by Mitchell J. Klein In a recent unpublished case, the Superior Court of New Jersey held that the Plaintiff in a CERCLA case had committed spoliation when, during the course of the remedial activity, it disposed of various contaminated materials. See Pollitt Drive, LLC v. Harvey Engel. While the case does not establish any precedent, […]
by Mitch Klein The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were recently amended. Amongst the changes, perhaps the most significant are the changes to discovery under Rule 26. Previously, parties were entitled to conduct discovery regarding anything that might be “reasonably calculated” to lead to relevant and admissible evidence. In practice, this led to some parties […]
by Mark D. Johnson Under CERCLA activities to clean up hazardous substances are characterized as either “removal actions” or “remedial actions.” Generally, removal actions are interim actions to clean up or remove hazardous materials. 42 U.S.C. § 9601(23). Remedial actions are efforts to permanently remedy the presence of hazardous materials. Id. § 9601(23). A claim […]
By Patrick Paul On August 5, 2015, a clean-up crew operating under the supervision of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) investigating the source of water contamination at the Gold King Mine in San Juan County, Colorado caused a spill of toxic wastewater, now estimated to be three million gallons, to flow into the […]
By Stephen W. Smithson The EPA is slowly moving toward requiring the hardrock mining industry to provide financial assurances, pursuant to CERCLA 108(b). Although first required in 1980, these would be the first financial assurance requirements proposed by EPA. EPA recently announced that draft regulations are expected in 2016, with a final rule expected in […]
