United States v. Chem-Dyne Corp.
572 F.Supp. 802 (1983)
Rule of Law:
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. § 9607, liability for hazardous waste clean-up costs can be joint and several, governed by a uniform federal common law that applies principles from the Restatement (Second) of Torts, particularly concerning the divisibility of harm.
Facts:
- Plaintiff United States sued 24 defendants for reimbursement of Superfund money spent on remedial action.
- Defendants allegedly generated or transported hazardous substances found at the Chem-Dyne treatment facility.
- The Chem-Dyne facility contains approximately 608,000 pounds of various hazardous wastes from 289 generators or transporters.
- Some of the wastes at the facility have commingled, and the identities of their sources remain unascertained.
- There is a dispute regarding which wastes have contaminated the groundwater, the extent of their migration, and the associated health hazards.
- The volume of waste from a particular generator is not an accurate predictor of risk, as toxicity or migratory potential varies independently with volume.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States sued 24 defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (trial court) to recover Superfund money spent on remedial action at the Chem-Dyne facility.
- Defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment, requesting an early judicial determination that they are not jointly and severally liable for the clean-up costs under CERCLA.
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 CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607, preclude the imposition of joint and several liability on defendants responsible for hazardous waste clean-up costs, or is such liability to be determined by federal common law principles where the harm is indivisible?
Opinions:
Majority - Carl B. Rubin
No, CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607, does not preclude the imposition of joint and several liability; rather, the scope of liability is to be determined by federal common law principles where the harm is indivisible. The Court initially found the statutory language ambiguous regarding the scope of liability, necessitating a review of legislative history. While the terms 'strict, joint and several liability' were deleted from earlier drafts of the bill, the legislative history, particularly statements from sponsors Senator Randolph and Representative Florio, clarified that this deletion was not a rejection of joint and several liability. Instead, it was intended to avoid a mandatory legislative standard that might be inequitable in all situations, allowing courts to determine liability on a case-by-case basis using common law principles. The court further held that federal common law should govern the scope of liability under CERCLA due to the uniquely federal interests involved in addressing a national environmental problem, the need for nationwide uniformity to prevent illegal dumping in states with lax laws, and the protection of the federal Superfund. Applying federal common law, the Court drew upon the Restatement (Second) of Torts, establishing that if two or more persons acting independently cause a distinct or divisible harm, each is liable only for their portion. However, if they cause a single and indivisible harm, each is subject to liability for the entire harm. The burden of proving the divisibility of the harm rests upon each defendant seeking to limit their liability. Because the defendants in this case did not demonstrate the divisibility of the harm at the Chem-Dyne facility, summary judgment was inappropriate.
Analysis:
This case is foundational for CERCLA liability, establishing that joint and several liability can be imposed on responsible parties and that federal common law dictates the application of this standard. By adopting the 'indivisible harm' standard from the Restatement (Second) of Torts and placing the burden of proving divisibility on the defendants, the ruling significantly enhanced the government's ability to recover clean-up costs at complex, multi-generator sites. This incentivized potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to engage in settlement or allocate responsibility among themselves, shaping the subsequent litigation and enforcement landscape of Superfund sites nationwide.
