## Facts

- The United States, acting through the EPA, sought access to a hazardous waste landfill and adjacent parcels in Tyngsboro and Dunstable, Massachusetts (the Charles George Land Reclamation Trust Landfill site).
- EPA determined that hazardous substances were being released from the site and that remedial activities were required under CERCLA, as amended.
- The government requested a court order under 42 U.S.C. § 9604(e)(5) compelling property owners and trustees to provide immediate access to the landfill and specified nearby properties.
- The remedial work required physical entry and construction/operation of response systems on or under the land, with substantial duration and potentially long-term occupation.
- Certain defendants objected that the proposed access and installations would significantly interfere with their property rights and amount to a Fifth Amendment taking requiring just compensation.

## Issues

1. Whether 42 U.S.C. § 9604(e)(5) authorizes a court to order immediate access to private property, including access needed to construct and operate CERCLA remedial measures.
2. Whether alleged or potential Fifth Amendment takings resulting from remedial construction and long-term occupation bar or limit a CERCLA access order.
3. Whether equitable or procedural objections to EPA’s remedial approach justify denying, delaying, or materially conditioning access required to implement the response action.

## Decision

- The court granted the United States’ motion and issued an order in aid of immediate access under 42 U.S.C. § 9604(e)(5).
- The court held that CERCLA’s access authority extends beyond inspection to access reasonably required to take response actions, including installing and operating remedial structures.
- The court found the requested access necessary and appropriate to implement the selected remedy and to avoid delay that would prolong environmental and public health risks.
- The court rejected the defendants’ attempt to use takings arguments to block access, holding that any compensable taking claim must be pursued in a compensation action rather than as a defense to CERCLA access enforcement.
- The court declined to entertain challenges that would require it to second-guess EPA’s technical remedy judgments in the context of an access order.

## Legal Principles

- Under 42 U.S.C. § 9604(e)(5), courts may order access to property when reasonably required to carry out CERCLA response actions, including remedial construction and operation.
- CERCLA’s remedial scheme favors prompt implementation of cleanups; access provisions are construed to prevent landowners from obstructing response actions needed to address hazardous releases.
- A Fifth Amendment takings allegation generally does not support injunctive relief to halt government action where an adequate remedy exists through a subsequent claim for just compensation.
- In CERCLA access proceedings, the court’s focus is whether access is justified under the statute; disputes about compensation for interference with property rights are addressed separately in an appropriate compensation forum.
- Courts generally defer to EPA’s technical determinations regarding remedy implementation when evaluating whether access is necessary to execute the response action.

## Conclusion

The court ordered immediate access to the landfill and adjacent parcels for CERCLA remedial work, holding that § 9604(e)(5) authorizes access necessary to implement response actions and that potential takings claims do not block or delay cleanup, but instead must be pursued as claims for compensation.


United States v. Charles George Trucking Co., Inc., 682 F. Supp. 1260 (D. Mass. 1988)