Earlier this month, United States District Court Judge Stephen Wilson held that NL Industries was not liable under CERCLA for air emissions of lead because such emissions did not constitute “disposal” within the meaning of CERCLA. I’m going to give Judge Wilson a pass, both because there was an arguably binding 9th Circuit precedent and because of CERCLA’s general incomprehensibility. 
However, whether one blames Judge Wilson or the 9th Circuit panel in Pakootas v.… More
I know it may surprise some litigators, but occasionally the allegations in a complaint do matter. In Garrett Day v. International Paper, the Court dismissed CERCLA claims brought by the current owner of a former paper mill located in Dayton, Ohio, 
against alleged former owners. The opinion covers a lot of issues, but the most important is the distinction between “release” and “disposal” under CERCLA. … More
More than 20 years ago, in the Tanglewood East decision, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a developers could potentially be liable under CERCLA for conducting site development activities that moved contamination on the site, exacerbated conditions, and required additional cleanup. There have not been many reported cases on this issue since then, so the decision earlier this week in Saline River Properties v.… More
In a recent decision, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that neither CERCLA nor RCRA provide convenient ways for the buyer of a building containing asbestos to finance the abatement of that asbestos. In Sycamore Industrial Park Associates v. Ericsson, the seller of the building replaced the old heating equipment shortly prior to sale, but left the old system, including piping, in place. The buyer sought to make the seller pay for the asbestos abatement on the ground that the seller has disposed of the old equipment by abandoning it in place when it installed the new system.… More