United States v. Chapman

Harold Chapman Jr. (defendant) owned land in Washoe County, Nevada, on which he stored and sold various chemicals. At the county’s request, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) investigated Chapman’s property to determine whether removal of the substances was necessary. The preliminary assessment noted 2,000 containers of chemicals, many in poor condition, as well as 100 large drums of unknown substances that were stored outdoors and leaking into the soil. The EPA issued a removal order requiring Chapman to take various measures to remove hazardous substances from his property. The order noted that several tested substances were flammable, creating a fire and explosion risk. Additionally, the drums leaking into the soil created a risk of groundwater contamination. When Chapman failed to comply with the order, the EPA initiated a response action to remove the substances from Chapman’s property, sending a contractor to determine the necessary steps. When the EPA was prepared to begin the response action, Chapman began complying with the earlier order. However, the EPA had already incurred $33,946 in documented costs preparing for the response action. The EPA sought payment from Chapman. When Chapman refused, the government (plaintiff) sued Chapman to collect payment. The district court granted summary judgment in the government’s favor. Chapman appealed, arguing that the EPA was precluded from recovering its response costs because it acted inconsistently with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).