Articles By Kevin Murphy

About Kevin Murphy

Kevin C. Murphy concentrates his practice in the areas of environmental compliance and litigation; environmental and white-collar criminal defense, and complex litigation matters. Mr. Murphy is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law and a former senior trial attorney with both the Kings County (NY) District Attorney’s office and the U.S. Department of Justice Environmental Crimes Section in Washington, D.C. He previously taught a seminar on environmental criminal enforcement at the Syracuse University School of Law and has been listed in The Best Lawyers in America.

The State of New York Response to the Detection of Emerging Contaminants in Groundwater: A Primer

In December, 2018, The New York State Departments of Health and Environmental Conservation announced that the New York State Drinking Water Quality Council had recommended that the Department of Health adopt the nation’s most protective maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for PFOA, PFOS, and the nation’s first MCL for 1,4-dioxane. All three “emerging contaminants” have been detected in drinking water systems in New York and across the country, yet remain unregulated by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, which is responsible for setting regulatory limits under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.

What is PFOA, PFOS and 1,4-dioxane?

Commonly referred to as, collectively “emerging contaminants,”

  • PFOA is a chemical that has been used to make non-stick, stain resistant, and water repellant products;
  • PFOS was used in fire-fighting foam; and
  • 1,4-dioxane is a chemical that has been used as a stabilizer in solvents, paint strippers, greases and wax.

Where have emerging contaminants been found in New York?

  • Hoosick Falls

In New York, Hoosick Falls, NY was the first location to receive widespread publicity about the presence of PFOA contamination in its drinking water. While the source of the PFOA contamination hasn’t been identified, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics started paying for bottled water for residents in November 2015 and agreed to pay for the cost of filtration necessary to remove the chemical from the public water supply.

  • Newburgh, NY

In August 2016, NYSDEC declared the Stewart Air Base a state superfund site due to the extremely elevated levels of PFOS detected in Lake Washington, a 1.3 billion-gallon reservoir that has served the city of Newburgh, NY since the 1880s. Indeed the Department of Defense has now acknowledged the presence of on-base or off-base PFOS contamination of groundwater or drinking water at many current or former base facilities. 

  • Long Island, NY

On Long Island, 1,4-dioxane has been detected in 71% of the public water supply systems that have been tested to date and 45% had 1,4-dioxane levels greater than the USEPA health advisory level of 0.35 mg/l.

What happens next?

The Drinking Water Quality Council recommendations will now be considered by the Commissioner of Health, who has authority to either accept the recommended MCLs or to propose alternate MCLs. How the Commissioner intends to proceed will be announced via a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the New York State Register. Publication of the Notice will be followed by a 60-day public comment period and following assessment of public comments, the proposed regulation will either be revised or submitted for adoption by the Public Health and Health Planning Council, subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Health.

Any such regulation would go into effect upon publication of a Notice of Adoption in the New York State Register. Once adopted, public water systems of all sizes would likely need to test their water within the specified timeframes in the regulations and comply with the adopted MCLs.

Funding for Emerging Contaminants

In October, Governor Cuomo announced $200 million in grant funding to help communities address PFOA, PFOS, and 1,4-dioxane in their drinking water supplies. The funding will provide support and assistance for communities to combat these emerging contaminants. Of the grant funding, $185 million is available to communities across the state to upgrade drinking water treatment systems to combat emerging contaminants, prioritizing PFOA, PFOS, and 1,4-dioxane. The remaining $15 million has already been awarded to communities pursuing system upgrades and innovative pilot technologies to treat these emerging contaminants. Additionally, the Governor directed the Department of Health, Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Environmental Facilities Corporation to provide technical assistance to communities to help assess system needs and apply for grant funding to address all three of these emerging contaminants.

Kevin C. Murphy is a member of the Wladis Law Firm, P.C., located in Syracuse, New York. If you have questions about your water system, the emerging contaminant regulation or contamination, please feel free to contact Attorney Murphy or Attorney Timothy Lambrecht of the Wladis Law Firm to determine if we can be of assistance to you.

Picture: http://www.netnewsledger.com/2018/02/05/improved-access-drinking-water-six-nations-grand-river-first-nation

Kevin Murphy

Kevin C. Murphy concentrates his practice in the areas of environmental compliance and litigation; environmental and white-collar criminal defense, and complex litigation matters. Mr. Murphy is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law and a former senior trial attorney with both the Kings County (NY) District Attorney’s office and the U.S. Department of Justice Environmental Crimes Section in Washington, D.C. He previously taught a seminar on environmental criminal enforcement at the Syracuse University School of Law and has been listed in The Best Lawyers in America.

More Posts - Website

USEPA Enforcement Alert: The USEPA Lead Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule

The October, 2018 USEPA Enforcement Alert opens by asking the following question: “Do you know that if you are not lead-safe certified, disturbing just six square feet of a lead-based paint covered surface could cost you fines and even jail time?”

In 2018, USEPA announced 141 federal enforcement actions to protect the public, particularly children, from exposure to lead-based paint. Among those subject to recent enforcement actions, including criminal prosecutions for some, have been renovation companies, including ones that broadcast its violations to a national audience on the reality television program Fixer Upper, realtors who failed to provide required lead paint hazard warning notices, and the New York City Housing Authority.

USEPA inspectors are active in Central New York conducting inspections and requiring the production of the detailed paperwork required by the Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule (the “RRP Rule”). Are you prepared to be inspected?

If you work in the lead paint remediation field, make sure your certification has not lapsed. More than half of USEPA enforcement actions involve violations of the certification requirements, including lapsed certifications. Make sure you understand the RRP Rules; for example, private homes only occupied by people at least 62 years of age are not exempt from the RRP Rule. The age exemption only applies to designated housing for the elderly. Lastly, if you worked as an independent contractor on jobs that initiated via a Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC store referral, that may serve as a trigger for a USEPA inspection.

If you are a property or home owner, understand that EPA’s RRP Rule requires that firms performing renovation, repair, and painting projects that disturb lead-based paint in homes, child care facilities, and pre-schools built before 1978 have their firm certified by EPA (or an EPA authorized state), use certified renovators who are trained by EPA-approved training providers, and follow lead-safe work practices.

To understand the scope of the problem, HUD’s National Survey of lead and Allergens in Housing estimated that 38 million permanently occupied housing units (40% of all housing units) in the United States contain some lead-based paint that was applied before the residential use of lead-based paint was banned in 1978. “Housing units” include single-family homes, manufactured housing, and multi-unit dwellings like apartments. Vacant housing, group quarters (e.g., prisons, hospitals, and dormitories), hotels, motels, and other short-term housing, military bases, and housing where children are not permitted to live (e.g., housing designated exclusively for the elderly and those with zero-bedroom units) are not included in this number. More information on these statistics is available from HUD.

Question: What does the RRP Rule require?

Answer:

The RRP Rule requires that renovators are trained in the use of lead safe work practices, that renovators and firms be certified, that providers of renovation training be accredited, and that renovators follow specific work practice standards. Additional information on this rule can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/lead/renovation-repair-and-painting-program.

Question: Who is covered by the RRP Rule?

Answer:

The rule applies to all firms and individuals who are paid to perform renovation, repair, and painting projects that disturb paint in pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities. This includes home improvement contractors, maintenance workers, painters and other specialty trades.

 

Kevin C. Murphy is a member of the Wladis Law Firm, P.C., located in Syracuse, New York. Should you be confronted with lead paint or lead paint renovation issues, please feel free to contact Attorney Murphy or Attorney Timothy Lambrecht of the Wladis Law Firm to determine if we can be of assistance to you.

 

Picture: www.leadsafelist.com

Kevin Murphy

Kevin C. Murphy concentrates his practice in the areas of environmental compliance and litigation; environmental and white-collar criminal defense, and complex litigation matters. Mr. Murphy is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law and a former senior trial attorney with both the Kings County (NY) District Attorney’s office and the U.S. Department of Justice Environmental Crimes Section in Washington, D.C. He previously taught a seminar on environmental criminal enforcement at the Syracuse University School of Law and has been listed in The Best Lawyers in America.

More Posts - Website

“Universal Wastes”

To Avoid Penalties Ensure they are Handled Correctly

To streamline environmental regulations for wastes generated by numerous sources in relatively small quantities, USEPA issued the Universal Waste Rule in 1995. This rule is designed to reduce the amount of hazardous waste in the municipal solid waste stream, to encourage the recycling and proper disposal of some common hazardous wastes and to reduce the regulatory burden on generators.

The New York Universal Waste Rule (UWR), 6 NYCRR Part 374-3, provides an alternate method for managing certain common types of hazardous wastes that otherwise would be subject to all applicable requirements of New York’s hazardous waste rules found at 6 NYCRR Parts 370 through 374 and 376. Handlers may choose to manage eligible wastes under the UWR, or under ordinary hazardous waste regulations.

In New York State the following hazardous wastes may be managed as Universal Waste (UW):

  1. Batteries, including lead/acid, lead, nickel-cadmium, silver, lithium or mercury.
  2. Certain pesticides that would otherwise be a hazardous waste.
  3. Thermostats and other mercury-containing equipment (MCE).
  4. Hazardous Lamps

Universal wastes are generated not only in the industrial settings usually associated with hazardous wastes, but also in a wide variety of other settings, including households, schools, office buildings, and medical facilities. Although handlers of universal wastes must meet less stringent standards for storing, transporting, and collecting wastes, the wastes must comply with full hazardous waste requirements for final recycling, treatment, or disposal. This approach helps to remove these wastes from municipal landfills and incinerators, providing stronger safeguards for public health and the environment.

Universal Waste Generators. Requirements include packaging in a way to minimize breakage; immediately cleaning up any leaks or spills; and properly labeling containers.

Universal Waste Transporters. Requirements include meeting applicable DOT standards; complying with record keeping and reporting requirements; and complying with applicable requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 364 if transporting more than 500 lbs. of total universal waste in any shipment. Common carriers can transport up to 500 lbs. of universal waste in any shipment.

 Destination Facilities. Destination facilities must comply with all applicable requirements of 6 NYCRR Parts 370 through 374-3 and 376, including notification of hazardous waste activity and obtaining a Part 373 (hazardous waste) permit, if applicable.

Answers to Common Questions

  1. How do I know if my lamps are hazardous?
    Because of their mercury content, most fluorescent lamps in current use are considered hazardous wastes when taken out of service for disposal. Other lamps that are commonly classified as hazardous waste due to the presence of mercury or lead include high-intensity discharge (HID), neon, mercury vapor, high pressure sodium, and metal halide lamps. If you want to know for sure, you can have them analyzed by a laboratory test called the “Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP).” Most major manufacturers are now producing a line of fluorescent lamps which they claim are non-hazardous low-mercury or “green end cap” lamps. When these bulbs are taken out of service, manufacturer’s data may be used to help determine if they are a hazardous waste.
  2. How do I handle low-mercury fluorescent lamps?
    Under Chapter 145, Laws of 2004, “Mercury-Added Consumer Products Law,” even low-mercury (green end cap) lamps are subject to certain management standards. Under this law, defined Small Businesses may discard of up to fifteen low-mercury lamps per calendar month. If the non-hazardous lamps are commingled with universal waste lamps, all of the waste is regulated as universal waste. The Department strongly encourages the recycling of any lamps containing mercury.
  3. Now that the Universal Waste Rule is available for hazardous waste lamps, must I use it?
    No, handlers of hazardous waste lamps may choose between traditional hazardous waste regulations and Universal Waste Rule standards. However, flip-flopping between the two sets to avoid meeting requirements of one or both regulations is not allowed. For example, both management scenarios include storage time limits. Flip-flopping between regulations will not extend storage time.

A Universal Waste Handler does one or more of the following: generates, receives, stores, accumulates, and/or sends Universal Waste. A Universal Waste Destination Facility treats, disposes of, or recycles Universal Waste. A Universal Waste Transporter is involved in the transportation of Universal Waste.

 

Kevin C. Murphy is a member of the Wladis Law Firm, P.C., located in Syracuse, New York. If you or your municipality operates a mulch processing facility or any other waste management facilities and have questions or need assistance in complying with new, amended or longstanding solid waste management regulations or any type of environmental compliance, permitting or enforcement issues, including the threat of a potential environmental criminal prosecution, please feel free to contact Attorney Murphy or Attorney Timothy Lambrecht of the Wladis Law Firm. Mr. Murphy previously served as a senior trial attorney with the U. S. Department of Justice Environmental Crimes Section and regularly represents clients in defending against alleged criminal violations of federal, state and local environmental laws.

Picture: convergencetraining.com

 

Kevin Murphy

Kevin C. Murphy concentrates his practice in the areas of environmental compliance and litigation; environmental and white-collar criminal defense, and complex litigation matters. Mr. Murphy is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law and a former senior trial attorney with both the Kings County (NY) District Attorney’s office and the U.S. Department of Justice Environmental Crimes Section in Washington, D.C. He previously taught a seminar on environmental criminal enforcement at the Syracuse University School of Law and has been listed in The Best Lawyers in America.

More Posts - Website

“Universal Wastes”

To Avoid Penalties Ensure they are Handled Correctly

To streamline environmental regulations for wastes generated by numerous sources in relatively small quantities, USEPA issued the Universal Waste Rule in 1995. This rule is designed to reduce the amount of hazardous waste in the municipal solid waste stream, to encourage the recycling and proper disposal of some common hazardous wastes and to reduce the regulatory burden on generators.

The New York Universal Waste Rule (UWR), 6 NYCRR Part 374-3, provides an alternate method for managing certain common types of hazardous wastes that otherwise would be subject to all applicable requirements of New York’s hazardous waste rules found at 6 NYCRR Parts 370 through 374 and 376. Handlers may choose to manage eligible wastes under the UWR, or under ordinary hazardous waste regulations.

In New York State the following hazardous wastes may be managed as Universal Waste (UW):

  1. Batteries, including lead/acid, lead, nickel-cadmium, silver, lithium or mercury.
  2. Certain pesticides that would otherwise be a hazardous waste.
  3. Thermostats and other mercury-containing equipment (MCE).
  4. Hazardous Lamps

Universal wastes are generated not only in the industrial settings usually associated with hazardous wastes, but also in a wide variety of other settings, including households, schools, office buildings, and medical facilities. Although handlers of universal wastes must meet less stringent standards for storing, transporting, and collecting wastes, the wastes must comply with full hazardous waste requirements for final recycling, treatment, or disposal. This approach helps to remove these wastes from municipal landfills and incinerators, providing stronger safeguards for public health and the environment.

Universal Waste Generators. Requirements include packaging in a way to minimize breakage; immediately cleaning up any leaks or spills; and properly labeling containers.

Universal Waste Transporters. Requirements include meeting applicable DOT standards; complying with record keeping and reporting requirements; and complying with applicable requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 364 if transporting more than 500 lbs. of total universal waste in any shipment. Common carriers can transport up to 500 lbs. of universal waste in any shipment.

 Destination Facilities. Destination facilities must comply with all applicable requirements of 6 NYCRR Parts 370 through 374-3 and 376, including notification of hazardous waste activity and obtaining a Part 373 (hazardous waste) permit, if applicable.

Answers to Common Questions

  1. How do I know if my lamps are hazardous?
    Because of their mercury content, most fluorescent lamps in current use are considered hazardous wastes when taken out of service for disposal. Other lamps that are commonly classified as hazardous waste due to the presence of mercury or lead include high-intensity discharge (HID), neon, mercury vapor, high pressure sodium, and metal halide lamps. If you want to know for sure, you can have them analyzed by a laboratory test called the “Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP).” Most major manufacturers are now producing a line of fluorescent lamps which they claim are non-hazardous low-mercury or “green end cap” lamps. When these bulbs are taken out of service, manufacturer’s data may be used to help determine if they are a hazardous waste.
  2. How do I handle low-mercury fluorescent lamps?
    Under Chapter 145, Laws of 2004, “Mercury-Added Consumer Products Law,” even low-mercury (green end cap) lamps are subject to certain management standards. Under this law, defined Small Businesses may discard of up to fifteen low-mercury lamps per calendar month. If the non-hazardous lamps are commingled with universal waste lamps, all of the waste is regulated as universal waste. The Department strongly encourages the recycling of any lamps containing mercury.
  3. Now that the Universal Waste Rule is available for hazardous waste lamps, must I use it?
    No, handlers of hazardous waste lamps may choose between traditional hazardous waste regulations and Universal Waste Rule standards. However, flip-flopping between the two sets to avoid meeting requirements of one or both regulations is not allowed. For example, both management scenarios include storage time limits. Flip-flopping between regulations will not extend storage time.

A Universal Waste Handler does one or more of the following: generates, receives, stores, accumulates, and/or sends Universal Waste. A Universal Waste Destination Facility treats, disposes of, or recycles Universal Waste. A Universal Waste Transporter is involved in the transportation of Universal Waste.

 

Kevin C. Murphy is a member of the Wladis Law Firm, P.C., located in Syracuse, New York. If you or your municipality operates a mulch processing facility or any other waste management facilities and have questions or need assistance in complying with new, amended or longstanding solid waste management regulations or any type of environmental compliance, permitting or enforcement issues, including the threat of a potential environmental criminal prosecution, please feel free to contact Attorney Murphy or Attorney Timothy Lambrecht of the Wladis Law Firm. Mr. Murphy previously served as a senior trial attorney with the U. S. Department of Justice Environmental Crimes Section and regularly represents clients in defending against alleged criminal violations of federal, state and local environmental laws.

Picture: convergencetraining.com

 

Kevin Murphy

Kevin C. Murphy concentrates his practice in the areas of environmental compliance and litigation; environmental and white-collar criminal defense, and complex litigation matters. Mr. Murphy is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law and a former senior trial attorney with both the Kings County (NY) District Attorney’s office and the U.S. Department of Justice Environmental Crimes Section in Washington, D.C. He previously taught a seminar on environmental criminal enforcement at the Syracuse University School of Law and has been listed in The Best Lawyers in America.

More Posts - Website

NYSDEC Issues Enforcement Discretion Letter Delaying the Implementation of Select Portions of the updated and revised Solid Waste Management Rules that took effect in 2017

 Waste-Management

A comprehensive revision to New York State’s solid waste regulations took effect on November 4, 2017.

On March 1, 2018, the NYSDEC formally issued an enforcement discretion letter that effectively rolls back the implementation of the new rules in four (4) specifically designated areas. The delay in enforcement will expire on May 3, 2019 or earlier, if amendment to the new rules are promulgated before that date.

The four areas of delayed enforcement involve:

1.   Storage Requirements for Regulated Medical Waste (RMW);

2.   Materials used in cement, concrete and asphalt pavement;

 3.   Waste tires used to secure tarpaulins on farms; and

 4.   Construction and demolition facility fill material sampling requirements

The components of the letter are as follows:

  1. Materials used in cement, concrete and asphalt pavement: The Department is utilizing its enforcement discretion to maximize the opportunities for recycling of concrete and asphalt by expanding the allowed storage of concrete and asphalt prior to reuse when the materials are under the control of their generator or the person responsible for the generation, such as a contractor. This directive also allows these readily recyclable materials to be transported without the need for a Part 364 waste transporter registration or permit. The utilization of enforcement discretion with respect to these materials will increase the opportunities for recycling and reduce the chance that readily recyclable materials will be disposed of before recycling opportunities are available.
  2. Waste tires used to secure tarpaulins on farms: This enforcement discretion directive allows more time for the Department to work with the regulated community to find solutions to problems associated with the use of tires at farms without negatively impacting the farms.
  3. Construction and demolition facility fill material sampling requirements: The transition requirements of the Part 360 Series would negatively impact some facilities that renewed or modified their permits before the deadline of May 3, 2019 by requiring sampling of residues and fill material which other facilities were not required to perform. This creates a situation where facilities that want to modify their permits early will not do so because the increased sampling costs are not borne by their competitors, creating an unbalanced marketplace. This directive corrects that potential imbalance by setting a standard implementation point when all facilities must begin sampling of these materials.
  4. Storage Requirements for Regulated Medical Waste (RMW): Containers for RMW in patient care areas should not be required to be removed for disposal before they are either full or begin to generate odors. The Part 360 Series sets a time limit for these containers in patient care areas that is problematic, especially for small generators such as dental offices. The department will exercise its enforcement discretion to allow in most cases the containers to be filled completely before they must be removed for disposal.

A link to the letter can be found at http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/81768.html.

Kevin C. Murphy is a member of the Wladis Law Firm, P.C., located in Syracuse, New York. If you or your municipality operates a mulch processing facility or any other waste management facilities and have questions or need assistance in complying with new, amended or longstanding solid waste management regulations or any type of environmental compliance, permitting or enforcement issues, including the threat of a potential environmental criminal prosecution, please feel free to contact Attorney Murphy or Attorney Timothy Lambrecht of the Wladis Law Firm. Mr. Murphy previously served as a senior trial attorney with the U. S. Department of Justice Environmental Crimes Section and regularly represents clients in defending against alleged criminal violations of federal, state and local environmental laws.

 

Picture: nationalyouthcouncil.org

 

 

Kevin Murphy

Kevin C. Murphy concentrates his practice in the areas of environmental compliance and litigation; environmental and white-collar criminal defense, and complex litigation matters. Mr. Murphy is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law and a former senior trial attorney with both the Kings County (NY) District Attorney’s office and the U.S. Department of Justice Environmental Crimes Section in Washington, D.C. He previously taught a seminar on environmental criminal enforcement at the Syracuse University School of Law and has been listed in The Best Lawyers in America.

More Posts - Website

Environmental Enforcement in 2017

Mulch

Is Your Mulch Processing Facility in Compliance with the Law?

New Regulations took Effect on November 4, 2017

Effective November 4, 2017, Mulch Processing Facilities in the state of New York are subject to regulation under the state’s revised and updated Solid Waste Management Facilities rules. Mulch Processing Facilities create a product derived from tree debris, yard trimmings, and other suitable woody material, which is intended for use on soil surfaces to prevent the growth of weeds and minimize erosion. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) is regulating the production and storage of mulch in order to reduce environmental impacts including dust, odor, adverse water quality, and fires.

A Mulch Processing Facility is defined as a facility that processes yard trimmings (other than grass clippings), tree debris, and wood debris into mulch. On December 28, 2017, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation announced the availability of a new guidance document intended to assist the owners and operators of mulch processing facilities.

The following are not regulated as a Mulch Processing Facility, but are subject to separate and distinct regulation under the NYSDEC’s full set of Solid Waste Management Facilities codes and regulations:

  •  the processing of construction and demolition (C&D) debris into mulch;
  •  a facility for combustion or thermal treatment; and
  •  a facility that composts yard trimmings.

For purposes of clarification, unlike the processing of mulch, composting is the aerobic, thermophilic decomposition of organic waste to produce a stable, humus‐like soil amendment used as a source of nutrients, organic matter, liming value, etc.

 Regulatory Overview

Mulch Processing Facilities are regulated under one of three different ‘tiers’ based on the total quantity of material on site at any given time, including both incoming material as well as processed material. The three regulatory tiers consist of exempt facilities and those that need to either be registered or permitted. See the chart below for a breakdown of the three regulatory categories.

In addition to the types and quantities of materials accepted, facilities will be held to one or more of the following:

  •  pile size and separation distance restrictions;
  •  contaminant preclusion and removal;
  •  the marketing and movement of their product;
  •  storage restrictions and time frames;
  • temperature monitoring and pile restacking (See Page 8);
  •  the development of run‐on and run‐off plans; and
  •  buffer zones from properties and water resources.

Adulterated or Contaminated Materials

Mulch Processing Facilities can accept, process, and store the following materials:

  •  yard trimmings (other than grass clippings);
  • tree debris including tree and shrub parts, including branches, stumps, and trunks, as well as other similar woody vegetation;
  • wood debris including unadulterated wood pallets and unadulterated wood that originates from wood product manufacturing or other similar sources; and
  • finished mulch products generated elsewhere.

Mulch Processing Facilities are not permitted to accept, process, or store the following materials:

  •  construction and demolition (C&D) debris; and
  • adulterated or contaminated wood.

Spotting contamination in a waste source or finished product pile can be challenging. Contamination can range from unwanted additions to the pile such as rocks and plastic, to adulterated or contaminated wood products. Physical contaminants can damage the processing equipment, and lead to a low-quality product. Adulterated or contaminated wood can pose a significant health risk when exposed to humans, wildlife, and the environment.

Types of adulterated or contaminated wood:

  • adhesives and paint;
  • creosote‐treated wood;
  • CCA‐treated wood;
  • asbestos‐contaminated material; and
  • other pesticide or pressure treated lumber.

 

CCA Treated Lumber

CCA‐treated lumber

often has a visibly greenish hue

 

 

Creosote

 

Creosote‐treated lumber is found frequently in railroad ties and marine structures

 

 

 

Small Contaminates

 

Small contaminants

from mulch

 

 

Mulch tiers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Types of physical contamination

  •  plastics
  • C&D debris
  • rocks, stones
  • garbage, strings and rope; and
  • materials that will readily compost and generate heat.

Odor Issues

When managed properly, and only exposed to aerobic conditions, mulch piles should not produce objectionable odors. Facilities must be mindful of neighbors – odor inspections should be conducted along the perimeter of the facility, recorded, and any odor complaints need to be addressed. If necessary, the use of odor neutralizing sprays can be implemented. However, it is important to note that objectionable odors from a mulch pile may be indicative of other issues. If piles become too large, hot, or wet, they may undergo anaerobic decomposition, and thus emit odors. For double ground mulch, keeping these piles as a coarse grind while they “age” until they are closer to sale can minimize odor risks. Turning or restacking piles can also help to prevent odors (see: Fire Risk and Safety section) and should be done under wind conditions that minimize offsite impacts.

Pile Size and Storage Limitations

Pile size limitations in Part 361‐4 are based on the type of grind the material has been through as well as the location of the facility.

Piles must be triangular in cross‐section and sized to minimize anaerobic conditions within the pile, which will limit odor impacts as well as reduce the risk of fires. Note: All piles must be at least 10 feet apart. Standing water on the storage area must be minimized.

Recordkeeping and Reporting

All facilities must keep records of daily operations and must report annually to DEC by March 1st of each year.

Site Design Criteria

Mulch Processing Facilities must employ best management practices appropriate to their operation to restrict the amount of run‐on and

run‐off generated on the site. Facilities must also adhere to specified buffer zones between property, water features, and all materials (including both processing and storage, listed below).

Pollution Prevention

Mulch processing sites must take care to prevent water pollution resulting from their processing activities. Because water both entering and exiting the site have the potential to bring in and off contaminants, all registered and permitted facilities must have a written run‐on and run‐off plan that is approved by DEC.

The water sources listed above can contain many different contaminants:

  • BOD/COD
  • Nutrients
  • Turbidity

Fire Risk and Safety

Tree debris and wood debris are highly combustible and there are many ways a mulch pile could catch fire, either spontaneously or through human action. These fires are difficult to extinguish and have a high risk of spreading to nearby piles and structures. It is important for facilities to have a plan in place and work with their local fire departments to ensure preparedness in case of a fire emergency (including planning for a reliable water supply).

Myth: Driving heavy machinery on mulch piles to process them for a better product, compress them for added space, and reach the tops of piles are part of normal operation.

Compressing a mulch pile (making it denser) is known to cause spontaneous fires. When the pile is compressed, aeration is stopped, and the pile becomes anaerobic and begins to ‘cook.’ Temperatures can easily reach unsafe levels.

When oxygen/air is introduced suddenly into a hot, anaerobic pile, flash fires can occur. Keep the piles loose!

 

Kevin C. Murphy is a member of the Wladis Law Firm, P.C., located in Syracuse, New York. If you or your municipality operates a mulch processing facility or any other waste management facilities and have questions or need assistance in complying with new, amended or longstanding solid waste management regulations or any type of environmental compliance, permitting or enforcement issues, including the threat of a potential environmental criminal prosecution, please feel free to contact Attorney Murphy or Attorney Timothy Lambrecht of the Wladis Law Firm. Mr. Murphy previously served as a senior trial attorney with the U. S. Department of Justice Environmental Crimes Section and regularly represents clients in defending against alleged criminal violations of federal, state and local environmental laws.

 

Pictures:

screenmachine.com

dec.ny.gov

 

 

 

 

Kevin Murphy

Kevin C. Murphy concentrates his practice in the areas of environmental compliance and litigation; environmental and white-collar criminal defense, and complex litigation matters. Mr. Murphy is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law and a former senior trial attorney with both the Kings County (NY) District Attorney’s office and the U.S. Department of Justice Environmental Crimes Section in Washington, D.C. He previously taught a seminar on environmental criminal enforcement at the Syracuse University School of Law and has been listed in The Best Lawyers in America.

More Posts - Website

Environmental Criminal Enforcement Update

Lockport, NY Realtor Pleads Guilty To Violating Lead-Based Paint Disclosure Rules

 This first case is an appropriate follow-up to my August 30, 2017 blog post, which discussed EPA’s Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule. On September 7, 2017, Maureen S. Walck, of Lockport, NY, pleaded guilty to failure to provide a lead paint hazard warning notice. The charge carries a maximum sentence of one year in prison and a fine of $100,000.

The defendant, a real estate broker with RealtyUSA, executed a contract on January 15, 2014, with the owner of a residence in Lockport, NY. The residence was built in approximately 1900, and the owner was aware that lead-based paint hazards were present. The owner informed Walck of the hazards and showed a copy of the lead-based paint inspection reports to the defendant.

On January 25, 2014, a prospective buyer made an offer to purchase the residence. As part of the sales contract, a lead-based paint rider and disclosure form was included. After an inspection of the residence, and after reviewing the lead-based paint records, the prospective buyer cancelled the sales contract.

On February 6, 2014, a second prospective buyer made an offer to purchase the residence. Again as part of the sales contract, another lead-based paint rider was included. However, unlike the rider with the first prospective buyers, Walck indicated that the seller had no knowledge of lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards at the residence and that there were no records pertaining to lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards for the residence. The second prospective buyers purchased the residence and closed on the residence on April 11, 2014.

In September 2015, the new owners learned that their child was diagnosed with lead poisoning.

The investigation was conducted by EPA’s Criminal Investigation Division, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General, Criminal Investigations Division. Sentencing is scheduled for December 11, 2017.

 

St. Lawrence County Man Pleads Guilty to Clean Water Act Crimes

 

On September 7, 2017, Acting United States Attorney Jaquith announced Michael J. Ward, age 54, of Gouverneur, New York, pled guilty, in Binghamton federal court, to three felony counts of violating the Clean Water Act.

In pleading guilty, Ward admitted that between January 2013 and September 2015, while employed as the Technical Director in charge of environmental compliance at the APC Paper Group paper mill in Norfolk, New York, he caused the paper mill to violate its Clean Water Act permit by discharging wastewater containing excessive levels of biochemical oxygen demand (“BOD”) into the Raquette River. BOD is the amount of dissolved oxygen necessary for microorganisms in the water to break down organic material. BOD levels also provide an index for measuring the effect discharged wastewater will have on the body of fresh water receiving it. In this case, the paper mill’s Clean Water Act permit restricted the amount of BOD that could be discharged through wastewater. Ward admitted in court today that he was responsible for monitoring, calculating, and reporting the paper mill’s compliance with its Clean Water Act permit. He further admitted that he hid and falsified data regarding the BOD levels in the mill’s wastewater discharges, thus allowing the mill to violate its Clean Water Act permit on a regular basis. Additionally, he repeatedly falsified monthly reports to the DEC to hide the continuing Clean Water Act violations. The defendant’s illegal conduct was discovered after he was fired by APC Paper Group for unrelated reasons in the fall of 2015.

The charges carry a maximum sentence of up to 3 years in prison, a fine of up to $800,000, and a term of supervised release of up to 1 year. Ward will be sentenced in federal court in Binghamton on January 26, 2018 by Senior United States District Judge Thomas J. McAvoy.

This case was investigated by EPA’s Criminal Investigation Division, and the New York State DEC, Division of Law Enforcement and Bureau of Environmental Crimes Investigation Unit (BECI). The case is being prosecuted by DOJ’s Assistant U.S. Attorney.

 

Cleveland, Ohio Man Sentenced to Nearly Three Years in Prison for Illegal Demolition of Former Factory

 On September 21, 2017, William S. Jackson, age 47, was sentenced to 33 months in prison and ordered to pay $7.8 million in restitution. Jackson was sentenced for violating the Clean Air Act by failing to remove asbestos prior to demolishing a former factory in Cleveland, law enforcement officials said.

Christopher Gattarello leased the former National Acme facility at 170 East 131st Street in Cleveland in June 2011. The 570,000 square-foot facility was built in 1917 and was used for manufacturing for nearly a century. It is located near many homes and a school. In July 2011, a company estimated removing asbestos from the facility would cost $1.5 million.

Asbestos

 

Defendant Jackson operated a Cleveland building demolition company. In July 2012, he submitted a notice of demolition with the Cleveland Division of Air Quality stating there was no asbestos in the National Acme facility. About 10 days later, the CDAQ rejected Jackson’s notice because it was incomplete and stated demolition “may not begin” until a proper notice was submitted and approved. About 10 days after that, on July 21, 2012, Jackson began demolition at the owner’s direction.

 

Asbestos fibers were released into the environment during demolition. Debris accumulated outside the facility from demolition and asbestos in the piles were exposed to the wind and elements.

 

The owner was sentenced to nearly five years in prison for his crimes earlier this year.

 

“The defendants in this case put unsuspecting workers at great risk and threatened the health and safety of the community when they failed to follow proper procedures for removing asbestos,” said Scot Adair, Acting Special Agent in Charge of EPA’s criminal enforcement program in Ohio. “This case demonstrates that EPA and its law enforcement partners will prosecute those who willingly break environmental laws in an attempt to cut costs.”

 

The case was investigated by EPA’s Criminal Investigation Division, the State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service.  The case is being prosecuted by DOJ’s Assistant U.S. Attorneys.

Illegal Disposal of Abandoned Automotive Repair Shop – Chautauqua County, NY

On October 23, 2017, NYSDEC ECO Jerry Kinney completed an investigation into the illegal disposal of a commercial business located at 2799 State Route 20 in the town of Sheridan. The automotive garage had been in poor condition for several years and the owner of the building decided to borrow a friend’s excavator and dig a large hole in an attempt to demolish and bury the building. Nearly half the demolished building was placed in the hole prior to ECO Kinney receiving an anonymous complaint. After speaking with the property owner, ECO Kinney determined that asbestos abatement was not completed as required for all commercial demolitions. The waste needed to be legally disposed of at a regulated facility and not buried on site. The owner was cited for illegal disposal of solid waste, returnable to the Town of Sheridan Court.

Auto Repair Shop

 

 

 

Kevin C. Murphy is a member of the Wladis Law Firm, P.C., located in Syracuse, New York. Should you be confronted with any type of environmental compliance, permitting or enforcement issues, including the threat of a potential environmental criminal prosecution, please feel free to contact Attorney Murphy or Attorney Timothy Lambrecht of the Wladis Law Firm. Mr. Murphy previously served as a senior trial attorney with the U. S. Department of Justice Environmental Crimes Section and regularly represents clients in defending against alleged criminal violations of federal, state and local environmental laws.

 

Kevin Murphy

Kevin C. Murphy concentrates his practice in the areas of environmental compliance and litigation; environmental and white-collar criminal defense, and complex litigation matters. Mr. Murphy is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law and a former senior trial attorney with both the Kings County (NY) District Attorney’s office and the U.S. Department of Justice Environmental Crimes Section in Washington, D.C. He previously taught a seminar on environmental criminal enforcement at the Syracuse University School of Law and has been listed in The Best Lawyers in America.

More Posts - Website

The USEPA Lead Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Program – the RRP Rule

Lead Based Paint

To ensure that property owners and occupants are able to act quickly to preserve their homes and property in the wake of disasters, the RRP rule includes an emergency provision exempting firms from certain requirements.

EPA’s Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule (RRP Rule) requires that firms performing renovation, repair, and painting projects that disturb lead-based paint in homes, child care facilities and pre-schools built before 1978 have their firm certified by EPA (or an EPA authorized state), use certified renovators who are trained by EPA-approved training providers and follow lead-safe work practices.

This is the first of a number of blog posts that will, over time, address lead paint and lead paint renovation issues. This post starts with the basics of the USEPA Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule based on USEPA’s responses to frequently asked questions about the Rule.

 Question: What is lead?

Answer:

Lead is a toxic metal that was used for many years in products found in and around our homes. Lead also can be emitted into the air from motor vehicles and industrial sources, and lead can enter drinking water from plumbing materials.  Lead-based paint is present in many homes built before 1978.

The federal government banned the use of lead-based paint in housing in 1978. To learn more about lead, visit www.epa.gov/lead.

Question: Where is lead found?

Answer:

Many homes built before 1978 have lead-based paint. In general, the older your home, the more likely it has lead-based paint. Soil around a home can contain lead from sources like deteriorated exterior paint, past use of leaded gas in cars, or from past renovation activities. Household dust can pick up lead from deteriorating lead-based paint, from past renovation projects, or from soil tracked into a home. If you work with lead, you could bring it home on your hands or clothes. It is important to shower and change clothes before going home. Launder your work clothes separately from the rest of your family’s clothes. To learn more about sources of lead, visit http://www2.epa.gov/lead/learn-about-lead#found.

Question: I thought lead-based paint had been phased out.  How many homes still contain lead-based paint?

 Answer:

HUD’s National Survey of lead and Allergens in Housing estimated that 38 million permanently occupied housing units (40% of all housing units) in the United States contain some lead-based paint that was applied before the residential use of lead-based paint was banned in 1978. “Housing units” include single-family homes, manufactured housing, and multi-unit dwellings like apartments. Vacant housing, group quarters (e.g., prisons, hospitals, and dormitories), hotels, motels, and other short-term housing, military bases, and housing where children are not permitted to live (e.g., housing designated exclusively for the elderly and those with zero-bedroom units) are not included in this number. More information on these statistics is available from HUD.

Question: What are some of the health effects of lead?

Answer:

Lead is known to cause a range of health effects, from behavioral problems and learning disabilities, to seizures and death. Children six years old and under are most at risk from exposure lead-based paint because they crawl on the floor and they put their hands and other items which can have lead-based paint dust on them into their mouths. Because their bodies are still growing, children tend to absorb more lead than adults.

Children exposed to lead can suffer from:

  • Lowered IQ
  • Damage to the brain and nervous system
  • Learning and behavioral difficulties
  • Slowed growth
  • Hearing problems
  • Headaches

Adults can suffer from:

  • Reproductive problems (in both men and women)
  • High blood pressure and hypertension
  • Nerve disorders
  • Memory and concentration problems
  • Muscle and joint pain

To learn more about health effects of lead, visit http://www.epa.gov/lead/learn-about-lead.html#effects.

 

General Information about the Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP) Rule

Question: What is the purpose of the RRP Rule?

Answer:

The purpose of the RRP Rule is to minimize exposure from lead-based paint dust during renovation, repair, or painting activities. This is a key effort in reducing the prevalence of childhood lead poisoning, particularly lead poisoning caused by housing contaminated by renovation activities. This will also minimize exposure to older children and adults who are also adversely impacted by lead-based paint dust exposure. Lead paint was used in more than 38 million homes prior to its ban for residential use in 1978. This paint can form toxic dust when it is disturbed during normal home repair work. EPA’s Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) program is designed to reduce lead contamination by training contractors in relatively simple lead-safe work practices, and certifying contractors to make sure that they follow lead-safe work practices.  We also want consumers to choose firms that are certified.  Given that lead poisoning can cause a wide range of physical, intellectual, emotional, and behavioral issues with societal and financial impacts, this program is prevention-based, cost-effective, and a long-term bargain.

Question: What does the RRP Rule require?

Answer:

The RRP Rule requires that renovators are trained in the use of lead safe work practices, that renovators and firms be certified, that providers of renovation training be accredited, and that renovators follow specific work practice standards. Additional information on this rule can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/lead/renovation-repair-and-painting-program.

Question: Who is covered by the RRP Rule?

Answer:

The rule applies to all firms and individuals who are paid to perform renovation, repair, and painting projects that disturb paint in pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities. This includes home improvement contractors, maintenance workers, painters and other specialty trades.

Question: Is it a violation of the RRP Rule for a homeowner to hire a firm that is not certified?

Answer:

The RRP rule does not impose requirements on homeowners, unless they are performing renovations in rental space. However, the hired firm would be in violation of the RRP Rule if it was uncertified and performing a covered renovation.

 

Kevin C. Murphy is a member of the Wladis Law Firm, P.C., located in Syracuse, New York. Should you be confronted with lead paint or lead paint renovation issues, please feel free to contact Attorney Murphy or Attorney Timothy Lambrecht of the Wladis Law Firm to determine if we can be of assistance to you.

Picture:  www.ssiweb.com

Kevin Murphy

Kevin C. Murphy concentrates his practice in the areas of environmental compliance and litigation; environmental and white-collar criminal defense, and complex litigation matters. Mr. Murphy is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law and a former senior trial attorney with both the Kings County (NY) District Attorney’s office and the U.S. Department of Justice Environmental Crimes Section in Washington, D.C. He previously taught a seminar on environmental criminal enforcement at the Syracuse University School of Law and has been listed in The Best Lawyers in America.

More Posts - Website

The Time to Protect Your Computer Systems is Now Before Your System is Breached or Falls Prey to a Phishing Attack

Hackers

In the past months, damaging ransomware attacks have swept across the globe and infected tens of thousands of computers. The hackers transmitted the ransomware via a phishing e-mail, and then, once the user clicked the bait, the hackers used methods thought to have been developed by the United States National Security Agency, and locked businesses out of their systems. The ransomware impacted businesses both large and small, notably including multiple hospitals in Great Britain, forcing them to turn patients away, FedEx, the Russian Interior Ministry and a large Spanish telecommunications company. In the United States, law firms also have been targeted.

In the wake of the attack, affected businesses must focus on damage control and clean-up. Unaffected businesses also need to react and take steps to protect themselves from becoming a victim of not only the next round of large-scale attacks but smaller attacks and phishing efforts that are on-going all the time. Accordingly, here are five things that all businesses can and should do.

  1. Install All Patches and Upgrades to Systems When Issued. In the case of the most recent global ransomware attack, Microsoft had released a patch weeks before the attack hit. Installing the patch would have protected systems by not permitting the ransomware to take hold.
  2. Back-Up All Vital Data on a Continuous Basis. This is of particular importance in ransomware attacks. Ransomware encrypts a victim’s data and will only provide a key for access upon the payment of ransom. The payment of a ransom, however, may be unnecessary when up-to-date backups are available.
  3. Employee Training. Employees should be trained on a regular basis on how to identify phishing e-mails and how to avoid cyber-attacks.
  4. Purchase and/or Examine Cyber Security Insurance Policy for Compliance. If your business currently has a cyber security insurance policy, ensure that the policy adequately covers your needs and ensure that your business meets the security requirements attested to in such policy. Not meeting the insurer’s security requirements may make your insurance worthless. If you do not have insurance, consider whether you should secure insurance.
  5. Perform a Risk Assessment and Develop a Response Plan. Assessing current systems will help to identify vulnerabilities that can be addressed proactively. For health care providers, HIPAA requires that covered entities perform a “risk analysis” to identify risks and security vulnerabilities and implement security measures that are sufficient to reduce such risks and vulnerabilities. Lack of up-to-date risk analysis and security failures have led to fines in the hundreds of thousand dollars. Actual breaches have resulted in multi-million dollar fines and of course, all the costs required to be incurred to correct or address the breach. Further, the assessment or analysis will assist with the development and implementation of a Security Incident Response Plan that is designed to ensure expedient and appropriate responses to cyber-attacks and to mitigate damage whenever possible.

Kevin C. Murphy is a member of the Wladis Law Firm, P.C., located in Syracuse, New York. Should you be confronted with data security or data breach issues, please feel free to contact Attorney Murphy or Attorney Timothy Lambrecht of the Wladis Law Firm to determine if we can be of assistance to you.

Photo: www.cdn.images.express.co.uk

Kevin Murphy

Kevin C. Murphy concentrates his practice in the areas of environmental compliance and litigation; environmental and white-collar criminal defense, and complex litigation matters. Mr. Murphy is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law and a former senior trial attorney with both the Kings County (NY) District Attorney’s office and the U.S. Department of Justice Environmental Crimes Section in Washington, D.C. He previously taught a seminar on environmental criminal enforcement at the Syracuse University School of Law and has been listed in The Best Lawyers in America.

More Posts - Website

Environmental Enforcement in 2017

Lake3

The Trump Administration has proposed the termination of many Obama administration environmental programs and initiatives and drastic cutbacks to the budget of the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

In response, state of New York Attorney General Schneiderman has stated, “President Trump’s budget cuts would cause untold – and perhaps irreparable – damage to New York’s rivers, lakes, and drinking water. Even before these massive cuts, EPA represents just two-tenths of one percent of the federal budget — yet it’s responsible for protecting our environment and public health. As I’ve made clear: if the Trump administration won’t meet its legal obligation to ensure basic access to a clean, safe, and healthy environment, I won’t hesitate to act to protect New Yorkers.”

Without knowing what will, in fact, happen, set out below is a summary of the most current data on the enforcement initiatives that were undertaken at the federal level nationwide and by one component of the state of New York’s enforcement agencies.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency reported the following results for fiscal year 2016:

  • More than $13.7 billion in investments by companies in actions and equipment to control pollution. In addition, a case against Volkswagen lodged in June and entered just after the end of fiscal year 2015 adds up to $14.7 billion to remedy Clean Air Act violations.
  • More than $1 billion in commitments from responsible parties to clean up Superfund sites.
  • $6 billion in combined federal administrative, civil judicial penalties and criminal fines.
  • 93 combined years of incarceration for sentenced defendants.
  • $31.6 million for supplemental environmental projects that provide direct benefits to local communities across the country.

Included in the above totals were the following individual cases or initiatives:

  • Enbridge, which owns and operates one of the world’s largest oil pipeline systems, is spending at least $110 million on implementing a series of state-of-the-art leak detection and monitoring measures to prevent spills, improve operations and protect communities across nearly 2,000 miles of its pipeline system in the Great Lakes region. Enbridge is also paying $62 million in penalties for oil spills in Michigan and Illinois in 2010.
  • Sears will implement a comprehensive, corporate-wide program to ensure its contractors minimize lead dust from home renovation activities to protect the health of children and other vulnerable communities from exposure to lead-based paint.
  • A settlement with national grocery store chain Trader Joe’s Company will reduce potent greenhouse gas emissions from refrigeration equipment at 453 stores nationwide and sets a high bar for the grocery industry for detecting and fixing coolant leaks.
  • EPA completed more than 100 enforcement actions that require entities like renovation contractors, landlords and property managers to protect communities and public health from exposure to lead. Collectively, the settlements require violators to pay more than $1 million in penalties in addition to returning to compliance with federal lead-based paint rules.
  • EPA’s criminal program secured $775,000 in court-ordered environmental projects, generated $207 million in fines and restitution and sentenced defendants to a combined 93 years of incarceration. The two owners of Freedom Industries, a chemical processing company, were each sentenced to 30 days in prison and a $20,000 fine for a chemical spill that contaminated the Elk River and drinking water for 300,000 people and vulnerable communities in Charleston, W.Va., and in surrounding areas.

State of New York Statewide Enforcement Totals for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Law Enforcement for calendar year 2014 were as follows:

Beci Totals 4.21.17Statewide 42117

 

Kevin C. Murphy is a member of the Wladis Law Firm, P.C., located in Syracuse, New York, and is listed in The Best Lawyers in America. Should you be confronted with an environmental issue of any kind and specifically an environmental enforcement, please feel free to contact Attorney Murphy or Attorney Timothy Lambrecht of the Wladis Law Firm to determine if we can be of assistance to you.

 

Photo By: Anne Lee

Kevin Murphy

Kevin C. Murphy concentrates his practice in the areas of environmental compliance and litigation; environmental and white-collar criminal defense, and complex litigation matters. Mr. Murphy is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law and a former senior trial attorney with both the Kings County (NY) District Attorney’s office and the U.S. Department of Justice Environmental Crimes Section in Washington, D.C. He previously taught a seminar on environmental criminal enforcement at the Syracuse University School of Law and has been listed in The Best Lawyers in America.

More Posts - Website