or the scope of the remedial action requested. Since EPA's next move would be to initiate response measures, the recip-
ient of a notice letter faces a quandry. If the recipient rejects or delays EPA's settlement offer the government itself will undertake cleanup and sue the responsible party for reimbursement. Waiting patiently for the government to act may significantly increase the ultimate liability. On the other hand, a settling party has no assurance that its liability for further reimbursement is extinguished if a settlement is reached.
"assure all future maintenance of the
These unresolved questions surround-
removal and remedial actions" and
ing CERCLA make response to notice letters a complicated task." Second, §104 mandates that reme· dial action be conducted consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP)." The current NCP, developed under §311(c) of the Clean Water Act," is designed to provide a coordinated response to oil and hazardous substance spills.'" Section 105 of CERCLA requires the President to amend the existing NCP "to reflect and effectuate the responsibilities and powers created by lCERCLAl" by establishing "procedures and stand· ards for responding to releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants. .. ."21 Specific matters
that the NCP include methods for determining the "appropriate extent of
remedial action>""
ABATEMENT ACTION Section 106 of CERCLA proVides additional legal authority to initiate
continued response is necessary to
abatement actions and to issue administrative orders in imminent hazard
prevent an emergency, the federal government is limited to a $1 million
government may commence an
expenditure for a given site. However I
abatement action when "there may be
additional expenditures beyond the $1 million limit are authorized if the state
an imminent and substantial endan-
government enters into a cooperative agreement whereby il agrees to
or the environment because of an
cases. Under this section the federal
germent to the public health or welfare actual or threatened release of a hazardous substance. "~I Any judicial relief fashioned by the courts in continued on page 102
~
CRAWFORD & COMPANY HEALTH AND REHABILITATION SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO TH E LEGAL PROFESSION IN TH E FOLLOWING AREAS: Liability;
Evaluation of re-employment potential after partial or total permanent disability
Liability:
Evaluation of Residual Employability including Labor Market Information
must be addressed in the revised plan. Of critical importance to actual cleanup operations are the requirements
underwrite 10 percent of the costs of
Picillo Farm site; the Davis Liquid Chemical Waste Disposal site; and the Western Sand and Gravel site." Section 104 also includes a limit on the costs that can be incurred at a site. Unless the President finds that
removal, remedy, and other measures
authorized by [CERCLAI," as well as for evaluating the "relative cost" of such remedies." Furthermore, the revisions must include a means of "assuring that remedial action measures are cost effective over the
period of potential exposure ... ," and they establish criteria for deter· mining priorities among different sites requiring remedial actiol1. 11
The statutory deadline for finalizing the revised NCP was the beginning of June 1981." EPA proposed initial revi· sions on March 12, 1982," and pro· mulgated the revised NCP on July 16, 1982." The revised plan cannot take effect until Congress has had at least sixty calendar days of continuous ses-
sion from the date of promulgation in which to review the plan" However, on October 21,1981, EPA issued an "interim priority list" of what it called the 115 worst hazardous waste sites in the United States and targeted the locations for cleanup activities. Three Rhode Island sites are on the list: the
Workers' Compensation:
Evaluation of Residual Employability, Medical Coordination, Development of Individualized Rehabilitation Programs, Direct Job Placement
Comprehensive Vocational Evaluations for. Divorce Cases, Social Secu rity Disability Cases, Long Term Disability Cases, Auto No-Fault Cases QUALIFIED AS EXPERT WITNESS IN ARKANSAS AND OTHER JURISDICTIONS
1501 North University, Suite 764 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 (501) 666-0304 July 1983/Arkansas Lawyer/101