Chevron Mining Inc. v. United States, 863 F.3d 1261

Background

Chevron (and predecessors) mined molybdenum at the Questa Site (New Mexico) for decades, producing massive amounts of waste rock and tailings that contaminated the site; EPA placed the site on the NPL in 2011 and issued administrative orders requiring remediation costing over $1 billion.
Molycorp (Chevron predecessor) received a federal loan under the Defense Production Act and an Exploration Project Contract (1957–1960) that involved government approval/oversight of exploratory work; the government thereafter sold and authorized use of federal land (including land used for waste rock disposal and tailings ponds) to Molycorp/Chevron.
The United States retained fee title to portions of the surface estate of the Questa mining lands during periods when hazardous substances were deposited, and approved special-use permits for tailings pipelines across national forest lands.
Chevron sued the United States under CERCLA § 113(f)(3)(B) seeking contribution, arguing the U.S. is a potentially responsible party (PRP) as both an owner and an arranger of hazardous substance disposal.
The government conceded some property transactions and approvals but argued (1) mere "bare legal title" to unpatented mining-claim land should not trigger CERCLA owner liability and (2) it did not own or possess the hazardous substances, so it cannot be an arranger.
The Tenth Circuit held the United States is a PRP as an "owner" (fee title suffices) but not as an "arranger" (no ownership/possession of the hazardous substances), and remanded to allocate equitable shares.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the U.S. is a CERCLA "owner" and thus a PRP	Chevron: U.S. held title to portions of contaminated lands during disposal and so is an owner liable under § 9607(a)(2)	U.S.: "Bare legal title" to lands subject to unpatented mining claims should not trigger owner liability; use indicia-of-ownership test	Held: U.S. is an "owner"—fee title suffices; owner status and equitable allocation follow
Whether the U.S. is a CERCLA "arranger"	Chevron: U.S. sold/authorized lands and pipelines knowing they would be used to dispose hazardous waste, showing intent to arrange disposal	U.S.: Arranger requires ownership or possession of the hazardous substance; the U.S. did not own/possess the mine waste	Held: Not an arranger—government did not own or possess the hazardous substances, so § 9607(a)(3) does not apply
Proper interpretive approach to "owner" in CERCLA	Chevron: broad reading of PRP categories to include titleholders; allocation handles equity	U.S.: adopt Friedland indicia-of-ownership approach to limit owner liability for federal unpatented-claim lands	Held: Reject Friedland test; apply ordinary meaning—title/fee ownership is sufficient; equitable allocation occurs later
Effect of federal land/policy context on CERCLA liability	Chevron: government involvement (loans, land sales, permits) supports owner status and may affect allocation	U.S.: federal property peculiarities and reserved regulatory powers should limit owner/arranger exposure	Held: Federal Property Clause and regulatory context do not negate owner liability; such context may inform allocation but not the threshold owner determination

Key Cases Cited

Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. United States, 556 U.S. 599 (Sup. Ct.) (interpreting arranger liability and requiring intentional steps beyond mere knowledge)
United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51 (Sup. Ct.) (CERCLA PRP definitions are broad; statutory context governs owner/operator inquiry)
Atl. Research Corp. v. United States, 551 U.S. 128 (Sup. Ct.) (CERCLA sweeps in parties who may not have caused contamination; owners can be PRPs)
Raytheon Constructors, Inc. v. Asarco Inc., 368 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir.) (arranger liability requires ownership or possession of hazardous substances)
Commander Oil Corp. v. Barlo Equip. Corp., 215 F.3d 321 (2d Cir.) (discussing limits on owner definition under CERCLA)