Cleaning Up the Muck: Clarifying the Scope of CERCLA's Potentially Responsible Parties

24 Pages Posted: 22 Apr 2010 Last revised: 1 Jul 2010

See all articles by Matthew K. Telford

Matthew K. Telford

University of Pennsylvania Law School - Student/Alumni/Adjunct

Date Written: April 21, 2010

Abstract

Last term, in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States, the Supreme Court resolved the scope of CERCLA’s arranger liability by holding that an arranger must intend to dispose, in order to be held liable as a Potentially Responsible Party (“PRP”). The case sheds light on the Supreme Court’s plain language construction of CERCLA, and its willingness to graft requirements for liability which some consider inconsistent with a strict liability statute. The Court’s decision focuses attention on other PRP disputes, specifically the extent to which a previous owner, one of the four categories of PRP, can be held liable for toxic waste disposal. While lower courts remain divided, this Comment seeks to furnish a test for when a previous owner can be held liable as a PRP, particularly in those cases where unintentional disposal occurs. Remaining true to canons of statutory interpretation, rather than privileging CERCLA’s strict liability emphasis, the breadth of liability under one of America's toughest environmental laws can finally achieve clarity.

Keywords: CERCLA, PRP, Environmental Law, Burlington Northern

JEL Classification: K32

Suggested Citation

Telford, Matthew K., Cleaning Up the Muck: Clarifying the Scope of CERCLA's Potentially Responsible Parties (April 21, 2010). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1593825 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1593825

Matthew K. Telford (Contact Author)

University of Pennsylvania Law School - Student/Alumni/Adjunct ( email )

2135 Walnut St
Apt 801
Philadelphia, PA 19103
United States
336-403-6421 (Phone)

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
42
Abstract Views
448
PlumX Metrics