ALI-ABA Course of Study Environmental Litigation

Similar documents
Chapter VIII SUPERFUND LAWS. In the aftermath of Love Canal and other revelations of the improper disposal of

Colorado s Hazardous Waste Program: Current Activities and Issues

Citizens Suit Remedies Can Expand Contaminated Site

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND REGION 6 OF THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2013

Policy Issues at Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) Frequently Asked State Questions August 2010

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2013

Journal of Environmental and Sustainability Law

Assessing Costs under CERCLA: Sixth Circuit Requires Specificity in Complaints Seeking Prejudgment Interest. United States v. Consolidation Coal Co.

Expediting Productive Reuse of Superfund Sites: Some Legislative Solutions for Virginia and the Nation

UNITED STATES V. ATLANTIC RESEARCH: OF SETTLEMENT AND VOLUNTARILY INCURRED COSTS

Toxic Torts Recent Relevant Decisions. Rhon E. Jones Beasley, Allen Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C.

The CERCLA's Daily Penalty and Treble Damages Provisions: Is Any Cause Sufficient Cause to Disobey an EPA Order?

Landowner Liability Under CERCLA: Is Innocence a Defense?

The Citizen Suit Provision of CERCLA: A Sheep in Wolf 's Clothing

Environmental Due Diligence: Why Should You Care About Environmental Contamination & Due Diligence?

LIMITED ENVIRONMENTAL INDEMNITY AGREEMENT

RCRA Citizen Suits: Key Defenses and Interpretive Trends

Notwithstanding a pair of recent

Recoverability of Government Oversight Costs under CERCLA Section 107: United States v. Rohm and Haas Co.

The Permissibility of Actions for Response Costs Arising After the Commencement of a RCRA Citizen Suit: A Post-Meghrig v. KFC Western, Inc.

The Petroleum Exclusion - Stronger That Ever after Wilshire Westwood

Interpretation of the Consumer Products Exception in the Definition of Facility under CERCLA;Legislative Reform

TITLE 42, CHAPTER 103 COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT (CERCLA) EMERGENCY RESPONSE & NOTIFICATION PROVISIONS

Judicial Review and CERCLA Response Actions: Interpretive Strategies in the Face of Plain Meaning

Personal Liability for Hazardous Waste Cleanup: An Examination of CERCLA Section 107

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

United States v. Olin Corporation: How a Polluter Got Off Clean

Cleaning Up: Equitable Considerations in the RCRA Citizen Suit Provision Controversy

The Brownfields Act: Providing Relief for the Innocent or New Hurdles to Avoid CERCLA Liability?

A Guide to Monetary Sanctions for Environment Violations by Federal Facilities

Innocence Amid "LUST": The Innocent Buyer and Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Containing Petroleum

CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web

SESSION #4: Program Administration, Partnerships, Laws and Enforcement

CERCLA: To Clean or Not to Clean - The Supreme Court Says There is no Question. U.S. v. Atl. Research Corp.

Journal of Environmental and Sustainability Law

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2014 in P.L

Expanding State Initiation and Enforcement Under Superfund

42 USC NB: This unofficial compilation of the U.S. Code is current as of Jan. 4, 2012 (see

Fourth Circuit Summary

Supreme Court Clarifies Rights of PRPs to Recover Cleanup Costs from Other PRPs, and the United States

and the Transboundary Application of CERCLA:

ALAN MEGHRIG, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. KFC WESTERN, INC. No SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): FY2016 Appropriations

Client Alert. Natural Resource Damages After NJDEP v. Dimant. The Spill Act. Facts of Dimant

LIMITED OBJECTIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL TO DEBTORS JOINT PLAN

No IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. ATLANTIC RESEARCH CORPORATION, Respondent.

CHAPTER Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 622

Cleaning Up the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

Sale or Disposal: The Extension of CERCLA Liability to Vendors of Hazardous Materials

A Bill Regular Session, 2019 HOUSE BILL 1967

No. 94 C 2854 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Cleveland State University. Stephen Q. Giblin. Dennis M. Kelly

ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE TRUST AGREEMENT BY AND AMONG

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SOLID WASTE CODE APACHE TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

AMENDED AND RESTATED SOLID WASTE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT

NAVAJO NATION SOLID WASTE ACT

Landowner-Lessor Liability Under CERCLA

Weekl. the April 15. tax, which affects. what to pay. Rate. said

District of Columbia Municipal Regulations

Environmental Settlements in Bankruptcy: Practice Pointers for the Business Lawyer. A. Overview of the Bankruptcy Process

Reopener Liability under Section 122 of CERCLA: From Here to Eternity

Cleaning Up the Mess, or Messing Up the Cleanup: Does CERCLA s Jurisdictional Bar (Section 113(H)) Prohibit Citizen Suits Brought Under RCRA

b. On the basis of race, color or national origin, in Executive Order as implemented by Department of Labor regulations at 41 CFR Chapter 60.

RCRA Citizen Suits in a Post-Cooper Era

Enforcing the Clean Water Act Authority, Trends, and Targets

UNITED STATES V. ATLANTIC RESEARCH CORP.: WHO SHOULD PAY TO CLEAN UP INACTIVE HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES?

Fordham Environmental Law Review

Centerior Service Company v. Acme Scrap Iron & (and) Metal Corporation: Cost Recovery or Contribution in the Sixth Circuit

Environmental Claims in Bankruptcy. Matthew A. Paque

LIBRARY. CERCLA Case Law Developments ENVIRONMENTAL COST RECOVERY & LENDER LIABILITY UPDATE. Full Article

Cost Recovery: Lawyers As A Plus?

Riding on the CERCLA-Cycle: Is the Third Circuit Backpedaling? E.I. DePont de Nemours & Co. v. U.S.

The Effect of Deminimis Polluting in the Sixth Circuit. Kalamazoo River Study Group v. Rockwell Intl. Corp.


PRP Contribution Claims Under CERCLA Strategies for Cost Recovery Against Other Potentially Responsible Parties

The Private Causes of Action under CERCLA: Navigating the Intersection of Sections 107(a) and 113(f)

Natural Resources Journal

Environmental Questionnaire

Inventory of the California Environmental Protection Agency Records. No online items

Military Installation Real Property and Services: Proposed Legislation in the 111 th Congress

ALI-ABA Course of Study Environmental Law

Federal Pollution Control Laws: How Are They Enforced?

COMPELLED COSTS UNDER CERCLA: INCOMPATIBLE REMEDIES, JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY, AND TORT LAW

CERCLA Settlements, Contribtion Protection and Fairness to Non-Settling Responsible Parties

When Does Going to the Doctor Serve the Public Health? Medical Monitoring Response Costs Under CERCLA

After Voluntary Liability: The EPA s Implementation of a Superfund

The RCRA/CERCLA Debate: Application of State Standards at Federal Hazardous Waste Sites. United States v. Colorado

Transportation Agencies as Potentially Responsible Parties at Hazardous Waste Sites

Ch. 263a TRANSPORTERS a.10. CHAPTER 263a. TRANSPORTERS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

SUPERFUND AMENDMENTS AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1986 (SARA) - TITLE III EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW

The Moral Position of Landowners Within the Scope of CERCLA

The Federal and State Roles in Environmental Enforcement: A Proposal for a More Effective and More Efficient Relationship

Natural Resources Journal

No IN THE Supreme Court of the Unite Statee. MORRISON ENTERPRISES, LLC, Petitioner, DRAVO CORPORATION, Respondent.

BISHOP PAIUTE TRIBE. Bishop Paiute Reservation. Bishop, California NUISANCE ORDINANCE NO Adopted: September 18, Amended: June 24, 2009

Earth First? CERCLA Reimbursement Claims and Bankruptcy

40 CFR Parts 110, 112, 116, 117, 122, 230, 232, 300, 302, and 401. Definition of Waters of the United States Amendment of Effective Date of 2015 Clean

Transcription:

949 ALI-ABA Course of Study Environmental Litigation Sponsored with the cooperation of the University of Colorado School of Law June 16-18, 2010 Boulder, Colorado CERCLA Overview By John C. Cruden U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D.C.

950 CERCLA OVERVIEW TABLE OF CONTENTS A. INTRODUCTORY/OVERVIEW... 1 1. HISTORY... 1 2. STRUCTURE AND PURPOSE... 2 3. FURTHERANCE OF STATUTORY GOALS... 2 B. CERCLA'S LIABILITY STANDARD... 3 1. STRICT LIABILITY... 3 2. JOINT AND SEVERAL ("J&S") LIABILITY... 3 3. RETROACTIVE LIABILITY... 5 C. GOVERNMENTAL ALTERNATIVES AT A SUPERFUND SITE... 5 1. RESPONSE ACTIONS... 5 2. INFORMATION GATHERING AND SITE ACCESS... 6 3. CLEANUP PROCESS... 7 4. WORK OPTIONS... 8 D. PRIVATE PARTY RESPONSE ACTIONS UNDER GOVERNMENT DIRECTION - CERCLA SECTION 106... 8 1. STANDARDS (WHETHER ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER OR INJUNCTION)... 8 2. SANCTIONS FOR NON-COMPLIANCE... 9 E. COST RECOVERY ACTIONS - CERCLA 107(a)(4)(A)... 11 1. BASIC ELEMENTS OF LIABILITY FOR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, STATES, OR INDIAN TRIBES... 11 2. THE FOUR ELEMENTS OF LIABILITY - SECTION 107(a)... 11 3. CURRENT OWNERS AND OPERATORS... 13 4. PAST OWNERS AND OPERATORS... 14 5. GENERATORS... 16 6. TRANSPORTERS... 18 F. RECOVERABLE COSTS... 19 1. GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSE COSTS... 19 2. RECOVERABILITY OF PRE-CERCLA COSTS... 21 3. PRIVATE COST RECOVERY ACTIONS UNDER 107(a)(4)(B)... 21 4. EXTRATERRITORIALITY... 23 i

951 G. DEFENSES TO LIABILITY - SECTION 107(b)... 23 1. ACT OF GOD... 23 2. ACT OF WAR... 24 3. THIRD PARTY DEFENSE... 24 4. PROCEDURES... 25 H. EXCLUSIONS... 25 1. PETROLEUM... 25 2. SECURITY INTEREST HOLDERS... 26 3. INNOCENT LANDOWNERS... 27 4. FEDERALLY PERMITTED RELEASES... 27 5. COMMON CARRIERS... 28 6. PESTICIDE... 28 7. CONSUMER PRODUCTS... 28 8. RECYCLERS... 28 9. DE MICROMIS EXEMPTION SECTION 107(o)... 29 10. MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE EXEMPTION (MSW) SECTION 107(p)... 29 11. CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNERS SECTION 107(q)... 29 12. PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER SECTION 107(r)... 30 13. BROWNFIELDS 128(b)... 30 14. RADIONUCLIDES SECTION 101(22)(c)... 30 I. STANDARD OF REVIEW... 31 1. ADEQUACY OF RESPONSE COSTS ASSERTED BY GOVERNMENT... 31 J. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS... 31 K. SECTION 107 COST RECOVERY ACTIONS DO NOT ALLOW FOR TRIALS WITH JURIES... 32 L. CERCLA SETTLEMENTS (SECTION 122, codified at 42 U.S.C. 9622, et seq.)... 32 1. STATUTORY GOAL... 32 2. DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY... 32 3. PROCEDURE AND SCOPE... 33 4. CONSENT DECREE... 33 5. DE MINIMIS SETTLEMENTS... 34 6. CONTRIBUTION PROTECTION... 34 ii

952 7. MIXED FUNDING... 36 8. NON-BINDING ALLOCATIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY ("NBAR")... 36 9. RELEASES FROM LIABILITY / COVENANT NOT TO SUE... 36 10. STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR CONSENT DECREES... 36 M. CONTRIBUTION SUITS (SECTION 113, codified at 42 U.S.C. 9613, et seq.)... 38 1. BASIC STANDARD... 38 2. EFFECT ON PROCURING JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY... 39 3. ELIGIBILITY TO BRING CONTRIBUTION ACTION... 38 4. ALLOCATION OF COSTS... 41 5. RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL... 42 6. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS... 42 N. NATURAL RESOURCES DAMAGES (SECTION 107)... 42 1. STATUTE... 42 2. NATURAL RESOURCES... 43 3. ELIGIBILITY TO BRING NRD CLAIMS... 43 5. NRD STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS... 44 6. NRD ASSESSMENTS... 44 7. MEASUREMENT OF DAMAGES... 45 O. JUDICIAL REVIEW... 45 1. EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION... 45 2. TIMING OF REVIEW OF RESPONSE ACTIONS... 45 3. PRE-ENFORCEMENT REVIEW... 46 4. CITIZEN SUITS... 48 5. INTERVENTION STANDARD... 48 6. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY... 49 7. CERCLA AND BANKRUPTCY LAW... 52 P. OBLIGATIONS AT FEDERALLY-OWNED FACILITIES... 55 1. FEDERAL AGENCY HAZARDOUS WASTE ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION: SECTION 120(d)... 55 2. FEDERAL PROPERTY TRANSFERS: 120(h) (as amended)... 56 3. THE COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE FACILITIES ACT... 57 iii

953 CERCLA OVERVIEW 1 A. INTRODUCTORY/OVERVIEW 1. HISTORY a. CERCLA was passed in 1980 at the end of the ninety-sixth Congress to clean up leaking, inactive or abandoned sites and provide emergency response to spills. CERCLA is the abbreviation for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675, as reauthorized and substantially amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 ("SARA"), Pub L. No. 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613 (1986). SARA introduced more stringent cleanup standards, created a new independent regulatory program - the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, 42 U.S.C. 11001-11050, and codified some court decisions. b. The statute was initiated as a response to severe environmental and health problems at toxic waste sites such as Love Canal in New York and Times Beach in Missouri. 2 c. Federal funding for the "Superfund" was initially $1.6 billion (1981-85). The revenue source was primarily a direct tax on sales of petroleum and certain chemical feedstocks. SARA increased the fund to $8.5 billion through additional taxes. In 1991, Congress reauthorized CERCLA for an additional three years and the funding authority for an additional four years. The taxing authority expired on December 31, 1995. d. Superfund Reauthorization - In the 103rd Congress, two bills were introduced at the request of the administration to reauthorize CERCLA: H.R. 3800 and S. 1834. In the 104th Congress the most significant bills were S. 1285 and H.R. 2500. In the 105th Congress, S. 8, as amended, was voted out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on March 26, 1998 and H.R. 2727 was voted out of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee on March 11, 1998. In the 106th Congress, S. 1090 was the major Senate Bill. Although none of the reauthorization bills passed, there 1 By John C. Cruden. This outline was prepared in my individual capacity and does not necessarily reflect the position of the Department of Justice. 2 The Resource Conservation & Recovery Act ("RCRA"), 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 ("HSWA"), Pub. L. No. 98-616, 98 Stat. 3221 (1984), and other environmental statutes provided only limited authorities to deal with abandoned sites at the time CERCLA was enacted. RCRA 7003, 42 U.S.C. 6973, now provides corrective action requirements similar to CERCLA authorities, and covers hazardous or solid wastes presenting an "imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or the environment." 1