Extensive information about experience and expertise in areas of law and sectors of business and
government can be found under our Qualifications [make preceding word a link to Qualifications page],
but the “best evidence” of FryeLaw PLLC’s ability to serve our clients and solve their problems may be
in what others have said about Russell Frye and FryeLaw PLLC, as well as in the organizations that have
put their faith in us, and the successes that Russ has had for his clients. Some examples of each can be
found below.
Representative Clients
American Forest & Paper Association, Inc.
American Standard Companies
CO2 Litigation Group
Cooling Water Intake Structure Coalition
Konica Minolta Business Solutions USA
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.
Norbord Inc.
Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America
Santa Rosa, California
Sun Chemical Corporation
Comments about Russell S. Frye and FryeLaw PLLC
“Russ Frye is an extremely knowledgeable and creative environmental lawyer.”
--Jonathan Cannon, Director of Environmental Law Programs, University of Virginia, and former General
Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
“I have worked with Russ Frye as his colleague and as his client, and Russ always provided well-
informed and practical advice.”
--James R. Walpole, former Assistant General Counsel - Environment,
Sears, Roebuck & Co.
“Russell Frye is just what I look for in outside counsel: knowledgeable, pragmatic, and efficient.”
--Sharon Umhoefer, Vice President and General Counsel, Konica Minolta
Business Solutions USA
Success Stories
Proactive Response to Soil Contamination
Routine soil sampling by a residential developer, in a vacant lot near a closed manufacturing plant,
began a complex series of problems for one of Russell Frye’s clients in California. After the developer
contacted the company, suggesting that high lead and zinc levels in the soil resulted from the company’
s operations at the closed plant, Russ began an extensive investigation of past operations there,
interviewing retired employees, uncovering old maps and aerial photographs, and directing a soil and
groundwater sampling program. At the same time, recognizing that the discovery of high levels of lead
next to a residential neighborhood could result in everything from bad publicity to “toxic tort”
lawsuits, Russ convinced the client to embark on an aggressive community outreach program, enlisting
the aid of local politicians and personally contacting all of the residents near the contaminated site.
This campaign produced substantial benefits in terms of support from the local community and a better
understanding of community views on various remediation options. It later was the subject of a case
study at the annual meeting of the Air and Waste Management Association. Resisting the state
environmental agency’s initial insistence that contaminated soils be hauled away to a distant hazardous
waste landfill, Mr. Frye developed the arguments that persuaded the state agency, local government,
and the neighbors that encapsulation and, ultimately, commercial use of the property was a better
option. And when soil contamination was discovered on other, undeveloped property nearby, Russ
helped negotiate a complex arrangement where the soil was consolidated and encapsulated in
conjunction with construction of a highway across the property. These aggressive, innovative
approaches saved the client millions of dollars in remediation costs and probably avoided extensive and
costly litigation.
Challenging an EPA Interpretation Stalls Citizen Suit
After a bitter labor dispute at a steel mill, the union sought to hurt the company in any way it could.
Finding a friendly ear at the EPA regional office, the union persuaded EPA to issue an opinion that the
mill’s electric arc furnace was subject to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), contradicting a
long-standing interpretation by the state environmental agency. With this interpretation, the union
alleged in a citizen suit that the company had failed to comply with NSPS for years, seeking millions of
dollars in penalties. Called in to assist the company’s local law firm, Russ Frye dug through the
administrative record for the original promulgation of the NSPS. He developed several arguments why
the EPA Region’s interpretation was incorrect. Russ proposed that the company seek judicial review
of the interpretation. He then wrote a brief for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit that
raised sufficient doubts about the EPA interpretation to delay the union’s citizen suit for many months
and ultimately help force a very favorable settlement.
Promptly Halting Improper U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Action
A large organization of ranchers was alarmed when it heard rumors that Canadian beef was being
allowed into the United States, despite an earlier U.S. Department of Agriculture order banning imports
of cattle and beef due to the discovery of Mad Cow disease in Canada. Sure enough, they discovered
that USDA had posted a notice that essentially granted a variance from this import ban for most kinds
of Canadian beef. Russell Frye led a team that, within a few days of this discovery, prepared and filed
a complaint, motion for preliminary injunction, and application for a temporary restraining order
against USDA, supported by five expert affidavits. That same week, Russ argued for the temporary
restraining order before a federal judge in Montana, and the judge issued the order the next business
day, enjoining the importation of most kinds of beef from Canada. The case generated a great deal of
media coverage (see, e.g., Washington Post May 1, 2004 p. E1 [make preceding a link to article in
Documents and Articles]) and stimulated enquiries from Congress and the USDA’s Inspector General
about the USDA action.
Identifying and Opposing Unauthorized Claim for Attorneys Fees
Russ Frye knew it was unusual when EPA Region 8 and Department of Justice enforcement attorneys
invited the lawyer for a group of environmental activists to participate in meetings about an EPA air
enforcement action, even requesting his suggestions for questions to be asked in discovery. Russ
quickly objected to this, seeing that, among other things, the private lawyer might claim he was
entitled to attorney’s fees under the citizen suit provisions of the Clean Air Act, even though it was a
government enforcement action rather than a Clean Air Act citizen suit. Russ carefully documented his
objections and made it clear that the company did not believe this “co-enforcement” arrangement was
legal and would not be responsible for the private lawyer’s fees. He also pointed out that accepting
legal services to supplement the government’s enforcement action arguably constituted a violation of
the Anti-Deficiency Act, which prohibits agencies from using resources beyond those appropriated by
Congress. Although the government then curtailed the role of the environmental groups’ lawyer, he
still filed a substantial demand for attorney’s fees when the government enforcement action was
settled. Because Russ had laid the groundwork for distinguishing between the private lawyer’s work on
his own case and his involvement in the government enforcement action, Russ was able to object
successfully to the requested attorney’s fees at the district court level. When the environmental
groups appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, he argued the case
and obtained a favorable verdict, in what was widely reported as a precedential decision, United
States v. Stone Container Corp., 196 F.3d 1066 (1999).
Innovative Solution to Lenders’ Permitting Concerns
A large electricity and steam cogeneration plant project was in jeopardy. Funding commitments would
expire soon, and the project developers did not have a permit to construct an intake structure to
withdraw cooling water from the river – a permit that would require an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) and potentially lengthy appeals. Using groundwater for cooling was out of the
question, due to restrictions on consumptive use of a protected groundwater resource. In addition,
even if a source for the cooling water could be found, the plant would still need to be able to
discharge its wastewater, and the permit for the discharge also could trigger EIS requirements. Called
in by the developer just as the lenders were about to pull the financing for the project, Russ Frye
urged the parties to think creatively. If it would be possible to use treated effluent from the steam
host for cooling, and then return the treated effluent to the steam host for discharge under the steam
host’s wastewater discharge permit, the problems of water supply and of obtaining a discharge permit
could be avoided simultaneously. Russ guided the parties through an evaluation of the technical and
legal feasibility of this approach and negotiated the terms of this wastewater reuse with the steam
host. He then convinced the lenders that this arrangement would be a feasible backup if the intake
structure and wastewater discharge permits could not be obtained prior to operation of the
cogeneration plant. Russ also was able to convince the lenders that these permits were not needed
prior to commencement of construction on the project, having participated in litigation years earlier
that successfully challenged an EPA rule that would have required discharge permits for new sources
before they commenced construction. The lenders were satisfied, and hundreds of millions of dollars
of construction financing was released to Russ’s client.
Favorable Interpretation of MACT Regulation
A pulp mill was being asked by its state environmental agency to control emissions from methanol tanks
used in the generation of chlorine dioxide for pulp bleaching, at considerable cost. The Maximum
Available Control Technology (MACT) standards for hazardous air pollutant emissions from pulp mills
were unclear as to whether this source was regulated. At the request of the American Forest & Paper
Association, Russ Frye delved into the administrative record supporting those standards. With his
intimate knowledge of pulp mill processes, Russ was able to craft an argument from the record that EPA
had specifically considered emissions from these tanks and had chosen not to regulate them. This
argument was accepted by EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), which
issued an applicability determination that effectively foreclosed the proposed requirements for
controls on these methanol tanks.
government can be found under our Qualifications [make preceding word a link to Qualifications page],
but the “best evidence” of FryeLaw PLLC’s ability to serve our clients and solve their problems may be
in what others have said about Russell Frye and FryeLaw PLLC, as well as in the organizations that have
put their faith in us, and the successes that Russ has had for his clients. Some examples of each can be
found below.
Representative Clients
American Forest & Paper Association, Inc.
American Standard Companies
CO2 Litigation Group
Cooling Water Intake Structure Coalition
Konica Minolta Business Solutions USA
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.
Norbord Inc.
Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America
Santa Rosa, California
Sun Chemical Corporation
Comments about Russell S. Frye and FryeLaw PLLC
“Russ Frye is an extremely knowledgeable and creative environmental lawyer.”
--Jonathan Cannon, Director of Environmental Law Programs, University of Virginia, and former General
Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
“I have worked with Russ Frye as his colleague and as his client, and Russ always provided well-
informed and practical advice.”
--James R. Walpole, former Assistant General Counsel - Environment,
Sears, Roebuck & Co.
“Russell Frye is just what I look for in outside counsel: knowledgeable, pragmatic, and efficient.”
--Sharon Umhoefer, Vice President and General Counsel, Konica Minolta
Business Solutions USA
Success Stories
Proactive Response to Soil Contamination
Routine soil sampling by a residential developer, in a vacant lot near a closed manufacturing plant,
began a complex series of problems for one of Russell Frye’s clients in California. After the developer
contacted the company, suggesting that high lead and zinc levels in the soil resulted from the company’
s operations at the closed plant, Russ began an extensive investigation of past operations there,
interviewing retired employees, uncovering old maps and aerial photographs, and directing a soil and
groundwater sampling program. At the same time, recognizing that the discovery of high levels of lead
next to a residential neighborhood could result in everything from bad publicity to “toxic tort”
lawsuits, Russ convinced the client to embark on an aggressive community outreach program, enlisting
the aid of local politicians and personally contacting all of the residents near the contaminated site.
This campaign produced substantial benefits in terms of support from the local community and a better
understanding of community views on various remediation options. It later was the subject of a case
study at the annual meeting of the Air and Waste Management Association. Resisting the state
environmental agency’s initial insistence that contaminated soils be hauled away to a distant hazardous
waste landfill, Mr. Frye developed the arguments that persuaded the state agency, local government,
and the neighbors that encapsulation and, ultimately, commercial use of the property was a better
option. And when soil contamination was discovered on other, undeveloped property nearby, Russ
helped negotiate a complex arrangement where the soil was consolidated and encapsulated in
conjunction with construction of a highway across the property. These aggressive, innovative
approaches saved the client millions of dollars in remediation costs and probably avoided extensive and
costly litigation.
Challenging an EPA Interpretation Stalls Citizen Suit
After a bitter labor dispute at a steel mill, the union sought to hurt the company in any way it could.
Finding a friendly ear at the EPA regional office, the union persuaded EPA to issue an opinion that the
mill’s electric arc furnace was subject to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), contradicting a
long-standing interpretation by the state environmental agency. With this interpretation, the union
alleged in a citizen suit that the company had failed to comply with NSPS for years, seeking millions of
dollars in penalties. Called in to assist the company’s local law firm, Russ Frye dug through the
administrative record for the original promulgation of the NSPS. He developed several arguments why
the EPA Region’s interpretation was incorrect. Russ proposed that the company seek judicial review
of the interpretation. He then wrote a brief for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit that
raised sufficient doubts about the EPA interpretation to delay the union’s citizen suit for many months
and ultimately help force a very favorable settlement.
Promptly Halting Improper U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Action
A large organization of ranchers was alarmed when it heard rumors that Canadian beef was being
allowed into the United States, despite an earlier U.S. Department of Agriculture order banning imports
of cattle and beef due to the discovery of Mad Cow disease in Canada. Sure enough, they discovered
that USDA had posted a notice that essentially granted a variance from this import ban for most kinds
of Canadian beef. Russell Frye led a team that, within a few days of this discovery, prepared and filed
a complaint, motion for preliminary injunction, and application for a temporary restraining order
against USDA, supported by five expert affidavits. That same week, Russ argued for the temporary
restraining order before a federal judge in Montana, and the judge issued the order the next business
day, enjoining the importation of most kinds of beef from Canada. The case generated a great deal of
media coverage (see, e.g., Washington Post May 1, 2004 p. E1 [make preceding a link to article in
Documents and Articles]) and stimulated enquiries from Congress and the USDA’s Inspector General
about the USDA action.
Identifying and Opposing Unauthorized Claim for Attorneys Fees
Russ Frye knew it was unusual when EPA Region 8 and Department of Justice enforcement attorneys
invited the lawyer for a group of environmental activists to participate in meetings about an EPA air
enforcement action, even requesting his suggestions for questions to be asked in discovery. Russ
quickly objected to this, seeing that, among other things, the private lawyer might claim he was
entitled to attorney’s fees under the citizen suit provisions of the Clean Air Act, even though it was a
government enforcement action rather than a Clean Air Act citizen suit. Russ carefully documented his
objections and made it clear that the company did not believe this “co-enforcement” arrangement was
legal and would not be responsible for the private lawyer’s fees. He also pointed out that accepting
legal services to supplement the government’s enforcement action arguably constituted a violation of
the Anti-Deficiency Act, which prohibits agencies from using resources beyond those appropriated by
Congress. Although the government then curtailed the role of the environmental groups’ lawyer, he
still filed a substantial demand for attorney’s fees when the government enforcement action was
settled. Because Russ had laid the groundwork for distinguishing between the private lawyer’s work on
his own case and his involvement in the government enforcement action, Russ was able to object
successfully to the requested attorney’s fees at the district court level. When the environmental
groups appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, he argued the case
and obtained a favorable verdict, in what was widely reported as a precedential decision, United
States v. Stone Container Corp., 196 F.3d 1066 (1999).
Innovative Solution to Lenders’ Permitting Concerns
A large electricity and steam cogeneration plant project was in jeopardy. Funding commitments would
expire soon, and the project developers did not have a permit to construct an intake structure to
withdraw cooling water from the river – a permit that would require an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) and potentially lengthy appeals. Using groundwater for cooling was out of the
question, due to restrictions on consumptive use of a protected groundwater resource. In addition,
even if a source for the cooling water could be found, the plant would still need to be able to
discharge its wastewater, and the permit for the discharge also could trigger EIS requirements. Called
in by the developer just as the lenders were about to pull the financing for the project, Russ Frye
urged the parties to think creatively. If it would be possible to use treated effluent from the steam
host for cooling, and then return the treated effluent to the steam host for discharge under the steam
host’s wastewater discharge permit, the problems of water supply and of obtaining a discharge permit
could be avoided simultaneously. Russ guided the parties through an evaluation of the technical and
legal feasibility of this approach and negotiated the terms of this wastewater reuse with the steam
host. He then convinced the lenders that this arrangement would be a feasible backup if the intake
structure and wastewater discharge permits could not be obtained prior to operation of the
cogeneration plant. Russ also was able to convince the lenders that these permits were not needed
prior to commencement of construction on the project, having participated in litigation years earlier
that successfully challenged an EPA rule that would have required discharge permits for new sources
before they commenced construction. The lenders were satisfied, and hundreds of millions of dollars
of construction financing was released to Russ’s client.
Favorable Interpretation of MACT Regulation
A pulp mill was being asked by its state environmental agency to control emissions from methanol tanks
used in the generation of chlorine dioxide for pulp bleaching, at considerable cost. The Maximum
Available Control Technology (MACT) standards for hazardous air pollutant emissions from pulp mills
were unclear as to whether this source was regulated. At the request of the American Forest & Paper
Association, Russ Frye delved into the administrative record supporting those standards. With his
intimate knowledge of pulp mill processes, Russ was able to craft an argument from the record that EPA
had specifically considered emissions from these tanks and had chosen not to regulate them. This
argument was accepted by EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), which
issued an applicability determination that effectively foreclosed the proposed requirements for
controls on these methanol tanks.
| Track Record |
Copyright FryeLaw PLLC 2005. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED ON THIS SITE IS INTENDED TO EDUCATE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC GENERALLY AND IS NOT INTENDED TO PROVIDE SOLUTIONS TO INDIVIDUAL LEGAL PROBLEMS, NOR TO CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP. PLEASE READ OUR DISCLAIMER PAGE. |
 |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |