ASARCO LLC v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128123
| D. Mont. | 2014Background
- ASARCO operated a lead smelter at the East Helena Site from 1888–2001; Atlantic Richfield’s predecessor ran a zinc plant at the site from 1927–1982.
- EPA listed the Site on the NPL in 1984, triggering CERCLA cleanup framework.
- A 1998 consent decree resolved EPA claims under RCRA and CWA, transferring site cleanup to the RCRA program.
- In 2005 ASARCO filed Chapter 11; 2009 consent decree resolved ASARCO’s environmental liabilities at multiple sites, funding a custodial trust for East Helena.
- ASARCO filed CERCLA contribution claim in 2012 seeking costs paid under the 2009 Decree; Atlantic Richfield argued the 3-year statute began with the 1998 Decree and that 2009 created no new obligations.
- Court holds that the 1998 Decree triggered the 3-year statute and the 2009 Decree did not extend or create new obligations outside the 1998 Decree.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §113(f)(3)(B) requires CERCLA liability to be expressly resolved | ASARCO argues 1998 Decree did not resolve CERCLA liability, so statute not triggered | Atlantic Richfield contends 1998 Decree triggered the 3-year clock for any “response action” | §113(f)(3)(B) does not require CERCLA-specific resolution; Resolve some/all of a response action |
| Whether the 1998 Decree triggers the 3-year statute of limitations | ASARCO asserts the 1998 Decree’s scope and timing start the clock | Atlantic Richfield asserts the decree did trigger the clock for covered costs | Yes; 1998 Decree triggered the limitations period for contribution claims within 3 years of entry |
| Whether the 2009 Decree creates new obligations outside the 1998 Decree | ASARCO argues 2009 Decree entails off-site and groundwater remediation not covered by 1998 | Atlantic Richfield contends 2009 Decree only funds pre-existing obligations | No new obligations created beyond those in 1998; 2009 Decree does not broaden liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc. v. UGI Utils., Inc., 423 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2005) (limits contribution rights to CERCLA-liability resolutions under §113(f)(3)(B))
- W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn. v. Zotos Int'l., Inc., 559 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2009) (CERCLA liability resolution required for §113(f)(3)(B) claims under Grace)
- Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 596 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2010) (notes EPA's view on scope of §113(f)(3)(B) in context of Niagara Mohawk briefing)
- Trinity Indus., Inc. v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., 735 F.3d 131 (3d Cir. 2013) (rejects requirement that §113(f)(3)(B) require CERCLA-specific resolution; aligns with plain text)