Case Citation
Legal Case Name

U.S. v. ALCAN ALUMINUM CORP. Case Brief

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit1992
964 F.2d 252 Environmental Law Torts Administrative Law

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: A company disposed of waste with trace hazardous substances. The court held that under CERCLA, any amount makes a substance “hazardous,” but the company can avoid joint and several liability if it can prove its specific waste did not contribute to the environmental harm.

Legal Significance: Established that under CERCLA, there is no minimum quantity requirement for a substance to be “hazardous.” Crucially, it introduced the common law tort principle of divisibility of harm as an affirmative defense to joint and several liability in CERCLA cost recovery actions.

U.S. v. ALCAN ALUMINUM CORP. Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Alcan Aluminum Corp. generated an oily emulsion from its manufacturing process that contained trace amounts of hazardous substances, including cadmium, chromium, lead, and zinc. Alcan argued these levels were below naturally occurring background levels. Between 1978 and 1979, a waste transporter disposed of thousands of gallons of Alcan’s emulsion into a borehole leading to the Butler Tunnel mine workings, which eventually drained into the Susquehanna River. In 1985, a release of approximately 100,000 gallons of hazardous substances occurred from the site into the river, prompting a cleanup by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The U.S. government sued 20 potentially responsible parties (PRPs) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) to recover its response costs. After 19 defendants settled, the government moved for summary judgment against Alcan for the remaining costs. Alcan cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing its waste was not “hazardous” due to the low concentrations and that it did not cause the harm.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Under CERCLA, can a defendant who disposed of waste containing trace amounts of hazardous substances be held jointly and severally liable for the entire response cost, or can it limit or avoid liability by proving its waste did not cause or contribute to the environmental harm?

The court vacated the summary judgment against Alcan and remanded. Although Alcan Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Under CERCLA, can a defendant who disposed of waste containing trace amounts of hazardous substances be held jointly and severally liable for the entire response cost, or can it limit or avoid liability by proving its waste did not cause or contribute to the environmental harm?

Conclusion

This case is a landmark in CERCLA jurisprudence for establishing the "Alcan Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut ali

Legal Rule

Under CERCLA § 107(a), a substance is "hazardous" if it is listed Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est la

Legal Analysis

The court first affirmed two key principles of CERCLA liability. First, it Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • Under CERCLA, a substance is “hazardous” regardless of its concentration or
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+