Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Responsibility for Site Contamination

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Global Approaches to Site Contamination Law

  • 637 Accesses

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alberini A, Austin D (2001) Accidents waiting to happen: liability policy and toxic pollution releases. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, pp 01–06

    Google Scholar 

  • American Tort Reform Association (2012) Joint and several liability reform. Available at http://www.atra.org/issues/joint-and-several-liability-rule-reform

  • Anderson RC (2002) Incentive-based policies for environmental management in developing countries. Issue brief no. 02–07. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Association of Municipalities of Ontario (2009) The case for joint and several liability reform in Ontario

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 2005

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd J (1999) Environmental remediation law and economies in transition. Discussion paper no. 99–21. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (2006) Recommended principles on contaminated sites liability

    Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Environmental Law Association (2004) Preliminary submissions on the CCME brownfields issues and options paper

    Google Scholar 

  • Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Government of the United Kingdom (2012) Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part 2A—contaminated land statutory guidance

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon LS (1995) Superfund liability reform: Implications for transaction costs and Site cleanup

    Google Scholar 

  • Economic References Committee, Australian Senate (2002) A review of public liability and professional indemnity insurance

    Google Scholar 

  • EUROPA (Summaries of EU Legislation) (2004) Summary—environmental liability white paper. Available at http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/other/l28107_en.htm

  • Faure MG (ed) (2003) Deterrence, insurability and compensation in environmental liability: future developments in the European Union. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 129–187

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 2007

    Google Scholar 

  • Judy ML, Probst KN (2011) Superfund at 30. Vermont J Environ Law 11:191–247

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 203–223

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 http://www.austlii.edu.au/nz/journals/WkoLRev/1998/2.html

  • Kummer Peiry K (2005) Biosafety protocol process on liability and redress: food for thought on key issues. Kummer Eco Consult

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 129–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo Q, Catney P, Lerner D (2009) Risk-based management of contaminated land in the UK: lessons for China? J Environ Manage 90(2):1123–1134

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons JJ (1986–1987) Deep pockets and CERCLA: should Superfund liability be abolished? Stanford Environ Law J 6:271–344

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirovitskaya N, Ascher W (eds) (2001) Guide to sustainable development and environmental policy, 2nd edn. Duke University Press, Durham

    Google Scholar 

  • Page GW (1997) Contaminated sites and environmental cleanup: international approaches to prevention, remediation and reuse. Academic, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 2009

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson BJ (2002) Environmental regulation through financial organisations: comparative perspectives on the industrialised nations. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheehan P, Firth S (2008) Client’s guide to contaminated land risk assessment. In Environ Indust Commission The Land Remediation Yearbook 2008:71

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigman H, Stafford S (2011) Management of hazardous waste and contaminated land. Annual Rev Resour Econ 3:255–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton J (2009) Contaminated land: the latest developments. J Plann Environ Law 1:8–23

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 2007

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (2002) Memorandum—enforcement first for remedial action at Superfund sites

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 liability

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 decisions

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (2012a) De minimis/de micromis policies and models. Available at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/cleanup/superfund/unique.html#demin

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (2012b) Superfund liability. Available at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/cleanup/superfund/liability.html

  • 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-09-656

    Google Scholar 

  • Waite A (2005) The quest for environmental law equilibrium. Environ Law Rev 7(1):34–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):425–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (2007) Domestic environmental law. Available at http://www.oas.org/dsd/tool-kit/documentos/moduleii/domestic%20environmental%20law.pdf

  • Yeboah M (2008) United States v Atlantic Research: of settlement and voluntarily incurred costs. Harvard Environ Law Rev 32:279–291

    Google Scholar 

Cases

  • Burlington N, Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States (2009) 129 S. Ct. 1870, 1881 (United States)

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd (1994) 179 CLR 520 (High Court of Australia)

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper Industries, Inc. v Aviall Services, Inc. (2004) 543 U.S. 157 (United States)

    Google Scholar 

  • Corby Group Litigation v Corby Borough Council [2008] EWCA Civ 463, 8 May 2008 (United Kingdom)

    Google Scholar 

  • R (National Grid Gas plc) v Environment Agency [2007] UKHL 30 (House of Lords) (United Kingdom)

    Google Scholar 

  • Rylands v Fletcher [1868] UKHL 1 (House of Lords) (United Kingdom)

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith v Inco Ltd, 2011 ONCA 628 (Ontario Court of Appeal)

    Google Scholar 

  • Solutia, Inc. and Pharmacia Corp. v. McWane, Inc (2012) WL 695007 (11th Cir. March 6, 2012) (United States)

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v. Atlantic Research Corporation (2007) 551 U.S. 128 (United States)

    Google Scholar 

Other Legal Materials

  • Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 1980, 42 U.S.C. 9601 (United States)

    Google Scholar 

  • Contaminated Sites Act 2003 (Western Australia)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Environment Protection (Site Contamination) Amendment Act 2007 (South Australia)

    Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Protection Act 1990 c. 43 (United Kingdom)

    Google Scholar 

  • Oil and Gas Commission Levy and Orphan Site Reclamation Fund Tax Regulation 1998, B.C. Reg. 363/98 (British Columbia)

    Google Scholar 

  • Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 1976, 42 U.S.C. 321 (United States)

    Google Scholar 

  • Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act 2002, Pub. L. No. 107–118 (United States)

    Google Scholar 

  • Soil Protection Act 1998 (Germany)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tanunda, SA, Australia

    Elizabeth Brandon

Authors
  1. Elizabeth Brandon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth Brandon .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Brandon, E. (2013). Responsibility for Site Contamination. In: Global Approaches to Site Contamination Law. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5745-5_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation