Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert

Tagged: CERCLA

District of New Jersey Decision Highlights Procedural and Evidentiary Complexities Unique to the State’s Environmental Litigants

by

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On October 22, 2014

In Leese v. Lockheed Martin Corp., one of the New Jersey’s foremost environmental jurists, the Honorable Jerome B. Simandle, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, authored a comprehensive opinion explaining why several plaintiffs who alleged harm caused by contamination on their properties were without recourse under a number of state and federal environmental laws. In so doing, the Chief Judge highlighted the procedural and evidentiary complexities unique to environmental litigants.

Sixth Circuit Becomes Latest Federal Appeals Court to Rule That CERCLA’s Contribution and Cost Recovery Provisions Provide Mutually Exclusive Remedies to PRPs

by

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On August 20, 2014

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit became the latest federal court of appeals to weigh in on the dichotomous nature of Superfund claims made under Sections 107 and 113 in the wake of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Atlantic Research Corp., 551 U.S. 128 (2007). In Hobart Corp. v. Waste Management of Ohio, Inc., the Sixth Circuit held that Sections 107(a)(4)(B) and 113(f) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675, “provide mutually exclusive remedies,” an issue left open in Atlantic Research.

Second Circuit Holds That CERCLA’s “Act of War” Defense Shields Owners and Tenants from Cleanup Liability for Dust Created By Towers’ Destruction on 9/11

by

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On May 12, 2014

In the first decision of its kind, the Second Circuit on May 2, held that the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center were “acts of war” for purposes of the affirmative defense for such acts contained in the onerous liability provision of the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Accepting the arguments raised by Gibbons and other firms representing the owners and tenants of the buildings (and the airlines whose planes were hijacked), the Court found that even though they were not committed by uniformed military forces of a nation-state, the attacks were nevertheless acts of war for CERCLA purposes (though not necessarily in other legal contexts) because they (1) were “indistinguishable from military attack in purpose, scale, means, and effect,” (2) were recognized as acts of war by both the President and Congress, and (3) “wrested from the defendants all control over the planes and the buildings, obviated any precautions or prudent measures defendants might have taken to prevent contamination, and located sole responsibility for the event and the environmental consequences on fanatics whose acts the defendants were not bound by CERCLA to anticipate or prevent.”

Divisibility Under CERCLA

by

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On March 31, 2014

Although not expressly required under the statute, applied joint and several liability has usually been applied by courts when the government pursues cleanup against polluters under CERCLA. A party seeking to avoid joint and several liability has the burden of proving not only that divisibility of harm is possible amongst potentially responsible parties, but that a reasonable basis for such divisibility exists. Case law from federal district courts, circuit courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court makes it clear that satisfying this burden requires a very case-specific and fact intensive inquiry. Early planning and a focused strategy for how to frame the facts and theory of the case can make the difference in determining whether divisibility is both possible and reasonable.

“Removal vs. Remedial Action? – That is the Question” Second Circuit Answers “Removal” and Vacates District Court’s Grant of Dismissal on CERCLA Statute of Limitations Grounds in State of New York v. Next Millenium Realty, LLC

by

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On October 28, 2013

Environmental attorneys have long wrestled with the issue of whether particular clean-up activities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) fall under the statute of limitations for remedial actions, considered to be permanent responsive action, or for removals, considered to be interim remedial measures to address immediate threats to public health. In a governmental cost recovery action, guessing wrong can deprive a federal or state governmental entity of its ability to recover its clean up costs from Potentially Responsible Parties. In State of New York v. Next Millenium Realty, LLC, the Second Circuit vacated the District Court’s determination, holding that once an activity is instituted as a removal, it remains a removal until completion, even if it is incorporated into the final permanent remedy.

The Third Circuit Parts Ways with the Second Circuit When it Comes to Contribution Rights Under CERCLA

by

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On October 23, 2013

In Trinity Industries, Inc. v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that a party that has resolved its environmental liability only under state law may nevertheless pursue contribution from other responsible parties under the federal CERCLA statute, at least in some instances. Trinity was the owner of an industrial property from 1988 to 2000. In 2006, the State of Pennsylvania initiated an enforcement action against Trinity, which prompted the former property owner to enter a Consent Order with the State’s Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) pursuant to Pennsylvania’s Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act (“HSCA”) and Land Recycling and Environmental Remediation Standards Act (“LRA”). Under the Consent Order, Trinity agreed to fund and conduct response actions at the property, but expressly reserved its right to pursue cost recovery and contribution against other responsible parties. Subsequently, Trinity brought a contribution action against Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. (“CB&I”), also a former property owner, under § 113(f)(3)(B) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”).

Vapor Intrusion Guidance Continues to Take Form With the Release of EPA’s Final Draft Guidance

by

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On April 26, 2013

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) recently released its long-awaited final vapor intrusion draft guidance (“Final VI Guidance”). The nearly 200-page document establishes a complex framework for assessing vapor intrusion from analyzing key factors; making risk management decisions; and implementing, monitoring and terminating mitigation strategies and is intended to be used at any site that is being evaluated under CERCLA, RCRA, EPA’s brownfield grantees, or state agencies with delegated authority. The Final VI Guidance supercedes all prior EPA guidance documents addressing vapor intrusion assessment and mitigation including the 2002 Draft Vapor Intrusion Guidance, but takes into account the public comments submitted from 2002 through 2012 and the recommendations of the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

District Court Decision Provides Further Guidance on Scope of “Arranger” Liability Under Superfund

by

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On February 15, 2013

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on “arranger liability” under Superfund in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v United States continues to reverberate. The most recent manifestation is a January 31, 2013, decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina in Carolina Power & Light Co. v. Alcan Aluminum Corp. In that decision, the Court granted summary judgment to Georgia Power Co. on the basis that its sale of used transformers to the operator of the Ward Transformer Superfund Site (Site) did not amount to an “arrangement for disposal.” In examining the “fact-specific circumstances,” the Court determined that the evidence established that these transactions were sales of a “useful product” rather than ones with an intent to dispose of a hazardous substance.

A Super Step in Superfund Regulation? Time Will Tell: EPA Releases Guidance on Negotiation of RD/RA at Superfund Sites and a Revised Settlement Approach for Alternate Sites

by

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On January 14, 2013

In the controversial area of Superfund regulation, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) appears to be making steps toward more successful and more efficient negotiation of remedial design (“RD”)/remedial action (“RA”) settlements in Superfund cases. EPA recently released its Revised Policy on Managing the Duration of Remedial Design/Remedial Action Negotiations (“the Negotiation Policy”) and Transmittal of Updated Superfund Response and Settlement Approach for Sites Using the Superfund Alternative Approach (“Alternative Approach”).

Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department Adds David Freeman to the New York Office

by

Posted in Development/Redevelopment / Environmental and Green Issues

On July 16, 2012

David J. Freeman, formerly head of the Environmental Practice Group at the New York City office of Paul Hastings, has joined Gibbons P.C.’s New York office as a Director in the Real Property & Environmental Department. Mr. Freeman represents the buyers, sellers, and developers of properties in all environmental law areas including brownfields, due diligence, hazardous waste cleanups, and sustainability. He also litigates matters related to remediation, cost recovery, property damage, and exposure to toxic substances.

Connect:

About Gibbons

With 200 attorneys, Gibbons is a leading law firm in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Washington, DC, and Florida, ranked among the nation’s top 200 by The American Lawyer. More…

Subscribe

Archived Blog Posts

Categories