Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- D.C. Circuit Issues Surprise Holding in NEPA Dispute: CEQ Regulations are Non-Binding
- New Mexico District Court Applies Pro-Rata Method to Settlement under CERCLA
- New Jersey Appellate Division Finds The New Jersey Constitution Does Not Provide A Fundamental Right To “A Stable Environment”
- Wisconsin District Court Allocates CERCLA Liability for Past and Future Response Costs
- Missouri Court Rejects "Bright-Line" Test for Determining Statute of Limitations Under CERCLA Section 107
Topics
- Agency Action
- Council on Environmental Quality
- Loper Bright
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Public Trust Doctrine
- Disparate Impact
- Environmental Justice
- Title VI
- Massachusetts
- Evidence
- Internal Investigation
- Citizens Suit
- Georgia
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- FIFRA
- Major Questions Doctrine
- Lead Paint
- Greenwashing
- Good Faith Settlement
- Federal Facilities
- Statutory Notice
- Oil Pollution Act
- Federal Jurisdiction
- Owner Liability
- Court of Federal Claims
- Ripeness
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- Greenhouse Gas
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- Solvents
- National Priorities List
- Vapor Intrusion
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- National Contingency Plan
- Strict Liability
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Historic Resources
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- Gold King Mine
- New Mexico
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Delaware
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- National Forest Management Act
- FERC
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- United States Supreme Court
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- PCBs
- Property Damage
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Innocent Party
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- PHMSA
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Texas
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Clean Streams Law
- Hearing Board
- Civil Penalties
- Arranger Liability
- Sovereign Immunity
- Retroactive
- Tax assessment
- Fair Market Value
- Damages
- Stigma
- Property Value
- Storage Tank
- Energy
- Electric
- Fifth Circuit
- Indemnification
- Ninth Circuit
- Arizona
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Administrative Appeals
- Taxes
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Inspection
- Residential
- New York
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Natural Gas Act
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Mercury
- D.C. Circuit
- HAPs
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Natural Gas
- Storage
- Takings Clause
- Fifth Amendment
- Flooding
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Interior
- Tenth Circuit
- Mineral Leasing Act
- California
- Zoning
- Act 13
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Eminent Domain
- Landfill
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Illinois
- Water
- Diligent Prosecution
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Citizen Suit
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Montana
- Navigability
- Riverbed
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Green House Counsel
- Consent Decree
- EPA
- Boiler MACT
- Rulemaking
- CISWI
- Enforcement
- Equity
- Laches
- Delay Notice
- Second Circuit
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- NPDES
- Procedure
- Standing
- Dimock
- Medical Monitoring
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Dukes
- Louisiana
- Certification
- Contamination
- CLE
- Decisions of Note
- Cases to Watch
- Discovery
- Expert Witness
- Privilege
- Work Product
- Insurance
- CERCLA
- Cost Recovery
- Defense Costs
- Real Estate
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Donovan
- Rapanos
- Army Corps
- Farming
- Hog Barn
- Kentucky
- Nuisance
- Class Actions
- Odors
- Trespass
- ISRA
- New Jersey
- Informal Agency Action
- Administrative Hearing
- RCRA
- Waste
- Air
- Cancer
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Railroad
- Speaking Engagements
- Toxic Torts
- Federal Procedure
- Removal
- Third Circuit
- Clean Air Act
- Permits
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Cleanup
- Superfund
- Supreme Court
- Multi-District Litigation
- Statute of Repose
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Clean Water Act
- Marcellus Shale
- Due Process
- Mineral Rights
- Enforcement Action
- Wetlands
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Deeds
- Drilling
- Exploration
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
The Third Circuit keeps rolling out environmental decisions this month, and while Bell v. Cheswick Generating Station, No. 12-4216 (3d Cir. Aug. 20, 2013), received the lion’s share of press this week (including here), another decision issued the same day, Trinity Industries, Inc. v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., No. 12-2059 (3rd Cir. Aug. 20, 2013), is also worth reading. In it, the Third Circuit holds that a party who has resolved its liability to the state for remediation under state law may pursue contribution under CERCLA, which puts the Third Circuit in conflict with the Second Circuit on this issue.
The Plaintiff in this case, Trinity, owned an industrial parcel on which it operated a manufacturing facility through 2000. In 2006, Pennsylvania initiated an enforcement action against Trinity pursuant to two state statutes, the Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act (“HSCA”), 35 Pa. Stat. § 6020.101, et seq., and the Land Recycling and Environmental Remediation Standards Act (“LRA”), 35 Pa. Stat. § 6026.101, et seq. As a result, Trinity entered into a Consent Decree with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection agreeing to fund and conduct response actions at the site. The Consent Decree also expressly reserved Trinity’s right to pursue cost recovery, contribution and other actions against Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. (“CB&I”), a former owner and operator. Thereafter, Trinity did, in fact, bring such an action pursuant to, among other counts, Section 113(f)(3)(B) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”).*
Section 113(f)(3)(B), 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f)(3)(B), permits “[a] person who has resolved its liability to the United States or a State for some or all of a response action or for some or all of the costs of such action in an administrative or judicially approved settlement [to] seek contribution from any person who is not party to [the] settlement.” In Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc. v. UGI Utils., Inc., 423 F.2d 90 (2nd Cir. 2005), the Second Circuit held that Section 113(f)(3)(B) applies only if the party seeking contribution has resolved its CERCLA liability to the federal government or a state, and did not apply if the settlement only resolved liabilities under state law. Based on this holding, CB&I filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted.
Not so fast, the Third Circuit held. Departing from Consol. Edison, Judge Chagares, writing for the entire panel, held that “Section 113(f)(3)(B) does not require resolution of CERCLA liability in particular.” Noting that limiting the provision only to CERCLA settlements “might easily have been written into the provision” but was not, the Third Circuit instead held that a response action taken pursuant to a state statute that “bear[s] a strong resemblance to CERCLA” or incorporates CERCLA standards, as the LRA does, is sufficient to invoke the contribution provision. This decision thus opens the door to parties who have settled their state liability to invoke CERCLA and federal jurisdiction when seeking contribution from other potentially responsible parties.
*Trinity also brought suit under several state theories as well as RCRA, which was also a focus of the decision. In a subsequent post, we’ll discuss the Court’s RCRA holding.