
Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Ninth Circuit Upholds Vacatur of Some Oil and Gas Leases
- Court Dismisses Microplastics Consumer Protection Suit Citing Federal Preemption
- Montana Supreme Court Finds Constitutional Right to Stable Climate
- D.C. Circuit Issues Surprise Holding in NEPA Dispute: CEQ Regulations are Non-Binding
- New Mexico District Court Applies Pro-Rata Method to Settlement under CERCLA
Topics
- Federal Land Policy and Management Act
- Council on Environmental Quality
- Loper Bright
- Agency Action
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Public Trust Doctrine
- Title VI
- Disparate Impact
- Environmental Justice
- Massachusetts
- Internal Investigation
- Evidence
- 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
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- National Priorities List
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Successor Liability
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- National Contingency Plan
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- Strict Liability
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Historic Resources
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- Gold King Mine
- New Mexico
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Delaware
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- National Forest Management Act
- FERC
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- United States Supreme Court
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- Property Damage
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- PCBs
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Innocent Party
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- PHMSA
- Effluents
- FOIA
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Texas
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Drinking Water
- Michigan
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Hearing Board
- Civil Penalties
- Clean Streams Law
- Arranger Liability
- Retroactive
- Sovereign Immunity
- Property Value
- Tax assessment
- Fair Market Value
- Stigma
- Damages
- Storage Tank
- Energy
- Electric
- Fifth Circuit
- Indemnification
- Ninth Circuit
- Arizona
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Discovery Rule
- Fourth Circuit
- Eighth Circuit
- Administrative Appeals
- Taxes
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Inspection
- Residential
- New York
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Natural Gas Act
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- D.C. Circuit
- HAPs
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Mercury
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Natural Gas
- Storage
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Fifth Amendment
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Interior
- Tenth Circuit
- Mineral Leasing Act
- California
- Zoning
- Act 13
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Eminent Domain
- Landfill
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Illinois
- Water
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Montana
- Navigability
- Riverbed
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Green House Counsel
- Enforcement
- Equity
- Consent Decree
- Laches
- Delay Notice
- EPA
- Boiler MACT
- Rulemaking
- CISWI
- Second Circuit
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- Standing
- NPDES
- Procedure
- Medical Monitoring
- Dimock
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Dukes
- Louisiana
- Certification
- Contamination
- CLE
- Discovery
- Expert Witness
- Privilege
- Work Product
- Decisions of Note
- Cases to Watch
- CERCLA
- Cost Recovery
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Real Estate
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Rapanos
- Army Corps
- Donovan
- Kentucky
- Nuisance
- Class Actions
- Odors
- Trespass
- Farming
- Hog Barn
- Administrative Hearing
- ISRA
- Informal Agency Action
- New Jersey
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Railroad
- RCRA
- Waste
- Air
- Cancer
- Speaking Engagements
- Toxic Torts
- Federal Procedure
- Removal
- Third Circuit
- Permits
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Clean Air Act
- Superfund
- Supreme Court
- Cleanup
- Statute of Repose
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Multi-District Litigation
- Deeds
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Marcellus Shale
- Clean Water Act
- Mineral Rights
- Due Process
- Enforcement Action
- Wetlands
- Royalties
- Drilling
- Exploration
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
Environmental law attorneys are persistently reminded to avoid overuse of acronyms, lest we forget what they mean, and a ruling from the Southern District of California recently provided an example of why we should remember to break these acronyms down to their roots. The Court’s opinion showed that a PRP is just that, a potentially responsible party, as it held that the United States government was 0% liable for the environmental contamination of a site, even though it was deemed a former “owner” of the facility under CERCLA.
In TDY Holdings, LLC v. United States, Case No. 3:07-CV-787 (S.D. Ca. July 29, 2015), the Honorable Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo of the United States District Court for the District of Southern California issued a ruling in a former defense contractor’s CERCLA contribution suit against the federal government, the Department of Defense, and the Secretary of Defense, holding that the defense contractor was 100% liable for the past and future remediation costs at its manufacturing facility, despite the Government's ownership of equipment that was at least partially responsible for the contamination at the facility during its operation.
The defense contractor, TDY Industries, was the successor in interest to Ryan Aeronautical Company, which manufactured aircrafts and aircraft parts at the site in San Diego dating back to the beginning of WWII. In all, the site was in operation for approximately sixty years (1939-1999), manufacturing defense-related products, 90% of which were sold to the Government. The Government owned various pieces of equipment at the TDY Site until at least 1979, and it would periodically send representatives to oversee the manufacturing process to ensure that the products being purchased met its strict technical requirements.
The site was contaminated with three types of hazardous substances: chromium compounds, chlorinated solvents, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The evidence and expert opinions provided to the Court showed that the contamination was likely the result of small, intermittent spills and incidents from the equipment that were not considered serious by regulatory or industry standards at the times of their occurrences. The contamination pattern and the available corporate records suggested that no dumping, major failures, spills, or releases occurred at the facility and that TDY was generally compliant with environmental standards in place during the times of its operation.
Based upon this evidence, the Court held that while the Government met the definition of an “owner” of the facility because of its ownership of this equipment, it was nevertheless 0% responsible for the contamination, placing blame squarely on TDY, which was responsible for “the manner in which equipment was operated and/or maintained.” Without any indication that TDY’s policies broke from the environmental standards at the times of operation or that it was responsible for any major release, the definitiveness of Judge Bencivengo’s ruling is a remarkable reminder that being a PRP doesn't necessarily mean being liable.