Tagged: Remediation

Opinion from Eastern District of New York May Have Opened the Door to a New Defense for Potential CERCLA “Arrangers”

Opinion from Eastern District of New York May Have Opened the Door to a New Defense for Potential CERCLA “Arrangers”

In Town of Islip v. Datre, a recent decision out of the Eastern District of New York, the court adopted an approach to “arranger liability” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) that holds parties cannot be liable unless they knew that the substances they arranged for disposal were, in fact, hazardous. The Islip court’s approach represents a departure from traditional considerations of arranger liability and, if followed by future courts, may present a defense for potentially responsible parties who, though intentionally arranging for disposal of materials which ultimately lead to contamination, lacked specific knowledge that such materials contained hazardous substances. The Islip case arises out of illegal dumping of hazardous construction and demolition debris that occurred at a public park (“the park”) in Islip, New York between 2013 and 2014. Though the case involves an elaborate and bizarre dumping scheme involving, among many others, a local church, the parks department, and a number of haulers, as well as the eventual filing of criminal charges, it is sufficient for present purposes to distill the facts as follows. Relevant to the issue of arranger liability, a civil complaint filed by the Town of Islip (“the Town”) alleged that...

Turning Back the Clock: NJ Appellate Division Holds That ISRA De Minimis Quantity Exemption Still Available Following Withdrawal of NFA

Turning Back the Clock: NJ Appellate Division Holds That ISRA De Minimis Quantity Exemption Still Available Following Withdrawal of NFA

The New Jersey Appellate Division recently announced several interesting holdings regarding the New Jersey Industrial Site Recovery Act (“ISRA”), N.J.S.A. 13:1K-6, et seq. In R&K Associates, LLC v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Docket No. A-4177-14T1, the Court held that a former owner of an industrial site may apply for an exemption from the ISRA process even when the former owner has not owned the site for many years and elected to not pursue the exemption in the past. The case concerned the final decision of the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) denying a De Minimis Quantity Exemption (“DQE”) under ISRA to the former owner of the subject industrial site. ISRA is the New Jersey law which generally requires owners of industrial sites to remediate on-site environmental contamination or expressly assume responsibility for remediation prior to transferring an ownership of the site. A DQE under ISRA allows an owner of an industrial site to avoid the requirements of ISRA where only trivial amounts of hazardous substances were used on-site. The case has an extensive procedural history with three appeals and numerous DEP actions, beginning with DEP’s withdrawal of a 1997 No Further Action (“NFA”) letter to the former owner. When...

Tenth Circuit finds that Ch. 11 Bankruptcy Debtor’s Settlement of CERCLA Claims No Bar to Post-Reorganization Contribution Action Against Other PRPs

Tenth Circuit finds that Ch. 11 Bankruptcy Debtor’s Settlement of CERCLA Claims No Bar to Post-Reorganization Contribution Action Against Other PRPs

The Tenth Circuit recently ruled in Asarco, LLC v. Noranda Mining, Inc. that a mining company (“Plaintiff”) could maintain a contribution action against another mining operation (“Defendant”) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) despite the Plaintiff’s earlier representation in Bankruptcy proceedings that its fair share of liability for contamination at the site in question was $8.7 million — the amount it paid to settle the Environmental Protection Agency’s claim. The pertinent facts arose, largely, from the Plaintiff’s Chapter 11 Bankruptcy and a global settlement of all environmental claims. The global settlement, reached in 2009, resolved environmental claims at 52 different sites across 19 states, with a total cost of about $1.79 billion. Included among the myriad claims being settled was the one at issue in this case: an $8.7 million payment to address the Plaintiff’s share of liability at two related sites near Park City, Utah (“the site”). Defending the reasonableness of the settlement figure before the Bankruptcy Court, the Plaintiff maintained that $8.7 million represented its proportionate share of liability for contamination at the site. In 2013, following its Chapter 11 reorganization, the Plaintiff filed a CERCLA contribution claim against the Defendant, another potentially responsible...

Executive Order Spells Uncertainty for Pending EPA Rules

Executive Order Spells Uncertainty for Pending EPA Rules

On January 30, 2017, as promised during his campaign, President Trump signed an executive order requiring federal agencies to identify two regulations to be repealed for every new regulation that is created. The order comes on the heels of a January 20, 2017 memorandum from White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus directing agency heads to freeze new or pending regulations including those that had been finalized but not yet published in the Federal Register. The “one in, two out” rule and regulatory freeze spell uncertainty for regulations currently in the pipeline for adoption by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), including the proposed financial assurances rules for the hardrock mining industry we have previously covered here. Other impacted EPA rule proposals include a stormwater general permit designed to reduce polluted runoff from construction sites and a rule which would include vapor intrusion as a method of evaluating contamination levels at potential Superfund sites. At present, it is unclear how the administration’s actions will ultimately impact any pending EPA regulations (or those of other federal agencies). The environmental attorneys at Gibbons P.C. will be closely monitoring any further executive action impacting proposed EPA rules and report on any important developments.

Recent New Jersey Case Serves as Warning to Redevelopers of Contaminated Sites 0

Recent New Jersey Case Serves as Warning to Redevelopers of Contaminated Sites

A recent New Jersey Appellate Division case concerning spoliation of evidence in the context of a contribution action under the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act (“Spill Act”) counsels caution on the part of redevelopers of contaminated sites. The case makes clear that owners of contaminated sites must endeavor to preserve physical evidence related to the contamination as soon as litigation becomes “probable” if they hope to rely on that evidence in a future contribution action.

EPA Provides Look Into Pending Financial Assurance Regulations 0

EPA Provides Look Into Pending Financial Assurance Regulations

Recently, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or “the Agency”) shared some preliminary details regarding its impending proposal of financial assurances regulations for the hardrock mining industry. These regulations, which are still under consideration by the Agency, will likely serve as a harbinger of the financial assurances requirements EPA intends to impose on other industries, and collectively, they have the potential to have a significant financial impact on parties responsible for cleaning up contaminated properties.

Remedial Investigation Deadline Looms for New Jersey Contaminated Sites 0

Remedial Investigation Deadline Looms for New Jersey Contaminated Sites

In less than three weeks, the statutory deadline to complete a site-wide remedial investigation (“RI”) for many contaminated sites in New Jersey will pass. Any site for which an RI has not been completed will be subject to direct oversight of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”), which would come with additional costs, less control over the remediation, and other burdens for responsible parties. Accordingly, responsible parties and their Licensed Site Remediation Professionals (“LSRPs”) should do everything in their power to complete an RI by the statutory deadline: May 7, 2016.

District of New Jersey Decision Highlights Procedural and Evidentiary Complexities Unique to the State’s Environmental Litigants 0

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

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.

NJDEP Document Review Process Curtailed: More Autonomy for LSRPs 0

NJDEP Document Review Process Curtailed: More Autonomy for LSRPs

Unable to keep up with submittals from Licensed Site Remediation Professionals (LSRP) and with the resulting increase in review times, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has recently decided to defer the review of non-Response Action Outcome (RAO) documents until an RAO is submitted. This announcement comes four years into the LSRP program, which as designed, has begun to eliminate the backlog of contaminated sites awaiting attention. However, the very success of the LSRP program has created its own backlog as NJDEP finds itself falling behind in review of submittals.

Sixth Circuit Becomes Latest Federal Appeals Court to Rule That CERCLA’s Contribution and Cost Recovery Provisions Provide Mutually Exclusive Remedies to PRPs 0

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

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.