Search Results
Use the filters on the left-hand side of this screen to refine the results further by topic or document type.

The Superfund Reform Act of 1994: Success or Failure Is Within EPA's Sole Discretion

Editors' Summary: The Clinton Administration's proposed Superfund amendments—the Superfund Reform Act of 1994 (SRA)—were introduced in both the House and Senate in early February. Steven M. Jawetz of Beveridge & Diamond, reviews several key provisions of the bill's first five titles, including proposals to increase delegation to states, narrow defenses to EPA administrative orders and cost recovery actions, institute a nonbinding allocation process, and modify the remedy selection process. Mr.

The Reauthorization of Superfund: The Public Works Alternative

The demise of efforts by a broadly based coalition of stakeholders to reauthorize Superfund in the 103rd Congress leaves the legislative field open for reconsidering all the key assumptions underlying the "consensus" bill that dominated last year's debate. Unless the coalition remains unified, and the Administration supports it aggressively, the substance will begin to unravel, the process will become chaotic, and Congress could easily miss the December 1995 deadline to reauthorize the statute.

Implied Private Causes of Action and the Recoverability of Damages Under the RCRA Citizen Suit Provision

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.

Would the Superfund Response Cost Allocation Procedures Considered by the 103d Congress Reduce Transaction Costs?

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?

Restitution Under RCRA §7002(a)(1)(B): The Courts Finally Grant What Congress Authorized

Earlier this year in KFC Western, Inc. v. Meghrig, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that private parties may obtain restitution of the costs of cleaning up contaminated property under §7002(a)(1)(B) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The Ninth Circuit's ruling in KFC Western opened the way for private parties to use the RCRA citizen suit provision to recover their costs of investigating, studying, and cleaning up contaminated property from responsible parties.

76 FR 64943

EPA entered into a proposed administrative settlement under CERCLA that requires the settling parties to pay $1,050,000 in past and future U.S. response costs incurred at the ACM Smelter and Refinery NPL site near Great Falls, Montana, and to perform a remedial investigation and feasibility study for portions of the site.

76 FR 64378

United States v. Airgas Carbonic, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-163 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 4, 2011). Seventy-three settling CERCLA parties responsible for violations at the Alternate Energy Resources, Inc., site in Augusta, Georgia, must perform remedial design and remedial action at the site; 797 other parties must pay a portion of the past and future response costs incurred by the United States and Georgia.

76 FR 63954

United States v. Newmont USA Ltd., No. 05-020-JLQ (E.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2011). A settling CERCLA defendant responsible for violations at the Midnite Mine Superfund site on the Spokane Indian Reservation in Stevens County, Washington, must pay $18.7 million in U.S. response costs incurred at the site and must perform the EPA-selected cleanup for the site.

76 FR 62446

In re DPH Holdings Corp., No. 05-44481 (RDD) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2011). A settling CERCLA and RCRA defendant responsible for violations at the Tremont City Landfill Superfund site in Tremont City, Ohio, and the South Dayton Dump & Landfill Superfund site in Moraine, Ohio, must provide the United States with an allowed claim of $857,582.52, subject to the approval of a tax refund action.