Law Commons^™

This Land Is Your Land, This Land Is Mined Land: Expanding Governmental Ownership Liability Under Cercla, Kiersten E. Holms

Washington and Lee Law Review

Part II of this Note begins by providing a brief overview of the background and goals of CERCLA. Part II also provides an examination of the issue of ownership liability under CERCLA and recounts the federal courts’ difficulty in applying ownership liability. Part II then describes how the federal government’s “bare legal title” argument arose out of the confusion surrounding ownership liability in CERCLA litigation. Part III moves on to examine the recent trend in CERCLA litigation rejecting the federal government’s bare legal title argument, thus holding the federal government liable as an owner based on its possession of legal …

Asarco Llc V. Atlantic Richfield Company, Ryan L. Hickey

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabiltiy Act, commonly known as CERCLA, facilitates cleanup of hazardous waste sites and those contaminated by other harmful substances by empowering the Environmental Protection Agency to identify responsible parties and require them to undertake or fund remediation. Because pollution sometimes occurrs over long periods of time by multiple parties, CERCLA also enables polluters to seek financial contribution from other contaminators of a particular site. The Ninth Circuit clarified the particuar circumstances under which contribution actions may arise in Asarco LLC v. Atlantic Richfield Co., holding non-CERCLA settlements may give rise to CERCLA contribution …

The Private Causes Of Action Under Cercla: Navigating The Intersection Of Sections 107(A) And 113(F), Jeffrey M. Gaba

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law

The Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) provides three distinct “private” causes of action that allow parties to recover all or part of their cleanup costs from “potentially responsible parties.” Section 107(a)(4)(B) provides a “direct” right of cost recovery. Sections 113(f)(1) and 113(f)(3)(B) provide a right of contribution following a CERCLA civil action or certain judicial or administrative settlements. The relationship among these causes of action has been the source of considerable confusion. Two Supreme Court cases, Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc. and United States v. Atlantic Research Corp. have identified certain situations in which the …

Ohio's Brownfield Problem And Possible Solutions: What Is Required For A Successful Brownfield Initiative?, Faith R. Dylewski

Akron Law Review

This Comment intends to survey the current state of Ohio’s brownfield redevelopment programs. It also examines the successes and failures of other states’ brownfield redevelopment efforts in order to uncover the elements of success common to a comprehensive brownfield redevelopment plan. Part II discusses the environmental, economic, and social problems that are associated with brownfield sites. Part III examines the impediments to brownfield redevelopment. Part IV illuminates the federal government’s efforts aimed at the brownfield problem. Part V provides an overview of Ohio’s current brownfield redevelopment programs. Part VI discusses the ingredients of a successful state brownfield redevelopment initiative through …

Community Involvement In Brownfield Redevelopment Makes Cents: A Study Of Brownfield Redevelopment Initiatives In The United States And Central And Eastern Europe, Anne Marie Pippin

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Public Engagement "Reach In, Reach Out": Pursuing Environmental Justice By Empowering Communities To Meaningfully Participate In The Decision-Making Processes Of Brownfields Redevelopment And Superfund Cleanups, Josephine M. Balzac

Florida A & M University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Cleaning Up The Mess: The Economic, Environmental, And Cultural Impact Of U.S. Military Base Closures On Surrounding Communities, Elizabeth M. Myers

Richmond Journal of Global Law & Business

Today, many military bases have become financial burdens on the federal government, as the military’s needs and systems have changed drastically since the end of the Cold War. The federal government has discovered it can save a significant amount of money by shutting down unnecessary installations and shifting the work to ongoing bases. The federal government can also make money by selling the land of former military bases to surrounding communities or private companies.

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished: The Cercla Liability Exposure Unfortunately Created By Pre-Acquisition Soil Testing, Jennifer L. Scheller

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that CERCLA, as it is currently written, requires courts to hold parties liable for pre-purchase soil investigations that spread or mix contamination because to conclude otherwise would stretch CERCLA beyond its breaking point. Part I argues that both those who order pre-acquisition soil testing and those who conduct the tests are PRPs if the testing spreads existing contamination. Part II argues that the statute does not allow for the judicial creation of a soil testing liability exception. Part III acknowledges the policy problems created by testing liability and advocates a legislative solution to exempt pre-purchase soil testing …

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Environmental Law, Kevin J. Finto, Christopher R. Graham, Brooks M. Smith, Penny A. Shamblin

University of Richmond Law Review

Recent developments in environmental law in Virginia continue to reflect several trends. These trends may be grouped into six general categories: (1) the growing tension between federal environmental mandates and their practical implementation through delegated state programs; (2) the continuing debate over the exact definition of "interstate commerce" and the scope of state authority to regulate in the gray area; (3) the impending deregulation of the electrical energy market; (4) the promotion of sustainable development; (5) the developing schism between state and local land use control; and (6) the evolving nature of administrative law in the environmental context. The following …

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Environmental Law, Kelley A. Kinney, Andrea West Wortzel

University of Richmond Law Review

This article reviews the key environmental developments at the federal and state levels during the period from June 1996 to June 1998. Legislation and judicial decisions are presented topically. Certain issues, such as public participation and environmental justice, are playing an increasing role and will likely impact all media.

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Environmental Law, Henry R. Pollard V.

University of Richmond Law Review

Federal and Virginia courts and legislatures acted on a wide variety of environmental issues and topics in the June 1995 to June 1996 period. This article reviews the key environmental developments at the federal and state level from that period involving air, water, waste, Superfund, wetlands, and environmentally related constitutional, land use, and property tort law.

Facing A Time Of Counter-Revolution-- The Kepone Incident And A Review Of First Principles, Zygmunt J.B. Plater

University of Richmond Law Review

The Kepone contamination episode of 1966-75 was a milestone that focused an entire nation's attention on environmental hazards and our need to do better in recognizing and avoiding them. We have learned a great deal from that unfortunate story. The evolution of American environmental law since the Kepone debacle has repeatedly used the incident as a touchstone in identifying environmental pollution's causes, effects, and potential solutions.

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Environmental Law, Brian L. Buniva, James R. Kibler Jr.

University of Richmond Law Review

Since publication of the 1994 Annual Survey of Virginia Law' several significant judicial decisions, state statutes and state regulatory initiatives have demonstrated the increasing nexus between federal and Virginia environmental law. The federal and state courts have helped define the interrelationships between environmental law, tort law, land use law, and procedural/jurisdictional issues related to environmental law.

Changes In The Clean Water Act Since Kepone: Would They Have Made A Difference?, Wiliam Goldfarb

University of Richmond Law Review

In the anti-regulatory climate that currently pervades the American political scene, it is important to emphasize the palpable and significant accomplishments of environmental regulation. One measure of the success of environmental law during the past twenty-five years is that long-term, relatively localized environmental contamination-such as the pollution of the lower James River by Kepone between 1966 and 1975-probably can no longer occur in the United States. Major environmental statutes, enacted during the decade between 1976 and 1986, have precluded continuing environmental abuses of this scope and magnitude. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), enacted in 1976, establishes a compre- …

From Kepone To Exxon Valdez Oil And Beyond: An Overview Of Natural Resource Damage Assessment, Danielle Marie Stager

University of Richmond Law Review

In July 1975, officials from the Virginia State Department of Health learned that employees of the Life Science Product Company ("Life Science"), in Hopewell, Virginia, had been poisoned by a toxic chemical known as Kepone. Life Science had produced Kepone under contract for Allied Chemical Corporation ("Allied Chemical"), the original developer and manufacturer. Shortly thereafter, state officials discovered that both Life Science and Allied Chemical had unlawfully discharged Kepone into freshwater tributaries of the James River. In addition to poisoning their own employees, Life Science and Allied Chemical had also contaminated Virginia's atmosphere, soil, and wa- terways with Kepone.

The Case Against Intermediate Owner Liability Under Cercla For Passive Migration Of Hazardous Waste, Robert L. Bronston

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that Congress intended disposal to have an active meaning and therefore that courts should not hold prior intermediate owners liable for the passive migration of hazardous waste under section 107(a)(2). Part I examines CERCLA's definition of disposal. This Part concludes that the language of the definition, though somewhat ambiguous, supports the active defuiition. Part II considers the history of both CERCLA and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which CERCLA amended, in order to determine whether Congress intended to require affirmative conduct on the part of intermediate owners as a prerequisite to liability. Part II …

The Grin Without The Cat: Claims For Damages From Toxic Exposure Without Present Injury, Bill Charles Wells

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review

No abstract provided.

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Environmental Law, Brian L. Buniva, James R. Kibler Jr.

University of Richmond Law Review

This article addresses selected developments in environmental law occurring between the publication of the 1992 Annual Survey of Virginia Law1 and June 24, 1994. Due to significant federal litigation since publication of the 1992 Survey, this article places primary emphasis on those developments which most significantly affect potential liabilities under state and federal environmental laws. This article addresses developments in the federal and state legislative and regulatory schemes, and case law from Virginia state courts, the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Virginia, the United States Courts of Appeals for the District of Columbia and …

Divisibility Of Harm Under Cercla: Does An Indivisible Potential Or Averted Harm Warrant The Imposition Of Joint And Several Liability?, B. Todd Wetzel

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Easment Holder Liability Under Cercla: The Right Way To Deal With Rights-Of-Way, Jill D. Neiman

Michigan Law Review

Responding to growing public concern about the accumulation of toxic wastes, Congress in 1980 passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). CERCLA authorizes federal action to clean up, or to require others to clean up, leaking hazardous waste sites. Congress placed the financial burden for this cleanup on those responsible for the problem and on those who benefited from improper methods of hazardous waste disposal. Through this liability scheme, Congress also intended CERCLA to encourage responsible or benefited parties to respond voluntarily to the hazardous waste problem.

Part I asserts that CERCLA's legislative history, when read against …

Superfund Liability Alternatives For The Innocent Purchaser, David W. Marczely

Cleveland State Law Review

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) imposes liability for cleanup costs where there has been a release to the environment of a hazardous substance. Liability has been construed by the courts as strict, even though Congress rejected an explicit provision of strict liability. Moreover, CERCLA liability permits no defenses except those found in the Act. CERCLA provides an affirmative defense to liability actions where a third party has solely caused the release of the hazardous substance. Congress attempted to clarify the land contract issue as part of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 …

Troubled Waters: A Reaction To The Eleventh Circuit's Pollution Of Cercla's Safe Harbor For Lenders, Robert E. Wier

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Environmental Law, James E. Ryan Jr.

University of Richmond Law Review

This article addresses significant developments in Virginia law pertaining to air and water pollution, solid and hazardous waste, and environmentally sensitive areas which have occurred between the publication of last year's survey and August 1, 1990.

Corporate Life After Death: Cercla Preemption Of State Corporate Dissolution Law, Audrey J. Anderson

Michigan Law Review

This Note discusses CERCLA's preemption of state corporate dissolution law. Although CERCLA contains a preemption clause intended to specify CERCLA's relationship with other laws, this clause addresses only state laws that impose stricter standards than those contained in CERCLA, and does not address state laws that, like dissolution laws, remove liability from a party otherwise liable under CERCLA. Courts, therefore, have also looked to section 107 of CERCLA, which imposes liability against specified parties "[n]notwithstanding any other provision or rule of law," to determine CERCLA's general relationship with state law. Through such an analysis, courts have agreed that CERCLA does …

Environmental Liens And Title Insurance, Robert S. Bozarth

University of Richmond Law Review

Increased concern for the environment and environmental protection laws have affected title insurance. To understand this effect, it is necessary to examine our environmental problems, the environmental laws and the nature of title insurance. This article also looks at the title insurance industry's reaction to these environmental risks as compared to the reaction of the property/casualty insurance industry.

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Environmental Law, Theodore R. Kingsley

University of Richmond Law Review

This article addresses significant developments in Virginia law pertaining to air and water pollution, solid and hazardous waste, and pesticide regulation which have occurred between the publication of last year's survey and August 1, 1989. Not considered herein are the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and Management Regulations promulgated by the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board.

Environmental Liability In Real Property Transactions, Timothy G. Hayes, William J. Dinkin

University of Richmond Law Review

In recent years, the scope of environmental liability has broadened considerably. Cleanup costs are no longer solely the concern of those directly engaged in the generation and disposal of hazardous wastes. Federal and state environmental statutes now create potential liability for parties to a variety of seemingly innocent transactions. Purchasers of contaminated property may be required to pay for hazardous waste cleanup. Corporate entities may also face environmental liability through mergers, consolidations and asset acquisitions. In addition, lenders may risk liability or impairment of collateral when contaminated property is used to secure a loan.

Liabilities Of The Innocent Current Owner Of Toxic Property Under Cercla, Diana L. Mcdavid

University of Richmond Law Review

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA") was enacted to facilitate prompt cleanup of property contaminated by hazardous wastes. CERCLA seeks to accomplish its goal in part by placing the financial burden of cleanup on those parties who are responsible for the problem and who benefited from the hazardous waste activity. Because environmental cleanup is a national priority and the cost of cleaning up toxic waste sites is staggering, the scope of liability under CERCLA is broad. A clean environment is a laudable goal and compelling responsible parties to bear the cost of cleanup is fair, …

Federal And State Remedies To Clean Up Hazardous Waste Sites, Janis L. Kirkland, James A. Thornhill

University of Richmond Law Review

Over fifty-seven million metric tons of hazardous waste are produced as a by-product of manufacturing in the United States each year. Only ten percent of this waste is disposed of in an environmentally sound manner. The improper disposal of hazardous waste has given rise to crisis areas of national notoriety such as "Love Canal" and "Valley of the Drums." Although the danger to public health and the environment cannot be precisely calculated, the disposal of hazardous waste presents a problem that can no longer be ignored. Virginia's own experience with kepone contamination in the James River exemplifies the dangers and …

The Discovery Rule: Fairness In Toxic Tort Statutes Of Limitations, Bill Shaw, Pat Cihon, Malcolm Myers

Cleveland State Law Review

The costs associated with the disposal of toxic waste can be classified in two ways. The first category is made up of environmental losses such as the contamination of rivers, lakes, and ground water with the resulting destruction of aquatic life, wildlife, and vegetation and includes expenses incurred in cleanup. The second category is comprised of losses sustained by individuals and includes both property damage and physical injury resulting from direct or indirect contact with hazardous wastes. Injured individuals have two options in their pursuit of compensation: statutory and common law. This Article argues that statutory recourse is not only …