Ark. Code Ann. § 8-7-520 (2026)

1. Any person who has undertaken or is undertaking remedial action at a hazardous substance site in response to an administrative or judicial order initiated against such person pursuant to § 8-7-508 or § 8-7-1104(d) may obtain contribution from any other person who is liable for such hazardous substance site.
2. Any person who has resolved all or a portion of his or her liability for a hazardous substance site by undertaking remedial action pursuant to an administrative or judicially approved settlement may obtain contribution from any person who is liable for such hazardous substance site and is not a party to the settlement.
3. Those persons identified under § 8-7-512(a) shall be the persons liable for the hazardous substance site.
4. An action for contribution may be brought in the circuit court of the county in which the hazardous substance site is located. In resolving contribution claims, the circuit court shall allocate the costs and expenses incurred or to be incurred by the contribution claimant or claimants for undertaking remedial action among all persons liable for the hazardous substance site, using such equitable factors as the circuit court determines are appropriate.
5. Any person who has resolved all or a portion of his or her liability for a hazardous substance site by undertaking remedial action pursuant to an administrative or judicial proceeding or settlement shall not be liable for claims for contribution regarding matters addressed in the order or settlement which have been satisfactorily resolved. Such order or settlement does not discharge any of the other persons liable for the hazardous substance site who did not undertake or participate in the remedial action, unless the terms of the order or settlement so provide.
6. [Repealed.]
7. No action for contribution may be commenced more than three (3) years after the date of the administrative or judicial order or settlement with respect to such remedial action. In any such action, the circuit court shall enter a declaratory judgment on liability that will be binding on any subsequent action to recover costs and expenses for remedial action.
8. In any action for contribution, judicial review of any issues concerning the adequacy of the remedial action shall be limited to the administrative record to determine whether the selected remedy contained in the order or settlement is arbitrary or capricious, and then only such costs and expenses as are found to be inconsistent with those terms of the administrative or judicial order or settlement found to be arbitrary or capricious may be disallowed.

History. Acts 1989, No. 441, § 3; 1995, No. 125, § 3; 1997, No. 1042, § 2; 2019, No. 693, § 22.

A.C.R.C. Notes. Acts 1995, No. 125, § 1, provided:

“The General Assembly finds and declares as follow:

“(1) The redevelopment of abandoned industrial sites should be encouraged as a sound land use management policy to prevent the needless development of prime farmland, open space and natural and recreation areas and to prevent urban sprawl;

“(2) The redevelopment of abandoned industrial sites should be encouraged so that these sites can be returned to useful, tax producing properties to protect existing jobs and provide new job opportunities;

“(3) Persons interested in redeveloping abandoned industrial sites should have a method of determining what their legal liabilities and cleanup responsibilities will be as they plan the reuse of abandoned sites;

“(4) Incentives should be put in place to encourage prospective purchasers to voluntarily develop and implement cleanup plans of abandoned industrial sites without the use of taxpayer funds or the need for adversarial enforcement actions by the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology;

“(5) The Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology now routinely, through its permitting policies, determines when contamination will and will not pose unacceptable risks to public health or the environment and similar concepts are used in establishing cleanup policies for abandoned industrial sites;

“(6) Parties and persons responsible under law for pollution at industrial sites should perform remedial responses which are fully consistent with existing requirements; and

“(7) As an incentive to promote the redevelopment of abandoned industrial sites, persons not responsible for preexisting pollution at or contamination on industrial sites should meet alternative cleanup requirements if they acquire title after fully disclosing the nature of conditions at the site and declaring and committing to a specified future land use of the site.”

Amendments. The 2019 amendment repealed (f).