## Facts

- A hazardous waste dump site in Chester, Pennsylvania (the “Wade site”) was owned by Melvin R. Wade.
- ABM Disposal Service transported industrial wastes to the site; Ellis Barnhouse and Franklin P. Tyson owned ABM during the relevant period.
- Multiple industrial firms generated wastes that were sent to the Wade site.
- The United States, acting through the EPA, alleged the site was contaminated by hazardous substances and posed dangers requiring governmental response actions.
- The United States sought (1) injunctive relief against the owner and transporter-related defendants to abate site dangers and (2) recovery of response costs from both non-generator and generator defendants under CERCLA § 107(a).
- The government’s theory did not depend on tracing each defendant’s precise waste to each discrete response measure; it relied on proof that generators arranged for disposal at the site and that hazardous substances were present at the facility.
- The case came before the district court on competing summary-judgment motions regarding CERCLA liability, joint and several liability, and common-law restitution theories.

## Issues

1. Whether CERCLA § 107(a) requires the United States to prove traditional proximate cause by tracing each generator’s specific waste to specific response costs.
2. Whether joint and several liability is available under CERCLA § 107(a), and which party bears the burden to show divisibility or a reasonable basis for apportionment.
3. Whether the United States may recover cleanup costs from generator defendants under a federal common-law restitution theory in addition to CERCLA.

## Decision

- The court granted the United States partial summary judgment as to liability under CERCLA § 107(a) against the defendants.
- The court held CERCLA § 107(a) does not require proof of common-law proximate cause connecting each generator’s particular waste to particular response costs.
- The court applied joint and several liability where the harm is not reasonably divisible, placing the burden on defendants to establish divisibility or a reasonable basis for apportionment.
- The court granted the generator defendants’ motions for summary judgment on counts asserting common-law restitution, to the extent those counts relied on a federal common-law restitution theory.
- Except for dismissal of the restitution component, the court denied the generator defendants’ remaining summary-judgment requests, leaving the CERCLA claims to proceed on issues such as recoverable costs.

## Legal Principles

- CERCLA § 107(a) liability may be established without importing common-law proximate-cause requirements; the statute focuses on status-based responsibility tied to a facility, a release or threatened release, and incurred response costs.
- For cost recovery, the United States must show a facility, a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance, incurred response costs, and that the defendant falls within a CERCLA responsible-party category.
- Joint and several liability may be imposed under CERCLA where environmental harm is not reasonably divisible; defendants bear the burden to show divisibility or a reasonable basis for apportionment to avoid joint liability.
- Where CERCLA provides a detailed statutory remedial scheme for response-cost recovery, federal common-law restitution is not an additional, independent basis to impose cleanup-cost liability on generator defendants in the same action.

## Conclusion

The court interpreted CERCLA to permit broad response-cost liability without individualized proximate-cause tracing, imposed joint and several liability absent proof of divisibility by defendants, and rejected parallel federal common-law restitution claims against generators while allowing CERCLA cost-recovery claims to continue.


United States v. Wade, 577 F. Supp. 1326 (E.D. Pa. 1983)