Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

00-2748 Frey, et al. v. EPA, et al.

By: dmc-admin//November 12, 2001//

00-2748 Frey, et al. v. EPA, et al.

By: dmc-admin//November 12, 2001//

Listen to this article

“‘Complete’ could mean not only that the planned cleanup procedures have been carried out but also that all subsequent monitoring has ceased. On the other hand, it might mean, more modestly, that the remediation measures are finished, but that occasional visits of environmental authorities in the future could occur to ensure their effectiveness, or even that particular stages of the remedial plan have reached completion.

“In our view, the middle ground is most consistent with the statute. It is important that the statute itself speaks of ‘removal where remedial action is to be undertaken at the site.’ The remedial action to which it refers is logically different from a later effort to ensure that the action was effective. The Frey group goes further and argues for the third possibility, namely, that the reference to ‘remedial action’ means only a stage of a broader remediation plan. They have some support for this interpretation in both the legislative history of the statute and earlier decisions. … But we are concerned that this reading ignores the lack of a qualifier on the phrase ‘remedial action.’ The statute does not say ‘a remedial action,’ or ‘a stage of a remedial plan.’ Instead, it calls flatly for restraint from suit when ‘remedial action’ (period) remains to be done. We thus reject the ‘staged’ approach plaintiffs have suggested.”

Reversed in part, and Affirmed in part, and remanded.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Dillin, J., Diane P. Wood, J.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests