On September 3, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, vacated the lower court’s determination that liability for remediating the environmental harm associated with a groundwater plume was divisible under Section 107 of CERCLA. In Von Duprin LLC v. Major Holdings, LLC, the environmental harm stemmed from a groundwater plume created from decades of known pollution involving four parcels and primarily four parties. No. 20-1711 (7th Cir. Sept. 3, 2021). As we reported here, the trial court’s apportionment of liability appeared to intermingle factors relevant to both an allocation and apportionment of liability. The appellate court found the same, and vacated the trial court’s apportionment of liability due in part to the apparent application of factors relevant to an allocation of joint liability. At a threshold level, the appellate court also vacated the trial court’s determination at summary judgment that a reasonable basis existed to apportion liability based on causal factors, rather than allocate joint liability based on equitable factors. The appellate court affirmed, however, the trial court’s holdings related to the bona fide prospective purchaser (BFPP) defense, compliance with the National Contingency Plan (NCP), and the admission of expert testimony. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Allocation, Apportionment, Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser, Case Update, CERCLA, Cleanup, Contamination, Contribution, Cost Recovery, Damages, Declaratory Relief, Divisibility, Groundwater, Indiana, National Contingency Plan, Remediation, Seventh Circuit, Superfund

It has been more than a decade since the United States Supreme Court decided Burlington Northern & S.F. R. Co. v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1870 (2009), holding that liability under Section 107(a) of CERCLA is not necessarily joint and several, but in appropriate circumstances can be divisible. And yet, courts still struggle to determine when liability is divisible and thus subject to apportionment rather than equitable allocation, with the latter, joint and several liability, still remaining the go to default. The March 30, 2020 decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, in the case of Von Duprin, LLC v. Moran Electric Service, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-01942-TWP—DML (S.D. Ind. Mar. 30, 2020), is no exception. The Court found that liability for a comingled plume of volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”) was divisible, but then applied equitable factors to allocate liability. And, in getting to its final decision, the Court also discussed what costs can be recovered under 107(a), the standard for determining compliance with the National Contingency Plan (“NCP”), and what steps a lessee needs to take to avail itself of the bona fide prospective purchaser (“BFPP”) defense. This is going to be a long one, so pull up a chair. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Allocation, Apportionment, Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser, CERCLA, Cleanup, Contamination, Contribution, Cost Recovery, Damages, Declaratory Relief, Divisibility, Groundwater, Indiana, National Contingency Plan, Remediation, Superfund

In the latest development in parallel cases captioned EQT Prod. Co. v. Department of Environmental Protection which have been moving through Pennsylvania state courts and the Environmental Hearing Board ("EHB") since early 2014, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the EHB’s assessment of penalties totaling $1,137,295.76 against the hydraulic fracturing company, EQT Production Company (“EQT”), for contamination to groundwater arising from a leaking wastewater impoundment. EQT Prod. Co. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., No. 844 C.D. 2017, 2018 WL 4289310 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Sept. 10, 2018). Specifically, on September 10, 2018, the Commonwealth Court held that the EHB did not commit an error of law when it held that, under Clean Streams Law (“CSL”), penalties could be assessed for every day that contamination entered the groundwater from soils “through fundamental hydrologic principles,” even if the initial spill event had ceased and there was no direct evidence of daily transmission of contamination from soil to groundwater. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Administrative Appeals, Administrative Hearing, Case Update, Civil Penalties, Clean Streams Law, Contamination, Declaratory Relief, EHB, Groundwater, Hearing Board, Marcellus Shale, Oil and Gas, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Water

Since 2009, the Delaware River Basin Commission (“DRBC”) has effectively placed a moratorium on fracking activity within the Delaware River Basin (the “Basin”), premised on its assertion that any such activity is a “project” over which the DRBC has authority. But in Wayne Land & Mineral Group LLC v. Del. River Basin Comm’n, No. 17-1800, 2018 WL 3233784 (July 3, 2018), the Third Circuit, overturning a Pennsylvania District Court decision, has held that Delaware River Basin Compact’s (the “Compact”) definition of “project” is ambiguous, and that the DRBC may be without authority over fracking. The Third Circuit’s decision creates uncertainty regarding the scope of the DRBC’s authority and the future of fracking and other land use activities in the Basin. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Administrative Appeals, Declaratory Relief, Delaware River Basin Commission, Drilling, Energy, Exploration, Groundwater, Marcellus Shale, Mineral Rights, Natural Gas, Oil and Gas, Pennsylvania, Procedure, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Third Circuit, Water

Last week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated opinion in EQT Prod. Co. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., No. 6 MAP 2017, 2018 WL 1516385, (Pa. Mar. 28, 2018), holding that the Clean Streams Law (“CSL”) does not authorize the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) to impose daily penalties for the ongoing, continuing presence of pollutants in waters of the Commonwealth. In the 5-to-2 decision, which affirmed in part the Commonwealth Court’s preceding opinion, the Court ruled that to construe the language of the CSL as allowing penalties for the movement of pollutants from one water body to another (DEP’s “water-to-water” theory) was not only unsupported by the statutory language, but would also expose the regulated community to potentially massive civil penalties, and as such, DEP’s penalty calculations including penalties for the days the pollutants remained in the affected groundwater after the initial discharge were excessive. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Administrative Appeals, Case Update, Cases to Watch, Civil Penalties, Clean Streams Law, Contamination, Decisions of Note, Declaratory Relief, Drilling, EHB, Enforcement Action, Groundwater, Oil and Gas, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Remediation, Water, Wetlands

Earlier this month, New Jersey’s Appellate Division affirmed a judgment issued by the Chancery Division, the state’s court of equity, which required neighbors to participate and share in the costs of investigating nearby contamination even though there was not yet any evidence as to the precise source of the contamination. Matejek v. Watson et al., Dkt. No. A-4683-14T1 (N.J. Super. Ct. Mar. 3, 2017).  In doing so, the Appellate Division adopted an expansive view of the Chancery Division’s power to fashion an equitable remedy when the letter of the law, in this case New Jersey’s Spill Compensation and Control Act (Spill Act), does not provide for one. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Contamination, Contribution, Declaratory Relief, Equity, New Jersey, Real Estate, Spill Act, Storage Tank

In a decision issued today in Pa. Independent Oil & Gas Assoc. v. Commonwealth, No. 321 M.D. 2015, a seven-member panel of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court held that Section 3215(c) of Act 13, the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Act, remains enforceable despite the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Robinson Township v. Commonwealth, 83 A.3d 901 (Pa. 2013).  Section 3215(c) provides that when making a determination on a proposed oil and gas well, DEP “shall consider” the impact of the proposed well on public resources, including parks, rivers, landmarks, historic sites, flora and fauna habitat, and public drinking water sources.  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Act 13, Declaratory Relief, Drilling, Drinking Water, Exploration, Legislation, Natural Gas, Oil and Gas, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Permits, Water, Wetlands

Earlier this month, a Michigan federal judge refused to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a coalition of plaintiffs seeking to force multiple city and state defendants to fix the city of Flint, Michigan’s water supply system.  The lawsuit arose from the crisis regarding lead contamination in Flint’s water supply, which has garnered national attention.  In the decision, Concerned Pastors for Soc. Action v. Khouri, No. 16-10277 (E.D. Mich. July 7, 2016), U.S. District Judge David M. Lawson rejected numerous attacks asserted by the defendants in a motion to dismiss.  Perhaps most notably, the judge rejected the argument that the federal court should defer to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) primary jurisdiction under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).    Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Citizen Suit, Declaratory Relief, Drinking Water, EPA, Federal Procedure, Michigan, Safe Drinking Water Act, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Toxic Torts, Water

On Monday, the Second Circuit issued two opinions in the consolidated case of State of New York v. Solvent Chemical Co., Nos. 10-2026-cv, 10-2166-cv, & 10-23830-cv (2^nd Cir. Dec. 19, 2011).  The first was a Summary Opinion, without precedential effect, which partially affirmed and partially rejected the district court’s method of allocating liability for past response costs incurred by Solvent Chemical Co. in remediating contamination at a site along the Niagara River in New York.  The second, a precedential opinion, reversed the trial court’s decision denying Solvent a declaratory judgment holding two other PRPs, DuPont and Olin Corp., liable for future remediation costs.  In essence, the Court of Appeals held that if the trial court could determine that DuPont and Olin were partially liable for past remediation costs, then it was required to find them liable for future costs, even if the trial court was not then able to allocate those future costs.  From a purely logical standpoint, not a very controversial or earth-shattering decision. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Contribution, Cost Recovery, Declaratory Relief, Second Circuit, Superfund