ELR Citation: ELR 20007
No(s). 4:92-CV-163 (W.D. Mich. Aug 30, 1993)

The court denies motions by two principal potentially responsible parties (PRPs) under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 24 to intervene to challenge the terms of a proposed consent decree between the government and de minimis parties regarding liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) at a Michigan Superfund site. The court holds that the movants may not intervene as of right under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), because they lack a direct, substantial, and legally protectable interest. The interests they assert are reduction of the amount of their liability through the de minimis settlement and contribution claims. Neither satisfies the Rule 24(2) requirements. The interest in retaining CERLA contribution claims is not significantly protectable. Under CERCLA that interest is expressly subordinated by the desire for the early de minimis settlements and the finality of judgments obtained through the settlements. The movants' interest in reducing the total liability against them by challenging the de minimis settlement is indirect. It merely concerns an effect of a settlement agreement. Treating this interest as direct would confer on all nonsettling PRPs who are somehow financially affected by a de minimis settlement agreement the right to intervene in a litigation at the time when it is almost at a close. This would effectively thwart CERCLA's statutory goal of facilitating a rapid settlement to conserve the Superfund resources for cleanups, particularly for the de minimis parties. Further, Congress allowed the possibility of a disproportionate share of CERCLA liability falling on the nonsettlors. The movants may not intervene under CERCLA §113(i), because §113(i) essentially requires the same showing of interest as Rule 24(a)(2). Finally, the movants may not intervene permissively under Rule 24(b), because they have other adequate means of asserting their rights. They submitted comments on the proposed consent decree to the U.S. Department of Justice pursuant to 28 C.F.R. §50.7, and the court will review their comments to determine whether the decree is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Robert P. Reichel, Ass't Attorney General
Attorney General's Office
P.O. Box 30212, Lansing MI 48909
(517) 373-7780

Counsel for Defendants
John C. Martin
Patton, Boggs & Blow
2550 M St. NW, Washington DC 20037
(202) 457-6000