9th Cir.;
14-35723

The court of appeals vacated a judgment and remanded. The court held that a settlement agreement entered into under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) could give rise to an action for contribution under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), but only if the settlement fully resolved the affected party's liability.

In 1972, Asarco LLC purchased a zinc fuming plant in Lewis and Clark County, Montana. The plant was previously owned and operated by Atlantic Richfield Company's predecessor in interest, Anaconda Mining Company. Asarco ceased operations at the plant in 1982. Asarco also owned a nearby lead smelter. After operating the smelter for more than a century, it ceased operations in 2001. In the 1980s, the industrial area encompassing both the smelter and the fuming plant was identified as a Superfund site under CERCLA. In 1998, the United States brought claims against Asarco for civil penalties and injunctive relief under the RCRA and the Clean Water Act (CWA). A settlement was reached (the 1998 RCRA Decree) assessing penalties against Asarco and requiring it to take certain remedial actions to address past violations. Asarco failed to meet its cleanup obligations and later filed for bankruptcy. On June 5, 2009, the bankruptcy court entered a consent decree under CERCLA between Asarco, the United States, and Montana. The CERCLA Decree established a custodial trust for the site, and turned over cleanup responsibility to a trustee. As part of the agreement, Asarco paid $99.294 million, which “fully resolved and satisfied” its obligations under the 1998 RCRA Decree. On June 5, 2012, Asarco brought an action against Atlantic Richfield under CERCLA §113(f)(3)(B), seeking contribution for its financial liability under the CERCLA Decree.