ELR Citation: ELR 20151
No(s). 08-55996 (9th Cir. Jun 2, 2010)

The Ninth Circuit holds that a non-settling PRP may intervene in litigation to oppose a consent decree incorporating a settlement that, if approved, would bar contribution from the settling PRP. The applicants have significant protectable interests that support intervention as of right. As non-settling PRPs, the applicants are potentially liable for response costs under CERCA §107(a). Because CERCLA §113(f)(2) provides that approval of a consent decree will cut off their contribution rights under §113(f)(1), the proposed consent decree in EPA's suit will therefore directly affect the applicants' interest in maintaining their right to contribution. Further, because nonsettling PRPs may be held liable for the entire amount of response costs minus the amount paid in a settlement, the applicants have an obvious interest in the amount of any judicially approved settlement.