We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
Deciding statute of limitations issues in CERCLA cases is not
always a straightforward matter as the recent 54 page opinion in American Premier Underwriters Inc. v. General
Electric Company illustrates. There, a federal court in Ohio
was faced with the unenviable task of trying to determine whether
remedial actions and removal actions at four separate railroad
sites located in four different states were barred by statutes of
limitations under CERCLA and state law. Unfortunately, the court
seems to have surrendered its common sense in its close reasoning
of the facts and the case law.
Claiming that CERCLA statute of limitations issues should not be
decided on the basis of bright line tests, the court concluded that
an activity could constitute a remedial action for statute of
limitations purposes even though a Remedial Investigation had not
been completed at the time. Relying upon that flexibility, the
court found that the early implementation of oil recovery systems
at the various sites triggered CERCLA's six year statute of
limitations for remedial actions and barred claims for those
remedial costs. Strangely, however, the court went on to apply a
hard and fast rule (purportedly on the basis of a Sixth Circuit
decision) that CERCLA's three year statute of limitations with
respect to removal actions could not accrue until after a Remedial
Investigation was completed.
In the end, the court reached the truly bizarre result that
remedial actions were barred under CERCLA's six year statute of
limitations whereas removal actions at the same sites commenced
prior to those remedial actions were not barred under CERCLA's
applicable three year statute of limitations. To paraphrase Dante,
anyone entering the world of Superfund should be prepared to leave
hope and reason behind
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has published a proposed rule entitled Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction.
Last week, the European Parliament rejected a proposal to reduce the quantity of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions allowances in order to fix a supply-demand imbalance in the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS).
It may be time for our federal courts to rethink their reluctance to accept major environmental claims that the courts of other countries are simply not yet able to handle.
After being taken to task by states and its own Inspector General for lack of final guidance on Vapor Intrusion, EPA has just released draft guidance documents for hazardous substances and petroleum products for comment.
California's cap-and-trade program mandates that certain covered entities acquire allowances for each metric ton of greenhouse gas (GHG) they emit during specified compliance periods.
Last Friday, EPA announced release of its draft proposal to revise the effluent guidelines and standards for the steam electric power generating industry, last revised in 1982.
On April 19, 2013, EPA released the proposed "Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category" (Steam Electric ELG). The proposed Steam Electric ELG would revise the existing technology-based effluent limitations guidelines [40 CFR 423] for most steam electric power plants and their discharges to U.S. waters or POTWs.
In a decision that should not have come as a surprise to anyone, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday, in "Conservation Northwest v. Sherman", that the Bureau of Land Management and other agencies implementing the Northwest Forest Plan could not amend the NFP.
