On August 21, 2013, we wrote here that the United States Environmental Protection Agency approved the new ASTM Phase I environmental due diligence standard (ASTM E1527-13). In a move that caught many observers by surprise, however, the EPA stated that both the old and the new ASTM standards could be used to satisfy a party’s
David P. Steinberger
US EPA Approves, But Does Not Require, Use of the New ASTM Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Standard
By David P. Steinberger on
When a party buys or leases real estate, they may become liable for the cleanup of pre-existing environmental contamination, even if the new property owner/tenant did not release the contaminants. That liability exists under the Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, also known as the Superfund law. Most states also have similar laws…
The New Jersey Waiver Rule is Upheld by Court
By David P. Steinberger on
Posted in Environmental Litigation
On March 21, 2013, the New Jersey Appellate Division upheld the validity of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) controversial “Waiver Rule.” The Waiver Rule generally allows the DEP to waive regulatory requirements under certain conditions. The Waiver Rule was proposed by the DEP in March 2011, and was finalized in March 2012…
New Jersey Supreme Court: The Spill Act Requires Proof of a Nexus Between a Discharger and the Contamination Being Cleaned Up
By David P. Steinberger on
Posted in Environmental Litigation
On September 26, 2012, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued its decision in New Jersey Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. v. Ofra Dimant. In this case, the Supreme Court was called upon to address the proofs needed to tie a discharger to a contaminated site in order to find that discharger liable for the contamination…
How to Value Contaminated Property in a New Jersey Condemnation Matter
By David P. Steinberger on
A recent New Jersey Appellate Division case clarifies the process of valuing contaminated property in a condemnation action, and finds that where the cleanup has been completed, even if contamination remains at the property, the property owner is not required to escrow additional monies for any further cleanup.
In 2003, in the Suydam Investors case…