United States Tenth Circuit

The district court properly concluded that Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) cost recovery statutes of limitation anticipate one removal action and one remedial action per site. Plugging of an adit and installation of monitoring wells were "removal" activities for purposes of CERCLA's statutes of limitation.

Appellate Information

• Decided 08/05/2003
• Published 08/05/2003

Judges

• BRISCOE, Circuit Judge., Before EBEL, BRISCOE, Circuit Judges, and SHADUR, District Judge.

Court

• United States Tenth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Alan Gilbert, Solicitor General, (Ken Salazar, Attorney General, and Robert Marsh, Office of Attorney General, with him on the briefs), Denver, CO, for the plaintiff-appellant., James D. Freeman (Thomas L. Sansonett, Assistant Attorney General;  John T. Stahr and Mark R. Haag, Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division;  Alan H. Carpian, Office of General Counsel, United States Environmental Protection Agency, on the brief), Washington, D.C., for the amicus curiae.


• For Appellees:
  
• Steven W. Black, Holland & Hart LLP, Denver, CO, for defendant-appellee Asarco, Inc.;  Scott E. Mortman, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, New York, NY, for defendant-appellee Bechtel Corporation (Jerry N. Jones and Richard S. Vermeire, Moye, Giles, O'Keefe, Vermeire & Gorrell LLP, Denver, CO, for defendant-appellee A.O. Smith Corporation;  Cassandra Sasso, Baker & Hostetler, Denver, CO;  Dennis P. Orr, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, New York, NY, for defendant-appellee Bechtel Corporation, with them on the brief).