United States v. Union Gas Co.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 1990 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsCERCLAEleventh AmendmentContributionPreemptionCERCLASARA§ 113(f)(2)

Facts

Union Gas's predecessors operated a gas plant near Brodhead Creek and allegedly left coal tar in the ground. After later flood-control work and a 1980 excavation by the Commonwealth, coal tar seeped into the creek, prompting cleanup by the Commonwealth and federal government. The United States sued Union Gas under CERCLA, and Union Gas later settled with the United States for $700,000, with a release limited to federal expenditures made on or before January 24, 1985 and with express exceptions for later costs and certain newly discovered conditions. Union Gas then pursued contribution from the Commonwealth, which responded with state-law and CERCLA counterclaims and several affirmative defenses.

Issue

Whether the Commonwealth's counterclaims were barred by CERCLA's settlement bar in § 9613(f)(2) or otherwise preempted, and whether the Commonwealth's asserted affirmative defenses of sovereign immunity, state-law duty, Eleventh Amendment immunity, and unclean hands were legally sufficient. The court also had to decide whether certain state-law counterclaims failed as a matter of law because they sought unavailable remedies.

Rule

Under 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f)(2), a party that has resolved its liability to the United States or a State in a judicially approved settlement is immune from contribution claims only as to matters addressed in the settlement, not for unrelated matters. For purposes of determining the settlement's "subject matter," the court considers the hazardous substance involved, the location or site, the time frame covered, and the cleanup costs. CERCLA preempts conflicting state sovereign-immunity defenses, and unclean hands is not a defense in CERCLA actions.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Cleveland, Orion Refining settled with the United States in a judicially approved consent decree over benzene contamination at the Harbor Flats parcel, covering federal response costs incurred through June 30, 2018. Later, the State of Ohio filed a contribution counterclaim seeking reimbursement for the same benzene cleanup costs at the same parcel during that same period.

What is the strongest argument that the counterclaim is barred?

Explanation. Section 9613(f)(2) protects a settlor from contribution claims only regarding matters addressed in the settlement. The majority treated subject matter as including the hazardous substance, location/site, time frame, and cleanup costs. Where all four align, the bar applies in principle. (Derived from United States v. Union Gas Co. (n.d.).)