EPA entered into a proposed administrative settlement under CERCLA that requires the settling party to pay $4,115,000 in past U.S. response costs incurred at the Nuclear Metals, Inc. Superfund site in Concord, Massachusetts, to perform a non-time critical removal action, and to pay all future response costs.
EPA entered into a settlement under CERCLA §122(h)(1) for reimbursement of past response costs incurred at the Sikes Oil Service Superfund site in Arcade, Georgia.
United States v. Rineco Chemical Industries, Inc., No. 4-07-CV-01189SWW (E.D. Ark. Oct. 14, 2011). Under a modified consent decree, a settling RCRA defendant is given a one-year extension to obtain a final permit for its thermal metal washing unit and its related hazardous waste storage and control any fugitive emissions from the unit at its Benton, Arkansas, facility.
United States v. Blue Tee Corp., No. 11-cv-03408-SWH (W.D. Mo. Oct. 18, 2011). A settling CERCLA defendant must pay $3 million to EPA and $32,532 to the state of Missouri in connection with the Newton County Mine Tailings Superfund site.
In two major Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) opinions, United States v. Atlantic Research, Inc. and Burlington Northern & Santa Fe R.R. v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court provided long-sought guidance for parties litigating hazardous waste cleanup issues under CERCLA.
On May 4, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States. The decision is of major significance with respect to two areas of Superfund jurisprudence--"arranger" liability, and divisibility or apportionment of harm. This Article is concerned only with the latter issue and, moreover, only with one specific element of that issue.
This past May, the U.S. Supreme Court for the first time addressed two issues that the U.S. Congress left open in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). These issues are: (1) the scope of "generator" or "arranger" liability under the language of CERCLA §107(a)(3); and (2) the circumstances under which a liable party under §1073 may be held jointly and severally liable. Rejecting the position of the U.S.
Editors' Summary: The recently completed 105th Congress provided the nation with a legacy of unparalleled legislative inactivity. Few, if any, of the legislative initiatives earmarked as priorities passed as bitter partisan debate ruled on Capitol Hill. This Comment analyzes how such partisanship and subsequent congressional lethargy created the environmental successes, controversies, and failures of the 105th Congress.
Although the 104th Congress did not begin officially until January 4, 1995, its significance was apparent as soon as the polls closed on November 8, 1994. When the votes were tallied, Republicans had acquired majorities in both the Senate and the House for the first time in 40 years. And they were quick to proclaim the beginning of a revolution in congressional lawmaking.
Editors' Summary: It has become regular practice for federal legislators to insert into annual appropriations bills riders having little to do with the appropriations process. Last year, under the sponsorship of the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, a bill that would have exempted recyclers from CERCLA "arranger" and "transporter" liability was almost enacted as a rider to the omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999. This Dialogue examines that rider and the changes it would have wrought to CERCLA.