1. Whether the Alaska Supreme Court's imposition
of strict liability violated petitioners' right to due process,
when the State had taken the position, while petitioners
owned and operated the refinery, that sulfolane was not
regulated as a "hazardous substance."

2. Whether the award of costs for the expansion of
North Pole's water system violated petitioners' right to
due process and amounted to an unconstitutional taking,
where no drinking well in North Pole had a level of sulfolane shown to be harmful, and where there had been no
showing that the expansion was necessary to prevent
harm from the release of sulfolane.

Whether the Alaska Supreme Court's imposition of strict liability violated petitioners' right to due process