NEWS

Supreme Court hears dispute over CTS case

Paul C. Barton

WASHINGTON – U.S. Supreme Court arguments about CTS Corp.'s liability for contamination at its old Asheville-area plant quickly centered Wednesday on Congress' purpose behind amendments to a landmark environmental law.

The justices heard oral arguments in the case of CTS Corp. vs Waldburger, named after Peter Waldburger, one of the 25 residential landowners whose property is on the 53.5 acres where CTS manufactured electronics and electronic components from 1959 to 1985.

CTS sold the land in 1987 to Mills Gap Road Associates.

At issue is whether 1986 amendments to the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act override North Carolina's "law of repose," which limits liability for environmental contamination to 10 years after a property leaves a company's control.

"Congress was trying to preserve claims for long-latency illnesses," argued John J. Korzen of the Wake Forest University School of Law, representing the Waldburger group.

He said the amendments to the 1980 act — better known as the "Superfund law" — were intended to keep companies from shielding themselves behind laws such as North Carolina's when they were clearly responsible for pollution that left decades-long health risks. In its manufacturing, CTS made extensive use of toxic substances such as lead, cyanide, chromium and trichloroethylene.

It wasn't until 1999 that state environmental officials first detected contaminated water going to homes located near the former CTS site, and it wasn't until February 2011, after two additional rounds of water tests, that the Waldburger group filed a federal suit. They alleged that CTS's toxic substances had leached through the ground under their properties, creating an ongoing health threat.

But CTS attorney Brian J. Murray argued that while the 1986 amendments impacted North Carolina's statute of limitations, Congress had no intention of altering its law of repose, which gives companies certainty about how long they can be held liable for environmental damages.

"Congress wanted to be very careful about what it was doing in this area," Murray said, arguing that maintaining state control of liability claims respected an important principle of federal-state relations.

The outcome of the CTS case — the Supreme Court has until June 30 to rule — will have major implications as well for litigation in which families claim health damage from contaminated water at the U.S. Marine Corps base at Camp Lejeune.

If the Supreme Court rules for CTS, "it could kill every Camp Lejeune claim that's been filed," retired Master Sgt. Jerry Ensminger said at Capitol Hill rally prior to the oral arguments.

Consumer advocate Erin Brockovich said the arguments were "important to every citizen who has been exposed to chemicals and to harm."