Opinion ID: 894680
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Purpose and General Provisions

Text: SWDA, embodied in chapter 361 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, is our state counterpart to two federal environmental statutes: the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901-6992, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675. While RCRA is designed primarily to regulate on-going treatment, storage, and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes, B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Murtha, 958 F.2d 1192, 1201 (2d Cir.1992), CERCLA was enacted to facilitate the prompt clean-up of hazardous substances that have already been released into the environment and to ensure that those responsible for the hazardous substances bear the cost of their actions. United States v. Alcan Aluminum Corp., 964 F.2d 252, 258 (3d Cir.1992); see also Kalamazoo River Study Group v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 171 F.3d 1065, 1068 (6th Cir.1999); OHM Remediation Servs. v. Evans Cooperage Co., 116 F.3d 1574, 1578 (5th Cir.1997). The purpose of SWDA, originally enacted in 1969 and codified twenty years later, is to safeguard the health, welfare, and physical property of the people and to protect the environment by controlling the management of solid waste, [4] including accounting for hazardous waste that is generated. Tex. Health & Safety Code § 361.002(a). As the court of appeals noted, SWDA's cost-recovery provisions are structured similarly to those in CERCLA, which the federal courts have given a liberal interpretation consistent with Congress's `overwhelmingly remedial' statutory scheme. 81 S.W.3d at 290-91 (quoting United States v. Aceto Agric. Chems. Corp., 872 F.2d 1373, 1380 (8th Cir.1989)); see, e.g., Murtha, 958 F.2d at 1198. We in turn will interpret SWDA liberally to give effect to its remedial purpose. See Burch v. City of San Antonio, 518 S.W.2d 540, 544 (Tex.1975) (If a statute is curative or remedial in its nature the rule is generally applied that it be given the most comprehensive and liberal construction possible.). In accordance with that purpose, SWDA, like CERCLA, provides mechanisms for the clean-up of solid waste and for both governmental entities and private parties to recover clean-up costs from those responsible for the waste. [5] See, e.g., Tex. Health & Safety Code §§ 361.272, .197, .344; 42 U.S.C. §§ 9607, 9613(f). Pilgrim brought this cost-recovery action under section 361.344 of the Health and Safety Code, which states in pertinent part: § 361.344. Cost Recovery by Liable Party or Third Party (a) A person who conducts a removal or remedial action that is approved by the commission and is necessary to address a release or threatened release may bring suit in a district court to recover the reasonable and necessary costs of that action and other costs as the court, in its discretion, considers reasonable. .... (c) To recover costs under this section ... the person seeking cost recovery must have made reasonable attempts to notify the person against whom cost recovery is sought: (1) of the existence of the release or threatened release; and (2) that the person seeking cost recovery intended to take steps to eliminate the release or threatened release. (d) The court shall determine the amount of cost recovery according to the criteria prescribed by Section 361.343. Tex. Health & Safety Code § 361.344(a), (c), (d). Section 361.343, which will be discussed in more detail later, sets forth the following factors for the court to consider in apportioning remedial costs among those responsible for solid waste: (1) the relationship between the parties' actions in storing, processing, and disposing of solid waste and the remedy required to eliminate the release or threatened release; (2) the volume of solid waste each party is responsible for at the solid waste facility or site to the extent that the costs of the remedy are based on the volume of solid waste present; (3) consideration of toxicity or other waste characteristics if those characteristics affect the cost to eliminate the release or threatened release; and (4) a party's cooperation with state agencies, its cooperation or noncooperation with the pending efforts to eliminate the release or threatened release, or a party's actions concerning storing, processing, or disposing of solid waste, as well as the degree of care that the party exercised. Id. § 361.343(a). SWDA thus allows even liable parties who have expended remedial costs to apportion those costs among others who are also responsible for solid waste under the Act. CERCLA similarly allows a potentially responsible person to bring a contribution action to recover its response costs and provides that the court may allocate those costs using such equitable factors as the court determines are appropriate. [6] 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f); New Castle County v. Halliburton NUS Corp., 111 F.3d 1116, 1121 (3d Cir.1997). [7] Based on the statutory language quoted above, we agree with the court of appeals' formulation of the elements of a private cost-recovery action under SWDA: (1) the defendant is a person responsible for solid waste as defined in section 361.271; (2) the TNRCC approved the plaintiff's removal or remedial action; (3) the action was necessary to address a release or threatened release of solid waste; (4) the costs of the action were reasonable and necessary; and (5) the plaintiff made reasonable attempts to notify the defendant of both the release and the plaintiff's intent to take steps to eliminate the release. Tex. Health & Safety Code § 361.344; 81 S.W.3d at 288. In this Court, Street asserts that the court of appeals erred in holding that the first, third, and fourth elements were established as a matter of law.