CERCLA Liability and Responsible Parties under Environmental Law
CERCLA Liability and Responsible Parties: An Overview
CERCLA stands for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, enacted in the United States in 1980 to address the cleanup of hazardous waste sites. It establishes a legal framework to identify responsible parties who must pay for environmental cleanup costs.
Key Concepts of CERCLA Liability
Strict Liability
Under CERCLA, liability is strict, meaning that a responsible party can be held liable regardless of fault or intent. Even if the party did not intend to cause contamination or was unaware, they may still be liable.
Joint and Several Liability
CERCLA imposes joint and several liability on responsible parties. This means that each party can be held responsible for the entire cleanup cost, not just their share, allowing the government to recover costs from any one responsible party.
Retroactive Liability
Liability applies retroactively to past actions. Even if the contamination occurred before CERCLA was enacted, responsible parties can still be held liable.
Who Are Responsible Parties?
CERCLA identifies several categories of Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs):
Current Owners or Operators
Those who currently own or operate the contaminated site.
Past Owners or Operators
Those who owned or operated the site at the time hazardous substances were disposed.
Generators
Parties who generated hazardous waste that was disposed of at the site.
Transporters
Those who transported hazardous substances to the site, if they selected the disposal location.
Types of Liability
Cleanup Costs: PRPs are liable for the costs of cleaning up hazardous waste sites.
Natural Resource Damages: Liability for damages to natural resources.
Health-Related Damages: Sometimes, liability may extend to health impacts, though typically this is addressed through separate laws.
Defenses to CERCLA Liability
Act of God: Natural disasters causing contamination.
Act of War or Third Party: Contamination caused by an unrelated third party.
Innocent Landowner Defense: Acquiring property without knowledge of contamination and performing "all appropriate inquiries."
Important Case Law on CERCLA Liability
1. United States v. Atlantic Research Corp. (2007)
Issue: Whether a party who pays cleanup costs can sue other PRPs under CERCLA.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that parties who voluntarily clean up contamination can sue other responsible parties to recover costs under CERCLA's cost recovery provisions. This was significant because it clarified that CERCLA allows cost recovery, not just contribution claims.
Significance: This case clarified the ability of PRPs to seek reimbursement from other PRPs.
2. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States (2009)
Issue: The scope of liability for transporters of hazardous waste.
Holding: The Court ruled that a transporter of hazardous substances is liable only if they selected the site where waste was disposed, not merely for transporting hazardous waste.
Significance: Limited the liability of transporters under CERCLA, narrowing the broad interpretation.
3. United States v. Bestfoods (1998)
Issue: Whether a parent corporation can be held liable for the acts of its subsidiary under CERCLA.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that a parent corporation can be liable if it directly operates the facility, but not simply by owning the subsidiary.
Significance: This clarified the corporate veil issue under CERCLA liability.
Summary
CERCLA imposes strict, joint and several, and retroactive liability on current and past owners, operators, generators, and transporters of hazardous substances.
The law is designed to ensure that parties responsible for contamination pay for cleanup costs.
Defenses are limited but exist to protect innocent parties.
Case law has shaped the scope of liability, especially regarding the role of transporters and parent companies.
RELATED Blog
0 comments