Laserfiche WebLink
<br />In other courts, the debtor is barred from abandoning a <br />site which violates applicable environmental laws only if the <br />site presents an imminent and identifiable hazard to human <br />health and safety. See, In re L.F. Jennings Oil Co., 4 F.3d <br />887, 890 (10`h Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1005; In re <br />Smith-Douglass, Inc., 856 F.2d 12, 16 (4`h Cir. 1988); In re <br />H.F. Radandt, Inc., 160 B.R. 323, 328 (Bankr.W.D.Wisc.1993); <br />In re Better-Brite Plating, 105 B.R. 912, 917 <br />(Ban kr.E.D.Wisc.1989), vacated, 136 B.R. 526 <br />(Bankr.E.D.Wisc.1990). See also, In re 82 Milbar Boulevard <br />Inc., 91 B.R. 213, 218-20 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1988); <br />In re Gerterl <br />Special Steel Corp., 198 B.R. 128, 134-36 (Bankr.W.D.Pa.1996) <br />(abandonment not permitted because it would pose a continuing <br />an identifiable threat to public health and safety and because <br />abandonment would be illegal under state law); New Jersey <br />Department of Environmental Protection v. North American <br />Products Acquisition Corporation, 137 B.R. 8, 12-13 <br />(D.N.J.1992) (remanding for a hearing on whether abandonment <br />would create a peril or aggravate the danger to the public); <br />Leavell v. Karnes, 143 B.R. 212, 218-19 (S.D.I11.1990) <br />(bankruptcy court erred in allowing abandonment without making <br />a finding whether the conditions on the property pose an <br />28 <br />