U.S. v. Lowe

• Decision Date: 31 July 1997
• Docket Number: No. 96-20817,96-20817
• Citation: 118 F.3d 399
• Parties: , 27 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,487 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ralph L. LOWE, et al., Defendants, Dow Chemical Company USA; Merichem Company; Monsanto Company; Mobil Chemical Company; Arco Chemical Company; Petro-Tex Chemical Corporation; Rohm & Haas Company, Defendants- Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 399

118 F.3d 399

45 ERC 1193, 27 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,487

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ralph L. LOWE, et al., Defendants,

Dow Chemical Company USA; Merichem Company; Monsanto

Company; Mobil Chemical Company; Arco Chemical

Company; Petro-Tex Chemical

Corporation; Rohm & Haas

Company,

Defendants-

Appellants.

No. 96-20817.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

July 31, 1997.

John Thompson Stahr, David C. Shilton, U.S. Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resource Division, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Mark J. White, Patrick O. Keel, Baker & Botts, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Before DAVIS, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PARKER, Circuit Judge:

The appellants present to this court the issue of whether the government may recover costs expended in overseeing a hazardous waste cleanup that was conducted by private parties. The district court granted the government summary judgment on this issue, finding that such costs are recoverable by the government. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

This case arose in conjunction with the Dixie Oil Processors Superfund site located near Friendswood in Harris County, Texas. Pursuant to an order issued by the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") under § 106 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9606, the appellants conducted a cleanup of the site that was certified as complete by the EPA in April 1993.

In 1991 the government filed a cost recovery action to recover its response costs pursuant to CERCLA § 107(a), including its oversight costs, and for a declaratory judgment of liability for future response costs. The complaint requested all costs incurred by the government that were related to removal or remedial action. The government moved for summary judgment in February 1994. The defendant-appellants responded that CERCLA did not authorize the government to recover costs for oversight of their performance of clean-up work. The district court granted summary judgment to the government. United States v. Lowe, 864 F.Supp. 628 (S.D.Tex.1994). The appellants now appeal to this court the district court's judgment relating to EPA oversight costs. ¹

DISCUSSION

This appeal is taken from the district court's order granting summary judgment on the basis of its interpretation of a federal statute. We review such de novo. Estate of Bonner v. United States, 84 F.3d 196, 197 (5th Cir.1996). The appellants contend that the district court erred in ruling that the government was entitled to reimbursement of its costs incurred in oversight of the private party clean-up of the site. They argue that the oversight costs are not costs for which they can be held liable under § 107(a) of CERCLA. We disagree.

A.

The appellants urge that we follow the Third Circuit's reliance on We agree with the government and find the interjection of the National Cable doctrine inappropriate to our consideration of this issue of reimbursement of oversight costs. ² National Cable and its progeny concern the imposition of user fees on regulated entities seeking authorization to do business. ³ See Miss. Power & Light Co. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 601 F.2d 223, 227 (5th Cir.1979). CERCLA does not assess user charges on a regulated industry; rather, it is a remedial statute, see United States v. R.W. Meyer, 889 F.2d 1497, 1504 (6th Cir.1989). CERCLA response costs are neither fees nor taxes, but rather, payments by liable parties in the nature of restitution for the costs of cleaning up a contamination or a threatened contamination for which they are responsible. Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Am. Airlines, 98 F.3d 564, 568 (10th Cir.1996); United States v. Monsanto Co., 858 F.2d 160, 174-75 (4th Cir.1988); Continental Ins. Cos. v. Northeastern Pharm. & Chem. Co., Inc., 842 F.2d 977 (8th Cir.1988); Md. Cas. Co. v. Armco, Inc., 822 F.2d 1348, 1352 (4th Cir.1987); United States v. Northeastern Pharm. & Chem. Co., Inc., 810 F.2d 726, 749 (8th Cir.1986); Town of New Windsor v. Tesa Tuck, Inc., 935 F.Supp. 317, 326 (S.D.N.Y.1996). As the Ninth Circuit explained, the Supreme Court did not announce universal definitions of a "tax" or "fee" in National Cable, but merely determined the meaning of the terms of the statute at issue. Union Pacific R.R. Co. v. Public Utility Comm'n, 899 F.2d 854, 859-61 (9th Cir.1990).

                the "clear statement" doctrine expounded in   National Cable Television Ass'n, Inc. v. United States, 415 U.S. 336, 94 S.Ct. 1146, 39 L.Ed.2d 370 (1974), when that circuit addressed the very same issue and held that the government could not recover oversight costs for a private party clean-up.  See United States v. Rohm and Haas Co., 2 F.3d 1265 (3rd Cir.1993).  Under National Cable, Congress must "clearly state" its intent to impose particular 
                fees on regulated industries in connection with licensing or permitting in order to exact such fees constitutionally within its taxing authority.  The appellants contend that National Cable 's "clear statement" requirement should be applied to CERCLA because the administration of hazardous waste clean-up benefits the general public, and the assessment of fees on specific parties for the payment for benefits to the general public endows that fee with the character of a tax assessment.  The appellants go on to argue that as a de facto tax payment, reimbursement of government oversight costs for a private party clean-up is impermissible under National Cable absent language in the statute indicating a clear intent that the EPA have the authority to recover such oversight costs
                

B.

Under CERCLA, the government may either conduct clean-ups itself or permit or require responsible parties to do so. CERCLA §§ 104(a) and 106, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9604(a) and 9606. Liability for costs incurred by the government or a private party in cleaning up a site is imposed by CERCLA § 107(a)(4), 42 CERCLA § 101 defines the terms "response," "removal," and "remedial action." Responses consist of removals and remedial actions and "enforcement activities related thereto." CERCLA § 101(25), 42 U.S.C. § 9601(25). A "removal" is generally understood to be a short-term response and a "remedial action" is generally considered a long-term response or permanent solution. See CERCLA § 101(23) & (24), 42 U.S.C. § 9601(23) & (24); Daigle v. Shell Oil Co., 972 F.2d 1527, 1533-34 (10th Cir.1992). Removal is defined broadly, as follows.

                U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4), which provides that responsible parties are liable for "all costs of removal or remedial action incurred by the United States government or a State or an Indian tribe not inconsistent with the national contingency plan" and "any other necessary costs of response incurred by any other person consistent with the national contingency plan."   In other words, if the government's actions are response actions in harmony with the national contingency plan, then costs incurred pursuant to those actions are recoverable from liable parties.  United States v. Hardage, 982 F.2d 1436, 1441 (10th Cir.1992).  The question presented is whether the government's oversight costs in a responsible party clean-up are response costs under CERCLA
                

[T]he cleanup or removal of released hazardous substances from the environment, such actions as may be necessary taken in the event of a threat of release of hazardous substances into the environment, such actions as may be necessary to monitor, assess, and evaluate the release or threat of release of hazardous substances, the disposal of removed material, or the taking of such other actions as may be necessary to prevent, minimize, or mitigate damage to the public health or welfare or to the environment, which may otherwise result from a release or threat of release.

CERCLA § 101(23), 42 U.S.C. § 9601(23) (emphasis added). "Remedial action" is also defined broadly and includes

those actions consistent with permanent remedy taken instead of or in addition to removal actions in the event of a release of threatened release of hazardous substances so that they do not migrate to cause substantial danger to present or future public health or welfare or the environment. The term includes, but is not limited to, such actions at the location of the release as storage, confinement, perimeter protection using dikes, trenches, or ditches, clay cover, neutralization, cleanup of released hazardous substances and associated and associated contaminated materials, recycling or reuse, diversion, destruction, segregation of reactive wastes, degrading or excavations, repair or replacement of leaking containers, collections of leachate and runoff, onsite treatment or incineration, provision of alternative water supplies, and any monitoring reasonably required to assure that such actions protect the public health and welfare and the environment.

CERCLA § 101(24), 42 U.S.C. § 9601(24) (emphasis added).

C.

"Monitoring" is a term used in the definitions of both removal and remedial action. It is not defined in CERCLA. A term not defined in a statute must be construed in accordance with its ordinary and natural meaning, United States v. Alvarez-Sanchez, 511 U.S. 350, 357, 114 S.Ct. 1599, 1603, 128 L.Ed.2d 319 (1994), as well as the overall policies and objectives of the statute, Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115, 117-19, 115 S.Ct. 552, 555, 130 L.Ed.2d 462 (1994). In re Locklin, 101 F.3d 435, 439 (5th Cir.1996). Unless an application of the traditional principles of statutory construction reveals the plain language to be ambiguous, i.e., susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, our inquiry ends as we must give effect to Congress's unambiguously expressed intent. Reich v. Arcadian Corp., 110 F.3d 1192, 1195 (5th Cir.1997). As suggested above, the plain meaning of a word cannot be determined in isolation, but must be drawn from the context in which it is used. Id. at 1195-96....