## Facts

- Conservation Chemical Company operated a hazardous-waste treatment and disposal facility near Kansas City, Missouri, handling more than 50 million gallons of waste and involving numerous hazardous substances.
- The United States alleged releases and threatened releases contaminated soil, groundwater, surface water, and air, creating exposure risks on-site and off-site and endangering public health and the environment.
- The United States sued the facility operator entities and corporate officer Norman B. Hjersted, along with multiple corporate waste generators/arrangers alleged to have sent hazardous substances to the site.
- The United States sought (1) injunctive relief under RCRA § 7003 for imminent and substantial endangerment and (2) response-cost recovery and related relief under CERCLA §§ 106 and 107.
- Given extensive motion practice, a special master was appointed to address numerous motions to dismiss and summary judgment motions; the court reviewed objections and issued an order resolving many motions.

## Issues

1. Whether CERCLA § 107(a) imposes strict liability on site operators and other potentially responsible parties for releases or threatened releases, subject only to the limited defenses in § 107(b).
2. Whether alleged procedural and statutory prerequisites—such as National Priorities List listing, cooperative agreements, or asserted National Contingency Plan defects—bar CERCLA liability or instead relate only to the recoverability of particular costs.
3. Whether the United States may obtain injunctive relief under RCRA § 7003 (and related CERCLA authority) notwithstanding the availability of cost-recovery remedies.
4. Whether equitable defenses may be asserted against the United States in CERCLA/RCRA enforcement and, if so, with what limits.
5. Whether CERCLA authorizes contribution among potentially responsible parties and whether such contribution is joint and several or several.

## Decision

- The court granted partial summary judgment for the United States against Conservation Chemical Company and Conservation Chemical Co. of Illinois on key aspects of CERCLA/RCRA liability and availability of relief, while leaving the amount and recoverability of specific costs for later proceedings.
- The court denied summary judgment or dismissal for various other defendants on certain liability questions where material factual disputes remained regarding their roles and waste contributions.
- The court held that CERCLA liability is strict, subject only to the narrow statutory defenses in CERCLA § 107(b), which were not established for the operator entities at this stage.
- The court rejected threshold defenses based on the site’s non-listing on the National Priorities List, lack of cooperative agreements, and similar procedural objections as bars to CERCLA liability.
- The court ruled that injunctive relief under RCRA § 7003 is not precluded by the existence of legal remedies such as cost recovery.
- The court recognized a right of contribution under CERCLA and held contribution is several (allowing allocation of fair shares among responsible parties).
- The court indicated equitable defenses are conceptually available in CERCLA litigation but are narrowly applied in actions seeking to protect public health and the environment.

## Legal Principles

- CERCLA § 107(a) imposes broad strict liability for releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances; defendants avoid liability only by proving a limited § 107(b) defense (e.g., act of God, act of war, qualifying third-party causation).
- National Priorities List status and certain administrative mechanisms (including cooperative agreements) are not prerequisites to establishing CERCLA liability.
- Consistency with the National Contingency Plan may affect which response costs are recoverable and in what amount, but it does not negate liability as a threshold matter.
- RCRA § 7003 authorizes preventive injunctive relief to address imminent and substantial endangerment from solid or hazardous waste, even when monetary remedies are also pursued.
- Contribution among potentially responsible parties is available under CERCLA; contribution claims allocate responsibility on a several basis among liable parties.
- Equitable defenses may exist in principle but generally do not defeat statutory enforcement aimed at abating environmental threats.

## Conclusion

The court applied a strict-liability framework under CERCLA, permitted broad injunctive authority under RCRA § 7003, treated NPL- and procedure-based defenses as non-dispositive of liability, and recognized several contribution among responsible parties while reserving contested factual matters and cost questions for later stages.


United States v. Conservation Chem. Co., 619 F. Supp. 162 (W.D. Mo. 1985)