United States v. Atlantic Research Corp.
127 S. Ct. 2331 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) provides a cause of action for a potentially responsible party (PRP) to recover from other PRPs the costs it has voluntarily incurred in cleaning up a contaminated site.
Facts:
- The United States, through the Department of Defense, operated the Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot.
- Atlantic Research Corporation leased property at the depot to perform work for the United States, which involved retrofitting rocket motors.
- Atlantic Research's process, which used a high-pressure water spray to remove propellant from motors and then burned the propellant, created wastewater and burned fuel.
- This process resulted in the contamination of soil and groundwater at the site.
- Atlantic Research, at its own expense, voluntarily undertook measures to clean up the contamination on the property it leased.
Procedural Posture:
- Atlantic Research sued the United States in federal district court under CERCLA §§ 107(a) and 113(f) to recover its cleanup costs.
- Following the Supreme Court's decision in Cooper Industries, Atlantic Research amended its complaint to seek relief solely under § 107(a).
- The United States, as defendant, filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that § 107(a) does not permit a PRP to recover costs.
- The District Court granted the motion to dismiss.
- Atlantic Research, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision, holding that § 107(a) does provide a cause of action for PRPs like Atlantic Research. The United States was the appellee.
- The United States petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does § 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) provide a cause of action for a potentially responsible party (PRP) to recover cleanup costs it has voluntarily incurred from other PRPs?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thomas
Yes. Section 107(a)(4)(B) of CERCLA authorizes a cost-recovery action by any private party, including potentially responsible parties (PRPs), that has itself incurred cleanup costs. The statutory phrase 'any other person' in § 107(a)(4)(B) refers to any person other than the governmental entities listed in the preceding subparagraph, § 107(a)(4)(A) (the United States, a State, or an Indian tribe). The Court reasoned that reading 'any other person' to exclude PRPs would render the provision a 'dead letter,' as the statute defines PRPs so broadly as to include virtually any private party that would incur cleanup costs. The Court further clarified that § 107(a) and § 113(f) are complementary, not conflicting, remedies. Section 107(a) allows a PRP to recover costs it has directly incurred in its own cleanup efforts, while § 113(f) provides a right to contribution for PRPs that have reimbursed other parties for cleanup costs, typically after being sued or settling a claim.
Analysis:
This decision resolved a significant circuit split that arose after Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc., clarifying the relationship between CERCLA's cost recovery and contribution provisions. By affirming that PRPs who voluntarily clean up sites can sue other PRPs for cost recovery under § 107(a), the ruling creates a powerful incentive for private parties to initiate cleanups without waiting for government enforcement action. The decision solidifies the distinction between § 107(a) for direct, self-incurred costs and § 113(f) for contribution claims arising from reimbursement of another's costs, thereby ensuring that both statutory remedies remain viable.
