EPA to Defend its “Proposed Plan” for Remediating the Gowanus Canal Superfund Site During Public Meetings on January 23 and 24, 2013

| January 21, 2013

How do you clean up something as big and messy as the Gowanus Canal? On January 23-24, 2013,  the United States Environmental Protection Agency will explain and defend its December 27, 2012, “Proposed Plan” for remediating the Gowanus Canal Superfund Site in Brooklyn, NY. The Proposed Plan formally identifies EPA’s “preferred remedy” for the pollution [...]

Migration of Contamination Does Not Automatically Create a Single “Facility” Under CERCLA

| December 12, 2012

A federal court in New York recently decided that the migration of subterranean contamination onto a neighboring property was not, by itself, a sufficient basis to hold a neighboring landowner jointly liable for remediation costs under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”).

Can Entering Into a CERCLA Consent Decree Preclude Subsequent Cost Recovery Actions?

| December 4, 2012

Congress enacted the Superfund Act, whose formal name is the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or CERCLA, in 1980 to promote the clean up (remediation) of properties, typically abandoned landfills or other sites, that had been contaminated by the disposal of hazardous materials. To further this goal, Congress cast a wide net and [...]

11th Circuit Decision Follows that of Niagara v. Mohawk: Under CERCLA, Parties Who Enter Into Consent Decree with Government Are Limited to a § 113(f) Contribution Claim

| May 31, 2012

Since the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decided Niagara Mohawk Power Corp v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 596 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2010), a number of other Circuits have followed the Second Circuit’s holding that parties who enter into a consent decree with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) following an EPA enforcement action and then [...]

The Second Circuit decides another CERCLA contribution case in Niagara Mohawk v. Chevron (Part III)

| July 15, 2010

As seen in our prior posts on Niagara Mohawk v. Chevron, 596 F.3d 112, in the two appeals and remands prior to the Second Circuit’s February decision, the District Court failed to properly address Niagara Mohawk’s (NiMo’s) argument under § 113(f)(3)(B), asserting that it has a

The Second Circuit decides another CERCLA contribution case in Niagara Mohawk v. Chevron (Part II)

| June 28, 2010

Our last post discussed the Second Circuit’s recent decision in Niagara Mohawk v. Chevron, 596 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. Feb 24, 2010).  We left off when the District Court was about to review its prior decision in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Cooper Industries v. Aviall Services (“Aviall”). The Aviall Court held that [...]

The Second Circuit decides another CERCLA contribution case in Niagara Mohawk v. Chevron (Part I)

| June 3, 2010

The Second Circuit’s recent decision in Niagara Mohawk Power Corp v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 596 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. Feb 24, 2010), is a study (yet again) in the claims available to private parties to