The First Circuit recently affirmed the District of Rhode Island’s approval of a superfund consent decree entered into between the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), the State of Rhode Island and several Potentially Responsible Parties despite opposition by third party PRPs that the settlement was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). Emhart Indus., Inc. v. CNA Holdings LLC, No. 19-1563, slip op. (1st Cir. 2021 Feb. 17, 2021). What makes this case unique, and bolstered the arguments of the objectors, is that the settlement incorporated work pursuant to a ROD that the District Court had already determined has not been selected in accordance with law. Nevertheless, both the District Court and the First Circuit held that the finding did not preclude the settlement, leaving the objectors exposed to contribution claims for a remedy potentially inconsistent with the National Contingency Plan (“NCP”). In affirming the lower court, the First Circuit highlighted the “integral part” that early settlement plays in CERCLA’s statutory scheme, thus giving deference to the settling parties. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Allocation, Apportionment, CERCLA, Cleanup, Consent Decree, Contamination, Contribution, Cost Recovery, Divisibility, First Circuit, Groundwater, National Contingency Plan, National Priorities List, Remediation, Sediment Sites, Superfund

Last week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan refused to void a private settlement agreement entered between Sierra Club and DTE in the face of an objection by the United States that the settlement agreement interfered with a related consent decree and infringed on the government’s enforcement authority. United States v. DTE Energy Co., et al., No. 10-CV-13101 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 3, 2020). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Citizen Suit, Clean Air Act, Consent Decree, Emissions, Energy, Enforcement, Enforcement Action, Michigan

In Frazer/Exton Development, L.P. v. United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a takings claim against the federal government relating to environmental contamination because the appellants, current and former landowners of the site at issue, filed their lawsuit more than 6 years after environmental remediation was complete. Frazer/Exton Development, L.P. v. United States, No. 2019-2143 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7, 2020). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Brownfields, CERCLA, Cleanup, Consent Decree, Contamination, Damages, Environmental Covenants, Federal Circuit, Pennsylvania, Real Estate, Remediation, Statute of Limitations, Superfund, Takings

On September 20, 2019, hitting a trifecta of commonly-litigated CERCLA issues, Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel, Chief Justice of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, partially denied and partially granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in The Premcor Refining Group Inc., v. Apex Oil Company, Inc., et. al., No. 17-cv-738-NJR-MAB (S.D. Ill.). The Court held (a) Premcor had adequately pled fact to withstand a defense that the petroleum exclusion barred the claims; (b) Premcor could not simultaneously plead 107 and 113 claims, dismissing its cost recovery claims inasmuch as Premcor had settled its claims with the State of Illinois; and (c) the contribution protection Apex Oil obtained in its settlement with the State of Illinois included CERCLA claims barred Premcor’s claims. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Cleanup, Consent Decree, Contamination, Contribution, Cost Recovery, Illinois, Remediation, Superfund

On January 15, the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment in Arconic, Inc., et al. v. APC Inv. Co., Case No. CV-14-6456-GW (C.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2019), ruling that Plaintiffs’ contribution claims under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 113(g)(3) were barred by the applicable three-year statute of limitations. What makes the decision noteworthy is that the Court found that the limitations period began to run ten years before the Plaintiffs entered into the Consent Decree with EPA and the State of California to undertake the remediation giving rise to the contribution claim. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: California, CERCLA, Consent Decree, Contamination, Contribution, Ninth Circuit, Remediation, Removal, Statute of Limitations, Superfund, Water

The federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), better known as Superfund, provides private parties with two types of claims to recover costs associated with investigating and remediating contaminated sites – a cost recovery claim under CERCLA Section 107(a), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), and a contribution claim under Section 113(f), 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f).  A party has a claim for contribution under CERCLA Section 113(f)(3)(B) if that party has “resolved its liability to the United States or a State for some or all of a response action or for some or all of the costs of such action in an administrative or judicially approved settlement.”  A party can therefore settle its liability for a contaminated site with the EPA or a state government, and then seek to recover a portion of the costs of that settlement from other potentially responsible parties who contributed to the contamination at the site.  But, CERCLA imposes a 3-year statute of limitations on Section 113 contribution actions, which begins to run from the date of entry of the administrative or judicially approved settlement.  While at first, this may appear to be a cut-and-dry statute of limitations, there is ample case law exploring the nuances of what it means for a party to have “resolved” its liability with the government such that the 3-year statute of limitations begins to run.  Last month, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit added to that growing body of case law, in Asarco, LLC v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 866 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2017). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Case Update, Cases to Watch, CERCLA, Consent Decree, Contamination, Contribution, Decisions of Note, Ninth Circuit, Statute of Limitations, Superfund

In an unpublished opinion issued last week, the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court found that a local ordinance that declares as a nuisance “the escape into the open air . . . of smoke, fly ash, dust, fumes, vapors, mists, or gases as to cause injury, detriment or annoyance . . .” is neither preempted by the New Jersey Solid Waste Management Act (“SWMA”) nor unconstitutionally broad or vague.  The case, New Jersey v. Strategic Environmental Partners, LLC, No. A-4968-13T4, was decided on November 19, 2015 by Judges Messano and Simonelli. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Consent Decree, Enforcement, Enforcement Action, Landfill, New Jersey, Nuisance, Odors, Preemption, Waste

On August 1, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a decision in Arizona v. Raytheon Co., No. 12-15691 (9^th Cir. Aug. 1, 2014), that may give trial courts some pause before approving future CERCLA settlements.  At issue was whether the trial court failed to adequately scrutinize consent decrees entered into between the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (the “ADEQ”) and twenty-two Potentially Responsible Parties (“PRPs”) allegedly liable under CERCLA for contamination at the Broadway-Patano Landfill Site.  The majority opinion held that the trial court’s deference to the AQED’s judgment that the settlements were fair and reasonable was impermissible, and sent the case back down for a more thorough fairness hearing.   However, the more important aspect of the decision may be that, in dicta, the Court concluded that “[e]ven if EPA had been a party to the proposed consent decrees in this case, the district court would have failed to fulfill its duty to independently scrutinize the parties’ agreements.”  Id. at 21. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Arizona, CERCLA, Cleanup, Consent Decree, Contamination, Contribution, EPA, Landfill, Ninth Circuit, Remediation, Removal, Superfund

As footnoted in yesterday’s post, the decision in Trinity Industries, Inc. v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., No. 12-2059 (3^rd Cir. Aug. 20, 2013), was a twofer.  Yesterday, we wrote about that part of the decision which held that a party who has resolved its liability under state statutes may seek contribution under Section 113(f) of CERCLA.  Today, we look at the second part of the decision, which concerns the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. §6901, et seq.  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Cleanup, Consent Decree, Contamination, Pennsylvania, Private Right of Action, RCRA, Remediation, Removal, Third Circuit, Waste

Ten years after purchasing land in Detroit from the Michigan State Transportation Commission, Dietrich Bergmann sued that Commission and the Michigan Department of Transportation (collectively the “Department”) under CERCLA, seeking costs for investigation and remediation of his property.  The parties settled their dispute resulting in the district court’s entering a consent decree in 1991.  The decree obligated the Department to remediate Bergmann’s property in approximately 4 years .  If the Department didn’t in good faith attempt to meet the remediation deadline, then it was required to make liquidated damage payments to Bergmann of $2,000 at the beginning of each month that the remediation was incomplete. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Consent Decree, Cost Recovery, Enforcement, Equity, Laches, Statute of Limitations