Section 9601 - Definitions

48 Citing briefs

  1. Friends of Riverside Airport, LLC v. Department of the Army, et al.

    Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

    Filed November 19, 2020

    CERCLA broadly defines the term โ€œresponseโ€ to include โ€œremove, removal, remedy, and remedial actionโ€ and all โ€œenforcement activities related thereto.โ€ Castaic Lake Water Agency, 272 F.Supp.2d 1053, 1062; 42 U.S.C. 9601(25) (response costs include the costs of investigations, clean-up, sampling, overseeing investigations, security fencing and other restrictive measures, and enforcement activities). Here, it cannot be seriously disputed that FRAโ€™s costs were necessary.

  2. Asarco LLC v. NL Industries, Inc. et al

    RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER

    Filed May 14, 2014

    #: 214 Filed: 05/14/14 Page: 23 of 32 PageID #: 6181 D. There Were Releases or Threats of Releases of Hazardous Substances from the Rail Lines CERCLA defines a โ€œreleaseโ€ as โ€œany spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the environment . . . .โ€ 42 U.S.C. ยง 9601(22). Asarco need not present a minimum amount of hazardous substances released from Union Pacificโ€™s rail lines to establish its prima facie case.

  3. M.C. v. Pactiv Corporation, et al (Lead Case)

    RESPONSE to Motion re Joint MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Supplemental Response to Defendants' Joint Motion to Compel

    Filed April 30, 2007

    8 7. The definition of โ€œreleaseโ€ in 42 U.S.C. ยง 9601(22) specifically excludes โ€œany release which results in exposure to persons solely within a workplace.โ€ 8.

  4. Cyprus Amax Minerals Company v. Tci Pacific Communications, Inc. et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed July 22, 2016

    No. 106 at ยถ 108. As alleged by Plaintiff, โ€œ[b]oth the emissions of hazardous substances which settled on the Collinsville Town Site and the use of smelter waste as yard fill and for construction purposes by the Collinsville residents constitute disposal as that term is defined by CERCLA section 101(29), 42 U.S.C. ยง 9601(29).โ€ Doc.

  5. M.C. v. Pactiv Corporation, et al (Lead Case)

    RESPONSE to Motion re MOTION for More Definite Statement, 14 MOTION to Dismiss, 12 MOTION to Dismiss

    Filed April 24, 2006

    Thus, a release into the environment โ€œdoes not require active participation by any responsible parties,โ€ Westfarm Associates Limited Partnership v. International Fabricare Institute, 846 F.Supp. 422, 431 (D.Md. 1993), and a release into the environment has been found where waste material contained hazardous substances, there were piles of drums stacked up with some partially buried in a sinkhole, there were stained soils, strong chemical orders were perceived at the site, there were no stormwater runoff controls, and drums with waste materials were burned in open. U.S. v. JG-24, Inc., 331 F.Supp.2d 14 (D.P.R. 2004). Similarly, a finding of cyanide, lead, cadmium, and other hazardous substances at the site of an electroplating business, when combined with evidence Case 2:06-cv-00083-LES-CSC Document 21 Filed 04/24/2006 Page 9 of 29 .5 The definition of โ€œreleaseโ€ in 42 U.S.C. ยง 9601(22) specifically excludes โ€œany release which results in exposure to persons solely within a workplace.โ€ .6 Like Becton, two of the cases involved occupational exposures that are statutorily excluded from coverage under CERCLA.

  6. El Paso Natural Gas Company Llc v. United States of America et al

    MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment

    Filed February 17, 2017

    Case 3:14-cv-08165-DGC Document 114 Filed 02/17/17 Page 9 of 24 L A W O FF IC E S G R E E N B E R G T R A U R IG 23 75 E A ST C A M E L B A C K R O A D , S U IT E 7 00 PH O E N IX , A R IZ O N A 8 50 16 (6 02 ) 44 5- 80 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 5 Congressโ€™ approach to the liability of owners was simple: it defined an โ€œownerโ€ as any โ€œperson owning . . . [a] facility.โ€ 42 U.S.C. ยง 9601(20). While this definition is circular on its face, its circularity โ€œstrongly implies . . . that the statutory terms have their ordinary meanings rather than unusual or technical meanings.โ€

  7. Tesoro Refining And Marketing Company Llc et al v. City of Long Beach, A California Municipality et al

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

    Filed March 9, 2017

    As such, benzene presumptively falls within CERCLAโ€™s petroleum exclusion. 42 U.S.C. ยง 9601(14); See also Wilshire Westwood Assocs. v. Atl. Richfield Corp., 881 F.2d 801, 803โ€“04 (9th Cir. 1989) (petroleum exclusion applies to unrefined and refined gasoline, as well as gasolineโ€™s indigenous components and additives that may be individually considered as hazardous substances under CERCLA).

  8. Tesoro Refining And Marketing Company Llc et al v. City of Long Beach, A California Municipality et al

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case

    Filed February 7, 2017

    .โ€ See 42 U.S.C. ยง 9601(14) (โ€œThe term โ€˜hazardous substanceโ€™ . . . does not include petroleum, including crude oil or any fraction thereof . . . .โ€).

  9. City of Spokane v. Monsanto Company et al

    MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

    Filed December 14, 2016

    ECF No. 79 at ยถ 68. To prevail in a private cost recovery action under Section 107, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) the site on which the hazardous substances are contained is a โ€œfacilityโ€ under CERCLA's definition of that term, Section 101(9), 42 U.S.C. ยง 9601(9); (2) a โ€œreleaseโ€ or โ€œthreatened releaseโ€ of any โ€œhazardous substanceโ€ from the facility has occurred, 42 U.S.C. ยง 9607(a)(4); (3) such โ€œreleaseโ€ or โ€œthreatened releaseโ€ has caused the plaintiff to incur response costs that were โ€œnecessaryโ€ and โ€œconsistent with the national contingency plan,โ€ 42 U.S.C. ยงยง 9607(a)(4) and (a)(4)(B); and Case 2:15-cv-00201-SMJ Document 83 Filed 12/14/16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFFโ€™S MOTION TO DISMISS MONSANTOโ€™S COUNTERCLAIMS - Page 10 BARON & BUDD. P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Ave., Ste. 1100 Dallas, Texas 75219 Telephone: 214-521-3605 (4) the defendant is within one of four classes of persons subject to the liability provisions of Section 107(a).

  10. Benson v. Amguard Insurance Company

    REPLY BRIEF re MOTION for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Rule 56

    Filed April 28, 2017

    The case cited by Plaintiff to support its infirm declaratory judgment argument, Bank of Delaware v. Allstate Ins. Co., 448 A.2d 231 (Del. Super. 1982), is a typical example of how a declaratory judgment should work. There, the Bank of Delawareโ€™s contractor refused to honor an indemnification and โ€œhold harmlessโ€ agreement, when the Bank was sued under the โ€œSuperfundโ€ statute, 42 U.S.C. ยงยง 9601 et seq., and the Bankโ€™s insurer (Insurance Company of North America (โ€œINAโ€)), assumed the defense of the Bank. After doing so, the Bank and INA sued the contractor and its separate insurer seeking a declaration that the contractor and its insurer were obligated to defend and indemnify the Bank.