Opinion ID: 1376411
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Violations of the Remedial Action Trust Fund Act

Text: 46. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 45 above. 47. ARK.CODE ANN. §§ 8-7-501, et seq., otherwise known as the Remedial Action Trust Fund Act, sets forth the State regulatory program governing the liability for and the remediation of hazardous substance sites. 48. Under ARK.CODE ANN. § 8-7-512(a)(3), any generator of hazardous substances who, at the time of disposal, caused such substance to be disposed of at a hazardous substance site or who causes a release or threatened release or [sic] the hazardous substances, shall be liable to the State for all costs of remedial actions. 49. Likewise, under ARK.CODE ANN. § 8-7-512(a)(4), any transporter of hazardous substances who causes a release or threatened release of hazardous substances or who, at the time of disposal, selected a hazardous substance site for disposal of the hazardous substances, shall be liable to the State for all costs of remedial actions. 50. A person is defined as any individual, corporation, company, firm, partnership, association, trust, joint-stock company or trust, venture, state or federal government agency, or any other legal entity, however organized. ARK.CODE ANN. § 8-7-503(8). 51. The term hazardous substance includes a variety of substances, elements, compounds, mixtures, solutions, and pollutants as designated pursuant to any of the following laws: (1) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, (2) the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, (3) the Arkansas Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1979, (4) the federal Clean Air Act, or (5) the federal Toxic Substances Control Act. ARK.CODE ANN. § 8-7-503(6). 52. As defined in paragraph 51, the term hazardous substance includes PCBs, pentachlorophenol, trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, and petroleum based products. 53. As used in RATFA, hazardous substance sites are any sites or facilities where hazardous substances have been disposed of or from which there is a release or threatened release of hazardous substances. ARK.CODE ANN. § 8-7-503(7). 54. The term releases of hazardous substances means any spilling, leaking, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing of hazardous substances into the environment. ARK.CODE ANN. § 8-7-503(9). 55. A threatened release is any situation where a nonsudden release of hazardous substances can be reasonably expected, unless prevented by change of operation or installation or construction or [sic] containment or treatment devices or by removal or other remedial action. ARK.CODE ANN. § 8-7-503(11). 56. As defined by RATFA, the term remedial action means action necessary to effect permanent control, abatement, prevention, treatment, or containment of releases and threatened releases, including the removal of hazardous substances from the environment where removal is necessary to protect public health and the environment. ARK.CODE ANN. § 8-7-503(10). 57. The Defendants are persons that generated or transported hazardous substances, and who disposed of such substances at a hazardous substance site, or otherwise selected a hazardous substance site for disposal, where a release of hazardous substances or a threatened release occurred, and are therefore liable to the State for all costs of remedial action. Without question, the complaint alleges that:  USI operated a site for disposal of hazardous substances from 1975 to 1984 or 1985;  During this time frame the defendant corporations were generators and transporters of hazardous substances to the site;  The defendant corporations, at the time of disposal (1) caused disposal of hazardous substances at the site, or (2) caused a release of hazardous substances, or (3) selected a hazardous substance site for disposal of the substances. These allegations track the liability provisions of the Remedial Action Trust Fund Act, which reads: (a) Any of the following shall be liable to the state for all costs of remedial actions under this subchapter: (1) The owner and operator of a facility; (2) Any person who, at the time of disposal of any hazardous substance, owned or operated a hazardous substance site; (3) Any generator of hazardous substances who, at the time of disposal, caused such substance to be disposed of at a hazardous substance site or who causes a release or threatened release of the hazardous substances; or (4) Any transporter of hazardous substances who causes a release or threatened release of the hazardous substances or who, at the time of disposal, selected a hazardous substance site for disposal of the hazardous substances. Ark.Code Ann. § 8-7-512(a) (Repl.2000). And what constitutes disposal? According to the Hazardous Substances subchapter of the Environmental Law Code, disposal means: the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing of any hazardous waste into or on any land or water in whatever manner so that such hazardous waste or any constituent thereof might or might not enter the environment or be emitted into the air or discharged into any waters including groundwaters; ... Ark.Code Ann. § 8-7-203 (Repl.2000). [5] The definition of disposal could not be broader. Without question, the defendant corporations caused hazardous substances to be placed at the USI site which constitutes a disposal under § 8-7-203(4). I frankly do not know what additional allegations needed to have been made by the Department of Environmental Quality to state a viable cause of action. The Department specified the time frame for the alleged violation: 1975 to 1984-1985. It specified where the hazardous substances were disposed ofthe USI treatment facility. It specified what hazardous substances were involvedPCBs. We are indeed a fact-pleading state, but filing a complaint is the first step in litigation. Discovery will ensue, and additional facts will be developed. What the majority has required in the way of fact-pleading is simply too restrictive and severely hampers the ability of the Department to enforce the Act. The allegations are clear. The defendant corporations are alleged to have disposed of PCB-contaminated oil by generating it, transporting, and placing it with USI for elimination. Accordingly, they are liable under the Act, according to the Department, for any resulting damage to the environment.