## Facts

- The Buckeye Reclamation Landfill (BRL) in Belmont County, Ohio was listed on the National Priorities List in 1983.
- BRL contained (1) coal-mining “gob” placed on the property before landfill operations, (2) industrial waste concentrated largely in a “waste pit,” and (3) municipal solid waste.
- The United States sought CERCLA response costs from Consolidation Coal Company (Consol) and other parties for BRL cleanup.
- Consol and Triangle Wire & Cable, Inc. filed a third-party contribution action against Neville Chemical Company under CERCLA §§ 107 and 113, seeking a liability declaration and equitable allocation of response costs.
- Neville stipulated it deposited approximately 472,000 gallons of wastewater sludge at BRL between December 1978 and February 1979.
- Neville argued its sludge “caused no harm” and that assigning it cleanup costs was unreasonable.
- After a bench trial, the district court held Neville liable as a CERCLA responsible party and allocated Neville 6% of past and future BRL response costs.
- Neville appealed, challenging both CERCLA liability and the 6% allocation, and disputing prejudgment interest awarded to Consol and Triangle.

## Issues

1. Whether a generator/arranger is liable under CERCLA when it stipulated its hazardous waste was disposed at the site but contended its waste caused no site-specific incremental harm.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in allocating Neville 6% of past and future response costs in a CERCLA contribution action.
3. Whether the district court correctly calculated prejudgment interest under 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a).

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that Neville was liable under CERCLA for BRL response costs.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s equitable allocation assigning Neville 6% of past and future response costs.
- The Sixth Circuit remanded solely for further proceedings on the calculation of prejudgment interest under 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a).

## Legal Principles

- CERCLA liability attaches when a defendant falls within a statutory responsible-party category and hazardous substances were disposed at a facility with a release or threatened release that caused response costs; proof that the defendant’s own waste caused additional, incremental harm is not required.
- In a CERCLA § 113(f) contribution action, the district court has broad discretion to allocate response costs using equitable factors it finds appropriate; appellate review is deferential, focusing on clear error and abuse of discretion.
- Prejudgment interest under 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a) is a distinct remedial component that must be calculated in conformity with statutory requirements; an error in the interest calculation can justify a limited remand without disturbing liability or allocation.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld Neville Chemical’s CERCLA liability and the district court’s 6% equitable share of BRL cleanup costs, rejecting the argument that liability requires proof of site-specific harm from Neville’s waste, and remanded only to correct the prejudgment interest calculation under § 9607(a).


United States v. Consolidation Coal Co., 345 F.3d 409 (6th Cir. 2003)