Opinion ID: 2737138
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: glatfelter’s liability

Text: Next, Glatfelter challenges the district court’s entry of summary judgment on the issue of its liability for response costs in OU4, where remediation work is ongoing. Section 107(a) of CERCLA imposes strict liability for response costs upon four classes of responsible parties. 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a). With respect to Glatfelter, the relevant class is any former owner or operator of a facility at which hazardous substances were disposed of and “from which there is a release, or a threatened release which causes the incurrence of response costs, of a hazardous substance.” Id. This is because Glatfelter is the corporate successor to Bergstrom Paper Company, which formerly operated a paper recycling mill in Neenah, Wisconsin, and discharged PCB-contaminated wastewater into Little Lake Butte des Morts. The question we must decide is whether the government established Glatfelter’s liability for response costs in OU4, even though the Bergstrom Mill was located at the upstream end of OU1. In this regard, Glatfelter argues that the government should have been required to prove that PCB discharges from the Bergstrom Mill made their way into OU4 in sufficient quantities to “cause[] the incurrence of response costs” there. The district court disagreed, holding that there need be no “nexus” between a given de- fendant’s release and a specific response cost incurred—it is enough that (a) the defendant released a pollutant and (b) response costs were incurred to clean up “a” release. If the de- fendant truly released a minimal amount, that speaks not to its own liability (for which there Nos. 13-2436 & 13-2441 21 is no de minimis defense) but to whether that li- ability is divisible. On appeal, Glatfelter argues that the district court improperly relieved the government of its burden of proof on causation by instead requiring Glatfelter to disprove causation in relation to its divisibility defense. Section 107(a) of CERCLA is ambiguous as to whether proof of a causal relationship between the incurrence of response costs and an actual (as opposed to threatened) release of a hazardous substance is required to establish liability. Again, the statute imposes liability upon those responsible for a facility “from which there is a release, or a threatened release which causes the incurrence of response costs, of a hazardous substance.” Id. § 9607(a). [T]he phrase “from which there is a release ...” omits a comma after “threatened release”— suggesting that the clause is restrictive—while simultaneously using the word “which”— suggesting that the clause is nonrestrictive. That is, the missing comma implies that a per- son can be held liable for an actual release even when that release does not “cause the incur- rence of response costs,” while the word “which” suggests just the opposite. Asarco LLC v. Cemex, Inc., No. No. EP–12–CV–155–PRM, 2014 WL 2112121, at  n.19 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2014). However, we need not resolve this ambiguity today, because even if the government were required to establish a causal relationship between the incurrence of response costs and the actual 22 Nos. 13-2436 & 13-2441 release of PCBs from the Bergstrom Mill, it has satisfied that burden. Where Glatfelter’s argument goes astray is in its assumption that the government must prove all of the elements of liability in relation to each operable unit of the Site. Such a requirement is nowhere to be found in the statute. Instead, once it is established that a party is responsible for a facility “from which there is a release, or a threatened release which causes the incurrence of response costs, of a hazardous substance,” that party “shall be liable for … all costs of removal or remedial action incurred by the United States Government or a State or an Indian tribe not inconsistent with the national contingency plan.” 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a). In short, even assuming that a release for which the defendant is responsible must have caused the incurrence of response costs, nothing in the statute limits the defendant’s liability to the response costs its release caused. Instead, the defendant is liable for all response costs “not inconsistent with the national contingency plan.” Id. The national contingency plan authorizes removal or remedial action at the “site,” 40 C.F.R. §§ 300.415, 300.435, and it defines “on-site” to mean “the areal extent of contamination and all suitable areas in very close proximity to the contamination necessary for implementation of the response action,” id. § 300.5. Where, as here, releases from multiple facilities contaminate an interconnected environmental system like a river, the entire system falls within this definition. Thus, in this case, the Site was properly defined to include the entire Lower Fox River and Green Bay, and so long as PCBs released from the Bergstrom Mill caused the incurrence of some response costs Nos. 13-2436 & 13-2441 23 within the Site, Glatfelter may be held liable for all response costs within the Site. Glatfelter does not dispute that PCB discharges from the Bergstrom Mill caused the incurrence of response costs in Little Lake Butte des Morts, which is within the Site. Yet it insists that its liability should not extend to OU4, where discharges from the Bergstrom Mill may not have caused the incurrence of response costs. In essence, Glatfelter wants us to treat OU4 as a separate site for which the government must establish liability. But this is inconsistent with the national contingency plan, which defines an operable unit as “a discrete action that comprises an incremental step toward comprehensively addressing site problems.” Id. To put it simply, operable units are not separate sites; thus, they do not determine the extent of a party’s liability. Of course, an operable unit “may address geographical portions of a site,” id., and in some cases, a divisibility defense may prevail based upon those same geographic portions. However, the burden to prove divisibility rests on the defendant. The government need not prove each party’s liability in relation to each geographic unit of a site the first instance. It need only prove each party’s liability as to the site as a whole. In this case, the undisputed facts establish Glatfelter’s liability as to the Lower Fox River and Green Bay Site. Glatfelter protests that holding it liable for response costs in OU4 is like holding it liable for “the Sheboygan River or the Hudson River, two other, unrelated, sediment PCB sites.” But of course, OU4 is not unrelated to OU1, nor is it a separate site; rather, OU1 and OU4 are part of the same site. Glatfelter cannot be held liable for cleanup in the Sheboygan 24 Nos. 13-2436 & 13-2441 River or the Hudson River because EPA could not define the Site to include those rivers, which are not part of “the areal extent of contamination and all suitable areas in very close proximity to the contamination necessary for implementation of the response action.” Id. However, as Glatfelter concedes, EPA properly defined the Site to include the entire Lower Fox River. Therefore, Glatfelter may be held liable for cleanup costs there, and the district court properly granted summary judgment to the government on the issue of Glatfelter’s liability.