Photo of Caleb Holmes

Caleb Holmes

Caleb’s practice focuses on complex environmental litigation and environmental compliance. Caleb has represented clients in state and federal courts and in administrative proceedings. In his environmental litigation practice, Caleb often represents corporate clients in cost recovery, contribution and government enforcement actions under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Caleb has litigated such matters through trial and has also helped clients negotiate and settle matters. He has worked with clients on cases involving a wide variety of contaminants, including but not limited to PCBs, PFAS, and dioxins. Caleb also has broad experience litigating complex commercial litigation, including products liability and mass tort/toxic tort matters. He has a depth of experience with all aspects of discovery, including work with experts, taking and defending depositions, motion practice, trial preparation and settlement negotiation.

Caleb provides practical advice to clients in the acquisition and disposition of businesses and assets and the re-development of brownfield sites. He works with clients to achieve compliance with state-specific voluntary cleanup programs, including Pennsylvania’s Land Recycling Program (Act 2).

Caleb counsels clients on compliance with a broad range of federal and state environmental laws, including RCRA, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and a host of other federal and state environmental laws.

In addition to his legal work, Caleb is active in various professional and civic organizations. He is currently serving as the Council’s Secretary for the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Environmental and Energy Law Section.

Contact:Read more about Caleb Holmes

From Christopher Bell of GT Houston:

The recent chemical spill emergency in West Virginia is a reminder of the importance of effective risk management and compliance programs.  It has been reported that the tanks at the West Virginia facility had not been inspected since the early 1990s.  This drives home a point well understood by Environment, Health, and Safety (“EHS”) professionals: the absence of enforcement or regulatory inspections does not mean everything is in good shape. 

This incident should encourage facilities to make sure that Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (“SPCC”) plans – whether or not strictly required – are adequate and being properly implemented, above and below ground tank storage is in good shape, and that release reporting requirements are understood and complied with.  It is also a broader cautionary tale on the importance of consistently and systematically executing effective EHS risk management to prevent incidents from happening in the first place, and being ready to rapidly respond to and mitigate the consequences of incidents that do occur. 

The level of attention that each facility devotes to managing EHS risk should be tailored to the risks that that facility poses.  One size does not fit all.  However, managers should be sure not to assume that physically or financially small facilities necessarily pose small risks.  They have to ask the question.  Nor should managers assume that just because the core business of the facility does not conjure up visions of chemical spills, that the facility does not pose a risk.  Again, they have to look out back and ask the question.  

Some key points after the break:   
Continue Reading West Virginia and the Importance of Risk Maintenance

From Marc Davies of Greenberg Traurig Philadelphia:

On January 14, 2014, EPA will unveil BAT requirements related to cooling water towers that will impact manufacturing operations across the country.  …
Continue Reading EPA’s January 2014 Section 316(b) Rulemaking to Require BAT for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Hundreds of Existing Manufacturing Facilities and Power Plants

From Kyle Johnson and Jillian Bunyan of GT Philadelphia:

Pennsylvania law has not clearly set out by when a downhill landowner must sue an upland developer for storm water flooding under either tort or statutory theories.  Last week, the Commonwealth Court decided Lake v. The Hankin Group, No. 278 C.D. 2013 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013), which offers some guidance.  In Lake, the downhill landowner, the Lakes, sued the upland developer under the Clean Streams Law, the Storm Water Management Act, and the federal Clean Water Act for damage caused to the Lakes’ property by increased storm water flow during storm events from the newly developed upland property.  At the trial level, the defendants were granted summary judgment based on the fact that they no longer possessed or controlled the upland property and thus no cause of action could exist under the Clean Streams Law.  The Lakes’ remaining claims were determined to be time-barred.Continue Reading Storm Water Flooding as a Continuing Nuisance in Pennsylvania

From Chris Bell of GT Houston:

EPA last week published a significant new use rule (“SNUR”) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”) that requires prior notification to EPA before a company may newly manufacture (including import) or process certain perfluorinated chemicals historically used in the manufacture and treatment of carpets.  78 Fed. Reg. 62443 (Oct. 22, 2013).  These activities will be considered “new uses” and cannot be engaged in until the company first submits a significant new use notice (“SNUN”), which is similar to a pre-manufacture notification (“PMN”) for new chemicals.  This SNUR, and similar ones for other chemicals that are still in the proposal stage (e.g., for brominated fire retardants), are part of EPA’s aggressive chemical regulation strategies aimed at a short list of targeted chemicals.

What is important about this SNUR is EPA’s departure from its general policy of exempting “articles” (e.g., products, components, etc.) from the scope of the SNUR.  In the thousands of SNURs promulgated by EPA over the past decades, the focus has been on the chemical itself, not the “articles” that contained the chemical.  Therefore, the manufacturing, importing or processing of articles containing the regulated chemical were typically not considered “new uses” that would trigger the SNUR’s requirements.  However, this new SNUR not only applies to the perfluorinated chemicals, but also to the carpets or carpet pieces that may contain the chemicals.  Thus, for example, a company cannot newly import carpet containing the perfluorinated chemicals unless it has first submitted a SNUN to EPA.Continue Reading EPA Promulgates TSCA Significant New Use Rule For Perfluorinated Chemicals – And Limits Its Applicability To “Articles”