SHOULD A CERCLA CONTRIBUTION ACTION BE AVAILABLE TO POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTIES ABSENT FEDERAL CIVIL ACTION?

摘要

In Aviall Services, Inc. v. Cooper Indus., Inc., the United States Supreme Court (the "Court") faces a question that could create significant ripples throughout the environmental law community. The decision could have long lasting effects on continued efforts to cleanup America's abandoned hazardous waste sites. The Court will scrutinize separate practices that have, until now, guided negotiations among polluters and statutorily defined Potentially Responsible Parties ("PRPs"). This article addresses the questions the Court must consider in its evaluation of contribution actions. The analysis looks at Congress's goals in amending the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA") to provide for the allocation of removal and remediation costs, as well as considerations that Congress and the courts have given to the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"). In Aviall II, the Court will decide and likely clarify the inherent conflict that exists between the granting and savings clauses of § 113 of CERCLA. In doing so, the Court will determine if a PRP has a right in contribution against other contributors absent any action by the federal government.