 | | RECENT FEDERAL DECISIONS |
January 2006
|
To read this entire item of approximately 750 words online now in PDF format:
Click here to read this item if you are an existing subscriber to this publication.
Click here to purchase the full text of this item to read now (price: $25).
To subscribe to this publication and immediately access all its archives including this item, select the relevant publication under 'Catalogue' in the left-hand column
PLEASE NOTE: to read PDFs on www.argento.com you must be using Version 5 of Acrobat Reader or Adobe Reader. If you have an earlier version you can download the latest free of charge by clicking here
|
Ninth Circuit Affirms that EPA Engaged in Removal, Not Remedial Action, under CERCLA
United States v. W.R. Grace & Co., ___F.3d___
Reviewing a decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a finding that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) action to address widespread asbestos contamination in Libby, Montana, constituted a removal, not remedial, action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Since the action was removal in nature, the court concluded, EPA had acted properly by not complying with the more detailed cleanup requirements for a remedial action.
The information contained on this page is presented for your convenience as news and analysis. It is not intended as legal advice, nor should it be relied upon as such. Please consult an attorney for advice in your case or matter
|
Read related items on:
Statutes - Federal) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act) National Priorities List
Statutes - Federal) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act) Removal Actions
Topics) Pollution and Contamination) Asbestos
Topics) Pollution and Contamination) Mining
Montana) Libby
9th Circuit Court of Appeals
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
United States v. W.R. Grace & Co.
|