The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently announced in a Federal Register notice that it entered into an administrative agreement with the City of Chicago concerning the 76th & Albany hazardous waste site in Chicago, Illinois.
According to this presentation from the City, the site (now known as the Gateway Park Industrial Complex) "had been the home of a drive-in theater and a flea market after the mid-1900s. From 1980 to the mid-1990s, 600,000 cubic yards of concrete, asphalt, construction and demolition debris, soil, rubbish, and hazardous automobile shredder residue found their way into the site to form what was considered an environmental disaster." The Greater Southwest Development Corporation and the City "dedicated themselves to finding a private partner for the redevelopment of the site. Gateway Park, LLC, a partnership between Martha Williams of StyleMaster and other investors, together with local and federal agencies, transformed the site into a dynamic industrial park."
Under the proposed agreement, the City will pay $220,380 to EPA to resolve EPA’s claims against it for response costs incurred by EPA for investigating and performing response actions to mitigate potential imminent and substantial endangerments to human health or the environment presented or threatened by hazardous substances present at the Site.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Showing posts with label CERCLA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CERCLA. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Environmental Trust Fund Established in GM Bankruptcy to Clean Up 89 Sites, Including Illinois Site
The Department of Justice recently published in the Federal Register a notice concerning a consent decree and settlement agreement to be lodged in the GM bankruptcy case, In re: Motors Liquidation Corp, et al., f/k/a General Motors Corp., et al., Jointly Administered Case No. 09–50026 (REG). The settlement agreement resolves claims and causes of action of the Environmental Protection Agency under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act with respect to 89 sites, including the GMPT—Danville Landfill Site in Illinois.
Under the terms of the settlement agreement, a environmental response trust will be set up in the amount of $499,434,945 to clean up these 89 sites. An additional payment of $142 million will be made and certain personalty and title of 88 real properties will be transferred to the environmental response trust to fund administrative expenses.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Under the terms of the settlement agreement, a environmental response trust will be set up in the amount of $499,434,945 to clean up these 89 sites. An additional payment of $142 million will be made and certain personalty and title of 88 real properties will be transferred to the environmental response trust to fund administrative expenses.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Proposed Superfund Consent Decree Calls for $3.6 Million Payment for Past and Future Response Costs
On August 16, 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice provided notice in the Federal Register that a proposed consent decree was filed in United States v. Central Rubber Co., Case No. 3:10-cv-50193 (Northern District of Illinois), which is a Superfund lawsuit filed by the federal government to recover response costs incurred or to be incurred by the United States as a result of releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances from the manufacturing facilities owned or operated by Central Rubber Company, Woodhead Industries, Inc., Textron, Inc., Camcar LLC, and Johns Manville. The facilities are located at the Parsons Casket Hardware Superfund Site, in Belvidere, Boone County, Illinois.
Under the proposed consent decree, the Settling Defendants will pay $3.6 million to the United States in reimbursement of past and future response costs. The decree will also require "Owner Settling Defendants" (those defendants who own real property within the Superfund Site), to provide access to their properties to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which will be performing the remedial action at the site, to cooperate with U.S. EPA in its performance of the remedy, and to prepare and record Environmental Restrictive Covenants which grant certain Proprietary Controls to the State of Illinois and U.S. EPA to facilitate performance of the remedial action.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Under the proposed consent decree, the Settling Defendants will pay $3.6 million to the United States in reimbursement of past and future response costs. The decree will also require "Owner Settling Defendants" (those defendants who own real property within the Superfund Site), to provide access to their properties to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which will be performing the remedial action at the site, to cooperate with U.S. EPA in its performance of the remedy, and to prepare and record Environmental Restrictive Covenants which grant certain Proprietary Controls to the State of Illinois and U.S. EPA to facilitate performance of the remedial action.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Contamination Claims Against Dry Cleaner Allowed to Proceed in Federal Court
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently issued an opinion in Tinaglia Family L.P. v. North Shore Cleaners, Inc., No. 09 C 6031, which concerned the Plaintiff's commercial and residential property in Glencoe, Illinois. The Plaintiff's property is adjacent to property owned by the Defendants, who operate a dry cleaning establishment on site.
According to the complaint, there has been and continues to be a release of hazardous substances on the dry cleaning property and that the hazardous substances have migrated to adjacent properties including the Plaintiff's property. In 2002, Defendants allegedly hired an environmental consultant to investigate a possible contamination problem. The Plaintiff allegedly signed an agreement providing consent for Defendants’ consultant to test the Plaintiff's property. Pursuant to that agreement, Defendants were also required to provide Plaintiff with the results of all tests. According to Plaintiff, Defendants falsely reported to the Plaintiff both orally and in writing that there was no contamination on the Plaintiff's property. The Plaintiff allegedly believed the representations, relied on them, and took no further action to investigate the issue. In February 2008, the Plaintiff allegedly attempted to sell its property, and as part of the sale, the lender required an environmental assessment. The assessment allegedly showed that the Plaintiff's property was contaminated by the hazardous substances that had migrated from the dry cleaning property.
The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, which was based on the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (more commonly known as Superfund), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, negligence, trespass, private nuisance, breach of contract, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. The Court denied the motion to dismiss and ruled that the Plaintiff had alleged enough facts in the complaint to proceed with its claims.
There have been several instances where claims have been made against dry cleaners for contamination, because of the use of hazardous chemicals, including perchloroethylene (perc), by those establishments. As dry cleaners become "greener" and use less hazardous chemicals, we expect less claims to be made against those establishments.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
According to the complaint, there has been and continues to be a release of hazardous substances on the dry cleaning property and that the hazardous substances have migrated to adjacent properties including the Plaintiff's property. In 2002, Defendants allegedly hired an environmental consultant to investigate a possible contamination problem. The Plaintiff allegedly signed an agreement providing consent for Defendants’ consultant to test the Plaintiff's property. Pursuant to that agreement, Defendants were also required to provide Plaintiff with the results of all tests. According to Plaintiff, Defendants falsely reported to the Plaintiff both orally and in writing that there was no contamination on the Plaintiff's property. The Plaintiff allegedly believed the representations, relied on them, and took no further action to investigate the issue. In February 2008, the Plaintiff allegedly attempted to sell its property, and as part of the sale, the lender required an environmental assessment. The assessment allegedly showed that the Plaintiff's property was contaminated by the hazardous substances that had migrated from the dry cleaning property.
The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, which was based on the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (more commonly known as Superfund), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, negligence, trespass, private nuisance, breach of contract, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. The Court denied the motion to dismiss and ruled that the Plaintiff had alleged enough facts in the complaint to proceed with its claims.
There have been several instances where claims have been made against dry cleaners for contamination, because of the use of hazardous chemicals, including perchloroethylene (perc), by those establishments. As dry cleaners become "greener" and use less hazardous chemicals, we expect less claims to be made against those establishments.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Illinois Federal Court Denies Motion to Dismiss PRPs' Cost-Recovery Claim
On May 12, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois denied a motion to dismiss crossclaims for cost recovery under Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA" and more commonly known as Superfund) in United States v. Pharmacia Corp., No. 99-cv-63.
Section 107(a) of CERCLA (42 U.S.C. 9607(a)), subjects certain persons or companies, known as potentially-responsible parties (or "PRPs"), to liability when there is a release or threatened release of hazardous substances. In general, PRPs are liable for (1) costs of removing or cleaning-up the hazardous substances incurred by the government, (2) other necessary costs of response incurred by any other person consistent with the national contigency plan, (3) damages to natural resources, and (4) costs of health assessments or health effects studies under certain circumstances.
Section 113(f) of CERCLA (42 U.S.C. 9613(f)) allows any person to seek contribution from any other PRP for costs paid to reimburse another party (such as the government). In theory, this means that each PRP will only be liable to pay its fair share (i.e., each PRP's liability will be based only on how much its conduct contributed to the release).
In United States v. Pharmacia, Pharmacia Corporation, Solutia, Inc. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation were PRPs at the Sauget Area One site, which is located in the Villages of Sauget and Cahokia, in St. Clair County, Illinois. The PRPs were sued by the federal government under Section 107 of CERCLA for the recovery of clean-up costs allegedly incurred by the government at the site. The PRPs filed a contribution claim under Section 113 of CERCLA against Rogers Cartage to allocate responsibility for costs that may have to be paid to the government. The federal government also sued Rogers Cartage under Sections 107 and 113, and the government ultimately lost at trial on those claims.
The PRPs also incurred their own costs while investigating and cleaning up contamination at the site, and filed a claim under Section 107 of CERCLA against Rogers Cartage to recover those costs. Rogers Cartage then filed a motion to dismiss that claim. The Court denied the motion to dismiss:
"Here, [the PRPs] expressly allege that the purpose of their Section 107(a) action is to recover response costs which were neither derivative of, nor co-extensive with the United States costs; in other words, expenses that are allegedly different from those sought by the United States in its trial against Rogers Cartage back in November 2003. Now, [the PRPs] are seeking to recover some of those response costs from Rogers Cartage who, they allege, owned portions of at least three sites within Sauget Area One, and operated a truck terminal and truck washing operation on that property in the 1960's and 1970's. One of CERCLA’s main purposes is to encourage private parties to assume the financial cleanup by allowing them to seek recovery from others. Thus, allowing [the PRPs'] Section 107(a) cost recovery action to proceed neither contravenes the Supreme Court’s current interpretation of CERCLA, nor one of act’s fundamental purposes."
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Section 107(a) of CERCLA (42 U.S.C. 9607(a)), subjects certain persons or companies, known as potentially-responsible parties (or "PRPs"), to liability when there is a release or threatened release of hazardous substances. In general, PRPs are liable for (1) costs of removing or cleaning-up the hazardous substances incurred by the government, (2) other necessary costs of response incurred by any other person consistent with the national contigency plan, (3) damages to natural resources, and (4) costs of health assessments or health effects studies under certain circumstances.
Section 113(f) of CERCLA (42 U.S.C. 9613(f)) allows any person to seek contribution from any other PRP for costs paid to reimburse another party (such as the government). In theory, this means that each PRP will only be liable to pay its fair share (i.e., each PRP's liability will be based only on how much its conduct contributed to the release).
In United States v. Pharmacia, Pharmacia Corporation, Solutia, Inc. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation were PRPs at the Sauget Area One site, which is located in the Villages of Sauget and Cahokia, in St. Clair County, Illinois. The PRPs were sued by the federal government under Section 107 of CERCLA for the recovery of clean-up costs allegedly incurred by the government at the site. The PRPs filed a contribution claim under Section 113 of CERCLA against Rogers Cartage to allocate responsibility for costs that may have to be paid to the government. The federal government also sued Rogers Cartage under Sections 107 and 113, and the government ultimately lost at trial on those claims.
The PRPs also incurred their own costs while investigating and cleaning up contamination at the site, and filed a claim under Section 107 of CERCLA against Rogers Cartage to recover those costs. Rogers Cartage then filed a motion to dismiss that claim. The Court denied the motion to dismiss:
"Here, [the PRPs] expressly allege that the purpose of their Section 107(a) action is to recover response costs which were neither derivative of, nor co-extensive with the United States costs; in other words, expenses that are allegedly different from those sought by the United States in its trial against Rogers Cartage back in November 2003. Now, [the PRPs] are seeking to recover some of those response costs from Rogers Cartage who, they allege, owned portions of at least three sites within Sauget Area One, and operated a truck terminal and truck washing operation on that property in the 1960's and 1970's. One of CERCLA’s main purposes is to encourage private parties to assume the financial cleanup by allowing them to seek recovery from others. Thus, allowing [the PRPs'] Section 107(a) cost recovery action to proceed neither contravenes the Supreme Court’s current interpretation of CERCLA, nor one of act’s fundamental purposes."
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
