Opinion ID: 213952
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Common Liability

Text: In an argument closely related to Morrison's claim it voluntarily incurred response costs for TCE, Morrison contends it could not seek contribution from Dravo pursuant to § 113(f) because Morrison and Dravo released different contaminants at different facilities. In Morrison's view, because Morrison has never been subject to liability under § 107 for response costs necessary to address TCE from the Colorado Avenue Subsite or anywhere else, Morrison does not, as a matter of law, share common liability with Dravo necessary to support an action under § 113(f). The City similarly argues it does not have a right of contribution against Dravo because the City is not liable for hazardous substances released at the Colorado Avenue Subsite. According to the City, neither the AOCs and consent decrees by which it is bound, nor its operation of Well-D create any common liability with Dravo because [c]ommon liability arises out of conduct leading to an indivisible harmnot a single solution (i.e. the Well D System) to multiple, divisible harms. In its amicus brief, the United States asserts appellants' interpretation fundamentally misconstrue[s] liability under CERCLA. We agree. Under CERCLA, if a responsible party . . . releases hazardous materials into the environment, and that release `causes the incurrence of response costs,' then the party is liable. . . . for ` any other necessary cost of response incurred by any other person consistent with the national contingency plan.' Control Data, 53 F.3d at 936 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a) (emphasis in Control Data )). CERCLA focuses on whether the defendant's release or threatened release caused harm to the plaintiff in the form of response costs. Id. at 935; see also Hercules, 247 F.3d at 715-17 (explaining it is enough that response costs resulted from `a' release or threatened releasenot necessarily the defendant's release or threatened release) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4)). When multiple parties are liable for response costs, the focus then shifts to allocation. See Hercules, 247 F.3d at 715. Allocation is a contribution claim controlled by [§ 113(f)]. Control Data, 53 F.3d at 935. Applying the foregoing private cost-recovery framework in Control Data, a factually similar case, we affirmed the trial court's allocation of response costs between liable parties based, in part, on the relative toxicity of the distinct hazardous substances each released into the ground water at different sites. Id. at 932-34, 937-38. Control Data owned and operated a facility that inadvertently discharged trichloroethane (TCA) into ground water. Id. at 932. While testing the ground water beneath its facility, Control Data discovered tetrachloroethylene (PERC), which had been released by Schloff Chemical at a different facility. Id. at 932-33. Control Data installed a remediation system that simultaneously removed both TCA and PERC. Id. at 933. We held Control Data could seek contribution from Schloff for the operation of the remediation system and the investigation of the ground water contamination because, [b]y not reacting and allowing the PERC plume to migrate, [Schloff] became partially responsible for the hazardous condition of the Control Data site. Id. at 936. We reach the same conclusion with respect to appellants' ability to seek contribution from Dravo for response costs incurred operating Well-D to remove TCE that migrated from the Colorado Avenue Subsite from the City's ground water. As the United States points out, Well-D removes hazardous substances for which Morrison, the City and Dravo are each responsible, making them jointly and severally liable for response costs incurred to operate it. Morrison is liable for operating Well-D to remove TCE, CT and EDB which have migrated into the City's ground water at the FAR-MAR-CO Subsite. The City is liable for operating Well-D to remove TCE and other hazardous substances released at the North Landfill Subsite. And Dravo is liable for response costs to operate Well-D to remove TCE released at the Colorado Avenue Subsite. Indeed, the 2007 consent decree requires Dravo and the City to coordinate periodically with Morrison to ensure the continued operation of Well D. Morrison, the City and Dravo share liability for contaminating the City's ground water. They also share liability for operating Well-D to remove those contaminants. This shared liability is sufficient to support a § 113(f) contribution claim. Many of the factors appellants have raised with respect to common liability may be relevant to the proper allocation of liability and response costs among the parties but do not prevent appellants from seeking contribution from Dravo, subject to any limitations CERCLA places on that ability. See Hercules, 247 F.3d at 715-19 (discussing divisibility of harm); Control Data, 53 F.3d at 935 (listing factors relevant to resolving contribution claims).