---
title: Environmental Liability under CERCLA
description: An overview of environmental liability and cleanup standards under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
keywords: [CERCLA, environmental liability, hazardous substances, Superfund, cleanup standards]
category: law
---

## Introduction to CERCLA

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as "Superfund," is a federal law enacted in 1980 to address the growing problem of abandoned hazardous waste sites in the United States. CERCLA provides a comprehensive framework for the cleanup of releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants into the environment. The primary goals of CERCLA are to (1) facilitate the remediation of contaminated sites, and (2) hold responsible parties financially liable for the costs of such remediation. 

Under CERCLA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to identify parties responsible for the release of hazardous substances and compel them to undertake or pay for the cleanup of contaminated sites. CERCLA imposes strict, joint, and several liability on a broad range of potentially responsible parties (PRPs), including current and former owners and operators of facilities, as well as generators and transporters of hazardous substances. The Act also established the Hazardous Substance Superfund, a trust fund financed by taxes on the chemical and petroleum industries, to provide funding for cleanup efforts where responsible parties cannot be identified or are unable to pay.

## Establishing CERCLA Liability

To establish CERCLA liability, the government must prove four essential elements: (1) the site is a "facility" as defined by the statute; (2) a "release" or "threatened release" of a "hazardous substance" has occurred at the facility; (3) the release or threatened release has caused the government to incur "response costs"; and (4) the defendant is a "covered person" or PRP under CERCLA. See, e.g., United States v. Alcan Aluminum Corp., 964 F.2d 252, 258-59 (3d Cir. 1992).

The term "facility" is broadly defined under CERCLA to include "any building, structure, installation, equipment, pipe or pipeline..., well, pit, pond, lagoon, impoundment, ditch, landfill, storage container, motor vehicle, rolling stock, or aircraft, or any site or area where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed of, or placed, or otherwise come to be located." 42 U.S.C. § 9601(9). Courts have interpreted this definition expansively to encompass a wide range of contaminated properties.

A "release" is defined as "any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the environment" of a hazardous substance. 42 U.S.C. § 9601(22). The term "hazardous substance" is also broadly defined to include substances designated as hazardous or toxic under various environmental statutes. See 42 U.S.C. § 9601(14).

The government must also demonstrate that it has incurred "response costs" in cleaning up the contaminated site. Response costs can include both the costs of investigating and assessing the extent of contamination, as well as the costs of actually remediating the site. See, e.g., United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51, 55 (1998).

Finally, the defendant must be a "covered person" or PRP under one of the four categories enumerated in CERCLA: (1) the current owner or operator of a facility; (2) any person who owned or operated the facility at the time of disposal of hazardous substances; (3) any person who arranged for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances; or (4) any person who transported hazardous substances to a facility selected by such person. 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a).

## Strict, Joint, and Several Liability

CERCLA imposes strict, joint, and several liability on PRPs. Strict liability means that a party can be held liable regardless of fault or negligence. Joint and several liability means that each PRP can be held responsible for the entire cost of cleanup, even if their contribution to the contamination was relatively small. See, e.g., United States v. Monsanto Co., 858 F.2d 160, 167 (4th Cir. 1988).

The rationale behind CERCLA's liability scheme is to ensure the prompt cleanup of hazardous waste sites and to provide the government with the ability to recover its cleanup costs from responsible parties. The broad scope of liability under CERCLA reflects Congress's intent to "place the ultimate financial burden for remedying [environmental] harm on those responsible for the creation of such hazards." See, e.g., United States v. Aceto Agric. Chem. Corp., 872 F.2d 1373, 1377 (8th Cir. 1989).

## Defenses and Limitations to CERCLA Liability

CERCLA provides for a limited number of affirmative defenses to liability. These include an act of God, an act of war, or the act or omission of a third party. 42 U.S.C. § 9607(b). However, these defenses are narrowly construed, and the burden of proof is on the defendant to establish the applicability of the defense. See, e.g., United States v. Stringfellow, 661 F. Supp. 1053, 1060 (C.D. Cal. 1987).

CERCLA also includes certain limitations on liability, such as the "innocent landowner" defense and the "bona fide prospective purchaser" defense. These defenses allow parties who acquired contaminated property without knowledge of the contamination, and who did not contribute to it, to avoid liability. See 42 U.S.C. § 9601(35), 9607(b)(3).

In addition, CERCLA provides for the allocation of cleanup costs among PRPs based on their relative contribution to the contamination. This is known as the "divisibility" defense, which allows a PRP to avoid joint and several liability by demonstrating that the harm is divisible and that it is responsible for only a portion of the total cleanup costs. See, e.g., Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States, 556 U.S. 599, 614 (2009).

## Remedies and Enforcement under CERCLA

CERCLA provides the government with several enforcement mechanisms to compel the cleanup of contaminated sites. The EPA can either perform the cleanup itself and then seek to recover its costs from the responsible parties, or it can issue an administrative order directing the PRPs to undertake the cleanup. See 42 U.S.C. § 9604, 9606.

If a PRP fails to comply with an administrative order, the government can seek to enforce the order in federal court and impose civil penalties of up to $27,500 per day for each violation. 42 U.S.C. § 9606(b). The government can also seek injunctive relief to compel the PRP to undertake the necessary cleanup actions.

In addition to the government's enforcement powers, CERCLA also allows private parties who have incurred response costs to bring a cost recovery action against PRPs. 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a). These private cost recovery actions can be an important tool for businesses, landowners, and other entities that have been forced to clean up contaminated sites.

The remedies available under CERCLA include the recovery of past and future response costs, as well as the costs of natural resource damages. CERCLA also authorizes the government to seek punitive damages of up to three times the amount of the government's response costs in cases where a PRP has willfully violated or failed to comply with an administrative order. 42 U.S.C. § 9607(c)(3).

## Conclusion

CERCLA's broad and expansive liability scheme, combined with its powerful enforcement mechanisms and available remedies, make it a formidable tool in the government's arsenal for addressing environmental contamination. By holding responsible parties financially accountable for the cleanup of hazardous waste sites, CERCLA plays a crucial role in protecting human health and the environment. As the body of CERCLA case law continues to evolve, the scope and application of this landmark environmental statute will undoubtedly continue to be a subject of ongoing legal and policy debates.