Use of 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane as a Tracer to Determine Liability

Both Olin and DuPont owned industrial facilities adjacent to the Solvent property, and Solvent alleged that the chlorinated aliphatic contamination detected in Solvent's groundwater recovery wells was predominately due to releases from the former DuPont chlorinated-solvent production facility. However, Solvent's position was complicated by the fact that during the 1980s, the Solvent property was used as an unlicensed hazardous waste transfer facility by a third-party (Frontenac Environmental Services, Inc.) and had received more than one hundred thousand gallons of chlorinated aliphatics from various entities. Solvent thus needed a method of determining the source for the chlorinated aliphatics in their groundwater recovery wells. One of the methods that Solvent used was based on its knowledge that chlorinated solvent production at DuPont involved certain intermediates such as 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane (TeCA) that would likely not be present in any of the waste products stored on the Solvent property. The judge found that Solvent's use of a TeCA tracer was compelling evidence regarding the source of chlorinated aliphatics and largely agreed to Solvent's suggested allocation.     

Use of Perchlorate as a Tracer to Allocate Liability

There are few published reports of allocation methodologies for contamination at complex sites not associated with the traditional Superfund landfill scenario (i.e., based on waste in records). Allocation can be especially difficult when the contamination is derived from neighboring facilities. Such was the situation in a lawsuit brought by Solvent Chemical (Solvent) in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (New York v. Solvent Chem. Co., Inc., 685 F. Supp. 2d 357 (W.D.N.Y)). Solvent had filed a cost-recovery and contribution claim against Olin and DuPont, neighboring industrial facilities, to recover costs associated with groundwater and soil remediation. Solvent alleged that the contamination found in groundwater recovery wells on the Solvent site was predominately due to releases from the former adjacent Dupont chlorinated solvent production facility and from Olin's neighboring former chlorinated benzene production facility. However, complicating matters for Solvent was the former production of chlorinated benzenes at their site. Solvent needed a method of determining the source sites for chlorinated benzenes detected in remediation wells other than concentration since multiple facilities could have been the source. Among the methods employed by Solvent to differentiate the source-site allocation was the fact that perchlorate was indirectly generated at Olin's hypochlorite plant but not at the Solvent site. Therefore, the presence of perchlorate could be used as a tracer of contaminant transport from the Olin operations. The judge's ruling found that Solvent's use of perchlorate as a tracer was compelling evidence regarding the source of chlorinated benzenes and agreed to Solvent's suggested allocation.     

环境瑕疵担保责任论纲——作为EPR政策落实手段的视角

瑕疵担保责任适用范围的渐趋拓展为其适用于环境领域提供了可能。我国的环境问题日益凸显,而相应的一些环境政策却无法得以具体落实,其中的EPR政策即为明证。基于此,文章重点对作为EPR政策私法落实手段的环境瑕疵担保责任进行了理论上的建构,明确了环境瑕疵担保责任与侵权法的关系,并依次从环境瑕疵担保责任的权利义务主体、客体、性质、内容、实现等方面加以详细分析。     

民法典视阈内宅基地使用权继承规则之构造

宅基地使用权应当被构造为可供继承之财产。宅基地使用权主体并非农户,而是作为自然人的农村居民。宅基地使用权既可为户主单独所有,亦可为户内全体家庭成员或者部分家庭成员共有。宅基地使用权人的继承人可以继承宅基地使用权或者宅基地使用权的权利份额。不过,根据《土地管理法》第62条所规定之"一户一宅"原则,继承人不得通过继承取得两项及以上宅基地使用权,亦不可借由宅基地使用权份额之继承而使其宅基地使用权所占用的宅基地面积超过省、自治区、直辖市规定的标准。继承人可以继承宅基地上房屋的所有权,但不能继承宅基地使用权,或者继承宅基地上房屋所有权后占用的宅基地面积超过省、自治区、直辖市规定标准的,继承人以宅基地上房屋所占用的宅基地或者超过标准部分的宅基地为限取得宅基地法定地上权,或曰宅基地法定建设用地使用权,但对集体土地所有权人负有给付适量土地使用金的法定债务。