Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Fourth Circuit “Decline[s] to Hit Pause” on Pipeline Project Involving Trenching Through Streams and Wetlands
- When Does NEPA Apply? The Eleventh Circuit Draws a Hard Line in Friends of the Everglades v. DHS
- Supreme Court Broadly Interprets “relating to” in Federal Officer Removal Statute
- Pennsylvania Federal Court Clarifies HSCA Statute of Limitations and “Response Costs” Under HSCA and CERCLA
- New Jersey Federal Court Dismisses PFAS Consumer Suit Against Band-Aid on Standing Grounds
Topics
- Venue
- State Implementation Plans
- NJDEP
- Connecticut
- Pollutants
- Federal Land Policy and Management Act
- Agency Action
- Loper Bright
- Council on Environmental Quality
- Public Trust Doctrine
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Title VI
- Environmental Justice
- Disparate Impact
- Massachusetts
- Evidence
- Internal Investigation
- Citizens Suit
- FIFRA
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- Georgia
- 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
- Operator Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- National Contingency Plan
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- Strict Liability
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Public Utilities Commission
- Utilities
- Historic Resources
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- PFAS
- Ohio
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Fees
- Commonwealth Court
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Martime
- Asbestos
- Gold King Mine
- New Mexico
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Delaware
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- United States Supreme Court
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- Property Damage
- First Circuit
- PCBs
- Building Materials
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfields
- Innocent Party
- Brownfield
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- PHMSA
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- Effluents
- FOIA
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Texas
- 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
- Retroactive
- Sovereign Immunity
- Stigma
- Fair Market Value
- Damages
- Property Value
- Tax assessment
- Storage Tank
- Indemnification
- Electric
- Energy
- Fifth Circuit
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Discovery Rule
- Fourth Circuit
- Eighth Circuit
- Taxes
- Administrative Appeals
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Contamination
- Natural Gas
- Procedure
- Residential
- Inspection
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- New York
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Natural Gas Act
- HAPs
- D.C. Circuit
- Mercury
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Storage
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Fifth Amendment
- Causation
- Spill Act
- NEPA
- Interior
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Tenth Circuit
- California
- Zoning
- Act 13
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Landfill
- Eminent Domain
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Water
- Illinois
- Diligent Prosecution
- Citizen Suit
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Riverbed
- Navigability
- Montana
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Seventh Circuit
- Indiana
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Green House Counsel
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Consent Decree
- Boiler MACT
- EPA
- Enforcement
- Delay Notice
- Equity
- Laches
- CISWI
- Rulemaking
- Second Circuit
- Declaratory Relief
- Contribution
- NPDES
- Standing
- Dimock
- Medical Monitoring
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Dukes
- Certification
- Louisiana
- CLE
- Privilege
- Work Product
- Expert Witness
- Decisions of Note
- Discovery
- Cases to Watch
- Insurance
- Defense Costs
- Response Action Contractors
- Remediation
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Army Corps
- Rapanos
- Donovan
- Farming
- Kentucky
- Nuisance
- Hog Barn
- Class Actions
- Trespass
- Odors
- New Jersey
- Administrative Hearing
- Informal Agency Action
- ISRA
- Cancer
- Emissions
- Air
- Railroad
- Waste
- Combustion
- RCRA
- CERCLA
- Speaking Engagements
- Toxic Torts
- Removal
- Federal Procedure
- Third Circuit
- Statute of Limitations
- Permits
- Clean Air Act
- Title V
- Cost Recovery
- Supreme Court
- Cleanup
- Superfund
- Statute of Repose
- Multi-District Litigation
- Camp Lejeune
- Tolling
- Mineral Rights
- Due Process
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Marcellus Shale
- Wetlands
- Deeds
- Enforcement Action
- Clean Water Act
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Real Estate
- Royalties
- Exploration
- Drilling
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
In a case of first impression in the Third Circuit, the Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno has held that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PADEP”) may not, under CERCLA, recover costs from current landowners if the costs were incurred prior to the owner's purchase of contaminated property. In PADEP v. Trainer Custom Chemical LLC, No. 15-1232 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 30, 2016), PADEP sought to recover, among other things, over $800,000 in electricity bills which it had paid prior to October, 2012 to keep certain remediation equipment operating at the Stoney Creek Technologies Superfund Site (the “Site”), which Site was subsequently purchased by the defendant, Trainer Custom Chemical, LLC. PADEP's claim for such costs was rejected by Judge Robreno, who held that “a new owner is not liable for recovery costs incurred before he took ownership of the facility.” Id. at *21.
Under Section 107(a) of CERCLA, there are four classes of potentially responsible parties: current owners and operators of facilities, past owners and operators, arrangers and transporters. The last three categories are defined by their involvement in the disposal of hazardous substances. Thus, a past owner or operator is liable if it owned the facility “at the time of disposal of any hazardous substance.” Similarly, arrangers an transporters are liable for their activities in arranging for the disposal of, or transporting for disposal, hazardous substances. But there is no such limitation on the definition of a current owner or operator, and hence the court was faced with determining “what is the temporal definition of an ‘owner’ under CERCLA?” Id. at *18. Relying on a decision from the Ninth Circuit, apparently the only one of its kind, and common sense, the Court held that for the purposes of CERCLA, an “owner” is one who owns the facility at the time recovery costs are incurred, not at the time suit is brought to recover those costs. In short, Judge Robreno sensibly interpreted a statute that is not always so prudently construed.
