Court Opinion

ID: 9479699
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:26:08.318955+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:12.830916
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM:
Our opinion issued December 8,1989, 889 F.2d 664, is corrected and clarified as follows:
1) Borden correctly points out, contrary to statements in our opinion, that Amoco rather than Borden offered the “as is” purchase option, which was then accepted by Borden. Additionally, the jury found that Amoco knew or should have known of the property’s radioactivity prior to April 16, 1978, whereas we stated that the jury only found that Amoco should have known.
2) Borden correctly points out that Sub-part B of the Inactive Tailings Standards applies only to off-pile areas, and then argues that our opinion found it liable been ’ce radiation on both the pile and the of i pile sites exceeded Subpart B. Borden therefore requests that we reverse the finding of Borden’s liability for the pile itself and limit remand to an allocation of costs for cleaning up the off-pile sites.
We decline to do so. Our opinion did not decide Borden’s liability with respect to the areas separately. We considered the 114 acre tract and held that Borden was liable for response costs on the 114 acres because radioactivity on the property exceeded an applicable federal standard, namely Sub-part B. This is consistent with the justification standard we established, which is met “if it is shown that any release violates ... any applicable state or federal standard ...” 889 F.2d at 672. By deciding liability generally, we intended to leave for the district court the specific questions of appropriate cleanup and equitable apportionment of response costs. Those questions must be resolved during the remedial phase of trial after the district court has determined which standards will govern the cleanup efforts.
When the court proceeds, it must consider the EPA’s new standards regulating the radioactivity of phosphogypsum piles as well as any other relevant state or federal standards. See 54 Fed. Reg. 51, 654 (Dec. 15, 1989). After determining which standard^) will meet CERCLA’s remedial goals, the district court must ascertain the appropriate response costs. Response costs will be warranted only for cleaning up areas containing radioactivity exceeding the relevant standards. If the district court finds that remedial action is not required for the phosphogypsum pile, nothing in our opinion precludes the court from limiting cleanup efforts, and therefore response cost liability, to the off-pile areas.
IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing filed in the above entitled and numbered cause is hereby DENIED,