vided that there are no aggravating circumstances, such as significant profit from the misconduct, recidivism or pervasiveness of the conduct within the company. Monaco made clear that presence of these factors will not shield the acquired company from criminal prosecution.The foregoing could prove problematic for large companies with a national or international footprint or those that have extremely poor environmental compliance programs, particularly because environmental criminal misconduct can occur under so many regulatory schemes. Environmental crimes can arise under various federal statutes, including:Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675Federal Hazardous Material Transportation Law, 49 U.S.C. §§ 5101-5127Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 136-136yClean Water Act (CWA)), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901- 6992kSurface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), 30 U.S.C. §§ 1201-1328Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2692Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1531Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), 16 U.S.C. § 707The Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. § 3372With almost 20 federal statutes covering pollution-related criminal misconduct and four covering wildlife-related crimes, environmental professionals supporting M&A deals should be vigilant during the review process and, if potential criminal misconduct is discovered, they should consider whether DOJ's Safe Harbor should be applied.It should be noted that the Safe Harbor will be available only for acquirors in arm's-length deals and will not be available where conduct was already required to be disclosed or known to DOJ or the public.Additionally, DOJ's policy will not be applied or contemplated for civil or other regulatory enforcement actions.Companies engaged in M&A activities and the professionals who steward them through such

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, on July 1, 2022, took the extraordinary step of reversing its prior decision in California River Watch v. City of Vacaville. The Ninth Circuit ruled that “transportation” under the citizen suit provision of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq., requires active participation in the waste disposal process. In its initial opinion, a three-judge panel ruled in a 2-1 decision that a water utility could be liable for contributing to the transportation of a hazardous waste that a third party improperly discarded into the utility’s water treatment system, even where the water complied with all applicable drinking water standards.

As discussed in our latest blog post, new standards have been approved by U.S. EPA suggesting that prospective purchasers of real property include an evaluation of PFAS in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment if the substances are regulated by the state.According to its press release, U.S. EPA asked its Science Advisory Board to review recent scientific data and new analyses regarding the health effects of PFOA and PFOS. This was because the scientific documents “indicate that negative health effects may occur at much lower levels of exposure to PFOA and PFOS than previously understood and that PFOA is a likely carcinogen.”U.S. EPA announced important steps toward evaluating the existing data for certain PFAS and initiating proposed rulemaking under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq., to list the chemicals as “hazardous constituents” subject to corrective action. Such a listing is also a precursor and required component to a hazardous waste listing under RCRA, subjecting the chemicals to additional regulation.U.S. EPA finalized the human health toxicity assessment for HFPO-DA or GenX and its Ammonium Salt to provide hazard identification, dose-response information, and derived toxicity values called oral reference doses for chronic and sub-chronic exposures.U.S. EPA recently requested in its proposed fiscal year 2023 budget an estimated $126 million to help implement its PFAS strategic roadmap.

While there is much to discuss in the BMP Guidance, the purpose of this post is to highlight the most important aspects of the applicable laws and their implications to shooting ranges.While no federal environmental regulations specifically focus on outdoor shooting ranges, case law and the BMP Guidance from the USEPA demonstrate that citizen lawsuits have been filed against shooting range owners and operators based on violations of the following environmental laws: the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq.; the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. §9601 et seq.; and state law equivalents. Below is a brief discussion of each.Resource Conservation and Recovery ActRCRA provides the “cradle-to-grave” framework for the management of solid and hazardous waste in the United States.

The New Mexico Environment Department received a similar grant, for $213,511, for its Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste programs in May 2017. Commercial and retail businesses must comply with federal regulations under RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq., 40 CFR Parts 239 through 282, and its state corollaries for the management of hazardous and universal waste from “cradle to grave,” ensuring that management and disposal will safeguard the environment. Once hazardous and universal wastes are generated and identified, they must be managed according to federal and state rules which govern personnel training, recordkeeping, storage, labeling and packaging, maintenance of emergency plans, and registered transport to the proper disposal or recycling destination.

As a result, they may not be aware of these additional responsibilities and may not be prepared as the Rule now becomes effective. Since 1980, the hazardous waste manifest requirement has been a key component of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act’s (42 USC 6901 et seq. “RCRA”) mandate to track wastes “from cradle to grave” to ensure proper management at all points on the journey. Generators prepare a manifest when they identify a waste for shipment, and the transporter and ultimate disposal facility all sign off on the same document.

Operators of healthcare facilities are encouraged to include this topic in their risk assessments and to consider environmental compliance audits. The particular environmental law at issue is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or "RCRA" (42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.). RCRA requires hazardous waste to be treated, stored and disposed of in compliance with permits and imposes recordkeeping requirements.

This is not CLF’s first time making this argument. CLF v. ExxonMobil Corp., et al In late 2016, CLF filed a similar citizen suit against ExxonMobil Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging that the company had violated provisions of the CWA and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901, et seq., by failing to plan for climate change impacts at an oil terminal near the Island End and Mystic Rivers in Massachusetts. CLF v. ExxonMobil Corp., et al (Case No. 16-11950).

As a result, businesses seeking to recycle materials may find it easier to do so, and those in the recycling business may see new or larger potential markets and opportunities.Background The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA,” 42 U.S.C 6901 et seq.) and its implementing regulations impose a number of restrictions, limitations, and conditions on any disposal of solid waste. However, in order to encourage recycling instead of disposal, RCRA regulations provide a number of exclusions and exemptions for recycled materials that allow recyclers to avoid the extra cost and difficulty of managing hazardous waste.

On July 7, 2017, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision striking down portions of US EPA’s Definition of Solid Waste (DSW) Rule, which defines when certain hazardous secondary materials (i.e. recyclable materials generated as the remainder of industrial processes) become “discarded” and thus subject to regulation as a solid waste. The Rule, issued in 2015, was the latest effort to define “solid waste” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. §§6901 et. seq., and was challenged by both industry and environmental groups. Squire Patton Boggs was actively involved in the appeal on behalf of an industrial intervenor-movant.In a per curiam decision, the Court sided with the industry petitioners in large part, dismissed the environmental groups’ challenges, and vacated two key aspects of the 2015 DSW Rule.