U.S. v. Glatfelter Co.

In action under CERCLA seeking to enforce 2007 EPA administrative order requiring defendants to cleanup certain portions of river site that was contaminated with PCPs discharged from defendants-paper mills, Dist. Ct. erred in issuing permanent injunction against defendants, since permanent injunction is inappropriate mechanism to enforce EPA administrative order. However, record supported Dist. Ct.’s issuance of declarative order, finding that defendants were responsible for certain cleanup costs, even though relevant site contained five separate geographical areas on river, and even though defendants may not have discharged PCPS into certain geographical areas. Moreover, EPA could properly choose to require defendants to dredge, as opposed to cap with sand certain contaminated areas, even though capping with sand was less expensive option. However, trial was required for claim by one defendant that others were also responsible for discharge of PCBs, since record showed that harm caused by PCB discharge was capable of apportionment.