By Andrew H. Perellis, Jeryl L. Olson, and Ilana R. Morady
On October 6, 2014, EPA finalized an amendment to the “All Appropriate Inquiries” (AAI) rule to remove the reference to ASTM E-1527-05. 79 Fed. Reg. 60087. This means that ASTM E-1527-05 is no longer adequate to establish landowner and lender liability protections under CERLA. Buyers, sellers,
Continue Reading EPA Finalizes Change to All Appropriate Inquiry Rule: ASTM E-1527-05 Does Not Establish CERCLA Defenses Anymore
By Andrew H. Perellis and Patrick D. Joyce
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a district court must provide deeper scrutiny to Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. §9601 et seq. (1980), consent decrees.
The August 1, 2014 decision in State of Arizona v. Ashton Company Inc. Contractors and Engineers, et al.,
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Puts the Brakes on CERCLA Settlement Process
In follow-up to our August 16, 2013, blog regarding the EPA’s Direct Final Rule installing the new ASTM E1527-13 as an alternative, updated process for conducting Phase I environmental due diligence, it should be noted the Agency has indicated (in an email to BNA reporter Pat Ware) that it will WITHDRAW that rule. 78 Fed. Reg.
Continue Reading EPA Withdraws Its Approval of Updated ASTM Standard for Environmental Due Diligence
NOTE: This blog has been updated with a more recent blog.
The U.S. EPA has published its approval of the updated ASTM Standard that is the basis for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) affirmative defenses. Amendment to Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries, 78 Fed. Reg. 49690 (August 15, 2013).
Continue Reading EPA (Finally) Updates ASTM Standard for Environmental Due Diligence
By Andrew H. Perellis and Ilana R. Morady
Suppose you enter into a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Administrative Order to perform remediation where your release of liability is conditioned on successful performance of the remedy to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s satisfaction. You want to recover some of your response costs so you sue other potentially
Continue Reading 7th Circuit Issues Important Superseding Opinion Clarifying When CERCLA Provisions Establishing Contribution as Exclusive Remedy Have Been Triggered
By Andrew H. Perellis, Philip L. Comella, and Craig B. Simonsen
In U.S. v. D.S.C. of Newark Enterprises Inc., No. 09-2270, (D.N.J. 6/12/13), the Court found that the sale of an ongoing business with hazardous materials remaining on site, which is later released by the purchaser, does not make the seller liable for having arranged for disposal.
By Andrew H. Perellis and William R. Schubert
A recent Government Accountability Office report (GAO-13-252) called on EPA to improve its management of alternatives to National Priorities List placement.
The report found that at most sites that EPA deems eligible for NPL placement, EPA uses an alternative approach so that the site can be remediated without being placed on the
Continue Reading GAO Report Criticizes Inconsistency Among EPA Regions For Alternate Cleanups Managed Outside of Superfund
By Andrew H. Perellis, Philip L. Comella, and Craig B. Simonsen
The Court found that the only issue for resolution was whether there was any evidence that the defendant, an “innocent purchaser,” was liable for the alleged re-contamination of a former Superfund site.
U.S. District Judge Ron Clark recently adopted Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin’s Report and Recommendations and
Continue Reading Innocent Purchaser Defense Wins Summary Judgment in Texas District Court
By Andrew H. Perellis and Ilana Morady
If you sell products that you no longer need that contain residual hazardous substances, and the buyer mishandles them so as to create the need for remediation, are you liable under CERCLA for having arranged for disposal of the hazardous substance?
A federal District Court recently granted summary judgment to a CERCLA defendant
By Andrew H. Perellis and Ilana Morady
If you incur response costs under CERCLA can you assert a claim under Section 107 of CERCLA, or are you limited to a contribution claim under Section 113?
By way of background, Section 107 and Section 113 provide distinct rights under CERCLA. Under Section 107, a potential responsible party (PRP) is strictly liable