Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 100

524US1

Unit: $U74

[09-06-00 17:54:15] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 51 (1998)

55

Opinion of the Court

Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court.
The United States brought this action for the costs of
cleaning up industrial waste generated by a chemical plant.
The issue before us, under the Comprehensive Environmen-
tal Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), 94 Stat. 2767, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 9601 et
seq., is whether a parent corporation that actively partici-
pated in, and exercised control over, the operations of a sub-
sidiary may, without more, be held liable as an operator of a
polluting facility owned or operated by the subsidiary. We
answer no, unless the corporate veil may be pierced. But a
corporate parent that actively participated in, and exercised
control over, the operations of the facility itself may be held
directly liable in its own right as an operator of the facility.

I

In 1980, CERCLA was enacted in response to the serious
environmental and health risks posed by industrial pollution.
See Exxon Corp. v. Hunt, 475 U. S. 355, 358–359 (1986).
“As
its name implies, CERCLA is a comprehensive statute that
grants the President broad power to command government
agencies and private parties to clean up hazardous waste
sites.” Key Tronic Corp. v. United States, 511 U. S. 809, 814
the
(1994).
United States may, for instance, use the “Hazardous Sub-
stance Superfund” to ﬁnance cleanup efforts, see 42 U. S. C.
§§ 9601(11), 9604; 26 U. S. C. § 9507, which it may then replen-
ish by suits brought under § 107 of the Act against, among
others, “any person who at the time of disposal of any
hazardous substance owned or operated any facility.”
42
U. S. C. § 9607(a)(2). So, those actually “responsible for any
damage, environmental harm, or injury from chemical poi-

it satisﬁes certain statutory conditions,

If

Robert L. Graham; for the United States Business & Industrial Council
by David G. Palmer; and for the Washington Legal Foundation et al. by
Daniel J. Popeo, Paul D. Kamenar, and Thomas R. Mounteer.