Law Offices of Boyer and Dawson, P.C. Experienced, Aggressive, Caring Attorneys Since 1965. We are dedicated to providing our clients with the very best legal representation possible
Call Toll Free
Call Toll Free888-559-4705
43805 Van Dyke Avenue
Sterling Heights, Michigan 48314
Home
Firm Overview
Attorneys
Practice Areas
Automobile Accidents
Personal Injury
Insurance Disputes
Divorce
Criminal Defense
O.W.I./Traffic
Real Estate
Probate
Legal News
Directions
Contact Us
Recent Cases
Referral Letters
Law Offices of Boyer and Dawson

Criminal Liability Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) a Superfund was created which provides funds for the cleanup of pre-existent hazardous waste sites. Although most of the litigation under CERCLA is civil in nature, criminal charges under CERCLA do exist. The potential criminal charges concern the reporting requirements for releases of hazardous substances.

Criminal Provisions

Under CERCLA it is a crime if a person in charge of a facility releases hazardous waste into the environment in a reportable quantity without a permit, fails to provide notification to the National Response Center as soon knowledge of the release exists or knowingly provides false or misleading information in a notification.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed a list of hazardous substances and their reportable quantities.

Penalties for Violating the CERCLA

Under CERCLA, a violation of the notification requirement is punishable by fine or by imprisonment for a term of up to three years or five years imprisonment for a subsequent offense.

Litigation Issues

One of the most difficult issues in dealing with litigation for violating CERCLA is to determine who is in charge of the facility in question. Courts have applied varying definitions of what constitutes being in charge of the facility. Some courts have a definition that includes lower level supervisory employees.

Another difficult litigation issue deals with the knowledge requirement under CERCLA. Some courts have held that the knowledge requirement only means that the defendant is aware of his or her acts and that the prosecution is not required to show that the defendant had actual knowledge of the requirements under CERCLA.

Copyright 2009 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.

  • $4.42 Million Settlement in Drunk Driving Case
  • $2.1 Million Settlement in Boating Accident Case
  • $900,000 Settlement in Bicycle Accident Case
  • $330,000 Jury Verdict in a Case Against Insurance Company
  • $465,000 Settlement in Construction Site Accident
Quick Contact Form
Name*
E-Mail*
Message
In order to help you more quickly, please fill out the quick form and Submit or click 'Continue' to add more information. A representative of the firm will call you ASAP.
[Home] [Firm Overview] [Attorneys] [Specialty Areas] [Legal News] [Directions] [Contact Us] [Recent Cases]
This is Attorney Advertising. This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. [ Site Map ] [ Bookmark Us ]