Developing renewable energy on contaminated lands has proven to be both effective and cost-effective for companies pursuing a new solar or wind energy project. The utility-scale solar farm constructed on the 120-acre Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation Superfund site is a great example, and there are thousands more that are ripe for redevelopment.
Continue Reading

In February, presidential advisor Steve Bannon stated that a primary goal of the Trump administration was the “deconstruction of the administrative state.” One feature of the administrative state is “administrative deference,” which involves courts deferring to federal agencies’ interpretations of federal statutes – a topic that we have discussed repeatedly in the past few months,  see here and here.
Continue Reading

Under a recent summary judgment decision from a federal district judge, the EPA must continuously examine the effects that certain Clean Air Act (CAA) regulations have on employment in the coal industry specifically and other industries more broadly. This means the EPA will be subject to increased requirements before taking action under the CAA. The ruling also suggests that additional requirements could be imposed on the EPA under similar provisions in other environmental statutes, such as the Clean Water Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, and CERCLA.
Continue Reading

May 13, 2015

1:00 – 6:00 p.m. CT

Schiff Hardin partner Gabriel Rodriguez will welcome attendants to the ABA Section of Litigation Regional Workshop entitled “Litigating a CERCLA Allocation Case – Pre-Trial Strategies and Trial Techniques.” The workshop panelists will include a Judge from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, two nationally recognized experts with significant experience in these matters, and several seasoned trial counsel. A networking reception for all speakers and attendees will follow the programs.
Continue Reading

The Supreme Court recently denied certiorari of a Seventh Circuit opinion permitting parties to challenge “completed” phases of a staged remediation under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), even where work in subsequent stages remains ongoing.  The decision in Frey v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. 13-2142 (7th Cir. May 1, 2014) addressed the contours of the general statement that U.S. EPA’s decisions in an “on-going” remediation may not be challenged under CERCLA.  CERCLA Section 113(h)(4) provides that “[n]o Federal court shall have jurisdiction . . . to review any challenges to removal or remedial action” except during a limited number of actions, none of which allow a plaintiff to challenge an ongoing response action.  42 U.S.C. § 9613(h)(4).  Prior to Frey, courts applying this provision had found that parties are prohibited from reviewing ongoing clean-up activities under CERCLA.
Continue Reading

On September 25, 2014, the Seventh Circuit issued two opinions in litigation related to the Fox River Superfund site in Wisconsin.  The Fox River is a sediment site contaminated primarily with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from the paper making industry.  In one of these decisions, the Seventh Circuit held that, based on evidence at trial, the environmental harm to the Fox River was theoretically capable of being apportioned among the potentially responsible parties (PRPs), and that a permanent injunction was not an appropriate remedy for enforcing a Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).  U.S. v. P.H. Glatfelter Co., No. 13-2436, 13-2441 (7th Cir. Sept. 25, 2014).
Continue Reading

A Phase I Site Assessment is used primarily to investigate commercial real estate for environmental conditions.  The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International provides a Standard Practice for environmental professionals undertaking a Phase I Site Assessment.  Last fall, ASTM International published a revised version of the Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process or “ASTM E1527-13.”  
Continue Reading

A recent Seventh Circuit decision addressed the contours of the general statement that USEPA’s decisions in an “on-going” remediation may not be challenged under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”).  CERCLA Section 113(h)(4) provides that “[n]o Federal court shall have jurisdiction . . . to review any challenges to removal or remedial action” except during a limited number of actions, none of which allow a plaintiff to challenge an ongoing response action.  42 U.S.C. § 9613(h)(4).  Generally, courts applying this provision have found that parties are prohibited from reviewing ongoing clean-up activities under CERCLA.
Continue Reading

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) provides two ways of recovering costs spent on cleaning up a contaminated site from other potentially responsible parties (PRPs).  One way to recover these costs is through a contribution claim under Section 9613(f) of CERCLA.  42 U.S.C. § 9613(f).  Section 9613(f)(3)(B) allows a party that has “resolved its liability to the United States or a State” in an “administrative or judicially approved settlement” to bring a contribution claim.  A contribution claim must be brought within three years, but circuits have split on how to interpret when the statutory time period begins to run.  On Monday, Jan. 27, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in a case that would likely have addressed this split.  Bernstein v. Bankert, 702 F.3d 964, 981 (7th Cir. 2012), aff’d Nos. 11-1501, 11-1523, 2013 WL 3927712, *1 (7th Cir. July 31, 2013), cert. denied, No. 13-568, 2014 WL 273271 (Jan. 27, 2014).
Continue Reading