Cleanup liability and the Constitution

Journal Article · Tue Dec 01 00:00:00 EST 1992 · Air and Waste; (United States)

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.1992.10467106· OSTI ID:6590334

Friedland, D M; Hagen, P E ^[1]

---

1. Beveridge Diamond, Washington, DC (United States)

It was observed in the July 1992 issue of this Journal that a plain reading of the Constitution's prohibition on [open quotes][ital ex post facto][close quotes] suggests that some environmental statutes such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA or Superfund) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) conflict with Constitutional principles. Like many Constitutional principles, however, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution's bar on [ital ex post facto] laws has a long history. The Court has consistently interpreted this clause as limited to criminal or penal statutes. This article discusses the history of the [ital ex post facto] clause, the retroactive application of CERCLA and RCRA, the decision that retroactive application of CERCLA and RCRA does not violate the [ital ex post facto] clause, and laws, regulations, and guidance. 27 refs.

• OSTI ID: 6590334
• Journal Information: Air and Waste; (United States), Vol. 42:12
• Country of Publication: United States
• Language: English

Related Subjects

29 ENERGY PLANNING
POLICY AND ECONOMY
REGULATIONS
HISTORICAL ASPECTS
RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTS
LEGAL ASPECTS
US SUPERFUND
LAWS
RESOURCE CONSERVATION
POLLUTION LAWS
293000* - Energy Planning & Policy- Policy
Legislation
& Regulation
290300 - Energy Planning & Policy- Environment
Health
& Safety