Opinion ID: 1291354
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: cercla cost recovery and contribution framework

Text: Broadly speaking, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq., facilitates cleanup and remediation of contaminated lands, and shifts the financial burden of such environmental response actions to the parties responsible for releasing hazardous substances. United States v. R.W. Meyer, Inc., 889 F.2d 1497, 1500 (6th Cir.1989) (citing H. Rep. No. 1016(I), 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 22, reprinted in 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6119, 6125); Walls v. Waste Resource Corp., 823 F.2d 977, 981 (6th Cir.1987) ([T]he statute was designed primarily to facilitate the prompt cleanup of hazardous waste sites by placing the ultimate financial responsibility for cleanup on those responsible for hazardous wastes.). To that end, CERCLA initially provided for cost recovery under § 107. Although CERCLA itself does not employ the term PRP, it does set forth four categories of parties subject to liability: (1) the current owner or operator of a waste facility; (2) any previous owner or operator during any time in which hazardous substances were disposed at a waste facility; (3) any person who arranged for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances at the waste facility; and (4) any person who transported hazardous substances to a waste facility. Centerior, 153 F.3d at 347 n. 8 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(1)-(4)). Section 107(a)(4) makes PRPs liable for all costs of removal or remedial action incurred by the United States Government or a State or an Indian tribe, and for any other necessary costs of response incurred by any other person. CERCLA § 107(a)(4)(A)-(B); 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4)(A)-(B); Thus, while the government may recover costs from PRPs under subsection (A), § 107(a)(4)(B) creates an implied private right of action to recover necessary costs of response. Id.; Centerior, 153 F.3d at 347; Walls v. Waste Resource Corp., 761 F.2d 311, 318 (6th Cir.1985). In addition to creating an action for cost recovery, courts initially read § 107(a)(4)(B) to create an implied right of action for contribution for PRPs who had been sued under § 107, but had incurred response costs in excess of their pro rata share. Centerior, 153 F.3d at 348; see also Walls, 761 F.2d at 318-19 (permitting plaintiffs who incurred response costs to seek cost recovery from alleged responsible parties under § 107). In 1986, Congress enacted the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), which amended CERCLA. SARA, Pub.L. No. 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613 (1986). As part of these amendments, Congress created an express right of contribution, as follows: Any person may seek contribution from any other person who is liable or potentially liable under section 9607(a) of this title, during or following any civil action under section 9606 of this title or under section 9607(a) of this title. Such claims shall be brought in accordance with this section and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and shall be governed by Federal law. In resolving contribution claims, the court may allocate response costs among liable parties using such equitable factors as the court determines are appropriate. Nothing in this subsection shall diminish the right of any person to bring an action for contribution in the absence of a civil action under section 9606 of this title or section 9607 of this title. CERCLA § 113(f)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f)(1); see also Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Aviall Servs., Inc., 543 U.S. 157, 162, 125 S.Ct. 577, 160 L.Ed.2d 548 (2004); Key Tronic Corp. v. United States, 511 U.S. 809, 816, 114 S.Ct. 1960, 128 L.Ed.2d 797 (1994). As this Court acknowledged in Centerior, after the adoption of SARA, controversy arose regarding whether PRPs who themselves contributed to the contamination of a hazardous waste site could seek joint and several cost recovery as well as contribution. Centerior, 153 F.3d at 349. In the intervening years, courts continued to grapple with the remedy applicable to PRPs based on a perceived friction between the two remedies for recoupment of costs associated with contamination cleanup. The Supreme Court addressed this question in part in Cooper Industries and, more recently, in United States v. Atlantic Research Corp., ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 2331, 168 L.Ed.2d 28 (2007), cases that will be discussed at greater length below.