California State Water Board’s Low-Threat UST Case Closure Policy Is Now Effective

Contaminated Property

On May 1, 2012, the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted via Resolution No. 2012-0016 the Water Quality Control Policy for Low-Threat Underground Storage Tank Case Closure (Low-Threat Closure Policy).  The Low-Threat Closure Policy finally became effective on August 17th.  This should be good news for the thousands of UST sites in California because the Low-Threat Closure Policy will hopefully make it easier to obtain closure.  At a minimum it defines more clearer criteria for obtaining closure.

The Low-Threat Closure Policy recognizes that many petroleum release cases pose a low-threat to human health and the environment. The policy’s purpose is to establish consistent California statewide case closure criteria for low-threat petroleum UST sites. To potentially qualify for closure, the site must satisfy eight general criteria (applicable to all sites), as well as media-specific criteria as it pertains to groundwater, vapor intrusion to indoor air and direct contact, and outdoor air exposure.  Below is a brief description of each of these criteria.

Continue reading →

LITIGATION UPDATE: Writ of Certiorari filed in Solutia, Inc. v. McWane, Inc.

Environmental Litigation

Recently, Solutia Inc. and Pharmacia Corporation filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to overturn the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling that a Potentially Responsible Party (“PRP”) conducting a cleanup pursuant to a consent decree is foreclosed from bringing a cost recovery action against other PRPs under CERCLA Section 107, and may only seek contribution from other parties under CERCLA section 113.  This ruling is significant because 1) unlike CERCLA section 107, section113 does not provide for joint and several liability against other PRPs, 2) under CERCLA section 113, PRPs that settle with the government are given contribution protection, and 3) the statute of limitations under section 107 and section 113 differs.

Continue reading →


Environmental Litigation

On August 8th, the California Supreme Court granted review of the Second District Court of Appeal’s decision in Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority.  As previously blogged in April, the Second District found that a lead agency’s use of projected future conditions to measure the environmental impacts that a long-term infrastructure project would have on traffic and air quality did not violate the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).  The Second District’s decision put it at odds with holdings of the Fifth and Sixth District Court of Appeals, making the issue of whether CEQA prohibits the use of projected future baselines ripe for review.

Public agencies have long argued that using current-conditions to measure the impacts of major infrastructure projects that will not be completed for many years to come is not helpful in determining the true traffic and air quality impacts the project will have once operational.  The California Supreme Court will now decide whether CEQA allows public agencies to have the discretion to select a future baseline for long-term projects.  Our blog will keep you updated on the court’s decision.


On August 9, 2012, the California Supreme Court handed down its much anticipated decision in State of California v. Continental Ins. Co. The California Supreme Court held that the “all sums” method of allocation applies in California and that an insured can horizontally stack all successively triggered policies in an environmental property damage case involving a single occurrence causing continuous and progressive contamination throughout multiple policy years.

Therefore, a liability insurer is obligated to pay all sums the insured become obligated to pay for property damage attributable to a contaminated site up to policy limits as long as some of the continuous property damage occurred while that particular insurer’s policy was on the loss.  An insurer cannot limit its liability to just the amount of loss that occurred during its particular policy period.  The Supreme Court also concluded that absent specific “anti-stacking” policy language, an insured is entitled to “stack” the consecutive policy limits of each successively triggered policy to recover the limits of all policies on the risk for the loss.

Continue reading →