixty Two communities in Georgia have earned grant funds for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects through the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) program, which is administered by the Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority (GEFA). 

EECBG funds totaling $13.3 million were available to small-to-medium sized cities and counties through GEFA as a result of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).  The state’s largest cities and counties received direct EECBG funding from the U.S. Department of Energy.   

The EECGB funds will help local governments meet the Governor’s Energy Challenge. 

In April 2008 Governor Sonny Perdue committed Georgia’s state agencies to reduce energy consumption 15 percent and challenged Georgia businesses, local governments and citizens to do the same.  (Really? Two years ago and they’re just being recognized/incentivized?)

Georgia’s population is projected to grow to more than 12 million people by 2030. This growth will significantly impact Georgia’s energy, land and water resources. 

Please see the press release and list of approved projects at the following link: http://www.gefa.org/index.aspx?recordid=293&page=50.

More information about the Governor’s Energy Challenge is available at www.GovernorsEnergyChallenge.org

The “offer of judgment” statute works something like this in Georgia. If a party makes an offer to settle and that offer is rejected by the other side (with certain conditions met), but then the ultimate result is not a certain percentage better than the offer, the offering party can recover their litigation costs from the date of the rejection. (It’s a bit more complicated than that, so consult a lawyer, but that’s the basic premise.)

In  Smith et al. v. Salon Baptiste et al., decided March 15, 2010, Smith had tendered an offer of settlement to a salon under the statute, O.C.G.A. 9-11-68. (The case arose when some allegedly defamatory and disparaging remarks were made at the salon against the former Atlanta Falcons football player). Mr. Smith’s offer, had it been accepted by the salon, would have ended the suit. Yet, the offer was rejected.

The trial court ultimately ruled in Smith’s favor on all counts so Smith then sought recovery of attorneys’ fees under O.C.G.A. 9-11-68. But, the trial court found the offer of settlement statute unconstitutional on the grounds that it impermissibly impeded access to the courts.

Last week, the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the trial court’s holding.

In a 5-2 opinion, the Supreme Court found that the lower court improperly relied on a ‘right of access to the courts’ reading of the Georgia Constitution, which it found was misplaced on the grounds that no such right exists in the state, and that the constitutional provision at issue was only intended to provide a choice between self-representation and representation by counsel.

The majority further reasoned that the offer of settlement statute did not deny litigants access to the courts, but merely sets forth circumstances under which fees may be recoverable. Finally, the majority found the offer of settlement provisions were not an unconstitutional special law, but rather a general law with uniform application as to all tort cases.

By upholding the offer of settlement statute, the Supreme Court of Georgia has preserved a potentially compelling incentive for encouraging settlement of claims among tort litigants in the state.

For more information, contact the author of this blog, or an attorney at Smith Gambrell & Russell (www.sgrlaw.com).

For all the mommies out there who want to make Easter a little more green this year … http://www.womenetics.com/expert-blogs/-living-green/

 Neither did I.

Granted beauty is only skin deep, but as someone who has a borderline addiction to Sephora, I had to investigate further.

Turns out that the Food & Drug Administration regulates drugs, not cosmetics. Beauty companies are prohibited from marketing products that are adulterated or misbranded, but that’s where industry oversight ends.

So, with the exception of color additives, anything that is meant to be “rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed” on your body to make you look better is not regulated.

That means companies can put pretty much anything they want to into their products and it is only the company itself that has to vouch for its safety.

Read more at: http://www.womenetics.com/expert-blogs/-living-green/2010/03/organic-beauty-the-myth-the-facts/