In another step toward broader regulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), on August 29, 2024, New Jersey, New Mexico, and North Carolina (the States) submitted a petition (Petition) urging the United States...more
On April 15, in Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency v. Whittaker Corp., et al., No. 22-55727, slip op., -- F.4th – (9th Cir. 2024) (SCVWA), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Court of Appeals) held that in a...more
Typically, final remediation documents (no-further-action letters, response action outcomes, and the like) signal the end of remediation at a contaminated site. Upon receipt of the documents, responsible parties can often...more
On November 1, 2021, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) approved changes to its Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) standard to include guidance on when per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)...more
On Sept. 8, in N.J. Department of Environmental Protection v. American Thermoplastics Corp., Nos. 18-2865 & 19-2243, slip op., -- F.3d -- (3d Cir. 2020), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Court of Appeals) held...more
On July 23, in MPM Silicones, LLC v. Union Carbide Corp., No. 17-3468(L), 17-3669(XAP), slip op., -- F.3d -- (2d Cir. 2020), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the District Court’s dismissal of...more
8/4/2020
/ CERCLA ,
Contaminated Properties ,
Cost Recovery ,
Environmental Litigation ,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ,
Hazardous Waste ,
Imminent Harm ,
PCBs ,
Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) ,
RCRA ,
Remedial Actions ,
Statute of Limitations ,
Summary Judgment