Editors' Summary: When Congress enacted CERCLA in 1980, it put potential site owners and operators on notice that contaminating sites with hazardous substances can have severe consequences. Four years later, however, at least one company failed to heed that warning. In 1984, the Summitville Consolidated Mining Company, Inc. began operations at the Summitville mine site in Colorado. The result was a classic case of regulatory and corporate failure to prevent environmental disaster. In this Dialogue, the authors examine the reasons for the disaster at the Summitville site.

In New York v. SCA Services, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected the notion that a transporter cannot be an arranger under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). This Dialogue reviews the parties' arguments and the court's opinion. It then analyzes the impact this case will have on transporters.

Editors' Summary: This is the second of a three-part series explaining pesticide regulation. This installment discusses requirements for registration of pesticide producers, producer recordkeeping, end user requirements including those related to restricted use pesticides, enforcement authority, and EPA rulemaking and judicial review. The previous installment, which appeared in last month's issue, 24 ELR 10449, examined federal jurisdiction over pesticides, labeling and packaging requirements, pesticide registration, and related regulatory authorities.

Editors' Summary: Since 1910, the federal government has played a role in regulating pesticides. At first, the motive was to fight fraud, but as pesticides became more sophisticated and as environmental concerns grew, the government's regulatory efforts became more comprehensive. Now, near the dawn of bioengineered pesticides, with society confronting and reevaluating environmental risks, and with agencies facing fiscal challenges, pesticide regulation continues to evolve. It is a field of concern to the pesticide industry, of course, but in U.S.

Editors' Summary: This is the third and final installment in ELR's series on federal pesticide law. This month's Article discusses proposed rules for storage, disposal, transportation, and recall; export and import laws; federal limits to state authority; requirements for reporting new health and safety data; regulation of pesticide residues in food under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; EPA research and environmental monitoring authority; biotechnology issues; and some pending policy questions.

Under the Superfund program, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) faces a dilemma. The Agency wants potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to perform voluntary response actions pursuant to administrative consent orders or judicial consent decrees (collectively referred to as "orders" unless otherwise specified), but does not want to commit extensive attorney resources to negotiating the details of every order.

There seems to be agreement across a wide spectrum of those involved in Superfund cleanups that such cleanups should take into consideration the kinds of activities that are expected to take place at the site after the remedial work is completed. While cleaning every site to levels suitable for all conceivable uses may be a laudable goal, doing so can impose costs that are out of proportion to the added amount of protection obtained.

Editors' Summary: The effect of settlements among private parties in CERCLA contribution suits leaves courts with the choice of allocating liability among the nonsettling parties based on either the pro tanto method, which credits nonsettlors with the amount settling parties have paid, or the proportionate share method, which credits nonsettlors with the settlors' equitable share of cleanup costs. District courts have yet to achieve consensus on which method to adopt. The U.S. Supreme Court's recent admiralty case, McDermott, Inc. v.

[T]he legislative history of CERCLA gives more insight into the "Alice-in-Wonderland"-like nature of the evolution of this particular statute than it does helpful hints on the intent of the legislature.

Editors' Summary: Under CERCLA, a liable party cannot transfer its liability, yet it can contractually arrange for a third party to ultimately bear the financial burden of that liability. The applicability of these contractual allocations of environmental liability generally hinges on judicial interpretation of representations, warranties, indemnities, and releases. This Article surveys the case law on contractual allocation of CERCLA liability. Addressing legal issues unique to particular types of contractual provisions, the Article recommends ways to use and draft such provisions.