Jump to Navigation
Jump to Content

Trinity Industries, Inc. v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co.

ELR Citation: 43 ELR 20198
Nos. 12-2059, (3d Cir., 08/20/2013)

The Third Circuit held that a PRP that entered into a consent decree resolving its state-law liability with the commonwealth of Pennsylvania in connection with contamination at an industrial facility may seek contribution under CERCLA from a second PRP. The court held that CERCLA §113(f)(3)(B) does not require that a party have settled its liability under CERCLA in particular to be eligible for contribution under the statute, thereby creating a circuit split. But because the consent decree required the PRP to remediate all contamination at the site, an injunction under RCRA directing the second PRP to engage in the cleanup would be futile. The second PRP's participation is not "necessary" under RCRA §7002(a)(1)(B). The court, therefore, affirmed in part and reversed in part a lower court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the second PRP.