Responsibility for Site Contamination

  • Elizabeth Brandon


This chapter examines the importance of including a strong liability framework in any national legislation for site contamination. It considers the elements commonly used in national liability frameworks, identifying the advantages and disadvantages of each. The discussion refers to concepts such as strict liability, polluter pays, joint and several liability and proportionate liability. The merits of the traditional ‘command and control’ approach and the more recent ‘voluntary cleanup’ approach are compared. The problem of funding the remediation of ‘orphan’ sites is also considered.


United States Environmental Protection Agency Strict Liability Liability Regime Responsible Party Cleanup Cost 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Alberini A, Austin D (2001) Accidents waiting to happen: liability policy and toxic pollution releases. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, pp 01–06Google Scholar
  2. American Tort Reform Association (2012) Joint and several liability reform. Available at
  3. Anderson RC (2002) Incentive-based policies for environmental management in developing countries. Issue brief no. 02–07. Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. Association of Municipalities of Ontario (2009) The case for joint and several liability reform in OntarioGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergkamp L (2001) Liability and environment: private and public law aspects of civil liability for environmental harm in an international context. Kluwer Law International, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  6. Berveling S (2005) Legal issues regarding the sustainable management of contaminated soils with examples from Australia. Paper presented to the International Workshop on Strategies, Science and Law for the Conservation of the World Soil Resources, Selfoss, Iceland, 14–18 September 2005Google Scholar
  7. Boyd J (1999) Environmental remediation law and economies in transition. Discussion paper no. 99–21. Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (2006) Recommended principles on contaminated sites liabilityGoogle Scholar
  9. Canadian Environmental Law Association (2004) Preliminary submissions on the CCME brownfields issues and options paperGoogle Scholar
  10. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Government of the United Kingdom (2012) Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part 2A—contaminated land statutory guidanceGoogle Scholar
  11. Dixon LS (1995) Superfund liability reform: Implications for transaction costs and Site cleanupGoogle Scholar
  12. Economic References Committee, Australian Senate (2002) A review of public liability and professional indemnity insuranceGoogle Scholar
  13. EUROPA (Summaries of EU Legislation) (2004) Summary—environmental liability white paper. Available at
  14. Faure MG (ed) (2003) Deterrence, insurability and compensation in environmental liability: future developments in the European Union. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Faure MG (2009) Regulatory strategies in environmental liability. In: Carfaggi F, Muir Watt H (eds) The regulatory function of European private law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 129–187Google Scholar
  16. Fowler R (2007) Site contamination law and policy in Europe, North America and Australia—trends and challenges. Paper presented to the 8th meeting of the International Committee on Contaminated Land, Stockholm, 10–11 September 2007Google Scholar
  17. Judy ML, Probst KN (2011) Superfund at 30. Vermont J Environ Law 11:191–247Google Scholar
  18. Kelemen RD (2004) The politics of environmental policy in the United States and the European Union: Coercive federalism? In: Levin MA, Shapiro MM (eds) Transatlantic policymaking in an age of austerity: diversity and drift. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC, pp 203–223Google Scholar
  19. Kingsbury A (1998) Funding the remediation of contaminated land in Australia and New Zealand: the problem of orphan sites. Waikato Law Review, 6, 37. Available at
  20. Kummer Peiry K (2005) Biosafety protocol process on liability and redress: food for thought on key issues. Kummer Eco ConsultGoogle Scholar
  21. Layard A (2006) The Europeanisation of contaminated land. In: Betlem G, Brans E (eds) Environmental liability in the EU: the 2004 Directive compared with US and Member State law. Cameron, London, pp 129–147Google Scholar
  22. Luo Q, Catney P, Lerner D (2009) Risk-based management of contaminated land in the UK: lessons for China? J Environ Manage 90(2):1123–1134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lyons JJ (1986–1987) Deep pockets and CERCLA: should Superfund liability be abolished? Stanford Environ Law J 6:271–344Google Scholar
  24. Mirovitskaya N, Ascher W (eds) (2001) Guide to sustainable development and environmental policy, 2nd edn. Duke University Press, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  25. Page GW (1997) Contaminated sites and environmental cleanup: international approaches to prevention, remediation and reuse. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  26. Preston B (2009) Sustainable development law in the courts: the polluter pays principle. Paper presented to the 16th Commonwealth Law Conference, Hong Kong, 7 April 2009Google Scholar
  27. Richardson BJ (2002) Environmental regulation through financial organisations: comparative perspectives on the industrialised nations. Kluwer Law International, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  28. Sheehan P, Firth S (2008) Client’s guide to contaminated land risk assessment. In Environ Indust Commission The Land Remediation Yearbook 2008:71Google Scholar
  29. Sigman H, Stafford S (2011) Management of hazardous waste and contaminated land. Annual Rev Resour Econ 3:255–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Thornton J (2009) Contaminated land: the latest developments. J Plann Environ Law 1:8–23Google Scholar
  31. Underwood JM (2007) What’s happened to vicarious and joint and several liability? Chapter 33 questions you need to know. Paper presented to the 31st Annual Page Keeton Civil Litigation Conference, Austin, Texas, 25–26 October 2007Google Scholar
  32. United Nations Environment Programme/French Environment and Energy Management Agency (ADEME) (2005) Identification and management of contaminated sites: a methodological guide (2nd edn.)Google Scholar
  33. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2002) Memorandum—enforcement first for remedial action at Superfund sitesGoogle Scholar
  34. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2003) Interim guidance regarding criteria landowners must meet in order to qualify for bona fide prospective purchaser, contiguous property owner, or innocent landowner limitations on CERCLA liabilityGoogle Scholar
  35. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2009) Memorandum—interim revisions to CERCLA judicial and administrative settlement models to clarify contribution rights and protection from claims following the Aviall and Atlantic Research Corporation decisionsGoogle Scholar
  36. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2012a) De minimis/de micromis policies and models. Available at
  37. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2012b) Superfund liability. Available at
  38. United States Government Accountability Office (2009) Superfund: litigation has decreased and EPA needs better information on site cleanup and cost issues to estimate future program funding requirements. GAO-09-656Google Scholar
  39. Waite A (2005) The quest for environmental law equilibrium. Environ Law Rev 7(1):34–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wilkerson WR, Church TW (1989) The gorilla in the closet: joint and several liability and the cleanup of toxic waste sites. Law Policy 11(4):425–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. World Bank (2007) Domestic environmental law. Available at
  42. Yeboah M (2008) United States v Atlantic Research: of settlement and voluntarily incurred costs. Harvard Environ Law Rev 32:279–291Google Scholar


  1. Burlington N, Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States (2009) 129 S. Ct. 1870, 1881 (United States)Google Scholar
  2. Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd (1994) 179 CLR 520 (High Court of Australia)Google Scholar
  3. Cooper Industries, Inc. v Aviall Services, Inc. (2004) 543 U.S. 157 (United States)Google Scholar
  4. Corby Group Litigation v Corby Borough Council [2008] EWCA Civ 463, 8 May 2008 (United Kingdom)Google Scholar
  5. R (National Grid Gas plc) v Environment Agency [2007] UKHL 30 (House of Lords) (United Kingdom)Google Scholar
  6. Rylands v Fletcher [1868] UKHL 1 (House of Lords) (United Kingdom)Google Scholar
  7. Smith v Inco Ltd, 2011 ONCA 628 (Ontario Court of Appeal)Google Scholar
  8. Solutia, Inc. and Pharmacia Corp. v. McWane, Inc (2012) WL 695007 (11th Cir. March 6, 2012) (United States)Google Scholar
  9. United States v. Atlantic Research Corporation (2007) 551 U.S. 128 (United States)Google Scholar

Other Legal Materials

  1. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 1980, 42 U.S.C. 9601 (United States)Google Scholar
  2. Contaminated Sites Act 2003 (Western Australia)Google Scholar
  3. Directive on Environmental Liability with regard to the Prevention and Remedying of Environmental Damage [2004] 2004/35/CE, O.J. L. 143/56-75 (European Union)Google Scholar
  4. Environment Protection (Site Contamination) Amendment Act 2007 (South Australia)Google Scholar
  5. Environmental Protection Act 1990 c. 43 (United Kingdom)Google Scholar
  6. Oil and Gas Commission Levy and Orphan Site Reclamation Fund Tax Regulation 1998, B.C. Reg. 363/98 (British Columbia)Google Scholar
  7. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 1976, 42 U.S.C. 321 (United States)Google Scholar
  8. Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act 2002, Pub. L. No. 107–118 (United States)Google Scholar
  9. Soil Protection Act 1998 (Germany)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TanundaAustralia

Personalised recommendations