Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Wisconsin District Court Allocates CERCLA Liability for Past and Future Response Costs
- Missouri Court Rejects "Bright-Line" Test for Determining Statute of Limitations Under CERCLA Section 107
- Louisiana Trial Court Enjoins EPA From Enforcement of Disparate Impact Regulations Under Title VI
- D.C. Circuit Continues to Afford Deference to Technical Agency Decisions
- SCOTUS to Resolve Scope of Agency NEPA Environmental Analysis
Topics
- Environmental Justice
- Title VI
- Disparate Impact
- Massachusetts
- Evidence
- Internal Investigation
- Citizens Suit
- Georgia
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- FIFRA
- Major Questions Doctrine
- Lead Paint
- Greenwashing
- Good Faith Settlement
- Federal Facilities
- Statutory Notice
- Oil Pollution Act
- Federal Jurisdiction
- Owner Liability
- Court of Federal Claims
- Ripeness
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- Greenhouse Gas
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- National Priorities List
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Environmental Covenants
- Federal Circuit
- National Contingency Plan
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Strict Liability
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Historic Resources
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- New Mexico
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Gold King Mine
- Delaware
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- National Forest Management Act
- FERC
- United States Supreme Court
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- HSCA
- Corporate Veil
- Alter Ego
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- Property Damage
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- PCBs
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Innocent Party
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- PHMSA
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Texas
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Penalties
- Clean Streams Law
- Hearing Board
- Arranger Liability
- Sovereign Immunity
- Retroactive
- Stigma
- Damages
- Property Value
- Tax assessment
- Fair Market Value
- Storage Tank
- Energy
- Electric
- Fifth Circuit
- Indemnification
- Ninth Circuit
- Arizona
- OPRA
- Attorney-Client
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Administrative Appeals
- Taxes
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Inspection
- Residential
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- New York
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Natural Gas Act
- HAPs
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Mercury
- D.C. Circuit
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Natural Gas
- Storage
- Fifth Amendment
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Causation
- Spill Act
- NEPA
- Interior
- Tenth Circuit
- Mineral Leasing Act
- California
- Act 13
- Zoning
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Landfill
- Eminent Domain
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Illinois
- Water
- Diligent Prosecution
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Citizen Suit
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Montana
- Navigability
- Riverbed
- Seventh Circuit
- Indiana
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Green House Counsel
- EPA
- Boiler MACT
- Rulemaking
- CISWI
- Enforcement
- Equity
- Laches
- Consent Decree
- Delay Notice
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- Second Circuit
- NPDES
- Procedure
- Standing
- Dimock
- Medical Monitoring
- Legislation
- Case Update
- Louisiana
- Certification
- Contamination
- Dukes
- CLE
- Decisions of Note
- Cases to Watch
- Discovery
- Expert Witness
- Privilege
- Work Product
- CERCLA
- Cost Recovery
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Real Estate
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Donovan
- Rapanos
- Army Corps
- Class Actions
- Odors
- Trespass
- Farming
- Hog Barn
- Kentucky
- Nuisance
- Informal Agency Action
- New Jersey
- Administrative Hearing
- ISRA
- Waste
- Air
- Cancer
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Railroad
- RCRA
- Speaking Engagements
- Removal
- Third Circuit
- Toxic Torts
- Federal Procedure
- Clean Air Act
- Permits
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Cleanup
- Superfund
- Supreme Court
- Multi-District Litigation
- Statute of Repose
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Mineral Rights
- Due Process
- Enforcement Action
- Wetlands
- Deeds
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Marcellus Shale
- Clean Water Act
- Exploration
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
- Drilling
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
In MPM Silicones, LLC v. Union Carbide Corporation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that there can be more than one “remedial action” at a site under certain circumstances for the purpose of determining the statute of limitations under CERCLA. Dkt. No. 17-3468(L), 17-3669(XAP) (2d Cir. 2019). The decision clarified a statement in a prior decision by the Second Circuit that had suggested otherwise.
The dispute involved a cost recovery action by MPM Silicones, LLC (“MPM”) against Union Carbide Corporation (“UCC”) relating to the Sistersville Site in West Virginia (the “Site”). UCC had used the Site for industrial operations from 1955 to 1993. During the 1990s, UCC engaged in several corrective actions to address contaminants in groundwater and soil in various parts of the Site. None of these corrective actions addressed PCBs. In 1993, UCC sold the Site to another party.
In 2003, MPM’s predecessor acquired the Site. A few years after acquiring the Site, MPM discovered extensive PCB contamination, which appeared to be the result of UCC’s historical use of PCBs at the Site. MPM then engaged in extensive investigation activities to identify the extent of the PCB contamination and excavated some of the PCB-containing soils. MPM anticipates more excavation work before the remediation is complete.
In 2011, MPM filed suit against UCC seeking reimbursement for past cleanup costs and a declaratory judgment for any future cleanup costs. Before the trial court, UCC argued on summary judgment that MPM’s claim for reimbursement of past remediation costs were time-barred by the 6-year statute of limitations for remedial action because of the previous corrective action at the Site during the 1990s. The district court agreed, relying on an earlier decision by the Second Circuit in which the court stated that “there can only be one remedial action at any given site.” New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. v. FirstEnergy Corp., 766 F.3d at 235 (2d Cir. 2014) (NYSEG).
On appeal, the Second Circuit held that the district court misconstrued the statement in the NYSEG decision because there are circumstances when there might be more than one remedial action at a Site under CERCLA. The court provided several examples. If, for example, the operator of a site completes remediation but then creates new contamination through a different process involving a different contaminant at the same site, the subsequent cleanup might not be considered the same remedial action. Likewise, if as here, an operator implemented an inadequate remediation based on a regulatory approval that was obtained without adequate disclosure, then a later owner who engages in remediation activities to address the undisclosed contamination is not necessarily continuing the same remediation project.
Accordingly, the Second Circuit vacated the district court’s decision and remanded the case to the district court to assess whether MPM’s remedial activities to address PCB contamination should be deemed a separate and distinct remediation from UCC’s prior remedial activities.