vapor intrusion

Ct Grants Summary Judgment in Maryland Square Vapor Intrusion Case

CERCLA, vapor intrusion / By

We have been periodically posting updates on the progress of the landmark Voggenthaler v Maryland Square, LLC vapor intrusion case from Las Vegas, Nevada.  In the most recent ruling, the court granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP) seeking cost recovery under CERCLA.  2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS […]

Ct Grants Summary Judgment in Maryland Square Vapor Intrusion Case Read More »

Consultant Not Liable to Residents of Housing Complex For Not Identifying Vapor Risks

Brownfields, consultant malpractice, Disclosure of Environmental Liabilities, Environmental Due Diligence, vapor intrusion / By

A California state court dismissed a negligence claim brought against an environmental consultant by residents of the infamous Ujima Village low income housing complex for failing to identify health risks associated with a former oil storage facility. The 300-unit Ujima Village complex had been constructed on a portion of the former 122-acre Athens Tank Farm

Consultant Not Liable to Residents of Housing Complex For Not Identifying Vapor Risks Read More »

Court Finds No Successor or Parent Liability For “Indirect” (Grandparent) Corporation

CERCLA, Corporate and Real Estate Transactions / By

In Precision Brand Products. v. Downers Grove Sanitary District, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88009 (N.D. 8/811), the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“IEPA”) detected TCE in private wells  serving a residential community adjacent to the Ellsworth Industrial Park (EIP) in Downers Grove, Ill in 2001. The federal EPA conducted an investigation and issued PRP notices. A

Court Finds No Successor or Parent Liability For “Indirect” (Grandparent) Corporation Read More »

Acquisitions Bring CERCLA Liability to Banking Conglomerate

CERCLA, Corporate and Real Estate Transactions, Environmental Due Diligence, Lender Liability / By

From a purely legal standpoint, the recent ruling In Tennessee v. Roane Holdings Ltd., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143703 (E.D.TN 12/14/11) was not unusual. The court ruled on a motion to dismiss that a party who had entered into an administrative order on consent could not bring a cost recovery action under CERCLA section 107

Acquisitions Bring CERCLA Liability to Banking Conglomerate Read More »

Montana Supreme Ct Allows Lawsuit To Proceed For 25 Year Old Plume

common law, vapor intrusion / By

In what may be one of the more important common law pollution cases of the past few years, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that property owners may proceed with lawsuit alleging damages from contamination that has migrated from a railyard that had operated by Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Company and its predecessors from

Montana Supreme Ct Allows Lawsuit To Proceed For 25 Year Old Plume Read More »

New Damages Trial Ordered For Vapor Intrusion

oil spills, Underground Storage Tanks / By

In Sunrise Harbor Realty LLC v 35th Sunrise Corp, 2011 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5834 (App. Div-2nd Dept 7/12/11), the plaintiff owned a commercial building in Copiague, New York. The plaintiff contemplated purchasing the adjacent property that contained a gas station to expand its building. A phase 2 detected petroleum-contaminated groundwater migrating onto the plaintiff

New Damages Trial Ordered For Vapor Intrusion Read More »

NJ Court Remands Recission of NFA Letter

Brownfields, Underground Storage Tanks / By

A New Jerseyappellate division court ruled that a property owner is entitled to have an administrative hearing regarding the rescission of a no further action (NFA) letter by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). In the Matter of Crompton Colors, Inc., No. A-0778-09T1 (App. Div. 10/27/11) In this case, Hartz Mountain Industries acquired

NJ Court Remands Recission of NFA Letter Read More »

Should a Vapor Encroachment Condition (VEC) Always Be a REC?

vapor intrusion / By

In a recent ASTM conference call, several consultants took the position that they could not envision a circumstances under which a “vapor encroachment condition” (VEC) identified pursuant to ASTM E2600-10 would not be a “recognized environmental condition” (REC) pursuant to ASTM E1527-05. I was surprised by this statement and therefore have decided to post about

Should a Vapor Encroachment Condition (VEC) Always Be a REC? Read More »

Scroll to Top