Opinion ID: 692318
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Matters Addressed

Text: 35 We turn now to whether the contribution sought by Farmland against the CERC parties is for matters addressed in the Consent Decree entered into between the EPA and the CERC parties. The district court did not reach this issue of law, having erroneously concluded that ... Farmland's response costs were consistent with the NCP and therefore recoverable under Sec. 9607(a). (Appellants' Appendix, Tab 16, pp. 270-71). Previously we have noted that the district court found that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the scope of the contribution protection afforded by the EPA-CERC parties' Consent Decree. (Appellants' Appendix, Vol. I, Tab 9, p. 236). 36 The statute is silent on how we are to determine what particular matters a consent decree addresses. Some courts have used balancing tests. See Akzo Coatings, Inc. v. Aigner Corp., 30 F.3d 761, 766 (7th Cir.1994) (Ultimately, the 'matters addressed' by a consent decree must be assessed in a manner consistent with both the reasonable expectations of the signatories and the equitable apportionment of costs that Congress has envisioned.); United States v. Union Gas Co., 743 F.Supp. 1144, 1152 (E.D.Pa.1990) (Courts must strike a balance between the policy behind CERCLA's contribution provisions and the policy behind the act as a whole.). Other courts have concluded that Sec. 113(f)(2) was intended to encourage settlement while providing settling PRPs with a measure of finality in return for their willingness to settle. See United States v. SCA Services of Indiana, 827 F.Supp. 526, 533 (N.D.Ind.1993) (in order to further CERCLA's settlement-favoring policy, the court finds that the non-settlors are barred from making claims for contribution against the settlors.); United States v. ASARCO, Inc., 814 F.Supp. 951, 957 (D.Colo.1993) (a cash settlement with the government and approval by the court resolves that party's liability to the United States and, therefore, entitles that party to contribution protection); Avnet, Inc. v. Allied-Signal, Inc. 825 F.Supp. 1132, 1139 (D.R.I.1992) (Contribution claims against ... [settlors] ... are strictly prohibited by the plain language of the contribution protection provisions of CERCLA.). 37 The CERC-EPA Consent Decree arguably covers two matters addressed, rather than one: (1) reimbursement of unrecovered response costs of the government (p VI); and (2) a covenant by the government not to sue the CERC parties for any claim asserted in the complaint regarding the whole site. (p VI.A). 6 We have not been presented with an explanation of the failure to draft around the matters addressed problem presented by the CERC-EPA Consent Decree. 38