Opinion ID: 573218
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Award of Future Costs to BN

Text: 27 On appeal, D & R argues that the bankruptcy court erred in awarding $7,402,564 to BN for cleanup costs most of which, as yet, have not been incurred. In making this argument, D & R cites § 502(e)(1)(B). As indicated above, its reliance on this section to bar the claim is misplaced. However, support for D & R's argument is found in CERCLA itself. 28 Under CERCLA's scheme for private action, response costs may not be recovered when there has been no commitment of resources for meeting these costs. Section 9607(a)(4)(B) permits an action for response costs incurred--not to be incurred. Moreover, CERCLA expressly provides for declaratory actions for determining liability as to future response costs. Section 9613(g)(2) provides that in actions under § 9607, the court shall enter a declaratory judgment on liability for response costs ... that will be binding on any subsequent action or actions to recover further response costs.... 29 These sections envision that, before suing, CERCLA plaintiffs will spend some money responding to an environmental hazard. They can then go to court and obtain reimbursement for their initial outlays, as well as a declaration that the responsible party will have continuing liability for the cost of finishing the job. 30 This system strikes a balance between a number of considerations. By requiring a plaintiff to take some positive action before coming to court, CERCLA ensures that the dispute will be ripe for judicial review. See, e.g., Thompson v. Anderson Window Corp., No. 4-88-229, 1989 WL 2330, at  4, 1989 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 871, at  12 (D.Minn. Jan. 27, 1989). On the other hand, by not requiring plaintiffs to perform full cleanup before coming to court, and by expressly providing for declaratory judgments, CERCLA substantially reduces the risk involved in performing the cleanup. This encourages private response. See, e.g., Jones v. Inmont Corp., 584 F.Supp. 1425, 1430 (S.D.Ohio 1984); Wade, 577 F.Supp. at 1335. Similarly, actual cleanup is encouraged by requiring plaintiffs to incur response costs before they can recover them. Since CERCLA places no strings on the award of response costs, allowing recovery for future costs absent any binding commitment to incur these costs would leave no incentiveto complete the cleanup. 31 This case provides no occasion for defining what incurred means--only what it does not mean. Here, we are presented with nothing but bare assertions by BN that BN will perform future cleanup. These assertions do not amount to response costs incurred under § 9607(a)(4)(B). Accordingly, the bankruptcy court erred in awarding to BN a liquidated sum for costs incurred beyond the costs actually incurred. We do not hold that the bankruptcy court could not enter a declaratory decree apportioning liability for costs when and if incurred. But the court could not enter a judgment for $7,402,564.00 under § 9607(a) for incurred costs when such costs have not been incurred.