## Facts

- Northernaire Plating Company operated a metal electroplating business on property owned by R.W. Meyer, Inc. under a 10-year lease beginning in 1972.
- From 1975 to 1981, Willard S. Garwood, Northernaire’s president and sole shareholder, oversaw daily operations.
- Meyer constructed a sewer line to carry Northernaire’s treated electroplating waste to the City of Cadillac’s treatment facility.
- Northernaire inadequately pretreated its waste; the City revoked permission to use the sewer after caustic acid levels became excessively high.
- The sewer line had a construction defect that caused leaking; hazardous wastes accumulated at the site after Northernaire abandoned it.
- After a child was burned at the site, EPA conducted an Immediate Removal Action (July 5–August 3, 1983) involving neutralization, removal and shipment of acids and sludges, excavation and removal of the contaminated sewer line, and building decontamination.
- In prior proceedings, the district court held Meyer, Northernaire, and Garwood jointly and severally liable under CERCLA § 107(a) for $342,823.22 (including prejudgment interest), and that liability was affirmed on appeal.
- In the contribution phase under CERCLA § 113(f)(1), the district court allocated two-thirds of the response costs to Northernaire and Garwood and one-third to Meyer; Meyer appealed the allocation.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion under CERCLA § 113(f)(1) by allocating one-third of the response costs to landowner R.W. Meyer, Inc. and two-thirds to Northernaire and Garwood.
2. What standard of review governs appellate review of CERCLA contribution allocations, and how broadly a district court may rely on equitable factors (including ownership) in setting shares.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s allocation.
- CERCLA § 113(f)(1) contribution allocations are equitable determinations committed to the district court’s discretion and reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by assigning Meyer one-third of the costs even if its defective sewer line could be viewed as causing less than one-third of the physical harm.
- The district court permissibly weighed multiple equitable considerations, including Meyer’s ownership and role in establishing the waste-disposal arrangement, while assigning the larger share to the operator and its principal.

## Legal Principles

- CERCLA § 113(f)(1) authorizes courts to allocate response costs among liable parties using equitable factors the court deems appropriate.
- Appellate review of a CERCLA contribution allocation is for abuse of discretion, not de novo reweighing of equities.
- A contribution share need not track a precise percentage of physical causation; courts may consider ownership, control, involvement in waste handling, relative culpability, and ability to prevent or mitigate releases.
- An allocation falls within permissible bounds when supported by the record and grounded in reasonable equitable balancing among responsible parties.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld a contribution allocation assigning one-third of CERCLA response costs to the landowner and two-thirds to the plating operator and its owner-operator, holding that such allocations are equitable decisions reviewed only for abuse of discretion and may reflect factors beyond strict physical causation.


United States v. R.W. Meyer, Inc., 932 F.2d 568 (6th Cir. 1991)