42 U.S.C. § 9618
High priority for drinking water supplies
For purposes of taking action under section 9604 or 9606 of this title and listing facilities on the National Priorities List, the President shall give a high priority to facilities where the release of hazardous substances or pollutants or contaminants has resulted in the closing of drinking water wells or has contaminated a principal drinking water supply.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases, 1988–2015 · leading case: Horsehead Indus., Inc. v. Paramount Commc'ns, Inc., 258 F.3d 132 (3rd Cir. 2001).
Horsehead Indus., Inc. v. Paramount Commc'ns, Inc., 258 F.3d 132 (3rd Cir. 2001). “” 42 U.S.C. § 9618©. The amended complaint included four counts.”
State of California, on Behalf of the California Dep't of Toxic Substances Control v. Neville Chem. Co., a Corp., 358 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2004). “§ 9607 (a)], the court merely determines whether the party is jointly and severally liable, without regard to the amount of fault; but *673 under § 113 [ 42 U.S.C. § 9618 (f)(1)], the court also divides the fault of the parties, using equitable factors.”
ASARCO, LLC v. Celanese Chem. Co., 792 F.3d 1203 (9th Cir. 2015). “42 U.S.C. § 9618 (f)(1) & (f)(8)(B); see also Cooper Indus.”
Alliedsignal, Inc. v. Amcast Int'l Corp., 177 F. Supp. 2d 713 (S.D. Ohio 2001). “42 U.S.C. § 9618 (high priority shall be given to cleaning up hazardous waste sites from which the release of hazardous substances has contaminated or threatens to contaminate groundwater).”
United States v. NL Indus., Inc., 936 F. Supp. 545 (S.D. Ill. 1996). “strumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce — the EPA argues that “the pollution itself, and the media in which it is carried — including the air, soils, surface water, and groundwater — all move in interstate commerce or are channels of…”
Booth Oil Site Admin. Grp. v. Saf.-Kleen Corp., 532 F. Supp. 2d 477 (W.D.N.Y. 2007). “42 U.S.C. § 9618 (f)(3)(B). Although a state may not be able to act on behalf of the federal government absent a delegation of authority from the EPA, or to completely resolve a party’s CERCLA liability, § 107(a)(4)(A) “contains no requirement that a state obtain authorization…”
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Consol. Rail Corp., 291 F. Supp. 2d 105 (N.D.N.Y. 2003). “CONCLUSION NiaMo is not entitled to contribution protection pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 9618 (f)(2). However, its motion to dismiss the CERCLA counterclaims is granted because counterclaims are superfluous in a contribution action.”
Allied Corp. v. Acme Solvent Reclaiming, Inc., 771 F. Supp. 219 (N.D. Ill. 1990). “42 U.S.C. § 9618 (f)(2) (1988). The text of CERCLA and its 1986 amendments is silent as to whether the above subsection should apply to private party settlements.”
United States v. Mid-State Disposal, Inc., 131 F.R.D. 573 (W.D. Wis. 1990). “Intervenors contend that they have a right to intervene pursuant to Rule 24(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and section 113(i) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9618 (0 or in the alternative that they are entitled to permissive intervention under Rule 24(b), Federal Rules of Civil…”
United States v. Ottati & Goss, 694 F. Supp. 977 (D.N.H. 1988). “42 U.S.C. § 9618 (j)(2) was amended by SARA on October 17, 1986 and it provides: “(2) Standard.”
United States Env't Prot. Agency v. Sequa Corp., 3 F.3d 889 (5th Cir. 1993). “It is also illuminating that CERCLA § 118, 42 U.S.C. § 9618 — part of the 1986, SARA amendments to CERCLA — made explicit that the executive branch is to give high priority to contaminated drinking water supplies.”
Nova Chemicals, Inc. v. GAF Corp., 945 F. Supp. 1098 (E.D. Tenn. 1996). “With regard to “things in interstate commerce,” CERCLA protects groundwater, 42 U.S.C. § 9618 , which the Supreme Court has expressly recognized as an article of commerce.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.