Regulators need access to environmentally contaminated sites.  They have to study them to determine whether the contamination requires a cleanup, they have to choose a cleanup, they have to conduct or direct implementation of that cleanup, and then they have to provide for its monitoring and maintenance.  But when the contaminated property is not the source of the release, that means that someone who has been dumped on has to allow an intrusion onto his or her property merely because of having been dumped on.  That has to be true, or else all cleanups would be optional.  Yet, the right of access has limits.

My February column in the Pennsylvania Law Weekly reviews the authorities for access provided in section 104(e) and 104(j) of the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act and section 503 of the Pennsylvania Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act.  The Commonwealth Court has had occasion just recently to consider section 503 in Commonwealth v. Spangler, No. 1917 C.D. 2013 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Jan. 23, 2015).

Read When Can the Government Access Contaminated Sites?, 38 Pa. L. Weekly 148 (Feb. 17, 2015), by clicking here.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of David Mandelbaum David Mandelbaum

David G. Mandelbaum represents clients facing problems under environmental laws. He regularly represents clients in lawsuits and also has helped clients achieve satisfactory outcomes through regulatory negotiation or private transactions. A Fellow of the American College of Environmental Lawyers, David teaches Superfund, and…

David G. Mandelbaum represents clients facing problems under environmental laws. He regularly represents clients in lawsuits and also has helped clients achieve satisfactory outcomes through regulatory negotiation or private transactions. A Fellow of the American College of Environmental Lawyers, David teaches Superfund, and Oil and Gas Law in rotation at the Temple University Beasley School of Law as well as an environmental litigation course at Suffolk (Boston) Law School.

Since United States v. Atlas Minerals, the first multi-generator Superfund contribution case to go to trial in 1993, Mr. Mandelbaum has been engaged in matters involving allocation of costs among responsible parties, especially under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).  He has tried large cases and resolved others as lead counsel.  He has written, spoken, and taught extensively on the subject.  More recently he also has been engaged to assist lead counsel from this firm and others:

  • to develop cost allocation methodologies;
  • to craft expert testimony in support of a favored methodology (given a definition of “fairness,” why one methodology better tracks it than another);
  • to develop efficient case management approaches; and to assist private allocation as part of the neutral team.

Concentrations

  • Air, water and waste regulation
  • Superfund and contamination
  • Climate change
  • Oil and gas development
  • Water rights