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In an unpublished opinion issued last week, the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court found that a local ordinance that declares as a nuisance “the escape into the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