The Supreme Court of the United States has just unanimously ruled that administrative orders issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") under section 319 of the Clean Water Act ("CWA") are "final agency actions" subject to judicial review under the...
Superfund (CERCLA & State Superfund)
Under CERCLA, Responsible Parties Liable for Future Clean-Up Costs
In State v. Solvent Chemical Co., 10-2026-cv (2nd Cir. Dec. 19, 2011), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that Solvent Chemical Company ("Solvent") could obtain a declaratory judgment that two adjacent property owners were responsible for future costs incurred...
Revised Standards for Phase II Environmental Site Assessments
So far, in the Environmental Law Blog, we've discussed what to do before you purchase a contaminated property (see here) and what to do after you've purchased a contaminated property (see here), but there is a step that often takes place...
So, You’re Interested in Purchasing a Contaminated Property (or a Parcel Next to a Contaminated Property): An Overview of Phase I Environmental Site Assessments
We realized, while writing about the new "Continuing Obligations Standards" for contaminated properties (see here), that in order to give a comprehensive picture of what needs to be done if you're thinking about purchasing a contaminated property, we need to start at...
How to Insure You Get the Landowner Liability Protections under Superfund
New guidelines published in 2011 assist landowners in suring that they meet all the requirements - specifically the "continuing obligations" - to avail themselves of the landowner liability protections under the federal Superfund Act. Landowner liability...
Sole Shareholder of Company that Owned Contaminated Site Found Liable as a “Current Operator” under CERLCA
In Litgo New Jersey, Inc. v. Martin, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2033 (D.N.J. Jan. 7, 2011) (denying Motion for Rehearing), the sole shareholder of company (a single-purpose entity) that owned a contaminated property was found liable as a "current operator" under CERCLA...
U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Attack on CERCLA’s Constitutionality
On June 6, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States ended a decade of litigation when it denied a writ of certiorari (i.e., refused to review) a 2010 decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal which affirmed the trial court's decision deny General Electric's...
Circumstantial Evidence May Not Always Be Enough to Establish “Arranger” Liability under CERCLA.
In DVL Inc. v. General Electric Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128810 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2010), the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York clarified what constitutes proper use of circumstantial evidence to establish "arranger" liability under...
The Ninth Circuit’s decision holding a permittee is not an “Owner” for purposes of CERCLA liability rejects the Second Circuit’s test.
In City of Los Angeles v. San Pedro Boat Works, -F.3d- (9th Cir. Mar. 14, 2011), the Ninth Circuit held that the holder of a revocable permit to operate a boat works, which is a facility for repair, maintenance and rebuilding of ships and boats, is not an owner for...
U.S. District Court imposes CERCLA liability on U.S. as an arranger and an operator of a western mining operation.
In a case decided earlier this month from the U.S. District for Idaho, the Court imposed arranger and operator liability on the United States based on its permitting procedures and requirements at mining operations on federal lands. Nu-West Mining Inc. v. United...