The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)—as part of its dual goals of cleaning up hazardous-waste sites and ensuring that the polluter pays for that cleanup—gives private parties two mutually exclusive causes of action: cost recovery and contribution. Contribution is available in limited circumstances, including if the party has “resolved” its liability with the government. But CERCLA does not define this operative term. Federal courts are split over how the structure of a settlement resolves liability. Several courts follow Bernstein v. Bankert, which held that any conditions precedent and nonadmissions of liability strongly suggest that a party has not yet resolved its liability. The Ninth Circuit’s recent case, ASARCO LLC v. Atlantic Richfield Co., said liability is resolved if the settlement determines the party’s obligations with “certainty and finality.” Bernstein deviates from CERCLA’s text and policy, leading to serious inconsistencies in the interpretation and application of the statute. ASARCO injects uncertainty into the statute, which disincentivizes settlements. When the stakes are the reallocation of billions of dollars and the amelioration of the most notorious environmental disasters, getting it right is paramount. This Note proposes a bright-line rule—liability is resolved when the settlement contains any covenant not to sue, conditional or unconditional—and argues that this reading cleans up many of the issues the current circuit split imparts on the statute.

中文翻译：

---

解决“已解决”：不起诉的契约和 CERCLA 捐款行动的可用性

《综合环境响应、补偿和责任法案》（CERCLA）——作为其清理危险废物场地和确保污染者为清理工作付费的双重目标的一部分——为私人各方提供了两个相互排斥的行动原因：成本回收和贡献。捐款在有限的情况下可用，包括如果该方已“解决”其与政府的责任。但是 CERCLA 没有定义这个有效的术语。联邦法院对和解结构如何解决责任存在分歧。几个法院遵循 Bernstein 诉 Bankert 案，该案认为任何先决条件和不承认责任强烈表明一方尚未解决其责任。第九巡回法院最近的案件，ASARCO LLC v. Atlantic Richfield Co.，如果和解以“确定性和最终性”确定了该方的义务，则上述责任得到解决。Bernstein 偏离 CERCLA 的文本和政策，导致法规的解释和应用出现严重不一致。ASARCO 在法规中注入了不确定性，从而抑制了和解。当赌注是数十亿美元的重新分配和最臭名昭著的环境灾难的改善时，正确处理是至关重要的。本说明提出了一条明确的规则——当和解包含任何不起诉、有条件或无条件的契约时，责任就解决了——并认为这种解读清除了当前电路分裂对法规的许多问题。导致法规的解释和适用存在严重的不一致。ASARCO 在法规中注入了不确定性，从而抑制了和解。当赌注是数十亿美元的重新分配和最臭名昭著的环境灾难的改善时，正确处理是至关重要的。本说明提出了一条明确的规则——当和解包含任何不起诉、有条件或无条件的契约时，责任就解决了——并认为这种解读清除了当前电路分裂对法规的许多问题。导致法规的解释和适用存在严重的不一致。ASARCO 在法规中注入了不确定性，从而抑制了和解。当赌注是数十亿美元的重新分配和最臭名昭著的环境灾难的改善时，正确处理是至关重要的。本说明提出了一条明确的规则——当和解包含任何不起诉、有条件或无条件的契约时，责任就解决了——并认为这种解读清除了当前电路分裂对法规的许多问题。做对是最重要的。本说明提出了一条明确的规则——当和解包含任何不起诉、有条件或无条件的契约时，责任就解决了——并认为这种解读清除了当前电路分裂对法规的许多问题。做对是最重要的。本说明提出了一条明确的规则——当和解包含任何不起诉、有条件或无条件的契约时，责任就解决了——并认为这种解读清除了当前电路分裂对法规的许多问题。