ELR Citation: ELR 20984
No(s). 84-200C(1) (E.D. Mo. Dec 31, 1990)

The court enters two consent decrees that require the installation and operation of a temporary incinerator at Times Beach, Missouri, for burning dioxin-contaminated soil from 28 sites in eastern Missouri during a 10-year period at a cost exceeding $80 million. The decrees resolve claims by the United States and Missouri under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act against two groups of corporate defendants. One decree requires one group of defendants, in addition to the cleanup, to pay the United States $10 million for costs incurred, tear down abandoned buildings, construct a levee to protect the incinerator from flooding, and dismantle the incinerator when the cleanup is completed. The decree also contains safeguards for transportation and destruction of the contaminated soil. The decree entered into with the other group of defendants requires that those defendants pay the United States and Missouri $225,000, plus $10,000 to be held in reserve. The court first holds that there is no basis for an evidentiary hearing, because the court has been provided with every conceivable piece of information necessary to its decision. Based on the court's long and intense familiarity with the dealings between the parties to the consent decrees, the court holds that the negotiations have been characterized by procedural integrity. The court further holds that the consent decrees meet the criterion of substantive fairness, because the government's apportionment of liability for purposes of the consent decrees falls along the broad spectrum of plausible approximations and so should not be judicially disturbed or second-guessed. The court holds that the consent decrees' apportionment of the costs is reasonable, because it is based on arm's length negotiations between major potentially responsible parties and the prospect of a comprehensive solution to the eastern Missouri dioxin problem. Finally, the court holds that the objectives of CERCLA are well-served by entry of the proposed consent decrees. The obligations of the settling defendants further the goal of holding responsible parties accountable in reasonable measure for their environmental misdeeds, and the proposed cleanup promises an end to the known contamination at the 28 sites under strict guidelines that serve the aim of expeditious response activities.

[Previous decisions in this litigation are published at 16 ELR 20368, 17 ELR 21217, 18 ELR 20055, 20 ELR 20879, and 21 ELR 20982. Related pleadings are digested at ELR Pend. Lit. 66144.]

Counsel are listed at 21 ELR 20982.