The 1990s mark the end of an era when pitched legislative battles can lead to either sound or timely public policy. Rather, the formulation of consensus by a critical mass of private-sector stakeholders is the only way to achieve the timely reauthorization of Superfund and may be the best (if not the only) way to break the gridlock that paralyzes other legislative debates.
Editors' Summary: Property owners often respond to solid and hazardous waste contamination of their properties by cleaning up the contamination and then seeking reimbursement of cleanup costs from responsible parties under federal and state hazardous waste laws. RCRA is one such law; however, RCRA §7002 does not explicitly provide for recovery of damages. A court faced with a RCRA §7002 citizen suit to recover cleanup costs must imply a private cause of action for damages. This Article addresses the availability of a private cause of action for damages under RCRA §7002.
The court rules that Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act shields from public disclosure comprehensive reports, prepared and provided to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission by a nonprofit consortium of the nuclear utility industry, concerning the safety and reliability of operations at n...
A district court denies property owners' motions to sanction the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for violating discovery orders in the owners' toxic-tort suit against DOE contractors that operate the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons production facility. The court also denies, for the most part, the contr...
The court holds that a nail manufacturer did not own or control the hazardous materials generated by an electroplating company and, thus, is not liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as an arranger of hazardous waste. The court first holds th...
The court holds that the owner of all the stock of the former lessee of a contaminated site is not liable as an operator under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) §107(a)(2). The court first holds that the owners' of the contaminated site may not be awarde...
The court holds that bus manufacturers were not arrangers under §107(a)(3) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) for the treatment or disposal of hazardous substances generated by an electroplating business. The owner and trustees of the site where th...
The court holds that a manufacturer is liable for response costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) for dumping scrap steel and aluminum at a Superfund site. The court also grants another company's motion to certify for interlocutory appeal wheth...
The court holds that the U.S. government is not liable as an operator under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) for hazardous waste cleanup costs at an abandoned mine site. The court first holds that CERCLA clearly exposes the federal government to suit...
One of the most prominent issues in the Congressional debate over reauthorization of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) has been how to reduce "transaction costs" while at the same time fairly and expeditiously resolving liability disputes. This Dialogue asks: Would the allocation procedures proposed in last year's Superfund reauthorization bills meet those sometimes conflicting goals?