Enforcement of Superfund clean-up orders
Enforcement of Superfund Clean-Up Orders: Overview
The Superfund program, established by CERCLA (1980), empowers the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to identify, investigate, and clean up hazardous waste sites. The law also authorizes EPA to compel responsible parties to undertake or pay for clean-ups.
Key enforcement tools under CERCLA:
Administrative Orders: EPA can issue unilateral orders to potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to conduct investigations or remediation.
Consent Decrees: Agreements negotiated between EPA and PRPs to carry out clean-up actions.
Civil Penalties: For failure to comply with orders.
Cost Recovery Lawsuits: EPA can sue PRPs to recover government costs.
Contribution Actions: PRPs can seek contribution from other responsible parties.
Key Statutory Provisions
Section 106: EPA’s authority to issue administrative orders and seek judicial enforcement.
Section 107: Liability for cleanup costs.
Section 113(f): Contribution actions among PRPs.
Important Case Law on Enforcement of Superfund Clean-Up Orders
1. United States v. Atlantic Research Corp., 551 U.S. 128 (2007)
Facts: The U.S. sued a company to recover cleanup costs at a hazardous waste site.
Issue: Whether a party that voluntarily cleans up a site can recover costs from other PRPs under CERCLA.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that a party who voluntarily incurs cleanup costs can seek cost recovery under Section 107(a).
Significance: Clarified that PRPs have the option to seek cost recovery or contribution, influencing enforcement strategies.
2. United States v. Monsanto Co., 858 F.2d 160 (4th Cir. 1988)
Facts: EPA issued unilateral orders for cleanup at a site contaminated by Monsanto.
Issue: Whether EPA could issue enforceable unilateral cleanup orders without prior negotiation.
Holding: The court upheld EPA’s authority to issue administrative orders under Section 106.
Significance: Affirmed EPA’s broad power to compel cleanup without consent, making enforcement efficient.
3. United States v. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp., 540 F. Supp. 98 (W.D.N.Y. 1982)
Facts: EPA sought to compel cleanup at the Love Canal site.
Issue: Liability of PRPs and enforceability of EPA cleanup orders.
Holding: Court ruled PRPs liable and enforceable orders valid.
Significance: One of the earliest major cases applying CERCLA enforcement tools, confirming EPA’s authority.
4. Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc., 543 U.S. 157 (2004)
Facts: Dispute over whether PRPs could bring a contribution claim without prior government action.
Issue: Whether contribution claims require prior government enforcement.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that contribution claims under Section 113(f)(1) require a prior civil action or settlement.
Significance: Limited PRPs’ ability to seek contribution absent prior government involvement, influencing enforcement dynamics.
5. United States v. NCR Corp., 578 F.3d 570 (7th Cir. 2009)
Facts: EPA issued cleanup orders for contamination by NCR.
Issue: Enforceability of administrative orders and penalties for noncompliance.
Holding: The court upheld EPA’s enforcement authority and ability to impose civil penalties.
Significance: Reinforced EPA’s ability to enforce orders and penalize violations.
6. United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51 (1998)
Facts: Concerned liability of parent corporations for cleanup.
Issue: Whether parent companies can be held liable as operators under CERCLA.
Holding: Supreme Court held parent corporations could be liable if they directly operated the facility.
Significance: Expanded the scope of enforceable parties, increasing accountability.
Enforcement Process in Practice
Identification of PRPs: EPA identifies liable parties through investigation.
Issuance of Administrative Orders: EPA may issue Section 106 orders requiring PRPs to investigate or clean up.
Negotiation of Consent Decrees: EPA often negotiates agreements to avoid litigation.
Judicial Enforcement: If PRPs do not comply, EPA files suit to enforce orders and seek penalties.
Cost Recovery: EPA recovers costs from PRPs through lawsuits.
Contribution Actions: PRPs can sue each other to share cleanup costs after government action.
Summary Table
| Case | Key Issue | Holding & Significance |
|---|---|---|
| United States v. Atlantic Research Corp. (2007) | Cost recovery for voluntary cleanups | Voluntary cleanup costs recoverable under CERCLA |
| United States v. Monsanto Co. (1988) | EPA’s authority to issue unilateral orders | EPA’s power to issue enforceable orders upheld |
| United States v. Hooker Chemicals (1982) | PRP liability and enforceability of orders | Confirmed PRP liability, EPA enforcement authority |
| Cooper Industries v. Aviall (2004) | Contribution claims requirements | Contribution requires prior government action |
| United States v. NCR Corp. (2009) | Enforcement and penalties for noncompliance | EPA enforcement authority and penalties upheld |
| United States v. Bestfoods (1998) | Parent company liability | Parent liable if operating facility |
Conclusion
The Superfund enforcement regime empowers EPA with strong tools to compel cleanups and hold responsible parties liable.
Courts have consistently upheld EPA’s authority to issue unilateral administrative orders and seek judicial enforcement.
PRPs have avenues for cost recovery and contribution, but with procedural limits.
Liability extends broadly, including parent companies directly operating sites.
The case law creates a framework balancing efficient cleanup with fair allocation of costs.
RELATED Blog
0 comments