
Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- D.C. Circuit Stays Mandate To Consider Clean Power Plan Afresh, Effectively Ending The CPP
- Pennsylvania Court Holds that Clean Water Act and Clean Streams Law are not Comparable, Permitting Citizens Suit to Proceed
- New “Habitat” Rule for the Endangered Species Act Finalized
- D.C. Circuit Vacates and Remands Trump Administration’s Affordable Clean Energy Rule
- Federal Court Tells WWII Waste Generators, “You'd Better Not Pout,” Awards Government $50 Million in Cleanup Costs
Topics
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- Greenhouse Gas
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- National Priorities List
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- Price-Anderson Act
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- National Contingency Plan
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Strict Liability
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Public Utilities Commission
- Historic Resources
- Utilities
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- PFAS
- Ohio
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- New Mexico
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Delaware
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- National Forest Management Act
- FERC
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- United States Supreme Court
- HSCA
- Corporate Veil
- Alter Ego
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- First Circuit
- PCBs
- Property Damage
- Building Materials
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Innocent Party
- PHMSA
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- Effluents
- FOIA
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Texas
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Coal Ash
- Injunction
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Drinking Water
- Michigan
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Hearing Board
- Civil Penalties
- Clean Streams Law
- Arranger Liability
- Sovereign Immunity
- Retroactive
- Stigma
- Damages
- Property Value
- Tax assessment
- Fair Market Value
- Storage Tank
- Energy
- Fifth Circuit
- Indemnification
- Electric
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Administrative Appeals
- Taxes
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Inspection
- Residential
- New York
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Natural Gas Act
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- D.C. Circuit
- HAPs
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Mercury
- Takings
- Condemnation
- Natural Gas
- Storage
- Fifth Amendment
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Interior
- Tenth Circuit
- Mineral Leasing Act
- California
- Zoning
- Act 13
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Eminent Domain
- Landfill
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Illinois
- Water
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Montana
- Navigability
- Riverbed
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Green House Counsel
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- CISWI
- Enforcement
- Equity
- Consent Decree
- Laches
- Delay Notice
- EPA
- Boiler MACT
- Rulemaking
- Declaratory Relief
- Second Circuit
- Contribution
- Standing
- NPDES
- Procedure
- Medical Monitoring
- Dimock
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Contamination
- Dukes
- Louisiana
- Certification
- CLE
- Cases to Watch
- Discovery
- Expert Witness
- Privilege
- Work Product
- Decisions of Note
- CERCLA
- Cost Recovery
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Real Estate
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Army Corps
- Donovan
- Rapanos
- Nuisance
- Odors
- Class Actions
- Trespass
- Farming
- Hog Barn
- Kentucky
- Informal Agency Action
- Administrative Hearing
- New Jersey
- ISRA
- Cancer
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Railroad
- RCRA
- Waste
- Air
- Speaking Engagements
- Federal Procedure
- Removal
- Third Circuit
- Toxic Torts
- Title V
- Clean Air Act
- Permits
- Statute of Limitations
- Cleanup
- Superfund
- Supreme Court
- Multi-District Litigation
- Statute of Repose
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Wetlands
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Deeds
- Clean Water Act
- Marcellus Shale
- Due Process
- Mineral Rights
- Enforcement Action
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
- Drilling
- Exploration
- Leases
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
In a split decision that could have ramifications for future lawsuits involving the present pandemic, a majority panel in the Ninth Circuit held that the United States was not liable under CERCLA as an “operator” at the Lava Cap Mine Superfund Site when it ordered the mine to shut down during World War II. United States v. Sterling Centrecorp Inc., No. 18-15585 (9th Cir. Oct. 5, 2020). The decision will likely spell some relief for local, state, and federal officials that have issued similar shutdown orders across the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In the decades before World War II, the Lava Cap Mine was a very productive gold and silver mine. During the War, however, the United States faced a critical shortage of copper, while gold mining was deemed “nonessential.” To redirect resources to copper mining, the United States ordered mines like the Lava Cap Mine to shut down. At no point during the shutdown did the government take physical possession of the Lava Cap Mine. In 1945, the order was rescinded and gold mining operations were allowed to continue.
The defendant in the case, Sterling, acquired the Lava Cap Mine during the 1950’s, though Sterling never conducted any mining operations there. In 1979, during Sterling’s ownership, a pollution-control dam at the site collapsed, triggering a release of contaminated waste into a local waterway.
In 2008, EPA and California filed suit against Sterling on the basis that Sterling was liable for response costs under CERCLA as an “operator” of the Lava Cap Mine Superfund Site. Sterling contested the governments’ claims and filed a counterclaim arguing that the United States was liable for response costs under CERCLA as a prior “operator” of the Lava Cap Mine during World War II.
The Ninth’s Circuit’s decision turned on the meaning of “operator” under CERCLA, which is defined by the statute circularly as “any person who at the time of disposal of any hazardous substance . . . operated any facility at which such hazardous substances were disposed of.” 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(2).
A majority of the Ninth Circuit panel held that Sterling was liable as an operator, but the United States was not. The majority relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Bestfoods for the proposition that to be deemed an operator one “must manage, direct or conduct operations specifically related to pollution.” In this case, Sterling was responsible for pollution control decisions in 1979 when the pollution-control dam collapsed. The United States, in contrast, was not an “active” participant in running the facility or managing the facility’s pollution control decisions. In the majority’s view, the United States ordered the Lava Cap Mine to shut down mining operations and that was “the extent of its involvement,” which fell short of operator liability.
In a partial dissent, Judge N. Randy Smith agreed that Sterling was liable but argued that the United States was plainly an “operator” under Supreme Court precedent. Judge Smith also looked to the Bestfoods case but reached an opposite conclusion. Judge Smith stressed that in Bestfoods, the Supreme Court stated that a party is an operator when that party merely “directs the workings of, manages, or conducts the affairs of a facility,” particularly over the facility’s “polluting activities.” Here, in Judge Smith’s view, there was no question that the United States exercised control over the Lava Cap Mine’s polluting activities given that the United States had ordered those activities to terminate. The dissent, therefore, would have held the United States liable under CERCLA as an “operator.”