CERCLA Rights to Sue for Clean Up Costs Reinstated

In the case of United States v. Atlantic Research Corporation, the Supreme Court ruled that potentially responsible parties (PRPs) that voluntarily clean up contaminated sites may sue other PRPs to recover their cleanup costs under section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The reinstatement of this right comes after many years of federal court battles over the issues of authority and methodology for recovering cleanup costs from other PRPs.
When CERCLA was originally enacted, the courts interpreted section 107(a) as providing a method for PRPs to recover their costs from other PRPs. However, in 1986, Congress enacted the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). Section 113(f) of this law outlined explicit means for PRPs to pursue contribution from other PRPs. After the enactment of SARA, some federal courts held that section 113 was the only remedy for cleanup cost recovery. Other courts prevented PRPs from suing under section 107 of CERCLA and expanded section 113 to allow PRPs’ contributions without the need for a suit.
Section 107 makes PRPs liable for “all costs of removal or remedial action incurred by the United States Government or a State or an Indian tribe” and “any other necessary costs of response incurred by any other person.” In Atlantic Research, the United States argued that the section 107 use of “any other person” was limited to suits brought by “non-PRPs.”  That meant that Atlantic Research, a PRP, was barred from filing suit. The Supreme Court held that all the words of the statute must be “read as a whole.” They added that using the United States’ reading of the language would decrease the number of plaintiffs permitted to sue to almost zero, which would make Section 107 worthless.
Section 113 prohibits claims against PRPs who have satisfied their liability to the United States or a state in an administrative or court approved settlement. In Atlantic Research, the United States argued that permitting PRPs to seek recovery under section 107 negates the protection offered to PRPs who have settled under section 113. The Supreme Court conceded this. However, the Court stated that this “supposed loophole” would not discourage settlements because district courts would take into account any earlier settlements when assigning the level of liability to the various PRPs involved.
The Supreme Court also ruled that section 107 and 113 provide two “clearly distinct” remedies. Section 107 permits PRPs to recover cleanup costs they have incurred from other PRPs. A PRP that has satisfied a settlement agreement or court judgment under CERCLA may pursue contribution from other PRPs through section 113. The Court made clear that simultaneous recovery under section 107 and section 113 is not allowed. PRPs can’t choose their method of recovery. The appropriate remedy will depend on the circumstances in each case.

In the case of United States v. Atlantic Research Corporation, the Supreme Court ruled that potentially responsible parties (PRPs) that voluntarily clean up contaminated sites may sue other PRPs to recover their cleanup costs under section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The reinstatement of this right comes after many years of federal court battles over the issues of authority and methodology for recovering cleanup costs from other PRPs.When CERCLA was originally enacted, the courts interpreted section 107(a) as providing a method for PRPs to recover their costs from other PRPs. However, in 1986, Congress enacted the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). Section 113(f) of this law outlined explicit means for PRPs to pursue contribution from other PRPs. After the enactment of SARA, some federal courts held that section 113 was the only remedy for cleanup cost recovery. Other courts prevented PRPs from suing under section 107 of CERCLA and expanded section 113 to allow PRPs’ contributions without the need for a suit.Section 107 makes PRPs liable for “all costs of removal or remedial action incurred by the United States Government or a State or an Indian tribe” and “any other necessary costs of response incurred by any other person.” In Atlantic Research, the United States argued that the section 107 use of “any other person” was limited to suits brought by “non-PRPs.”  That meant that Atlantic Research, a PRP, was barred from filing suit. The Supreme Court held that all the words of the statute must be “read as a whole.” They added that using the United States’ reading of the language would decrease the number of plaintiffs permitted to sue to almost zero, which would make Section 107 worthless.Section 113 prohibits claims against PRPs who have satisfied their liability to the United States or a state in an administrative or court approved settlement. In Atlantic Research, the United States argued that permitting PRPs to seek recovery under section 107 negates the protection offered to PRPs who have settled under section 113. The Supreme Court conceded this. However, the Court stated that this “supposed loophole” would not discourage settlements because district courts would take into account any earlier settlements when assigning the level of liability to the various PRPs involved.The Supreme Court also ruled that section 107 and 113 provide two “clearly distinct” remedies. Section 107 permits PRPs to recover cleanup costs they have incurred from other PRPs. A PRP that has satisfied a settlement agreement or court judgment under CERCLA may pursue contribution from other PRPs through section 113. The Court made clear that simultaneous recovery under section 107 and section 113 is not allowed. PRPs can’t choose their method of recovery. The appropriate remedy will depend on the circumstances in each case.

How to Prevent Emergency Generators from Becoming a Danger

Having a reliable backup generator can be invaluable during a power outage. From powering a refrigerator, the lights, or heating or cooling during an emergency power outage, an emergency generator can be a real asset and provide many of the essentials that your family would otherwise be without during an outage. That said, generators shouldn’t be used haphazardly. If safety regulations aren’t followed, a generator can become more of a danger than an asset.

Determine what size generator you’ll need. The size of a generator will be based on the items you’d like to power during a power outage. For example, those in colder climates will want to power the furnace to keep the home warm and help prevent pipes from freezing and breaking. A well pump, refrigerator, freezer, and electrical in-home medical equipment should also be considerations. Keep in mind that the generator’s size and cost will increase with the more you need the generator to support.

Once you’ve figured out what size generator you need, you will have two main types of generators to choose from – portable or permanent standby. Understanding the workings and what’s required for each can help you determine which type best suits your need.

Depending on the specific size, a portable generator will allow you to have television, radio, lights, furnace, water well, and refrigerator and freezer powered. Generators can range from 1000-watt to 10,000 watt, with the average home needing at least a 5,000-watt generator. You may switch out the appliances, such as by momentarily disconnecting the refrigerator to operate the microwave, but make sure not to overload the equipment. You’ll plug your desired appliances directly into the portable generator using several heavy-duty grounded extension cords. This type of generator doesn’t need to be installed professionally, but it’s of vital importance that users follow strict safety practices. Never operate the generator inside the home, garage, or otherwise confined space; it must be used in a thoroughly ventilated area. Make sure to keep gas-powered portable generators away from open flames.

On the other hand, a licensed professional electrician should be used to install a permanent standby generator since it’s connected to the home’s wiring system, the installation should meet local building codes, and must be installed with several key safety features. Special equipment must be installed to prevent the generator from backfeeding into the electrical system within the home. Backfeed can result in a fire or equipment damage. It must have a transfer switch installed so that power crews won’t be in danger from live electrical currents if they need to make repairs to lines. You’ll also need to notify the power company when you install a permanent standby generator.

A generator will only be an asset to help you safely and comfortably make it through a crisis when it’s used appropriately. Otherwise, it can create more problems than it solves.