United States v. W.R. Grace & Co.

Libby, Montana had a serious issue with asbestos contamination from a nearby former mining and processing operation, for which W.R. Grace & Co. (Grace) (defendant) was responsible. An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) investigation of Libby found that asbestos particles were pervasive and were becoming airborne and being inhaled through normal human activities and the wind. Asbestos exposure was sickening and killing people in Libby and nearby communities. The EPA undertook a removal action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Over the course of several action memorandums and memorandum amendments, the EPA established that a removal action was required and that an exception to the statute’s time-and-budget cap was necessary. The United States (plaintiff), on behalf of the EPA, filed a cost-recovery suit against Grace. Grace claimed that the EPA’s cleanup should have been classified as a remedial action, not a removal action, and that the EPA had gone outside the bounds of its authority under CERCLA. The district court found that the EPA’s cleanup was a removal action and that the action qualified for the exemptions from time and budget limits in CERCLA. Grace appealed on the grounds that the district court had improperly classified the action taken by the EMA as a removal action.