Opinion ID: 213952
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Morrison's Response Costs for Well-D

Text: The district court determined Morrison could not use § 107(a) to recover response costs for removing TCE at Well-D because Morrison was a liable party that had been subject to a § 107 enforcement action as evidenced by the amended 1991 AOC, the 1995 AOC amendments, the 1996 AOC, and the 2008 consent decree, which obligated Morrison to operate Well-D to remove TCE and other hazardous substances. Morrison contends the district court erred in finding Morrison could not bring a cost-recovery action because, in Morrison's view, it voluntarily cleaned up TCE contamination for which Dravo was legally liable. Denying any causal connection to releases of TCE anywhere in the Site, Morrison attempts to analogize its compelled removal of TCE at Well-D to the plaintiff's voluntary clean up of hazardous substances in Atlantic Research. According to Morrison, [b]y `voluntarily,' the Supreme Court [in Atlantic Research ] meant actions taken `without any establishment of liability to a third party,' such as through a judgment or court order. See Atl. Research, 551 U.S. at 139, 127 S.Ct. 2331. Morrison's understanding of Atlantic Research and its application here is incorrect. Morrison ignores the terms of the AOCs by which it is bound. Unlike the voluntary plaintiff in Atlantic Research, which had never been subject to an action under §§ 106 or 107, Morrison has been sued under § 107 for releases and potential releases of hazardous substances at the FAR-MAR-CO Subsite and entered administrative settlements to resolve its liability. Notwithstanding Morrison's assertions to the contrary, the 1996 AOC specifically obligates Morrison to operate Well-D to remove TCE from contaminated ground water as a liable party under § 107(a). Morrison is subject to penalties if it fails to do so. Response costs incurred pursuant to such administrative settlements following a suit under § 106 or § 107(a) are not incurred voluntarily. See Atl. Research, 551 U.S. at 139 n. 6, 127 S.Ct. 2331. The district court correctly concluded Morrison could not maintain a cost-recovery action under § 107(a).