Source: https://eem.jacksonkelly.com/superfundcrcla/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 12:21:12
Document Index: 274136403

Matched Legal Cases: ['§9658', '§9658', '§9658', '§9658', '§9658', '§9658', '§9658', 'art 312']

Energy and Environment Monitor: Superfund/CERCLA
The case is interesting for two reasons: first, because CERCLA contains a provision (§9658) which was designed to provide a uniform period within which claims may be brought; and second, because the Court concluded that under the text of the statute, Congress understood the distinction between statutes of limitations and of statutes of repose, and chose to pre-empt the former but not the latter.
CERCLA governs civil action for personal injury and property damage from the unauthorized release of pollutants into the environment. When CERCLA was amended in 1986, Congress added a provision, now codified at §9658, that provides a nationally uniform time period within which to bring claims upon discovery of the injury. Congress justified this provision on the basis that injuries from the gradual release of hazardous substances may sometimes take years to manifest themselves. Since statutes of limitations vary widely across the states, a national standard for asserting civil actions was thought necessary.
CTS Corporation operated an electronics plant in Asheville, North Carolina from 1959 to 1985, during which it used and released hazardous chemicals on site. In 1987, CTS sold the property to a buyer who continued the operations, but in turn eventually sold portions of the property to individuals. Those landowners together with adjacent property owners brought suit in 2011. Notwithstanding having been absent from its former property for almost a quarter century, CTS was named as a defendant.
CTS defended the claim on the basis of North Carolina’s statute of repose which bars all claims brought more than 10 years after the last act or omission of the defendant. The plaintiffs asserted that §9658 of CERCLA pre-empted this defense. Procedurally, the District Court found that the statute of repose did apply, was not affected by CERCLA’s preemption of the state statute of limitation, and barred plaintiff’s claims. The Fourth Circuit reversed, finding that §9658 preempted the statute of repose to the extent that it denied claims otherwise preserved by application of CERCLA. In a spirited and closely reasoned opinion, Judge Thacker dissented, finding a distinction between statutes of limitations and repose, and concluding that CERCLA pre-empted the former but not the latter. The Supreme Court agreed.
In a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Kennedy, the Court decided that §9658 does not preempt statutes of repose for three reasons. First, the purposes served by statutes of limitation and repose differ, with the first acting to toll actions while the latter imposes an absolute bar to actions. Second, the Court found that the Fourth Circuit erred by not looking at the precise text of the statute, but instead used CERCLA’s “remedial purpose” to justify interpreting it liberally. Third, notwithstanding imprecise usage and confusion between the concepts of statutes of limitation and statutes of repose, Congress had commissioned a study by legal scholars to address the issue of a uniform standard established by §9658. The commission’s final report distinguished the two concepts and recommended that Congress enact a uniform statute to preempt both. CERCLA, however, uses only the term “limitations” and disregards “repose.” “[W]hen Congress did not make the same distinction, it is proper to conclude that Congress did not exercise the full scope of its preemption power.” (Slip Op. at 13.)
The decision should not be interpreted to mean that Congress does not have the power to preempt statutes of repose, only that it did not do so in this instance. In addition, the decision may have only limited effect as other environmental statutes that provide for private actions do not have a section comparable to §9658. Nevertheless, the opinion does provide states with a legal basis to bar at least some CERCLA claims once the actual activities have concluded and a significant amount of time has passed.
The case is CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, No. 13-339. The slip opinion is available here. This article was authored by Blair M. Gardner and Aaron S. Heishman, Jackson Kelly PLLC.
EPA Adopts ASTM’s New Standard for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments
On December 30, 2013, EPA published a final rule (78 Fed. Reg. 79.319) amending the All Appropriate Inquiries (AAIs) Rule to reference ASTM International’s new, 2013 standard for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments. The final rule concerns environmental due diligence for real estate transactions and affects buyers of potentially contaminated properties seeking a limitation on Superfund liability as bona fide prospective purchasers, contiguous property owners, or innocent landowners and environmental professionals who conduct Phase I Environmental Site Assessments. In addition, parties conducting a site characterization or assessment on a property with a Brownfields grant awarded under Superfund, including state and local governments that receive Brownfields site assessment grants, may be affected. Banks, insurers, development authorities, developers, and others involved in Brownfields redevelopment should also take notice of EPA’s December 30 final rule.
The final rule allows a party seeking liability protection from Superfund to conduct a Phase I environmental site assessment using either the AAIs Rule at 40 CFR Part 312 or ASTM’s new standard, E1527-13 “Standard Practice For Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process.” When EPA published the proposed rule (78 Fed. Reg. 49,690; August 15, 2013), EPA added the 2013 standard as an additional acceptable standard but did not replace the reference to ASTM’s 2005 standard. Commenters expressed concern regarding EPA’s proposal to allow ASTM’s previous standard to continue to be considered compliant with the AAIs Rule. In the December 30 final rule, EPA states it intends to “publish a proposed rule, in the near future, that will propose amending the [AAIs] final rule to remove the previous reference to the ASTM E1527-05 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Standard.”
Delineation of historical releases: The 2013 ASTM standard clarifies the definitions of Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) and Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HREC) and adds a new term, Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition (CREC). The revised definition of HREC clarifies that the scope and application of a HREC is limited to only past releases that have been addressed to a degree allowing for unrestricted use of the property. The new definition for CREC refers to past releases that have been addressed but allow contamination to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls.
Vapor migration: The 2013 ASTM standard clarifies that AAIs and Phase I environmental site assessments must include an assessment of the real or potential occurrence of vapor migration and vapor releases at the subject property. This is not a new requirement. In the December 30 final rule, EPA states that “in its view, vapor migration has always been a relevant potential source of release or threatened release that, depending on site-specific conditions, may warrant identification when conducting all appropriate inquiries.” Id at 79,322.
Regulatory agency file and records review: The 2013 ASTM standard also includes additional guidance related to the regulatory agency file and records review requirement to provide a standardized framework for verifying agency information obtained from key databases. The additional guidance and added framework for file and record reviews clarifies that an environmental professional should make efforts to review and document the validity of information found from searches of agency databases.
For EPA’s summary of the differences between ASTM’s 2005 and 2013 standards, see EPA’s “Summary of Updates and Revisions to ASTM E1527 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process; How E1527-13 Differs from E1527-05,” which is available in the docket for the December 30 final rule, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0513-0003, at www.regulations.gov.
Overall, the revisions and additions in the 2013 ASTM standard will provide enhanced information on potential contamination at a site and will improve upon the usefulness of Phase I site assessment reports by providing greater clarity for prospective purchase and others who rely upon the reports. Not surprisingly, EPA “recommends” and “strongly encourages” use of the updated 2013 ASTM standard by prospective purchasers, environmental professionals, and others involved in the redevelopment of Brownfields.
Posted on January 06, 2014 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)